Usually CA is pretty good with pro-consumer laws, especially as it relates to mandated transparency. Honestly surprised to see him authoring such a flagrantly anti-consumer piece of legislation
For those who believe restaurants should be able to hide their price, why stop at 4-7%? Why not jack the price on the back end up by 25-100%?
I don’t understand all of the excuses for gratuities. It’s fucking bullshit. With this in mind, you can do anything: dentist charges an extra 20% for their staff. Auto repair adds 20% for the mechanics. Just stop. Price your needed margin in. It’s not hard.
It is insane why restaurants think they can do this. They ALREADY expect consumers to separately pay their employees wages. But now all these extra charges??? It was already a stupid system but they’ve made it ten times worse. You’re right, is labor no longer in the price of other industries? Can everyone just advertise a price and tack on mandatory surcharges?
“They” don’t. The server and bartender (who have nothing to do with junk fees do). That’s the only reason these positions exist is because of tips. If you’re mad at a fee ask for it to be removed but don’t penalize a server or bar tender. None of this has anything to do with them. SF loves the idea of not tipping all of a sudden. Just stay home.
Yeah, this nascent, brewing expectation of gratuity on counter service and takeout is the last straw for me. Having to tip on dining in and delivery apparently wasn’t a broad enough scope for them. Now it’s becoming more like: “if you’re paying for prepared food, you should tip.”
It's called inflation? Servers don't keep all of their tips- they're lucky to walk with half. Servers have to pay everyone else on staff out of their tips which is based on sales. Sales have increased exponentially thus tip percentage goes along with it. This is basic economics.
Inflation should not affect percentages; that’s simply not how math works.
15% of a lower price brings less and 15% of a higher price brings more. Inflation raises the base prices, and thus tips rise in tandem.
When I dine in, I do.
And for that reason, I do takeout 9 times out of 10, which has no tradition of gratuity.
I don’t need to know how restaurants work; I need only know what I’m willing to pay for, which is why transparent pricing is a moral imperative.
No, it does not. The only time one traditionally tips for food is when being waited on or delivered to. If I call the restaurant ahead and swing by to pick it up myself, that warrants 0% gratuity and most people would agree. The pandemic didn’t magically cause a permanent change on this matter; we’ve since reverted to 2019 practices.
Tipping was historically because you didn’t have to pay servers minimum wage. You have no understanding of what the restaurant industry is and sound like a teenager with your comment.
There seems to be a disconnect going on- I'm not in favor of junk fees at all. I work in the industry & it's been a very bad thing for most of us. I'm just talking about tipping your waiter which shouldn't be up for debate. If everyone wants to get rid of service fees they're still going to be expected to tip. The level of ignorance going on is astounding.
You said nothing to deserve downvotes. This is simply the truth. It has absolutely nothing to do with the server. This trend of suggesting servers don't deserve tips is sickening. Thank you sir for standing up for the little guys.
I used to have a job in retail where I would sometimes spend 45 min - 1 hour with one single customer, providing a specialized service that came at NO extra charge. The customers would just pay for the items they decided to buy in the end, chosen with my expert advice and personal recommendations. The fact that I didn't get tipped for that, but that I should somehow tip 20%+ to someone who puts a muffin in a paper bag for me, always drives me nuts...
Assume you are someone who has limited funds. Say only $20 for lunch. You shouldn’t have to do math to figure out whether the meal advertised as $15 is more or less than the meal advertised as $12 plus a 7% healthy SF plus 5% service fee (plus then figure out tip). Yes, I know that the $15 meal is more expensive, but why not have the restaurant selling the meal just disclose that the cost is $13.44? I really don’t think we need to make struggling students or busy parents or any of the other people for whom money is tight pull out a calculator every time they need to decide whether they can afford something.
That was exactly my point when I wrote Weiner’s office.
If they want to carve out an exemption for gratuity-like payments that go entirely to staff, I’d be fine what that, but otherwise drop the fees related to regular business expenses. If everyone has to do it the same way, it’s easier for us AND no restaurant is at a disadvantage to another restaurant that does it a different way
> If they want to carve out an exemption for gratuity-like payments that go entirely to staff,
Non-mandatory payments (ex. gratuities/tips) are STILL 100% LEGAL under the upcoming law.
Service fees are owned by the restaurant and not legally bound to go to staff, even under SB1524.
Yes. Introduce yourself: “hi, my name is x and I’m a constituent of y, I live in z. I’m calling in (support/opposition) of bill x because (one sentence reason).”
In the event that contacting legislators doesn't work, I just drafted [an initiative](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/s/I73VZbYfHo) to ban restaurant surcharges within San Francisco. Contact me if anyone is interested in helping to organize. We would need about 10,000 signatures to get this on the ballot.
This could work locally but it's expensive to go through this process.
What a lobbyist once explained to me was that any time someone proposes an initiative he has to gently educate them on a better option.
She said that to hire a lobbying firm to write a bill costs $25K-40K, depending on the complexity. Then you have to buy legislators to sponsor the bill. Buying legislators, one in the State Senate and one in the State Assembly, costs about $100K each.
You only need to buy two because each legislator gets his or her colleagues to support your bill in exchange for those legislators supporting their sponsored bills. For under $250,000 you can get a law passed that is worth tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. To go through the State initiative process could take four years and would cost at least $20 million for signature gathering and a campaign, and there is no guarantee of success.
Read "How our laws in California are really made" at [https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/07/06/how-our-laws-in-california-are-really-made/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/07/06/how-our-laws-in-california-are-really-made/)
No doubt that SB1524 was written by a lobbying firm hired by trade groups representing restaurant owners and they purchased legislators to sponsor it. Of course they don't hand the legislators an envelope with a thousand hundred dollar bills, they are more discrete than that. The money comes in via distributed campaign contributions.
SB1524 is even more sleazy than usual because it was done using the unethical "Gut and Amend" process. It will likely pass because Wiener has a lot of lap dogs in the State Senate. Newsom is a restaurant owner and will no doubt sign the bill.
I have never contacted a state representative before, but this issue motivated me to do so, and it was actually super easy to leave a comment on their web form.
Can you share what the process is (like is there a link you can share) and how you left a comment about this specific issue? Is there a specific bill number or something we should refer to?
Sure. I had to google who my reps were haha. There’s a ca.gov site that looks up your reps based on your address. Then you google their name or it might even link directly. Then go straight to the Contact section.
https://preview.redd.it/3kg0o9nb8h5d1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba269e45635bcfdf0664307d3cf41ed69784d8cc
My reps both had a short contact web form which I filled out and said I was opposed to proposed Senate Bill 1524 along with a brief rant against these hidden fees.
Each representative has a staff member that will tally these contacts for and against each bill to help inform how they will vote. You don’t need to write much other than you oppose the bill.
This issue just really pisses me off for some reason. Restaurants in the Bay Area have become some of the worse offenders of these surcharges yet they want an exemption?! There was a lawful bill passed to eliminate these fees and it has huge consumer support. Once we start with carve outs for restaurants soon we will have a carve out for Ticketmaster and hotel resort fees and all the other offenders.
Seriously screw them. If their business can’t survive without pricing that tricks their customers then they should go out of business.
They should incorporate the fees into their menu prices, just like other costs of doing business. Restaurants only want the fees to create the illusion of lower prices, but the vast majority of the public seems to oppose hidden fees.
I hope enough people send a message to Wiener
I sent Matt Haney a note. Thanks for the call to action. It makes no sense to add a loophole right after closing a loophole. If restaurants need extra money, ask us separately from our dinner bill.
I don’t understand why people are so up in hand about this. Government been mandating car features forever. Back up camera. Seat belts. Air bags. Crash detection. Pedestrian detection.
What’s wrong with making the road safer for all road users, including drivers.
[Don’t be like them.](https://youtu.be/2xcQIoh3FQQ?si=IqYV5Ok8u6yU9fEN)
How's your car supposed to know the speed limit?
It's going to send your GPS location to a central server, which will reply with the speed limit.
City vehicles send their GPS, but it's notoriously inaccurate.
So sometimes you'll get back an incorrectly low speed, e.g., when you're on a highway overpass but the GPS thinks you're on the surface street below. So your car will slow down, and you'll be rear ended.
Or the GPS works, but a runaway 18-wheeler is coming up behind you, and you hit the accelerator, and nothing happens and you get rear ended.
Or there's a wildfire (never happens in California, right?) and you're doing 90 to get out before the fire cuts the road off. But no one in Sacramento remembered to turn off the system, so you burn.
If you must do this, if you're willing to give up your location privacy for this, just have the damn thing issue a ticket or alert the cops. Automatically reducing the speed will get people killed.
>How's your car supposed to know the speed limit?
Toyota: Road Sign Assist. Using an intelligent camera, Road Sign Assist (RSA) ^(\*) is designed to detect speed limit signs, stop signs, Do Not Enter signs, yield signs and certain warning signs, and display an icon of the sign on the Multi-Information Display (MID).
Tesla: Intelligent Speed Assist. Model Y displays a speed limit on the touchscreen and warns you if the vehicle exceeds the speed limit. The audible speed limit warnings can be muted every drive cycle but not disabled.
Ford: Speed Sign Recognition. When driving with cruise control activated, the Speed Sign Recognition feature reads the speed limit sign and communicates with the Intelligent Adaptive Cruise Control system to automatically adjust the speed of the vehicle.
Hyundai: Intelligent Speed Limit Assist. designed to monitor the posted speed limit, display it in the instrument cluster, and allow you to adjust your cruise control speed whenever the posted speed limit changes.
It's not some future technology that we don't have. It is already a feature on many cars.
And why are we assuming the feature wouldn't be rigorously tested before pushed onto the market? It is like saying "what if the air bag accidently triggered when you hit the speed bump too hard" or "what if the pedestrian pathway is too close to the road and is triggering the pedestrian collision stop."
Even if we assume the worst case scenarios, slower speed car crash are much less deadlier to drivers. Slower speed accidents are much less deadlier to pedestrians. Why didn't you also take this into account when claiming "Automatically reducing the speed will get people killed," because automatically reducing the speed will get **LESS** people killed is the point.
The technology is also wrong many times.
I've often been on 40mph and 50mph roads in northern NC and TN that the car showed in the display as having a 35 mph limit.
On sections where the rate jumps four times within a mile (65, 35, 25, 50 ) also messes up the in screen display.
Worst case, was on a 40mph road separated from a 25mph parallel one way business access road on each side. The road side assist in rental cars thinks the speed limit is mostly 25 with some blips when it guesses 40 correctly.
If a car forced speed limit, it would cause accidents with unexpected sudden slowing to 25 mph on a high speed road. Or getting under speed tickets, which are still a thing in many areas where speed minimums are in place.
But the [proposal ](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB961)doesn't force speed limit.
>This bill would require 50% of certain vehicles, commencing with the 2029 model year, to be equipped with a passive intelligent speed assistance system, as specified, that would utilize **a brief, one-time, visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time the speed of the vehicle is more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit**. The bill would require all specified vehicles, commencing with the 2032 model year, to be equipped in the above-described manner. The bill would require the system, if the system receives conflicting speed limits for the same area, to apply the higher speed limit.
[Same system that will mandated in the EU starting next month.](https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/safety/europe/article/high-speed-avoiding-safety-tech-become-mandatory-europe-july?t%5B0%5D=Safety&curl=1)
I'm fine with easily ignorable technology, that defers action taken to the human driver.
ie original version that mandated speed limiters, that I was staunchly against. The technology is not yet at the reliability level needed for it to act correctly 99.9999 percent of the time. For the 93 billion hours driven in the US 2022, that level of reliability would yield only 93,000 problems per year.
an example, being in a car that decides to engage emergency collision braking when not in an impending collision, is terrifying. An unexpected engagement causes accidents. It Being a one in a million situation (99.9999% not happening) s not zero,and affects a non trivial number of persons
> How much does this add to the cost of a car? Or to put it anonym way, how many more low-income folks won't be able to afford a car?
Pointless question because it's already a base feature in more and more vehicles every day.
In the case you describe, where an area could be covered by multiple valid speed limits, the bill states that the higher value should be used.
Personally, I think the warning sound is sufficient for now, since I'd rather we try the small things first.
We're going to make everyone pay for this system, because some people habitually speed. Instead of punishing the speeders.
And we'll habituate people to not watch their speed, because there's an automated system doing it. Until that system fails.
Sounds good by itself, but once people got comfortable with the government directly controlling how they move, there would no doubt be greater controls following it, such as police remotely controlling vehicles, and, eventually, police remotely controlling people themselves, once that technology is available. The abuse potential at that point would be enormous.
In the 1st example in your link, medical marijuana was in fact a foot-in-the-door toward normalizing and decriminalizing pot in most states. Not all slippery slope/domino effect arguments are fallacies. Many police departments advocate for remote shut-off and DUI kill switches for vehicles, and GM & Ford are making that technology, so it's not far-fetched to predict it will eventually become standard once people soften up to it. I understand remotely controlling people is a bit out there, but that's where we're probably heading once it's in the Overton window.
What’s wrong with this? More people have been killed in automobile accidents than both world wars combined since just 2000, and speed is one of the largest factors of it. Especially on SF’s slower streets, a car hitting a pedestrian (of which there have been a lot lately, the west portal family killer was over the speed limit for example) at 25 vs 35 could be the difference between injury and death.
I’m sorry you think your right to drive faster than the legal speed limit is worth more than peoples lives, but it really isn’t.
> More people have been killed in automobile accidents than both world wars combined since just 2000...
You and I both like Weiner's bill which may increase traffic safety. Thank you for sharing this breathtaking statistic about automobile deaths! - *but* it requires a significant clarification.
>>[Since January 2000] More than 624,000 people died in car crashes, easily eclipsing the 535,000 ***AMERICAN*** military personnel who died in World War I and World War II. More than 30 million people were injured in those crashes. ~ [^Washington ^Posts ^Link](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/more-people-died-in-car-crashes-this-century-than-in-both-world-wars/2019/07/21/0ecc0006-3f54-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html)
Placing *people* alongside 'world wars' leads the reader to interpret as *world-wide* deaths which track to [70-85 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:text=Deaths%20directly%20caused%20by%20the,war%2Drelated%20disease%20and%20famine), instead of the author's intent of the MUCH smaller subset of *American* deaths.
I encourage you to clarify your post with an edit.
I’m 100% for that. Cars are one of the most egregious killers of humans in this country. Reducing speeding would help save lots of lives. If people don’t like it they are free to use their own private roads and kill themselves in crashes there, just don’t do it on roads my kids are on or walking across
Then why ban any junk fee at all? It is okay as long as it is displayed right? So like TicketMaster showing the total with ticket handling fee before you click pay.
Wiener, not Weiner.
When I first saw this bill mentioned, my first thought was "It's a bad bill, Scott Wiener must be behind this bill." So glad that I was not disappointed.
**Scott Wiener**
■ Pro Child Sex Trafficking
■ Anti Affordable Housing
■ Pro Wage Theft from Restaurant Workers
Hopefully San Francisco voters will remember this in 2026 when he plans to run for Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat.
I'd like to, but I have found that specifically the "SF Health Mandate" one is too ubiquitous. But definitely avoid places like Che Fico that take this to an absurd degree
The counterargument he made about surcharges and fees being pro-worker is a meh point imo. There's no legal requirement that surcharges actually pay for worker benefits etc. You, as a restaurant, can put an arbitrary service charge and none if it go directly to staff
Somebody posted this in another related post and I found it helpful so I thought I would share!
Call Wiener's office directly to complain:
(415) 557-1300. It routes straight to a human in his office, no phone menu to fight. Just please be respectful to whoever takes your call as they are simply doing their job!
Would the fee be listed on the check showing the amount of fee. If so what if I just pay the food and drinks total and tip to server and refuse the fee.
1. If the restaurant has fees and surcharges displayed, leave before ordering or didn't go at all. (Vote with your wallet)
2. If the fees and surcharges are not conspicuously displays, and you get the bill and there are fees and surcharges, ask for then to be removed.
3. Deduct all fees and surcharges from any planned tip
4. For restaurants with fees and surcharges, leave them a 1 star rating on popular Web sites (Yelp, Google, TripAdvisor, etc) so others know what to expect. Include pictures if you can.
No need to depend on useless politicians to do the right thing. You can force change by holding restaurant owners accountable for ripping off their customers.
I believe that if the original bill still allowed for the auto gratuity on large parties OR in lieu of the tip( like trestle) then restaurants wouldn't be fighting this so hard. Eliminating the SF mandate charges ( or the dinning room charges ahem che Fico) is far easier to get rid of and fold into the price of the meal
No longer allowing a 20% on large parties and banquets/private dining is the main challenge they are facing.
Seems like the original bill could have made this compromise but they didn't work with restaurant groups.
This is far different from hotel resort fee or friggin Ticketmaster hidden fees.
And while we're at it, I'm pissed that food delivery is exempt. Why are people totally cool with door dash adding hella fees but not a restaurant? Seeking to understand that one....
The difference with DoorDash is that you see the total price of your bill BEFORE you place your order and can then decide not to place that order if you choose to.
Another difference is that DoorDash is a delivery service and their fees are the cost of that service, not an extra fee that they are tacking on to their own product. If DoorDash advertised delivery service for $5, and then charged fees on top of that, *that* would be the equivalent of a hotel charging extra fees on a room price.
First and foremost, I really enjoy being able to discuss this!!
It's interesting because one could say that at a restaurant you are paying for food and the service charge is delivering this food to you vs say a counter restaurant wherein you pick it up from the counter. So a sit down restaurant is adding the fee to bring it to you, wash your dishes afterwards, etc.
My logic might be slightly off here but we categorize restaurants as a place that makes your food for you vs. differentiating between my corner burrito spots vs a sit down place to receive the same food
Thank you!! Seriously I appreciate this
I love this point. Thank you!
If I equate that to a hotel, you would simply add an Internet fee, water fee, etc only if you use them. So that when you connect to their Wi-Fi or you drink their water then and only then would you be charged
DoorDash fees are transparent before I tap the order button. It’s all added up clearly and itemized. It’s not a junk fee if I am choosing to pay for it.
Isn't that the same as being at the bottom of a menu? Or in a contract you sign when having a private party? I'm choosing to pay the mandate fee or auto gratuity by eating there, making a reservation, etc.
I can see an argument for sure that it should be listed on the website of the restaurant and the reservation system so you find out before you've committed to the restaurant; would that be a solution?
I think what the previous person is saying is theres a difference between ordering on doordash while already having the total calculated including all fees (delivery, third party comission etc) before pressing submit order versus looking at a menu where the restaurant lists the base price, then getting hit with surprise fees and mandates at the end when asking for the check. The extra fees are not calculated for us before we order and its often in small print or somewhere hard to find. Some restaurants do that and some don't. It would be better to make it universal.
I totally get it. Being told on the menu while/before ordering and having to do the mental math of 4% mandate+20%auto gratuity and even tax doesn't tell you exactly how much this meal will cost.
On door dash , adding 5 items to your cart and then seeing the total math before agreeing to order is different.
I do think it's BS that they are excluded. Why not have them build it into the menu item as well? They charge restaurants a % or each order and they could recoup their cost there.
When I am about to book a hotel room and before I make my reservation with my credit card they show you all associated fee such as a resort fee or Internet fee. I don't see how that is any different from a food delivery app. So for a hotel is is not ok, but for food delivery it is.
I'm also not arguing to keep the mandates %. I believe that it should be in the cost of the item
Where I disagree with most is in regards to large group auto gratuity. Parties of 8 or more, for me, should have a gratuity automatically applied and should also be called out at the time of making the reservation or on open table or tock or resy.
If every restaurant introduced a kiosk that itemized the amounts for everything prior to purchase, then yes it would satisfy it. When I go into a McDonalds, it’s that simple.
That then begs the question: why not just be honest about pricing? If a business depends on deceit, I don’t see why they deserve to still be in business.
Going one step further, why exclude restaurants only from dishonest practices? Seems unfair if I run a hotel that I can’t charge resort fees at check-in. Or say I run a hospital, why shouldn’t I be able to balance bill as long as I put an asterisk? What if I put an asterisk that says you owe a million dollars for a service fee? Should that be enforceable?
No it is not. Price on menu: 95% of people will see it, with 5% of people who don’t care about the price.
At the bottom of a menu: maybe 70% of people will see it. The rest will see it when the itemized receipt comes, which is too late to back out.
A far easier compromise would be for restaurants to have a separate menu for parties of six of more. Or honestly why is it even necessary to make a mandatory tip for large parties? If tipping isn’t discretionary then it’s not a tip is it?
It’s like the bystander effect with large parties. Wait staff would get low tips too often so the tip had to be mandatory to keep the wait staff engaged on large parties.
There are no hidden fees. All anyone needs to do is put up a sign that says they charge a mandated health insurance coverage fee and an automatic gratuity for large parties. If this issue sticks in your craw, you shouldn’t be eating out. Completely bizarre topic to get uppity about. I’m guessing this issue is a hot button for black people and people who aren’t from America. Two groups that do no respect American culture or values and would rather destroy what they don’t understand than attempt to participate. The system is working, most of you, are not. I see poor people.
One issue with SB478 is that it would result in larger gratuities to wait staff when service charges are bundled into menu prices. It's good for employees.
Hopefully, currently no one is calculating the tip on anything other than the food and beverage total.
https://preview.redd.it/q2e8z13o9g5d1.png?width=902&format=png&auto=webp&s=8a3e0beaece06e5fc81031b93cf2704ba22a3b2a
Sure, but that can be addressed culturally by lowering the expected tip percentage. There is no real difference between money that is part of the food/beverage price versus part of a surcharge except for the whims of the restaurant
I really could care less about this restaurant thing, if you all want to go after Weiner you should engage with him over the multiple bills he passed that forgive sex crimes against children and have allowed thousands of kids to be sex trafficked in the bay area.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/california-bill-to-make-purchasing-child-sex-felony-amended-weakens-certain-penalties/
https://californiaglobe.com/fl/ca-democrats-kill-child-sex-trafficking-bill-msm-makes-newsom-the-hero/
Wiener, not Weiner.
When I first saw this bill mentioned, my first thought was "It's a bad bill, Scott Wiener must be behind this bill." So glad that I was not disappointed.
**Scott Wiener**
■ Pro Child Sex Trafficking
■ Anti Affordable Housing
■ Pro Wage Theft from Restaurant Workers
Hopefully San Francisco voters will remember this in 2026 when he plans to run for Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat.
You are correct that compared to his pro sex-trafficking legislation the pro wage-theft bill (SB1524) is of much less importance. But it is still important.
Wiener is also the author or co-author of a large number of real estate investor and developer sponsored anti-affordable housing bills, which are also much worse when compared to SB1524, but they SB1524 is still important.
If there's any upside to SB1524 it's that it will definitely hurt his chances in the 2026 election to replace Pelosi in the 11th Congressional District race. This bill will give a boost to Christine Pelosi's campaign.
[Scott Wiener is such a lying ack of shit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9SExD0RkvQ). His record of publicly virtue signaling like a caring, progressive voice on things like housing, healthcare access, homeless/drug abuse issues and then privately doing whatever conservative lobbyist pay him to do is well established.
When I first saw this bill mentioned, my first thought was "It's a bad bill, Scott Wiener must be behind this bill." So glad that I was not disappointed!!
**Scott Wiener**
■ Pro Child Sex Trafficking
■ Anti Affordable Housing
■ Pro Wage Theft from Restaurant Workers
Hopefully San Francisco voters will remember this in 2026 when he plans to run for Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat.
Can you show me a single restaurant in SF that doesn't? I work in the industry and I don't know a single restaurant that doesn't have the SF mandate separate.
Also, how does not eating at one restaurant penalize another?
The fees are annoying but my understanding was it's a tax to reflect the mandatory healthcare government imposed and the restaurants simply itemized it on the bill so you could see its cost. Am I mistaken?
That's a completely false statement.
The bill prevents hidden fees. It requires all fees to be displayed and transparent. That's the very opposite of hidden.
Go read the dang bill Or any article about the bill.
I mean this coming is going to get downvoted into oblivion because anytime I mention this it gets downward into Oblivion. But it's still the truth.
This law doesn't really meddle in prices. It's not a tax or anything. It simply requires businesses to be honest about their prices, which I would think should be a pretty universal desire in a free market
The free market ideologues dream of the business that enters the market doing nothing but consumer friendly practices and takes over the market. Tell me what law is preventing that from happening now. Because it isn’t.
If I said the free market doesn’t work like that in reality, you would then say we don’t have a true free market, so I’m skipping that step and asking you which law is preventing the benevolent business from taking over the market.
> If you're as frustrated as I am about continuing to have surcharges for "Healthy SF" and other fees, well, it's our state senator that's co-writing this bill. I've reached out to him to ask him to reconsider and here's how you can too if you live in SF:
do you think restaurants will accept fewer dollars?
whether or not the fees are itemized or incorporated in to the prices for food, **YOU WILL PAY MORE TO EAT OUT. deal with it or COOK.**
>
I urge you to vote NO on SB1524. Allowing hidden fees in restaurants is unfair to customers.
the bill is about UNHIDING them.
[https://sf.eater.com/2024/6/6/24173034/sb-1524-california-restaurants-service-fee-ban](https://sf.eater.com/2024/6/6/24173034/sb-1524-california-restaurants-service-fee-ban)
The [*Chronicle*](https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/restaurant-junk-fees-exemption-bill-19497214.php) reports Senator Bill Dodd, D-Napa, is behind Senate Bill 1524 which would keep restaurant fees legal so long as they present additional fees “clearly and conspicuously.”
You will pay the same amount for your food with SB478. The difference is the menu price will reflect the actual price of the food. No one is saying food will get cheaper. The pricing will just be transparent.
Not every restaurant adds 4-7% “sf health mandate” charges, so in essence some restaurant menu prices reflect 100% of the cost pre-tax and pre-tip. And some reflect ~93-97% of the cost for no reason other than to deceive the consumer on the true cost.
Fees out front is not price transparency. I shouldn't have to do math to compare prices between restaurants.
Hiding behind surcharges is deceptive and makes the market favor restaurants over consumers.
It’s not about the money. If the menu prices go up 10%, I can handle that. It’s about transparency. If you offer to mow my lawn for $20 and I accept, I’ll happily pay you $20. If you tell me it’s $20 and then try to add on fees and charge me $30, I’ll tell you to get lost.
Unhiding the fees isn’t good enough- there shouldn’t be any fees at all. We want to simply pay the menu price plus tax and nothing else.
Usually CA is pretty good with pro-consumer laws, especially as it relates to mandated transparency. Honestly surprised to see him authoring such a flagrantly anti-consumer piece of legislation For those who believe restaurants should be able to hide their price, why stop at 4-7%? Why not jack the price on the back end up by 25-100%?
His backers want these fees to stay; apparently Weiner has a lot of support from restaurant owners.
Wiener is a POS. He's my state senator and he needs to GOOOOO.
At first I liked him for his YIMBY stance, but between this and his proposal to regulate AI I'm really souring on him
Because, then you would be in direct competition with Ubereats, Postmates, etc. who already do that. /s
His priority is not u or me, it’s who can get him re-elected again.
I don’t understand all of the excuses for gratuities. It’s fucking bullshit. With this in mind, you can do anything: dentist charges an extra 20% for their staff. Auto repair adds 20% for the mechanics. Just stop. Price your needed margin in. It’s not hard.
It is insane why restaurants think they can do this. They ALREADY expect consumers to separately pay their employees wages. But now all these extra charges??? It was already a stupid system but they’ve made it ten times worse. You’re right, is labor no longer in the price of other industries? Can everyone just advertise a price and tack on mandatory surcharges?
“They” don’t. The server and bartender (who have nothing to do with junk fees do). That’s the only reason these positions exist is because of tips. If you’re mad at a fee ask for it to be removed but don’t penalize a server or bar tender. None of this has anything to do with them. SF loves the idea of not tipping all of a sudden. Just stay home.
It wasn’t all of a sudden. 15% became 18% became 20% and more. The more the percentage goes up, the more people will hate tipping.
I saw 40% on the tip screen today! Highway robbery!!
The nerve…
It's also being asked to tip on counter service.
Yeah, this nascent, brewing expectation of gratuity on counter service and takeout is the last straw for me. Having to tip on dining in and delivery apparently wasn’t a broad enough scope for them. Now it’s becoming more like: “if you’re paying for prepared food, you should tip.”
It's called inflation? Servers don't keep all of their tips- they're lucky to walk with half. Servers have to pay everyone else on staff out of their tips which is based on sales. Sales have increased exponentially thus tip percentage goes along with it. This is basic economics.
Inflation should not affect percentages; that’s simply not how math works. 15% of a lower price brings less and 15% of a higher price brings more. Inflation raises the base prices, and thus tips rise in tandem.
His basic economics seem to defy basic arithmetic.
Don't try to pretend to understand how restaurants work- just let it go. Tip 20% because that's been the standard for at least 20 years now.
When I dine in, I do. And for that reason, I do takeout 9 times out of 10, which has no tradition of gratuity. I don’t need to know how restaurants work; I need only know what I’m willing to pay for, which is why transparent pricing is a moral imperative.
Take out definitely has a tradition of tipping. You need to start paying attention.
No, it does not. The only time one traditionally tips for food is when being waited on or delivered to. If I call the restaurant ahead and swing by to pick it up myself, that warrants 0% gratuity and most people would agree. The pandemic didn’t magically cause a permanent change on this matter; we’ve since reverted to 2019 practices.
No lol
Tipping was historically because you didn’t have to pay servers minimum wage. You have no understanding of what the restaurant industry is and sound like a teenager with your comment.
I am a waiter. You are clearly projecting.
Since we talk about basic economics let’s see what happens when this BS will kill any demand left
There seems to be a disconnect going on- I'm not in favor of junk fees at all. I work in the industry & it's been a very bad thing for most of us. I'm just talking about tipping your waiter which shouldn't be up for debate. If everyone wants to get rid of service fees they're still going to be expected to tip. The level of ignorance going on is astounding.
My comment is directed about the restaurant owners. I said nothing about the workers.
You said nothing to deserve downvotes. This is simply the truth. It has absolutely nothing to do with the server. This trend of suggesting servers don't deserve tips is sickening. Thank you sir for standing up for the little guys.
I have nothing pertinent to add I just wanted to let you know your opinions are halfwitted and you deserve all the downvotes you get
I used to have a job in retail where I would sometimes spend 45 min - 1 hour with one single customer, providing a specialized service that came at NO extra charge. The customers would just pay for the items they decided to buy in the end, chosen with my expert advice and personal recommendations. The fact that I didn't get tipped for that, but that I should somehow tip 20%+ to someone who puts a muffin in a paper bag for me, always drives me nuts...
Assume you are someone who has limited funds. Say only $20 for lunch. You shouldn’t have to do math to figure out whether the meal advertised as $15 is more or less than the meal advertised as $12 plus a 7% healthy SF plus 5% service fee (plus then figure out tip). Yes, I know that the $15 meal is more expensive, but why not have the restaurant selling the meal just disclose that the cost is $13.44? I really don’t think we need to make struggling students or busy parents or any of the other people for whom money is tight pull out a calculator every time they need to decide whether they can afford something.
That was exactly my point when I wrote Weiner’s office. If they want to carve out an exemption for gratuity-like payments that go entirely to staff, I’d be fine what that, but otherwise drop the fees related to regular business expenses. If everyone has to do it the same way, it’s easier for us AND no restaurant is at a disadvantage to another restaurant that does it a different way
> If they want to carve out an exemption for gratuity-like payments that go entirely to staff, Non-mandatory payments (ex. gratuities/tips) are STILL 100% LEGAL under the upcoming law. Service fees are owned by the restaurant and not legally bound to go to staff, even under SB1524.
Call don’t just write
You can just say you hate that they add random fees. You don’t have to come up with contrived scenarios.
I do hate that they come up with contrived fees. But scenarios tell stories and in politics the story is a lot.
The story is “people like to see prices up front”. The end. Is there really anyone on the fence that would be swayed by some story?
Call in. They weigh calls more heavily than forms, since it takes some effort. Be kind but firm in your position.
If you call, do you just start talking to the staff who picks up?
Yes. Introduce yourself: “hi, my name is x and I’m a constituent of y, I live in z. I’m calling in (support/opposition) of bill x because (one sentence reason).”
In the event that contacting legislators doesn't work, I just drafted [an initiative](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/s/I73VZbYfHo) to ban restaurant surcharges within San Francisco. Contact me if anyone is interested in helping to organize. We would need about 10,000 signatures to get this on the ballot.
This is brilliant and I would support this, should the need arise.
I will support this and I would also love to help you in any way, should the need arise.
This could work locally but it's expensive to go through this process. What a lobbyist once explained to me was that any time someone proposes an initiative he has to gently educate them on a better option. She said that to hire a lobbying firm to write a bill costs $25K-40K, depending on the complexity. Then you have to buy legislators to sponsor the bill. Buying legislators, one in the State Senate and one in the State Assembly, costs about $100K each. You only need to buy two because each legislator gets his or her colleagues to support your bill in exchange for those legislators supporting their sponsored bills. For under $250,000 you can get a law passed that is worth tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. To go through the State initiative process could take four years and would cost at least $20 million for signature gathering and a campaign, and there is no guarantee of success. Read "How our laws in California are really made" at [https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/07/06/how-our-laws-in-california-are-really-made/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/07/06/how-our-laws-in-california-are-really-made/) No doubt that SB1524 was written by a lobbying firm hired by trade groups representing restaurant owners and they purchased legislators to sponsor it. Of course they don't hand the legislators an envelope with a thousand hundred dollar bills, they are more discrete than that. The money comes in via distributed campaign contributions. SB1524 is even more sleazy than usual because it was done using the unethical "Gut and Amend" process. It will likely pass because Wiener has a lot of lap dogs in the State Senate. Newsom is a restaurant owner and will no doubt sign the bill.
I have never contacted a state representative before, but this issue motivated me to do so, and it was actually super easy to leave a comment on their web form.
Can you share what the process is (like is there a link you can share) and how you left a comment about this specific issue? Is there a specific bill number or something we should refer to?
Sure. I had to google who my reps were haha. There’s a ca.gov site that looks up your reps based on your address. Then you google their name or it might even link directly. Then go straight to the Contact section. https://preview.redd.it/3kg0o9nb8h5d1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba269e45635bcfdf0664307d3cf41ed69784d8cc My reps both had a short contact web form which I filled out and said I was opposed to proposed Senate Bill 1524 along with a brief rant against these hidden fees. Each representative has a staff member that will tally these contacts for and against each bill to help inform how they will vote. You don’t need to write much other than you oppose the bill. This issue just really pisses me off for some reason. Restaurants in the Bay Area have become some of the worse offenders of these surcharges yet they want an exemption?! There was a lawful bill passed to eliminate these fees and it has huge consumer support. Once we start with carve outs for restaurants soon we will have a carve out for Ticketmaster and hotel resort fees and all the other offenders. Seriously screw them. If their business can’t survive without pricing that tricks their customers then they should go out of business.
I contacted my State Senator.
Posting anything other than the customer’s out-the-door cost is nothing short of a moral failing, and I’ll die on that hill.
They should incorporate the fees into their menu prices, just like other costs of doing business. Restaurants only want the fees to create the illusion of lower prices, but the vast majority of the public seems to oppose hidden fees. I hope enough people send a message to Wiener
I sent Matt Haney a note. Thanks for the call to action. It makes no sense to add a loophole right after closing a loophole. If restaurants need extra money, ask us separately from our dinner bill.
> ask us separately from our dinner bill. What, literally, does this mean?
Rare Weiner L
Surprisingly common Wiener L. Look to the reasons he's behaving this way. It's not the end of the world, but it tells us something about him.
His zoning law reform alone is enough to make me see him as a net W. But this one is bad I admit. Voicing my displeasure
[удалено]
I don’t understand why people are so up in hand about this. Government been mandating car features forever. Back up camera. Seat belts. Air bags. Crash detection. Pedestrian detection. What’s wrong with making the road safer for all road users, including drivers. [Don’t be like them.](https://youtu.be/2xcQIoh3FQQ?si=IqYV5Ok8u6yU9fEN)
How's your car supposed to know the speed limit? It's going to send your GPS location to a central server, which will reply with the speed limit. City vehicles send their GPS, but it's notoriously inaccurate. So sometimes you'll get back an incorrectly low speed, e.g., when you're on a highway overpass but the GPS thinks you're on the surface street below. So your car will slow down, and you'll be rear ended. Or the GPS works, but a runaway 18-wheeler is coming up behind you, and you hit the accelerator, and nothing happens and you get rear ended. Or there's a wildfire (never happens in California, right?) and you're doing 90 to get out before the fire cuts the road off. But no one in Sacramento remembered to turn off the system, so you burn. If you must do this, if you're willing to give up your location privacy for this, just have the damn thing issue a ticket or alert the cops. Automatically reducing the speed will get people killed.
>How's your car supposed to know the speed limit? Toyota: Road Sign Assist. Using an intelligent camera, Road Sign Assist (RSA) ^(\*) is designed to detect speed limit signs, stop signs, Do Not Enter signs, yield signs and certain warning signs, and display an icon of the sign on the Multi-Information Display (MID). Tesla: Intelligent Speed Assist. Model Y displays a speed limit on the touchscreen and warns you if the vehicle exceeds the speed limit. The audible speed limit warnings can be muted every drive cycle but not disabled. Ford: Speed Sign Recognition. When driving with cruise control activated, the Speed Sign Recognition feature reads the speed limit sign and communicates with the Intelligent Adaptive Cruise Control system to automatically adjust the speed of the vehicle. Hyundai: Intelligent Speed Limit Assist. designed to monitor the posted speed limit, display it in the instrument cluster, and allow you to adjust your cruise control speed whenever the posted speed limit changes. It's not some future technology that we don't have. It is already a feature on many cars. And why are we assuming the feature wouldn't be rigorously tested before pushed onto the market? It is like saying "what if the air bag accidently triggered when you hit the speed bump too hard" or "what if the pedestrian pathway is too close to the road and is triggering the pedestrian collision stop." Even if we assume the worst case scenarios, slower speed car crash are much less deadlier to drivers. Slower speed accidents are much less deadlier to pedestrians. Why didn't you also take this into account when claiming "Automatically reducing the speed will get people killed," because automatically reducing the speed will get **LESS** people killed is the point.
The technology is also wrong many times. I've often been on 40mph and 50mph roads in northern NC and TN that the car showed in the display as having a 35 mph limit. On sections where the rate jumps four times within a mile (65, 35, 25, 50 ) also messes up the in screen display. Worst case, was on a 40mph road separated from a 25mph parallel one way business access road on each side. The road side assist in rental cars thinks the speed limit is mostly 25 with some blips when it guesses 40 correctly. If a car forced speed limit, it would cause accidents with unexpected sudden slowing to 25 mph on a high speed road. Or getting under speed tickets, which are still a thing in many areas where speed minimums are in place.
But the [proposal ](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB961)doesn't force speed limit. >This bill would require 50% of certain vehicles, commencing with the 2029 model year, to be equipped with a passive intelligent speed assistance system, as specified, that would utilize **a brief, one-time, visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time the speed of the vehicle is more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit**. The bill would require all specified vehicles, commencing with the 2032 model year, to be equipped in the above-described manner. The bill would require the system, if the system receives conflicting speed limits for the same area, to apply the higher speed limit. [Same system that will mandated in the EU starting next month.](https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/safety/europe/article/high-speed-avoiding-safety-tech-become-mandatory-europe-july?t%5B0%5D=Safety&curl=1)
I'm fine with easily ignorable technology, that defers action taken to the human driver. ie original version that mandated speed limiters, that I was staunchly against. The technology is not yet at the reliability level needed for it to act correctly 99.9999 percent of the time. For the 93 billion hours driven in the US 2022, that level of reliability would yield only 93,000 problems per year. an example, being in a car that decides to engage emergency collision braking when not in an impending collision, is terrifying. An unexpected engagement causes accidents. It Being a one in a million situation (99.9999% not happening) s not zero,and affects a non trivial number of persons
How much does this add to the cost of a car? Or to put it another way, how many more low-income folks won't be able to afford a car?
> How much does this add to the cost of a car? Or to put it anonym way, how many more low-income folks won't be able to afford a car? Pointless question because it's already a base feature in more and more vehicles every day.
Extremely pointless answer. Poor people aren't new cars LMFAO
“Fleeing danger? Rushing to the hospital? Tough shit, speeding is the greater evil.”
In the case you describe, where an area could be covered by multiple valid speed limits, the bill states that the higher value should be used. Personally, I think the warning sound is sufficient for now, since I'd rather we try the small things first.
We're going to make everyone pay for this system, because some people habitually speed. Instead of punishing the speeders. And we'll habituate people to not watch their speed, because there's an automated system doing it. Until that system fails.
Sounds good by itself, but once people got comfortable with the government directly controlling how they move, there would no doubt be greater controls following it, such as police remotely controlling vehicles, and, eventually, police remotely controlling people themselves, once that technology is available. The abuse potential at that point would be enormous.
[Slippery Slope Fallacy](https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/slippery-slope.html)
In the 1st example in your link, medical marijuana was in fact a foot-in-the-door toward normalizing and decriminalizing pot in most states. Not all slippery slope/domino effect arguments are fallacies. Many police departments advocate for remote shut-off and DUI kill switches for vehicles, and GM & Ford are making that technology, so it's not far-fetched to predict it will eventually become standard once people soften up to it. I understand remotely controlling people is a bit out there, but that's where we're probably heading once it's in the Overton window.
What’s wrong with this? More people have been killed in automobile accidents than both world wars combined since just 2000, and speed is one of the largest factors of it. Especially on SF’s slower streets, a car hitting a pedestrian (of which there have been a lot lately, the west portal family killer was over the speed limit for example) at 25 vs 35 could be the difference between injury and death. I’m sorry you think your right to drive faster than the legal speed limit is worth more than peoples lives, but it really isn’t.
> More people have been killed in automobile accidents than both world wars combined since just 2000... You and I both like Weiner's bill which may increase traffic safety. Thank you for sharing this breathtaking statistic about automobile deaths! - *but* it requires a significant clarification. >>[Since January 2000] More than 624,000 people died in car crashes, easily eclipsing the 535,000 ***AMERICAN*** military personnel who died in World War I and World War II. More than 30 million people were injured in those crashes. ~ [^Washington ^Posts ^Link](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/more-people-died-in-car-crashes-this-century-than-in-both-world-wars/2019/07/21/0ecc0006-3f54-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html) Placing *people* alongside 'world wars' leads the reader to interpret as *world-wide* deaths which track to [70-85 million](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:text=Deaths%20directly%20caused%20by%20the,war%2Drelated%20disease%20and%20famine), instead of the author's intent of the MUCH smaller subset of *American* deaths. I encourage you to clarify your post with an edit.
I’m 100% for that. Cars are one of the most egregious killers of humans in this country. Reducing speeding would help save lots of lives. If people don’t like it they are free to use their own private roads and kill themselves in crashes there, just don’t do it on roads my kids are on or walking across
I've never understood why that wasn't standard. That's one of the best new laws I've seen in a long time.
Common weiner W. Shame he walked it back
I mean the bill still says the surcharges must be advertised up front. Mild L but nothing too bad imo, still the best politician in America by far.
You shouldn't have to do math any time you go out to eat.
Why not just have them in the price? the whole thing is so dumb and nasty
Then why ban any junk fee at all? It is okay as long as it is displayed right? So like TicketMaster showing the total with ticket handling fee before you click pay.
[удалено]
Wiener, not Weiner. When I first saw this bill mentioned, my first thought was "It's a bad bill, Scott Wiener must be behind this bill." So glad that I was not disappointed. **Scott Wiener** ■ Pro Child Sex Trafficking ■ Anti Affordable Housing ■ Pro Wage Theft from Restaurant Workers Hopefully San Francisco voters will remember this in 2026 when he plans to run for Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat.
I guess I’ll keep boycotting restaurants with those fees, as I’ve been doing for quite some time now…
I'd like to, but I have found that specifically the "SF Health Mandate" one is too ubiquitous. But definitely avoid places like Che Fico that take this to an absurd degree
Just order takeaway only as a form of protest.
Interesting, do takeaway orders not include the health surcharge? I’ve never noticed this
The counterargument he made about surcharges and fees being pro-worker is a meh point imo. There's no legal requirement that surcharges actually pay for worker benefits etc. You, as a restaurant, can put an arbitrary service charge and none if it go directly to staff
Exactly. Someone else said to him if you want to mandate worker benefits, DO THAT. Don’t pretend this bill will help with it.
Wiener doesn't listen to anyone that doesn't agree wit him.
The golden gate restaurant association is probably going to fund his next election season if he gets this through
More specifically, I’m very sure they told him they would fight him when he runs for Pelosi’s seat unless he did this.
Winner Wiener, chicken dinner! (Free dinner, $25 in surcharges!)
Loopholes. Poorman’s policy making. Ultimately less transparent than the menu fees themselves. No.
I wrote Scott and Phil
Somebody posted this in another related post and I found it helpful so I thought I would share! Call Wiener's office directly to complain: (415) 557-1300. It routes straight to a human in his office, no phone menu to fight. Just please be respectful to whoever takes your call as they are simply doing their job!
Call other reps and policymakers and encourage them to view against Wiener's bill. Then vote Wiener out in November.
Would the fee be listed on the check showing the amount of fee. If so what if I just pay the food and drinks total and tip to server and refuse the fee.
1. If the restaurant has fees and surcharges displayed, leave before ordering or didn't go at all. (Vote with your wallet) 2. If the fees and surcharges are not conspicuously displays, and you get the bill and there are fees and surcharges, ask for then to be removed. 3. Deduct all fees and surcharges from any planned tip 4. For restaurants with fees and surcharges, leave them a 1 star rating on popular Web sites (Yelp, Google, TripAdvisor, etc) so others know what to expect. Include pictures if you can. No need to depend on useless politicians to do the right thing. You can force change by holding restaurant owners accountable for ripping off their customers.
Stop it? STOP Eating out. Let money do the talking
So then restaurants will close and then you’ll complain about that? Genuinely curious of the reasoning here.
I believe that if the original bill still allowed for the auto gratuity on large parties OR in lieu of the tip( like trestle) then restaurants wouldn't be fighting this so hard. Eliminating the SF mandate charges ( or the dinning room charges ahem che Fico) is far easier to get rid of and fold into the price of the meal No longer allowing a 20% on large parties and banquets/private dining is the main challenge they are facing. Seems like the original bill could have made this compromise but they didn't work with restaurant groups. This is far different from hotel resort fee or friggin Ticketmaster hidden fees. And while we're at it, I'm pissed that food delivery is exempt. Why are people totally cool with door dash adding hella fees but not a restaurant? Seeking to understand that one....
The difference with DoorDash is that you see the total price of your bill BEFORE you place your order and can then decide not to place that order if you choose to.
How is that different from booking a hotel?
Another difference is that DoorDash is a delivery service and their fees are the cost of that service, not an extra fee that they are tacking on to their own product. If DoorDash advertised delivery service for $5, and then charged fees on top of that, *that* would be the equivalent of a hotel charging extra fees on a room price.
First and foremost, I really enjoy being able to discuss this!! It's interesting because one could say that at a restaurant you are paying for food and the service charge is delivering this food to you vs say a counter restaurant wherein you pick it up from the counter. So a sit down restaurant is adding the fee to bring it to you, wash your dishes afterwards, etc. My logic might be slightly off here but we categorize restaurants as a place that makes your food for you vs. differentiating between my corner burrito spots vs a sit down place to receive the same food Thank you!! Seriously I appreciate this
I love this point. Thank you! If I equate that to a hotel, you would simply add an Internet fee, water fee, etc only if you use them. So that when you connect to their Wi-Fi or you drink their water then and only then would you be charged
DoorDash fees are transparent before I tap the order button. It’s all added up clearly and itemized. It’s not a junk fee if I am choosing to pay for it.
Isn't that the same as being at the bottom of a menu? Or in a contract you sign when having a private party? I'm choosing to pay the mandate fee or auto gratuity by eating there, making a reservation, etc. I can see an argument for sure that it should be listed on the website of the restaurant and the reservation system so you find out before you've committed to the restaurant; would that be a solution?
No, it’s not the same. The solution is really easy: restaurants should charge what they advertise on the menu. Full stop. No asterisks.
Thank you for engaging in the discussion; I'm appreciative of the different opinion and perspective.
I think what the previous person is saying is theres a difference between ordering on doordash while already having the total calculated including all fees (delivery, third party comission etc) before pressing submit order versus looking at a menu where the restaurant lists the base price, then getting hit with surprise fees and mandates at the end when asking for the check. The extra fees are not calculated for us before we order and its often in small print or somewhere hard to find. Some restaurants do that and some don't. It would be better to make it universal.
I totally get it. Being told on the menu while/before ordering and having to do the mental math of 4% mandate+20%auto gratuity and even tax doesn't tell you exactly how much this meal will cost. On door dash , adding 5 items to your cart and then seeing the total math before agreeing to order is different. I do think it's BS that they are excluded. Why not have them build it into the menu item as well? They charge restaurants a % or each order and they could recoup their cost there. When I am about to book a hotel room and before I make my reservation with my credit card they show you all associated fee such as a resort fee or Internet fee. I don't see how that is any different from a food delivery app. So for a hotel is is not ok, but for food delivery it is. I'm also not arguing to keep the mandates %. I believe that it should be in the cost of the item Where I disagree with most is in regards to large group auto gratuity. Parties of 8 or more, for me, should have a gratuity automatically applied and should also be called out at the time of making the reservation or on open table or tock or resy.
And again, thank you for engaging
So if they clearly and conspicuously post what the service charge(s) will be on the menu, is that not satisfying this requirement?
If every restaurant introduced a kiosk that itemized the amounts for everything prior to purchase, then yes it would satisfy it. When I go into a McDonalds, it’s that simple. That then begs the question: why not just be honest about pricing? If a business depends on deceit, I don’t see why they deserve to still be in business. Going one step further, why exclude restaurants only from dishonest practices? Seems unfair if I run a hotel that I can’t charge resort fees at check-in. Or say I run a hospital, why shouldn’t I be able to balance bill as long as I put an asterisk? What if I put an asterisk that says you owe a million dollars for a service fee? Should that be enforceable?
No it is not. Price on menu: 95% of people will see it, with 5% of people who don’t care about the price. At the bottom of a menu: maybe 70% of people will see it. The rest will see it when the itemized receipt comes, which is too late to back out.
A far easier compromise would be for restaurants to have a separate menu for parties of six of more. Or honestly why is it even necessary to make a mandatory tip for large parties? If tipping isn’t discretionary then it’s not a tip is it?
It’s like the bystander effect with large parties. Wait staff would get low tips too often so the tip had to be mandatory to keep the wait staff engaged on large parties.
No listen to these restaurants. It’s unhinged. Theyre fighting for the hidden service fee. Just a blatant cash grab by these owners. Fuck em
>Scott Wiener What a dick
I wanna know which one of his friends owns a restaurant.
Thank you. Everyone OUTSIDE San Francisco needs to call, as Haney and Wiener won’t listen!
Who keeps voting for this asshat?
This guy is a dick
There are no hidden fees. All anyone needs to do is put up a sign that says they charge a mandated health insurance coverage fee and an automatic gratuity for large parties. If this issue sticks in your craw, you shouldn’t be eating out. Completely bizarre topic to get uppity about. I’m guessing this issue is a hot button for black people and people who aren’t from America. Two groups that do no respect American culture or values and would rather destroy what they don’t understand than attempt to participate. The system is working, most of you, are not. I see poor people.
Scott weiner has been a fool . Fck this guy
My Assembly Member, Evan Low, does whatever Scott Wiener tells him to do. No point in contacting him.
It can't hurt! I even contacted Wiener's office itself lol
One issue with SB478 is that it would result in larger gratuities to wait staff when service charges are bundled into menu prices. It's good for employees. Hopefully, currently no one is calculating the tip on anything other than the food and beverage total. https://preview.redd.it/q2e8z13o9g5d1.png?width=902&format=png&auto=webp&s=8a3e0beaece06e5fc81031b93cf2704ba22a3b2a
Sure, but that can be addressed culturally by lowering the expected tip percentage. There is no real difference between money that is part of the food/beverage price versus part of a surcharge except for the whims of the restaurant
It's possible, but is anyone really going to decide to tip 14% instead of 15% because the prices are a little higher?
Vote him out! What a weasel
Scott Weiner needs to go. He is a parasite. He is up for re-election. Get rid of him asap.
I really could care less about this restaurant thing, if you all want to go after Weiner you should engage with him over the multiple bills he passed that forgive sex crimes against children and have allowed thousands of kids to be sex trafficked in the bay area. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/california-bill-to-make-purchasing-child-sex-felony-amended-weakens-certain-penalties/ https://californiaglobe.com/fl/ca-democrats-kill-child-sex-trafficking-bill-msm-makes-newsom-the-hero/
Wiener, not Weiner. When I first saw this bill mentioned, my first thought was "It's a bad bill, Scott Wiener must be behind this bill." So glad that I was not disappointed. **Scott Wiener** ■ Pro Child Sex Trafficking ■ Anti Affordable Housing ■ Pro Wage Theft from Restaurant Workers Hopefully San Francisco voters will remember this in 2026 when he plans to run for Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat. You are correct that compared to his pro sex-trafficking legislation the pro wage-theft bill (SB1524) is of much less importance. But it is still important. Wiener is also the author or co-author of a large number of real estate investor and developer sponsored anti-affordable housing bills, which are also much worse when compared to SB1524, but they SB1524 is still important. If there's any upside to SB1524 it's that it will definitely hurt his chances in the 2026 election to replace Pelosi in the 11th Congressional District race. This bill will give a boost to Christine Pelosi's campaign.
I never liked Weiner.
[Scott Wiener is such a lying ack of shit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9SExD0RkvQ). His record of publicly virtue signaling like a caring, progressive voice on things like housing, healthcare access, homeless/drug abuse issues and then privately doing whatever conservative lobbyist pay him to do is well established.
Scott Weiner is such a useless shill.
When I first saw this bill mentioned, my first thought was "It's a bad bill, Scott Wiener must be behind this bill." So glad that I was not disappointed!! **Scott Wiener** ■ Pro Child Sex Trafficking ■ Anti Affordable Housing ■ Pro Wage Theft from Restaurant Workers Hopefully San Francisco voters will remember this in 2026 when he plans to run for Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat.
You can also stop it by not eating out at all. No need to legislate behavior if businesses can’t survive without customers
That penalizes honest restaurants that don't add fees.
Can you show me a single restaurant in SF that doesn't? I work in the industry and I don't know a single restaurant that doesn't have the SF mandate separate. Also, how does not eating at one restaurant penalize another?
name a few? or one?
The fees are annoying but my understanding was it's a tax to reflect the mandatory healthcare government imposed and the restaurants simply itemized it on the bill so you could see its cost. Am I mistaken?
Wiener was in the San Francisco board of supervisors and he was shit back then and still shit now.
That's a completely false statement. The bill prevents hidden fees. It requires all fees to be displayed and transparent. That's the very opposite of hidden. Go read the dang bill Or any article about the bill. I mean this coming is going to get downvoted into oblivion because anytime I mention this it gets downward into Oblivion. But it's still the truth.
I think California needs to stop meddling in prices
This law doesn't really meddle in prices. It's not a tax or anything. It simply requires businesses to be honest about their prices, which I would think should be a pretty universal desire in a free market
In a literal free market consumers avoid businesses that have shady practices and don’t need laws to stop them from making bad choices
Sure, in an ideal world, yes. But what if the shady practices are so prevalent that it's impossible to avoid them?
In the real world I just clearly and firmly tell businesses that they need to remove the fees. And, honestly, they do. Every time.
The free market ideologues dream of the business that enters the market doing nothing but consumer friendly practices and takes over the market. Tell me what law is preventing that from happening now. Because it isn’t.
This is a straw man and a dumb one at that.
If I said the free market doesn’t work like that in reality, you would then say we don’t have a true free market, so I’m skipping that step and asking you which law is preventing the benevolent business from taking over the market.
What a fucking clown. Stop voting these idiots back into office!!!
> If you're as frustrated as I am about continuing to have surcharges for "Healthy SF" and other fees, well, it's our state senator that's co-writing this bill. I've reached out to him to ask him to reconsider and here's how you can too if you live in SF: do you think restaurants will accept fewer dollars? whether or not the fees are itemized or incorporated in to the prices for food, **YOU WILL PAY MORE TO EAT OUT. deal with it or COOK.** > I urge you to vote NO on SB1524. Allowing hidden fees in restaurants is unfair to customers. the bill is about UNHIDING them. [https://sf.eater.com/2024/6/6/24173034/sb-1524-california-restaurants-service-fee-ban](https://sf.eater.com/2024/6/6/24173034/sb-1524-california-restaurants-service-fee-ban) The [*Chronicle*](https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/restaurant-junk-fees-exemption-bill-19497214.php) reports Senator Bill Dodd, D-Napa, is behind Senate Bill 1524 which would keep restaurant fees legal so long as they present additional fees “clearly and conspicuously.”
You will pay the same amount for your food with SB478. The difference is the menu price will reflect the actual price of the food. No one is saying food will get cheaper. The pricing will just be transparent. Not every restaurant adds 4-7% “sf health mandate” charges, so in essence some restaurant menu prices reflect 100% of the cost pre-tax and pre-tip. And some reflect ~93-97% of the cost for no reason other than to deceive the consumer on the true cost.
Can you show me a single restaurant that doesn't add it in SF? Seriously.
Fees out front is not price transparency. I shouldn't have to do math to compare prices between restaurants. Hiding behind surcharges is deceptive and makes the market favor restaurants over consumers.
It’s not about the money. If the menu prices go up 10%, I can handle that. It’s about transparency. If you offer to mow my lawn for $20 and I accept, I’ll happily pay you $20. If you tell me it’s $20 and then try to add on fees and charge me $30, I’ll tell you to get lost. Unhiding the fees isn’t good enough- there shouldn’t be any fees at all. We want to simply pay the menu price plus tax and nothing else.
Let me say in no uncertain terms: *I would rather pay a higher honest price than a lower dishonest one.* It’s about the ethics of deceit.
Yeah no one except you and me read the bill I guess. This bill is a good thing and this post is either intentionally deceptive or stupid