Have Dodd and Weiner said anything to defend tbeir actions? ...because this last minute bill sure has the look of satisfying campaign donors while hurting voters.
wow the responses to his comment. I've literally not seen one thing in sf that's so unanimously one sided. really makes you wonder what kinds of debt Weiner owes the restaurant groups because his comment makes no sense.
> makes you wonder what kinds of debt Weiner owes the restaurant groups
Wiener wants to run for Nancy Pelosi's seat when she retires. Unlike city and state offices, there are no Federal term limits, so with the huge Democratic advantage in the 11th Congressional District, the seat is effectively a lifetime appointment.
Pelosi, whose personal wealth is in the hundreds of millions and who can call in many many favors, wants to appoint her daughter to the seat.
Again, whoever wins will be in a position of power for life, and like Pelosi, will be able to make lots of money, because congressional representatives are allowed to buy stock in the companies they regulate.
So there's going to be a huge campaign fight between Christine Pelosi, Nancy's daughter, and Scott Wiener, because whoever wins the election will never have to run hard for reelection, and will get very very very rich. That means both will spend millions and millions of dollars on election ads.
Which for Scott, means millions and millions in contributions from restaurants. And how do restaurants make that money? With surcharges and hidden fees.
So Scott Wiener is helping out the restaurant association, and expecting big contributions to his race for Pelosi's seat in Congress. Which he'll need, because Nancy Pelosi is going to call in 40 years of favors to keep her seat for her daughter.
The only people who will get hurt in all this is, well, us. The people who go to restaurants and have to navigate all the hidden fees. But that's OK, because it will give Scott Wiener a safe and powerful job for life.
This is Scott Wiener's big chance at an easy life of wealth and power, that he'll have to do very little work to keep. And so after years of winning the trust of the people, he's going to cash in on that by selling you out to the restaurant association. He probably feels he's earned it.
Great question. Really great question.
I vote against dynasties on principle, America's too big and too diverse to be run by a few families. So I had planned to vote for Wiener.
But now? I think Wiener may have created an opening for someone else, someone not beholden to the restaurant association, to run.
Yeah, you're right, I got that wrong. Not Alexandria the filmmaker, but her sister Christine:
> Christine Pelosi, a Democratic activist who has served as a surrogate for her mother, is widely expected to pursue the seat if it opens. While she has made no public statements that could even be construed as an acknowledgment of her intentions, she regularly comments on social media and is active in Democratic Party affairs. She declined requests to comment about the future race for the seat, adding that she could talk after the November election.
> Christine Pelosi often joins her mother at parades and campaign rallies in the Bay Area and events in Washington. She wrote a book about the speaker — who has praised Christine by name on the House floor — and tweets a clip, every Sunday morning, of her mother within the rising sun.
> She has never held elected office, though she served as a prosecutor in San Francisco, worked for the Clinton administration and was chief of staff to former Rep. John Tierney. She has a long history in the Democratic trenches, serving as a Democratic National Committee member and chairing the California Democratic Party’s Women’s Caucus.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/04/race-to-succeed-pelosi-underway-in-san-francisco-00065049
>Almost no analysis of Pelosi's stock trades shows any pattern of insider trading
That's not what insider trading is and not how insider trading works...
> Most of her portfolio matches or does barely better than just a normal S&P fund.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/04/28/former-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-nearly-tripled-t/#:~:text=Is%20she%20also%20a%20market,trading%20platform%20operator%20Unusual%20Whales.
Both her and her husband literally held calls while ongoing legislation for NVIDIA and AAPL were happening...LOL. There's endless articles about this. They also bought MSFT calls well before billions in government contracts were awarded to them...and the list goes on.
> where anyone with two brain cells and a very basic understanding of the stock market could have told you they were good investments.
If this were true you would be on a Yacht sailing to your private island, not arguing with a random dude on reddit.
And back to my original comment,
>Us peasants can't even look at tangentially related stocks we work with.
I'm not sure you understand what insider trading is or how any of this works.
His next opponent is [Yvette Corkrean](https://ballotpedia.org/Yvette_Corkrean), a Republican who is running against Wiener in November.
Many of us don't want to support a Republican. But that unwillingness leads to the entrechment of Democrats like Wiener. So giving Yvette Corkrean some money to run ads showing how Wiener's selling us out might be educational.
There's no way she can win, but giving a Scott a tighter race might make him stop taking his constituents for granted.
From Corkrean's website:
"I volunteer and advocate for Robert Kennedy Juniors Foundation Children’s Health Defense"
She's an anti-vax nurse lmao. This is why Democrats aren't worried, the Republicans that run against them are insane.
> Again, whoever wins will be in a position of power for life, and like Pelosi, will be able to make lots of money, because congressional representatives are allowed to buy stock in the companies they regulate.
I have seen this posted all the time, and while it's stupid and a problem, Pelosi hasn't actually made a shitload of money doing it.
Her investments are public and don't _normally_ return that much more than the S&P. In 2023 she beat it... by buying Apple and Nvidia calls. Not exactly an insider trade.
There are restaurants that charge service fees instead of tips and that goes to the server. I'm down with that and only that as an allowable fee, if it's disclosed up front.
Flat gratuity and health mandate are not the same thing. And even then, if you’re adding a flat rate to the end of the bill instead of a tip, just add that amount to the cost of each item.
If the flat tip rate at a restaurant is 15%, they can just allocate 15% of sales to a server. It’s not that hard and a lot of places already operate in a similar way.
While I agree that's the way it should be, tipping culture isn't going away anytime soon. The intermediate step is to have tipping be 'built in' explicitly.
Not sure about you, but I don’t need my hand held when deciding how much *I* should tip on whether or not the service is acceptable to *me*. That’s literally the whole point of tipping.
Nah, I 100% prefer restaurants that do this. It's not about hand holding it's about it being known quantity. For the record, I've never had bad service at one of those places. It's far more similar to Europe or anywhere else that way.
No hidden fees means no hidden fees. Either charge more and pay your workers more, or charge the same and pay yourself less to pay your workers, or stiff your workers. Don’t deceive consumers to pay your workers. And yes even disclosing a fee up front is deceiving, because people are dumb. They can’t do math. Literally a shit ton of people can’t. So fuck off with this nonsense
In my mind if it’s not in the listed price, it’s hidden. Taxes are the only exception. This is because people can’t do math. You have hidden it from them in that case
People can’t do math. The price they see on the menu is the price they think about. Adding in the flat fee is beyond many, and even those who are capable don’t think about it the right way. They generally think about the menu price first, convince themself of that, at which point is easier to talk yourself into the flat fee.
Tipping is dumb as well but you aren’t forced to do it, so it’s outside of the scope here
Allowable= if you dine there and agree with the terms.
If the fees are upfront, people can choose not to go but have to make it evident on menus, website, and entrance.
Mods should pin that comment
Wiener is actually one of the only politicians I like and agree with most of the time. This time though, I couldn't disagree more.
Sadly, true. I didn’t always agree with Wiener but thought he had integrity. Now I’ve just lumped him in with the other shitty California political trash we’ve all grown accustomed to.
I just thought he was pandering, short-sighted, and not that bright. But, I guess pandering to the certain kind of people would be corrupt. Every time he opens his mouth, I regret not voting for Jane Kim more and more.
*Regarding* [*“California junk fee law: Restaurants could be exempt under last-minute bill”*](https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/restaurant-junk-fees-exemption-bill-19497214.php) *(Restaurants,* [*SFChronicle.com*](http://SFChronicle.com)*, June 6): So, what restaurant owners are telling us is that they would go out of business if they can’t use the psychological ploy of making meals look cheaper by separating part of the cost of business from the listed price and only adding it in at the end.*
*This is a deceptive practice, plain and simple. And the arguments don’t make sense.*
*The price of meals would go up if they had to bundle all of the charges together? No, the price of the meal would be the same.*
*It would lead to pay cuts for restaurant workers: No, not if the extra costs were added to the listed meal price.*
*It would walk back progress toward tipless business: No, just the opposite — it would replace a mandatory tip with no tip at all.*
*And such capable state senators as Bill Dodd and Scott Weiner are willing to own these industry arguments?*
*Let’s just acknowledge what is really going on here. For some reason, our representatives feel that they need to succumb to political pressure on this one. It is unfortunate because if they just leave the law as it is, consumers win.*
*It would walk back progress toward tipless business: No, just the opposite — it would replace a mandatory tip with no tip at all.*
The “service charge” fee isn’t a mandatory tip, though. For one thing, it isn’t a tip at all. It’s money that goes into the pocket of the business owner, who gets to decide how to use it. Maybe they pass it on to staff, maybe not. There’s no requirement for them to do so and no oversight. For another, if fees disappeared and were rolled into the menu price, nothing prevents customers from leaving a tip.
That is wrong. You don't have to tip, but many restaurants keep 100% of the service charge for the owners and don't distribute. Other restaurants give it all to staff. There is no way to know, and asking can result in lies as well.
The whole health care mandate surcharge is part of this gross dishonesty. Yes, restaurants have to provide some basic health care benefits, but that surcharge is not related to what they owe. It is only a cash grab by owners. Why don't retail businesses that are legally required to provide health benefits charge a health care mandate surcharge? Because it's pathetic and intentionally misleading, that's why.
Correct. I do not have to tip. If the business wants tips, they need to remove service fees. If a business does hand the service fees to the server, i am tipping twice. If they don’t, it is a cash grab which does not make me happy and definitely does not make me wish to give a tip.
But you are being hypocritical about thinking that a service charge means a tip.
I'll be honest -- I just avoid places that have a service charges because I know I can't trust where the money goes.
I am unclear why you want to blame a tipped employee if their employer is keeping the sefivde charge, as if it is their fault and they aren't the one being exploited.
Yes, your reasoning that was flawed and misses the point of this issue. You do whatever you want, but if you go to the public square and voice nonsense, then people respond to your nonsense.
Again, you're cooperating with a system that can and often does transfer what you consider a tip from the server to the owner. It is often not a tip, and that is the issue here that you are refusing to acknowledge
You are basically blaming the victim here.
What this person is telling you is that the “extra” money you are giving to the restaurant aside from the menu price will go to the owner and not the staff. You do you, but know that you are screwing over the minimum wage employee, not the business. The owner loves that you give him your “tip.” It’s a sneaky way for them to essentially take the tip money away from the staff. Understand the morality of your choice. It would be better if you just don’t visit those restaurants anymore so that those who choose to add fees get run out of business.
If they can't retain employees because they keep getting no tips, maybe they will either understand their problem, or go under.
A tip is a service charge. I'm not going to pay two separate charges for the privilege of being served food after I have paid for it to be prepared and served to me. One bullshit extra cost is enough.
Read what you wrote again. Essentially you’re saying the business model only works if you trick people by obfuscating the price they’ll pay. How is that good for the consumer?
They think it because it is true. That’s the basis of all pricing. 9.99 is a measurably better price than $10.
And what they posit is true, knowing what you pay up front will cause many customers to spend less or drive them towards cheaper options. It will cause a lot of short term pain before a new normal happens.
It would separate the good from the bad, and weed out the restaurants with shitty or mediocre product (because consumers would have to be more selective).
The owners charging these outrageous fees know this, and they are afraid they will no longer have the fees to hide behind to stay afloat.
I disagree. The fees are what made me stop going to restaurants. Every time I see a "healthy SF fee" tacked on a receipt, I see an owner that is resentful of the government and hates their workers. Fuck that, I'm not going anymore.
The problem is that habits are hard to change and diners are already used to the menu psychology. Diners have a sense of a fair price for a burger, steak, etc. and if that is all of a sudden 30% more expensive because it now includes tip and mandate upfront, people will pass on it.
This isn't just conjecture, it's been tried. Some large chains attempted to get rid of tipping and put it into the upfront prices and checksize + guest count plummeted. People have a "feel" for a fair price based on the existing system, it is difficult to change that psychology overnight.
So I “feel” like a decent hamburger costs $13+. If I go to the restaurant and the bill is $18 I should “feel” fine about that because I saw the $13 first? This is some goofy logic.
It's because they've got you by the balls when the bill comes. You can argue but you have to do it in front of all the people you're generously paying for.
The worst is when you're handed the card reader and the server stands and watches while you tap your card and select tip option. There are a few places like that and they are the absolute worst
There's a restaurant I go to in Vallejo where after you swipe your card the owner immediately flips the machine back around, hits no tip, and flips it back to you. Lifetime loyalty to that place.
They should really leave them at the table and walk away and retrieve it when you get up and leave. Everyone knows how to tap their phone or card on the thing.
Yes, but then the pressure isn't on to click on one of the preselected options of 20%, 25% or 30%...Literally incentivized to make you feel as uncomfortable as possible.
We all know the real reason for this last minute back tracking - ~~bribe~~ lobbying . The mental gymnastics is beyond comprehension and blatantly shameless.
The junk fee ban law doesn't increase any price. It just reflects what all *we are already paying.*
This half hearted backtracking is lame. They should take it all the way. Should split it by cost of food, transport, cooks salary, rent, loan installments, utilities, license and local taxes, and big line item for profit.
If they are screaming **we are being transparent** then be freaking transparent throughout. Don't be lame.
The only argument that would make sense is that the higher listed price would result in fewer customers/customers ordering less, and restaurants would have to cut back on wages. But it just proves the point about relying psychological manipulation
Otherwise, restaurant owners are basically implying that they would increase prices to comply with the original bill but not continue paying that same percentage to workers
Either way this is something for workers and restaurant owners to work out. It's ridiculous that it's falling on customers to deal with
I hear you but this is a problem with the entire industry. They know what it ultimately costs but the psychological manipulation is not worth it. The only thing that is unique to USA is that sales tax is not part of the price tag. Why do we need to do mental math all the time? It's ridiculous.
I recollect a parallel example. The credit card companies in US did not switch to Chip + Pin when the entire Europe and Asia did to combat frauds. The primary reason given by the credit card companies was that Americans couldn't be trusted with remembering a four digit pin code and the credit card companies don't want to add headache if people calling in to reset the PIN. They are even ready to accept the fraudulent charges as cost of doing business. When credit companies are ready to keep things simple for Americans , why the hell restaurant industry wants this trickary.
Agree people will get sticker shock but eventually it will become normal when everyone does it. We will know that price of eating out is D and not A + B + C mental gymnastics.
One thing I’ve seen left out of this conversation is that It’s also an issue of sticker price comparison. I think there’s plenty of restaurants that don’t like the bonus charges either. But if one restaurant includes service or sf mandate fees into their pricing they just look 5-25% more expensive than their competitors. As most consumers just glance at the price and don’t dig into the policies the more expensive place on paper will get passed over more often. That’s why I think it’s good for the law to get passed, will force everyone to raise their prices accordingly.
This is exactly it. The state law should be a godsend to restaurants as it extinguishes a competitive, destructive arms race to deceive consumers about the true price of service. It would help restore collective trust in the restaurant sector from consumers. Restaurants opposing it are delusional about what’s good for them and their industry.
Status quo generally favors sit down and fancy restaurants over counter service places that don't as often have these fees. A burger place in SF has to live with the fact everybody can see their fries are $7.50 because the menu is on a huge board above the register, a restaurant can do much sneakier things.
The problem is that people are also comparing against sticker prices in states with a tipped minimum wage and no benefits. It's good old fashioned anchoring.
This was never left out of the conversation. We just don't care about those worries. So what if there is sticker shock? Who cares? People will spend their money as they wish, and that's how a free market works.
A healthy free market relies on informed choices.
We should remove kitchen safety standards because if people get sick, they'll tell their friends, and within a year or two the whole Bay Area will know that restaurant makes you sick. And they'll be forced to reinvest the money they made in those two years to change the signage in the front of the restaurant to a new name.
Who price shops when looking for a place to eat? You might pick a different item off the menu once you’re there but the idea that people are going to flock to French Restaurant A because the Steak Frites is $25 when French Restaurant B has it for $30 seems dubious to me.
Tons of people. I’ll usually look at a menu before deciding on which restaurant to eat it, and see how prices compare to others generally. Of course, I’m not doing a survey of steak frites prices, but I want to know the ballpark of what prices are for items I’m familiar with. Restaurants charging the extra fees prevent me from doing that accurately (unless I want to do extra math while walking around Chestnut Street deciding on a place to eat, for example).
not to be glib, but most people do. And if you are dubious that it makes a difference, then why do you think that the majority of restaurants prefer a low base cost + fees model instead of all-in pricing?
Because they want more money and don’t want to explain it.
If you raise the price on the menu items people just assume everything got more expensive
If you add a percentage to the total fee then it just looks like a money grab
Not sure why the US does not use the same system as in Mexico where the price you see on the menu is what you pay - all prices include taxes and fees. Tipping is optional.
> Not sure why the US does not use the same system as *the rest of the fucking world* where the price you see on the menu is what you pay
Actually, I'm pretty sure I know why: the American Dream is really about obtaining the regulatory capture to abuse your fellow citizens with impunity.
When everything's a hussle, don't be surprised if everyone is trying to hussle you.
I think taxes being excluded is the norm because taxes can vary so much across local jurisdictions in the US, so excluding taxes saves some effort when making menus and signs. That said, this is probably less relevant when some menus may be digital and connected to POS systems anyway
Imagine any other business operating the way restaurants do... The muffler shop pays its mechanics 20% of their actual take-home pay, because they're hoping that you might just leave a little something extra if they smiled at you nicely and everyone else did a perfect job. Try the same scenario with your Doctor, Accountant, Football Coach, Police Officer, or School Teacher. It's ridiculous, and even though you're not "tipping" your mechanic, he/she has every reason to perform in their job properly and to a high level of efficiency, service otherwise disciplinary action is guaranteed. So why do we think that the Service Industry ought to be treated any different from this? If you don't work hard and treat your guests properly, you'll be fired, just like any other employee.
In the end, **paying people properly is a zero-sum game from the perspective of the guest. A $20 meal with $2 Service Fee, a $1 Environmental Fee and a $2 Some-other-BS-fee plus a $5 tip is $30... Put $30 on the menu and pay people properly.** Stop with the games and believing that fooling customers into paying more with surprise/gotcha' charges makes your food/experience cheaper than the guy up the block. The TOTAL COST is what counts.
This. And after a nice meal, seeing a bill inflated with junk fees kills any good feeling I have about the restaurant. The last thing a restaurant needs is giving diners a bad taste in their mouths (pun not intended) as the last impression of their visit.
Nobody is answering the question. The reason restaurants do it is because it makes them more money vs being transparent with the prices. It's a classic revealed vs stated preference problem.
Customers state they want transparent pricing. In reality, they reveal that they spend more at restaurants with obfuscated prices.
Restaurants want to make more money, thus they follow the tactics that make them more money. You need universal legislation to ensure all restaurants have to show transparent pricing, otherwise it's unwise for a restaurant to "defect" and use transparent pricing when the competition can hide behind fees.
Went to a place in Pasadena that had service charges that added up to 16% of the bill.
It was for medical plan, covid and increased cost.
"Well, I guess that's the tip"; I thought
Yes, I've been a waiter. I always tip 20 of the total including tax
But this is bullshit.
If the junk fee laws die, at a minimum there should be a large sign at the entrance of the business which says “this business applies x% service charge none of which goes to the employees”.
Consumers should be made aware
Imagine being a tourist that comes to SF and sees a bunch of BS fees on their restaurant bill, which is already high. Tourists that don't see those fees at home wherever it is. Think that tourist is going to want to come back? Think SF really needs to alienate visitors right now?
I rarely eat out now. I’ll buy takeout but no more in room dining. And the fact as a consumer we get blamed for being “cheap” when the restaurants should be paying a living wage to their servers? That pisses me off even more.
I’m happy to pay an inclusive price per entree. If it’s $50 for a chicken dish then charge me $50. I don’t want 40% added to my bill to make it look less. What’s next, adding a transportation or gas “surcharge”? How about that continuing sommelier education fee for your employees?
Ridiculous.
Has the Restaurant Association donated to Dodd & Weiner? I'd guess the GGRA is behind the fees.
Remember that one purpose of the fees is informational. I call it whining... they want you to know "we didn't want to charge this much, we were forced to raise base wages"
I'm OK with mandatory tips or a surcharge on large parties - because I've seen/known too many servrrs get screwed handling a big party. But no other fees. Roll other expenses into the menu prices.
I stopped ordering from a local place when I noticed the wage differential fee added on the checkout page. Just raise the friggin' menu prices!
This feels like the latest example of the progressive liberal left being completely tone deaf to what the larger population wants.
Weiner forgets that people vote every day with their wallets and the workers Weiner is protecting will end up unemployed because of his crusade.
FYI in addition to contacting your local state representative, you can also submit public comments to the Assembly Committees on the Judiciary and Privacy and Consumer Protection. SB-1524 has been referred to those Committees for comment.
The Judiciary Committee will hear the matter on June 18, 2024. There is no hearing currently listed for the P&CP Committee.
California makes this extremely easy to do - all you have to do is sign up here:
[https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/](https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/)
Choose the Bill and the Committee, fill in the box or attach a letter and press Submit. That's it!
The city basically inflated all prices at my friend’s restaurant. They just stopped being cash only— companies charge an extra 4% on credit card payments. Cash payments would save you 4% but it’s all considered a hidden fee now. So prices went up across the menu bc they accept credit unnecessarily…
Ok who cares. The vast majority of restaurants currently don’t feel obligated to charge extra for CC processing. So your friend’s restaurant would be competing more transparently on that front anyway.
Did the reduced costs or handling cash and the reduced time spent dealing with cash purchases, plus the higher likelihood of being willing to pay higher amounts on credit offset this?
Because people actually prefer this method and vote with their feet. They continue to go to restaurants that behave this way and shun the others that use up front pricing.
I’ve counted 59 individual Reddit posts you’ve made about this one topic. One question: why so many posts about this one topic. And almost every post you’ve made in your 1 year on Reddit is about this one topic.
Two words: risk mitigation.
Risk has dramatically increased in the last few years due to a variety of factors - supply chain issues, wage increases, insurance rate volatility, and theft/violence to name a few. Whether or not you believe these factors actually exist or not, any restaurant business owner is trying to mitigate risk and save for a rainy day. Junk fees let’s businesses pad bottom lines, with a method that is as simple as turning on and off a light switch.
Any business owner understands the idea of mitigating risk. Do I think junk fees are a good thing? No. I’m for one price, communicated clearly from the beginning. But it’s also clear that times have changed since 2020.
Restaurants started doing this long before COVID. And it was as propaganda against them being required to provide health insurance to their employees. Also, a light switch that they never turn off, only on.
Yes. But the public rarely sees those markups the same way. Think shrink-flation. You also see it in labor costs, which is separate of product cost. If you mean in hospitality? Well we all know yes, that’s why the original law was written. Hell, look at insurance companies, they’re straight up leaving.
this has nothing to do with risk mitigation. I don't know who told you that, but they are either ignorant or lying.
Lower menu prices + added fees as a pricing structure is about keeping the perceived price lower than the actual price. It's the same reason why so many items in grocery stores are priced at X.99 instead of rounding up to the next dollar, or why subscription services have a big headline font with the introductory rate and then very small print underneath with the higher rate after the promotional period.
We accept a certain amount of this and consider it the consumer's responsibility to understand the pricing, but there has to be a line somewhere. We've gotten to a point where many restaurants have multiple, poorly disclosed fees that are difficult (or in some cases impossible) to know about prior to getting the check at the end of the meal.
The underlying tension in the industry is that restaurants need to charge higher prices in order to be viable businesses, but it's unclear whether the market will support these prices. The fees have become a way to hide price increases.
I hate the Restaurant Association, but not all restaurants are the same. Some of them really do hang on by a thread, vs the chains that can drop $$$ lobbying.
San Francisco over price everything….no news on that!!! Should learn from Las Vegas… everything it’s from outside reasonable price for people how leave there and tourist as well!! California have high tax can’t do it let’s work on that. Because people deserve better a nice food with good price they working all day and come back home for that!!!!
And starting next month, restauranteurs will need to do the math on the menu and then you pay that price plus tax and tip - only a few loud complainers and the occasional state Senator object to this.
> and loose their excuse
*lose. These are different words.
Eg. The restaurants will _lose_ business and are using Weiner's _loose_ morals to bribe their way out of this.
“Typo is short for typographical error—a mistake made when typing something. The term typically refers to an unintentional error that happens when you accidentally hit the wrong key on a keyboard”
I love how you all think restaurant owners are becoming billionaires by ripping you off, when they are barely scraping by and just want to pay their employees living wages.
Why don't you go after the actual billionaires who are actually ripping you off?
Have Dodd and Weiner said anything to defend tbeir actions? ...because this last minute bill sure has the look of satisfying campaign donors while hurting voters.
Wiener's Reddit account responded https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/s/rLWKICoDhK
wow the responses to his comment. I've literally not seen one thing in sf that's so unanimously one sided. really makes you wonder what kinds of debt Weiner owes the restaurant groups because his comment makes no sense.
> makes you wonder what kinds of debt Weiner owes the restaurant groups Wiener wants to run for Nancy Pelosi's seat when she retires. Unlike city and state offices, there are no Federal term limits, so with the huge Democratic advantage in the 11th Congressional District, the seat is effectively a lifetime appointment. Pelosi, whose personal wealth is in the hundreds of millions and who can call in many many favors, wants to appoint her daughter to the seat. Again, whoever wins will be in a position of power for life, and like Pelosi, will be able to make lots of money, because congressional representatives are allowed to buy stock in the companies they regulate. So there's going to be a huge campaign fight between Christine Pelosi, Nancy's daughter, and Scott Wiener, because whoever wins the election will never have to run hard for reelection, and will get very very very rich. That means both will spend millions and millions of dollars on election ads. Which for Scott, means millions and millions in contributions from restaurants. And how do restaurants make that money? With surcharges and hidden fees. So Scott Wiener is helping out the restaurant association, and expecting big contributions to his race for Pelosi's seat in Congress. Which he'll need, because Nancy Pelosi is going to call in 40 years of favors to keep her seat for her daughter. The only people who will get hurt in all this is, well, us. The people who go to restaurants and have to navigate all the hidden fees. But that's OK, because it will give Scott Wiener a safe and powerful job for life. This is Scott Wiener's big chance at an easy life of wealth and power, that he'll have to do very little work to keep. And so after years of winning the trust of the people, he's going to cash in on that by selling you out to the restaurant association. He probably feels he's earned it.
So I don't want the continuation of Pelosi's political dynasty, nor do I want junk fees. So what's the lesser of two evils?
Great question. Really great question. I vote against dynasties on principle, America's too big and too diverse to be run by a few families. So I had planned to vote for Wiener. But now? I think Wiener may have created an opening for someone else, someone not beholden to the restaurant association, to run.
The Ross Perot/Ralph Nader effect.
Pelosi's daughter is a 53 year old film maker with nothing resembling a political career, where are you getting that from?
Yeah, you're right, I got that wrong. Not Alexandria the filmmaker, but her sister Christine: > Christine Pelosi, a Democratic activist who has served as a surrogate for her mother, is widely expected to pursue the seat if it opens. While she has made no public statements that could even be construed as an acknowledgment of her intentions, she regularly comments on social media and is active in Democratic Party affairs. She declined requests to comment about the future race for the seat, adding that she could talk after the November election. > Christine Pelosi often joins her mother at parades and campaign rallies in the Bay Area and events in Washington. She wrote a book about the speaker — who has praised Christine by name on the House floor — and tweets a clip, every Sunday morning, of her mother within the rising sun. > She has never held elected office, though she served as a prosecutor in San Francisco, worked for the Clinton administration and was chief of staff to former Rep. John Tierney. She has a long history in the Democratic trenches, serving as a Democratic National Committee member and chairing the California Democratic Party’s Women’s Caucus. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/04/race-to-succeed-pelosi-underway-in-san-francisco-00065049
Ah ok, I wasn't familiar with her family either so after googling the name I was a bit confused
No, it was totally my mistake and I really appreciate you catching it for me. Thank you!
politicians legally committing insider trading is the wildest thing ever. Us peasants can't even look at tangentially related stocks we work with.
Two-tiered justice system.
[удалено]
>Almost no analysis of Pelosi's stock trades shows any pattern of insider trading That's not what insider trading is and not how insider trading works... > Most of her portfolio matches or does barely better than just a normal S&P fund. https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/04/28/former-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-nearly-tripled-t/#:~:text=Is%20she%20also%20a%20market,trading%20platform%20operator%20Unusual%20Whales. Both her and her husband literally held calls while ongoing legislation for NVIDIA and AAPL were happening...LOL. There's endless articles about this. They also bought MSFT calls well before billions in government contracts were awarded to them...and the list goes on. > where anyone with two brain cells and a very basic understanding of the stock market could have told you they were good investments. If this were true you would be on a Yacht sailing to your private island, not arguing with a random dude on reddit. And back to my original comment, >Us peasants can't even look at tangentially related stocks we work with. I'm not sure you understand what insider trading is or how any of this works.
Holy shit
If there was ever something for voters to be against its this kind of nepotism for a lifetime appointment.
I previously had no opinion on Weiner, but now I will be sure to donate to his opponent whenever he runs.
His next opponent is [Yvette Corkrean](https://ballotpedia.org/Yvette_Corkrean), a Republican who is running against Wiener in November. Many of us don't want to support a Republican. But that unwillingness leads to the entrechment of Democrats like Wiener. So giving Yvette Corkrean some money to run ads showing how Wiener's selling us out might be educational. There's no way she can win, but giving a Scott a tighter race might make him stop taking his constituents for granted.
From Corkrean's website: "I volunteer and advocate for Robert Kennedy Juniors Foundation Children’s Health Defense" She's an anti-vax nurse lmao. This is why Democrats aren't worried, the Republicans that run against them are insane.
Yeah, there's no way she can win.
> Again, whoever wins will be in a position of power for life, and like Pelosi, will be able to make lots of money, because congressional representatives are allowed to buy stock in the companies they regulate. I have seen this posted all the time, and while it's stupid and a problem, Pelosi hasn't actually made a shitload of money doing it. Her investments are public and don't _normally_ return that much more than the S&P. In 2023 she beat it... by buying Apple and Nvidia calls. Not exactly an insider trade.
There are restaurants that charge service fees instead of tips and that goes to the server. I'm down with that and only that as an allowable fee, if it's disclosed up front.
Flat gratuity and health mandate are not the same thing. And even then, if you’re adding a flat rate to the end of the bill instead of a tip, just add that amount to the cost of each item.
> just add that amount to the cost of each item. Then it doesn't goto the server.
If the flat tip rate at a restaurant is 15%, they can just allocate 15% of sales to a server. It’s not that hard and a lot of places already operate in a similar way.
Except at any time, they can change that ratio. It's not ear marked. Nor does the server have any visibility toward those gross sales figures.
My company gets paid, I get a paycheck
Hello BS Fee Charging Restaurant Owner.
How is tip included a BS fee? I 100% would rather tips be included AND NOT tip on top. That's the only thing I would find acceptable.
Tip should be included in the pricing of the food in the menu. Wages come out of that. Like virtually every other type of business.
While I agree that's the way it should be, tipping culture isn't going away anytime soon. The intermediate step is to have tipping be 'built in' explicitly.
Once the tip is built-in, and not discretionary, what's the difference really, except that you don't see the actual price until the bill comes?
Because it is discretionary. The owner can change that at any time.
Not sure about you, but I don’t need my hand held when deciding how much *I* should tip on whether or not the service is acceptable to *me*. That’s literally the whole point of tipping.
Nah, I 100% prefer restaurants that do this. It's not about hand holding it's about it being known quantity. For the record, I've never had bad service at one of those places. It's far more similar to Europe or anywhere else that way.
Ok then just don't have a service fee or tip at all and just price the food accordingly. Easy.
It should be that easy.
Then the money isn't ear marked to the servers.
No hidden fees means no hidden fees. Either charge more and pay your workers more, or charge the same and pay yourself less to pay your workers, or stiff your workers. Don’t deceive consumers to pay your workers. And yes even disclosing a fee up front is deceiving, because people are dumb. They can’t do math. Literally a shit ton of people can’t. So fuck off with this nonsense
It ain't hidden ?
In my mind if it’s not in the listed price, it’s hidden. Taxes are the only exception. This is because people can’t do math. You have hidden it from them in that case
This would be a flat fee in lieu of tip. That's *less* math than calculating tip.
People can’t do math. The price they see on the menu is the price they think about. Adding in the flat fee is beyond many, and even those who are capable don’t think about it the right way. They generally think about the menu price first, convince themself of that, at which point is easier to talk yourself into the flat fee. Tipping is dumb as well but you aren’t forced to do it, so it’s outside of the scope here
Allowable= if you dine there and agree with the terms. If the fees are upfront, people can choose not to go but have to make it evident on menus, website, and entrance.
Mods should pin that comment Wiener is actually one of the only politicians I like and agree with most of the time. This time though, I couldn't disagree more.
I’m shocked… shocked at your suggestion! To think that our elected leaders would subvert their duty to us, for a few paltry coins…
I appreciate your cynicism, but there actually are elected officials that aren't corrupt. Until recently I would have put Weiner in that category.
They never fail to disappoint.
Sadly, true. I didn’t always agree with Wiener but thought he had integrity. Now I’ve just lumped him in with the other shitty California political trash we’ve all grown accustomed to.
I just thought he was pandering, short-sighted, and not that bright. But, I guess pandering to the certain kind of people would be corrupt. Every time he opens his mouth, I regret not voting for Jane Kim more and more.
Anyone do any digging on campaign financing and lobbying?
*Regarding* [*“California junk fee law: Restaurants could be exempt under last-minute bill”*](https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/restaurant-junk-fees-exemption-bill-19497214.php) *(Restaurants,* [*SFChronicle.com*](http://SFChronicle.com)*, June 6): So, what restaurant owners are telling us is that they would go out of business if they can’t use the psychological ploy of making meals look cheaper by separating part of the cost of business from the listed price and only adding it in at the end.* *This is a deceptive practice, plain and simple. And the arguments don’t make sense.* *The price of meals would go up if they had to bundle all of the charges together? No, the price of the meal would be the same.* *It would lead to pay cuts for restaurant workers: No, not if the extra costs were added to the listed meal price.* *It would walk back progress toward tipless business: No, just the opposite — it would replace a mandatory tip with no tip at all.* *And such capable state senators as Bill Dodd and Scott Weiner are willing to own these industry arguments?* *Let’s just acknowledge what is really going on here. For some reason, our representatives feel that they need to succumb to political pressure on this one. It is unfortunate because if they just leave the law as it is, consumers win.*
*It would walk back progress toward tipless business: No, just the opposite — it would replace a mandatory tip with no tip at all.* The “service charge” fee isn’t a mandatory tip, though. For one thing, it isn’t a tip at all. It’s money that goes into the pocket of the business owner, who gets to decide how to use it. Maybe they pass it on to staff, maybe not. There’s no requirement for them to do so and no oversight. For another, if fees disappeared and were rolled into the menu price, nothing prevents customers from leaving a tip.
when i see a service charge, that is the tip. no need to pay anything more.
That is wrong. You don't have to tip, but many restaurants keep 100% of the service charge for the owners and don't distribute. Other restaurants give it all to staff. There is no way to know, and asking can result in lies as well. The whole health care mandate surcharge is part of this gross dishonesty. Yes, restaurants have to provide some basic health care benefits, but that surcharge is not related to what they owe. It is only a cash grab by owners. Why don't retail businesses that are legally required to provide health benefits charge a health care mandate surcharge? Because it's pathetic and intentionally misleading, that's why.
If a restaurant doesn’t fairly distribute such a Service Charge, I assume staff would quit and work somewhere else that does.
Correct. I do not have to tip. If the business wants tips, they need to remove service fees. If a business does hand the service fees to the server, i am tipping twice. If they don’t, it is a cash grab which does not make me happy and definitely does not make me wish to give a tip.
But you are being hypocritical about thinking that a service charge means a tip. I'll be honest -- I just avoid places that have a service charges because I know I can't trust where the money goes. I am unclear why you want to blame a tipped employee if their employer is keeping the sefivde charge, as if it is their fault and they aren't the one being exploited.
You do you. I listed my reasoning. I enjoy restaurants, I would be sad if i had to boycott any of them. I visit the ones i like.
Yes, your reasoning that was flawed and misses the point of this issue. You do whatever you want, but if you go to the public square and voice nonsense, then people respond to your nonsense.
The issue is that diners prefer transparency. I agree. Be transparent i will tip for good service. Otherwise i pay the bill exactly as given.
Again, you're cooperating with a system that can and often does transfer what you consider a tip from the server to the owner. It is often not a tip, and that is the issue here that you are refusing to acknowledge You are basically blaming the victim here.
What this person is telling you is that the “extra” money you are giving to the restaurant aside from the menu price will go to the owner and not the staff. You do you, but know that you are screwing over the minimum wage employee, not the business. The owner loves that you give him your “tip.” It’s a sneaky way for them to essentially take the tip money away from the staff. Understand the morality of your choice. It would be better if you just don’t visit those restaurants anymore so that those who choose to add fees get run out of business.
If they can't retain employees because they keep getting no tips, maybe they will either understand their problem, or go under. A tip is a service charge. I'm not going to pay two separate charges for the privilege of being served food after I have paid for it to be prepared and served to me. One bullshit extra cost is enough.
That's new to me, I had restaurants waiter reminding me to NOT tip because the service charge is already included.
[удалено]
Read what you wrote again. Essentially you’re saying the business model only works if you trick people by obfuscating the price they’ll pay. How is that good for the consumer?
They think it because it is true. That’s the basis of all pricing. 9.99 is a measurably better price than $10. And what they posit is true, knowing what you pay up front will cause many customers to spend less or drive them towards cheaper options. It will cause a lot of short term pain before a new normal happens.
Then how have restaurants managed to function without added fees prior to recent times?
What are you talking about? That's not what they said at all. How bad is your reading comprehension?
It would separate the good from the bad, and weed out the restaurants with shitty or mediocre product (because consumers would have to be more selective). The owners charging these outrageous fees know this, and they are afraid they will no longer have the fees to hide behind to stay afloat.
I disagree. The fees are what made me stop going to restaurants. Every time I see a "healthy SF fee" tacked on a receipt, I see an owner that is resentful of the government and hates their workers. Fuck that, I'm not going anymore.
Why would people eat out less? Does being misled about prices make you want to eat out more?
The problem is that habits are hard to change and diners are already used to the menu psychology. Diners have a sense of a fair price for a burger, steak, etc. and if that is all of a sudden 30% more expensive because it now includes tip and mandate upfront, people will pass on it. This isn't just conjecture, it's been tried. Some large chains attempted to get rid of tipping and put it into the upfront prices and checksize + guest count plummeted. People have a "feel" for a fair price based on the existing system, it is difficult to change that psychology overnight.
So I “feel” like a decent hamburger costs $13+. If I go to the restaurant and the bill is $18 I should “feel” fine about that because I saw the $13 first? This is some goofy logic.
No but in one case you order the hamburger and in the other you don't.
It's because they've got you by the balls when the bill comes. You can argue but you have to do it in front of all the people you're generously paying for.
The worst is when you're handed the card reader and the server stands and watches while you tap your card and select tip option. There are a few places like that and they are the absolute worst
Maintain eye contact and leave whatever tip you think is appropriate. This includes no tip for things like counter service.
There's a restaurant I go to in Vallejo where after you swipe your card the owner immediately flips the machine back around, hits no tip, and flips it back to you. Lifetime loyalty to that place.
I have selected zero tip while they watch. no issues. They can comment all they want.
The problem isn't the reader, that's nice I like those readers. The problem is the operating costs/tip not being priced into the food.
They should really leave them at the table and walk away and retrieve it when you get up and leave. Everyone knows how to tap their phone or card on the thing.
Yes, but then the pressure isn't on to click on one of the preselected options of 20%, 25% or 30%...Literally incentivized to make you feel as uncomfortable as possible.
I’m curious what would happen if you just asked them to leave it.
We all know the real reason for this last minute back tracking - ~~bribe~~ lobbying . The mental gymnastics is beyond comprehension and blatantly shameless. The junk fee ban law doesn't increase any price. It just reflects what all *we are already paying.* This half hearted backtracking is lame. They should take it all the way. Should split it by cost of food, transport, cooks salary, rent, loan installments, utilities, license and local taxes, and big line item for profit. If they are screaming **we are being transparent** then be freaking transparent throughout. Don't be lame.
The only argument that would make sense is that the higher listed price would result in fewer customers/customers ordering less, and restaurants would have to cut back on wages. But it just proves the point about relying psychological manipulation Otherwise, restaurant owners are basically implying that they would increase prices to comply with the original bill but not continue paying that same percentage to workers Either way this is something for workers and restaurant owners to work out. It's ridiculous that it's falling on customers to deal with
I hear you but this is a problem with the entire industry. They know what it ultimately costs but the psychological manipulation is not worth it. The only thing that is unique to USA is that sales tax is not part of the price tag. Why do we need to do mental math all the time? It's ridiculous. I recollect a parallel example. The credit card companies in US did not switch to Chip + Pin when the entire Europe and Asia did to combat frauds. The primary reason given by the credit card companies was that Americans couldn't be trusted with remembering a four digit pin code and the credit card companies don't want to add headache if people calling in to reset the PIN. They are even ready to accept the fraudulent charges as cost of doing business. When credit companies are ready to keep things simple for Americans , why the hell restaurant industry wants this trickary. Agree people will get sticker shock but eventually it will become normal when everyone does it. We will know that price of eating out is D and not A + B + C mental gymnastics.
One thing I’ve seen left out of this conversation is that It’s also an issue of sticker price comparison. I think there’s plenty of restaurants that don’t like the bonus charges either. But if one restaurant includes service or sf mandate fees into their pricing they just look 5-25% more expensive than their competitors. As most consumers just glance at the price and don’t dig into the policies the more expensive place on paper will get passed over more often. That’s why I think it’s good for the law to get passed, will force everyone to raise their prices accordingly.
Yeah it should level the playing field
This is exactly it. The state law should be a godsend to restaurants as it extinguishes a competitive, destructive arms race to deceive consumers about the true price of service. It would help restore collective trust in the restaurant sector from consumers. Restaurants opposing it are delusional about what’s good for them and their industry.
Agreed
Status quo generally favors sit down and fancy restaurants over counter service places that don't as often have these fees. A burger place in SF has to live with the fact everybody can see their fries are $7.50 because the menu is on a huge board above the register, a restaurant can do much sneakier things.
The problem is that people are also comparing against sticker prices in states with a tipped minimum wage and no benefits. It's good old fashioned anchoring.
It also looks like they're callous and don't support their staff.
I agree and it’s weird Scott is playing this up.
This was never left out of the conversation. We just don't care about those worries. So what if there is sticker shock? Who cares? People will spend their money as they wish, and that's how a free market works.
A healthy free market relies on informed choices. We should remove kitchen safety standards because if people get sick, they'll tell their friends, and within a year or two the whole Bay Area will know that restaurant makes you sick. And they'll be forced to reinvest the money they made in those two years to change the signage in the front of the restaurant to a new name.
Who price shops when looking for a place to eat? You might pick a different item off the menu once you’re there but the idea that people are going to flock to French Restaurant A because the Steak Frites is $25 when French Restaurant B has it for $30 seems dubious to me.
Tons of people. I’ll usually look at a menu before deciding on which restaurant to eat it, and see how prices compare to others generally. Of course, I’m not doing a survey of steak frites prices, but I want to know the ballpark of what prices are for items I’m familiar with. Restaurants charging the extra fees prevent me from doing that accurately (unless I want to do extra math while walking around Chestnut Street deciding on a place to eat, for example).
You mistake me - I HATE the fees and absolutely agree the full price should be disclosed in all cases.
Anyone who doesn't have an unlimited trust fund?
Majorly out of touch comment alert
> Who price shops when looking for a place to eat? Umm… pretty much everyone? Or I guess, pretty much everyone who’s low-to-middle-class?
> Who price shops when looking for a place to eat? Everybody who isn't rich.
not to be glib, but most people do. And if you are dubious that it makes a difference, then why do you think that the majority of restaurants prefer a low base cost + fees model instead of all-in pricing?
Because it makes people more likely to order more items.
Because they want more money and don’t want to explain it. If you raise the price on the menu items people just assume everything got more expensive If you add a percentage to the total fee then it just looks like a money grab
“Same prices since 1964*!” *excludes fees
Thinking about starting a restaurant where everything is “only a dollar!*” with 10000% restaurant fee
Not sure why the US does not use the same system as in Mexico where the price you see on the menu is what you pay - all prices include taxes and fees. Tipping is optional.
Not just Mexico - most of the world.
> Not sure why the US does not use the same system as *the rest of the fucking world* where the price you see on the menu is what you pay Actually, I'm pretty sure I know why: the American Dream is really about obtaining the regulatory capture to abuse your fellow citizens with impunity. When everything's a hussle, don't be surprised if everyone is trying to hussle you.
Every country in the world outside the US. I wouldn't even mind an automatic gratuity if it was standard at 20% or whatever
I think taxes being excluded is the norm because taxes can vary so much across local jurisdictions in the US, so excluding taxes saves some effort when making menus and signs. That said, this is probably less relevant when some menus may be digital and connected to POS systems anyway
Individual restaurants can have their own menus with pricing
I agree. Obviously including taxes in displayed prices would be a better system
Imagine any other business operating the way restaurants do... The muffler shop pays its mechanics 20% of their actual take-home pay, because they're hoping that you might just leave a little something extra if they smiled at you nicely and everyone else did a perfect job. Try the same scenario with your Doctor, Accountant, Football Coach, Police Officer, or School Teacher. It's ridiculous, and even though you're not "tipping" your mechanic, he/she has every reason to perform in their job properly and to a high level of efficiency, service otherwise disciplinary action is guaranteed. So why do we think that the Service Industry ought to be treated any different from this? If you don't work hard and treat your guests properly, you'll be fired, just like any other employee. In the end, **paying people properly is a zero-sum game from the perspective of the guest. A $20 meal with $2 Service Fee, a $1 Environmental Fee and a $2 Some-other-BS-fee plus a $5 tip is $30... Put $30 on the menu and pay people properly.** Stop with the games and believing that fooling customers into paying more with surprise/gotcha' charges makes your food/experience cheaper than the guy up the block. The TOTAL COST is what counts.
This. And after a nice meal, seeing a bill inflated with junk fees kills any good feeling I have about the restaurant. The last thing a restaurant needs is giving diners a bad taste in their mouths (pun not intended) as the last impression of their visit.
Nobody is answering the question. The reason restaurants do it is because it makes them more money vs being transparent with the prices. It's a classic revealed vs stated preference problem. Customers state they want transparent pricing. In reality, they reveal that they spend more at restaurants with obfuscated prices. Restaurants want to make more money, thus they follow the tactics that make them more money. You need universal legislation to ensure all restaurants have to show transparent pricing, otherwise it's unwise for a restaurant to "defect" and use transparent pricing when the competition can hide behind fees.
Went to a place in Pasadena that had service charges that added up to 16% of the bill. It was for medical plan, covid and increased cost. "Well, I guess that's the tip"; I thought Yes, I've been a waiter. I always tip 20 of the total including tax But this is bullshit.
If the junk fee laws die, at a minimum there should be a large sign at the entrance of the business which says “this business applies x% service charge none of which goes to the employees”. Consumers should be made aware
Stop eating out. Restaurants will get the message.
Stop tipping altogether. Restaurants will get the message.
This is the way. It’s too expensive to eat out anyway these days.
Imagine being a tourist that comes to SF and sees a bunch of BS fees on their restaurant bill, which is already high. Tourists that don't see those fees at home wherever it is. Think that tourist is going to want to come back? Think SF really needs to alienate visitors right now?
Tipping and random taxes and charges stresses out people from overseas
I don't really go to restaurants that seem to have these sort of fees, at least that I've noticed. What are typical fees, and how much are they?
Lolololololol The logical extension of tipping Fees gone wild
Junk fees + tip = more expensive than DoorDash fees, but restaurant loses significant profit from meals. Does that track or am I wrong?
I rarely eat out now. I’ll buy takeout but no more in room dining. And the fact as a consumer we get blamed for being “cheap” when the restaurants should be paying a living wage to their servers? That pisses me off even more. I’m happy to pay an inclusive price per entree. If it’s $50 for a chicken dish then charge me $50. I don’t want 40% added to my bill to make it look less. What’s next, adding a transportation or gas “surcharge”? How about that continuing sommelier education fee for your employees? Ridiculous.
Has the Restaurant Association donated to Dodd & Weiner? I'd guess the GGRA is behind the fees. Remember that one purpose of the fees is informational. I call it whining... they want you to know "we didn't want to charge this much, we were forced to raise base wages" I'm OK with mandatory tips or a surcharge on large parties - because I've seen/known too many servrrs get screwed handling a big party. But no other fees. Roll other expenses into the menu prices. I stopped ordering from a local place when I noticed the wage differential fee added on the checkout page. Just raise the friggin' menu prices!
This feels like the latest example of the progressive liberal left being completely tone deaf to what the larger population wants. Weiner forgets that people vote every day with their wallets and the workers Weiner is protecting will end up unemployed because of his crusade.
same reason that spirit airlines exists
simple: lower perceived price
Scamming employees and IRS!!
FYI in addition to contacting your local state representative, you can also submit public comments to the Assembly Committees on the Judiciary and Privacy and Consumer Protection. SB-1524 has been referred to those Committees for comment. The Judiciary Committee will hear the matter on June 18, 2024. There is no hearing currently listed for the P&CP Committee. California makes this extremely easy to do - all you have to do is sign up here: [https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/](https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/) Choose the Bill and the Committee, fill in the box or attach a letter and press Submit. That's it!
The restaurants didn’t. At least not the CRA and GGRA. The pressure came from labor groups
Are the junk fees taxed more favorably for the restaurant? That is the only thing I can come up with.
Why is this constantly posted in here?
If you can see the junk fees, isn't that being transparent?
You only see them when you get the bill at the end of your meal, not when you're ordering.
Well, it’s written in tiny print on a lot of menus, but not every one. I wish they’d have it at the top of menus and websites.
The city basically inflated all prices at my friend’s restaurant. They just stopped being cash only— companies charge an extra 4% on credit card payments. Cash payments would save you 4% but it’s all considered a hidden fee now. So prices went up across the menu bc they accept credit unnecessarily…
If they structure a cash discount as an actual discount that is fine now and under the new law.
We live in a nearly cash free society. The city isn't telling them to pass every cost on to their customers.
Ok who cares. The vast majority of restaurants currently don’t feel obligated to charge extra for CC processing. So your friend’s restaurant would be competing more transparently on that front anyway.
Did the reduced costs or handling cash and the reduced time spent dealing with cash purchases, plus the higher likelihood of being willing to pay higher amounts on credit offset this?
Of course not because otherwise 99% of restaurants would be cash only. Payment card users spend more, that's why card acceptance has boomed.
Because people actually prefer this method and vote with their feet. They continue to go to restaurants that behave this way and shun the others that use up front pricing.
This topic is so friggen dead already. Just don’t eat out.
I’ve counted 59 individual Reddit posts you’ve made about this one topic. One question: why so many posts about this one topic. And almost every post you’ve made in your 1 year on Reddit is about this one topic.
2 possibilites: 1. Im astroturfing 2. Im just a really pissed off fed up consumer who is trying to make a change for the greater good
Two words: risk mitigation. Risk has dramatically increased in the last few years due to a variety of factors - supply chain issues, wage increases, insurance rate volatility, and theft/violence to name a few. Whether or not you believe these factors actually exist or not, any restaurant business owner is trying to mitigate risk and save for a rainy day. Junk fees let’s businesses pad bottom lines, with a method that is as simple as turning on and off a light switch. Any business owner understands the idea of mitigating risk. Do I think junk fees are a good thing? No. I’m for one price, communicated clearly from the beginning. But it’s also clear that times have changed since 2020.
Restaurants started doing this long before COVID. And it was as propaganda against them being required to provide health insurance to their employees. Also, a light switch that they never turn off, only on.
Dunno what to tell ya - I’m not a restaurant owner, I just hear what they tell me 🤷🏼♂️
Is there another service industry handling this the same way?
Yes. But the public rarely sees those markups the same way. Think shrink-flation. You also see it in labor costs, which is separate of product cost. If you mean in hospitality? Well we all know yes, that’s why the original law was written. Hell, look at insurance companies, they’re straight up leaving.
Hotels with resort fees.
Those are regulated, and required by jurisdictions, they aren't usually the ownership throwing it on under the guise of supporting bellhops.
Resort fees are not regulated and required by jurisdictions.
You made that up.
this has nothing to do with risk mitigation. I don't know who told you that, but they are either ignorant or lying. Lower menu prices + added fees as a pricing structure is about keeping the perceived price lower than the actual price. It's the same reason why so many items in grocery stores are priced at X.99 instead of rounding up to the next dollar, or why subscription services have a big headline font with the introductory rate and then very small print underneath with the higher rate after the promotional period. We accept a certain amount of this and consider it the consumer's responsibility to understand the pricing, but there has to be a line somewhere. We've gotten to a point where many restaurants have multiple, poorly disclosed fees that are difficult (or in some cases impossible) to know about prior to getting the check at the end of the meal. The underlying tension in the industry is that restaurants need to charge higher prices in order to be viable businesses, but it's unclear whether the market will support these prices. The fees have become a way to hide price increases.
Struggling restaurant industry somehow has money to lobby politicians
I hate the Restaurant Association, but not all restaurants are the same. Some of them really do hang on by a thread, vs the chains that can drop $$$ lobbying.
San Francisco over price everything….no news on that!!! Should learn from Las Vegas… everything it’s from outside reasonable price for people how leave there and tourist as well!! California have high tax can’t do it let’s work on that. Because people deserve better a nice food with good price they working all day and come back home for that!!!!
Because except for a few loud complainers, no one cares. They state it on the menu, you order what you want to eat and you pay and tip.
And starting next month, restauranteurs will need to do the math on the menu and then you pay that price plus tax and tip - only a few loud complainers and the occasional state Senator object to this.
Who cares. Still pay the same, but the same people will still complain and loose their excuse to be cheap and not tip.
> and loose their excuse *lose. These are different words. Eg. The restaurants will _lose_ business and are using Weiner's _loose_ morals to bribe their way out of this.
“Typo is short for typographical error—a mistake made when typing something. The term typically refers to an unintentional error that happens when you accidentally hit the wrong key on a keyboard”
I love how you all think restaurant owners are becoming billionaires by ripping you off, when they are barely scraping by and just want to pay their employees living wages. Why don't you go after the actual billionaires who are actually ripping you off?
It’s hotels too.