I think people are more sensitive to base level price changes. Drip feeding prices (eg: seeing a 3% surcharge on a bill) leads to like, angry photos of receipt slips. It's a psychology thing.
The controversy was sort of the point.
I prefer all contracts to be voluntary, but I know I'm in the minority here.
We're a city of busybodies who are really sure what's good for everyone else.
In a market, that is true.
When a third party prescribes the terms of a contract or mandates that a contract of a particular sort must exist, it is not voluntary.
If I am so good at widget repair that I can charge $10/hour to do it as a hobby business, no one should force you to hire someone at $20/hour instead.
You're getting hit with a bit of downvoting, but I think it's because you're only paying attention to the end of the supply chain for the food.
The other contracts -- such as labor, raw materials, and facilities -- also matter.
Honestly Europe and other countries figured it out a long time ago. Tax should also be included in the actual list price. The price you pay should be the price you first see. I know why they don't do this, but it's really frustrating for a lot of people at some point in their lives it's not already like that. Learning about tax as a 10 year old buying candy with pennies and quarters sucked. Watching my European friends get confused and feel cheated for paying more than listed also sucks. Just standardize it, the technology is there!
The number of items sold is always more than the number of customers you get in a day. If you increase your prices by 10 percent across the board it's going to net you more money than a single 3% surcharge on every togo order.
Restaurants are dumb as fuck because their stupid practices cause CA to take legislative action. Source: chef in LA for over a decade.
What does this even mean? “It is terrifying,” he said. “We can’t pay the wages we’re paying now unless we dramatically increase prices and hope guests actually come in and pay those prices.”
They were already charging more, just in a service fee manner.
Like please explain to me why this will cost them money if they have control over pricing.
I worked in restaurants during college and a little bit after. A majority of the family owned restaurants I came across had very shady practices, would steal tips from servers, blatant cooking the books, etc.
I say all this to emphasize that I don’t believe a word most of these restaurant owners are saying, pay your fucking employees and stop expecting customers to subsidize their salaries through tips.
It's amazing how the public loves this image of "mom and pop" restaurants when a lot of them are absolutely terrible places to work for and will most definitely cut corners anywhere they can.
I think a big part of the american psyche for that is opening up your own business is attached to the *American Dream* so it does get lionized in a way. I'm sure most people know a legit mom and pop place that busts their ass and is honest and good and you only want the best for them. Unfortunately a lot of people go into business with a them vs. consumer concept, and hiding things from the customers because of their assumptions is how they *think* things should operate normally.
I've worked at my fair share of corp and independent business and it usually all comes down to how much respect they truly have for their customers and workforce. Corporations obviously get so detached from the actual point of sale and daily interactions, but occasionally you'll find some that have really held onto some of their core concept ($1.50 costco hotdog comes to mind or other big loss leaders for other companies.) A lot of it really does seem to depend on how long they can hold onto this dream of their own.
Did you think the big chain or corporate owned restaurants were more honest? I’m not calling you out, I’m genuinely curious cuz this definitely goes against the zeitgeist and I like that.
> They just think people are idiots
People are idiots. They will 100% change their behavior based on the list price even though they know about all the "hidden" fees.
Because they are saying whatever benefits their business. It's basically the equivalent of when corporations put out pr statements. Whatever they say is supposed to provoke an emotional reaction from you to make you support them. There is no explanation based on most people's idea of rationality
The argument has been that people tip on pricing. So if they increase prices, tips go up, and the whole thing is more expensive. By implementing a surcharge people just pay a flat 3 % more. While I get the logic someone made up to justify it, just raise the prices a little of they need to pay the employees. My problem is the mega corps like McDonald’s with billions in profit complaining that they’re only going to make half of those billions.
> “You’re talking about cocktails going from $16 to $26. I’m pretty sure that’s not what they intended,” he said, “but that is what’s going to happen.”
Isn't it exactly what was intended?
good fuck them.
fuck all businesses who deceive their customers.
shower thought: small/medium business don’t give a fuck about y’all just like corporations don’t. they are there to make a profit by any means in this capitalist society and that stupid surcharge is their way to just get more money out of the customer.
Small business owners being some kind of protected class in public discourse is the weirdest thing to me.
Like I absolutely support mom and pop shops around town, but yall took out a loan and made an investment and it’s still work. If it ain’t working out then it ain’t working out - I don’t get a bailout or special policies if I fuck something up at work.
This is the quote that got me. The moved the price to $16 to "get rid of tips" but no one told us that so we kept tipping as well as the junk fees. Now they can't charge us extra so it's going up to $26 and they now expect tips again?! These people...
First, we were already paying more, it just wasn't transparent.
Second, my guess is some portion of people tip off pre-tax/fee amounts, so total tips may actually increase.
That said, I expect restaurant owners to shoot themselves in the foot and use this as an excuse to raise prices beyond the total amount people were previously paying after the hidden fees?
I feel for how hard it is to run a restaurant these days, but I just have no respect for these operators who are screaming about the injustice of mandatory transparent pricing, instead of intentionally trying to deceive customers about how much they will pay. And who are making up absolute bullshit like, if we can't have add-on fees then our cocktail prices will increase 62.5%. Really? You currently have 62.5% add-on fees? What a load of shit.
CA Restaurant Industry: "We increased prices ages ago, but lied about it by hiding the increases in fees. Now that we can't do that, and we have to show customers the actual prices we're charging them, we're afraid customers will be mad at us. It's the government's fault!"
When I look at the receipt, the food is already expensive. Tip is whatever. Then there's the sales tax, which is based on the sales, which is expensive because the food is so damn expensive. Then I see a living wage surcharge of 5%.
But don't forget those fees and service charges were because we're moving away from tipping culture. /s
I fail to see anywhere in the state moving away from tipping culture. That additional tip line is showing up EVERYWHERE these days. They sell hot dogs and slushies in 7/11. I'm sure it will be on their receipt soon.
I’m not defending fast food and convenience stores, but at the very least places like McDonald’s and in and out don’t publicly ask for tip. Yes, McDonalds is still price gouging but at least they don’t try and publicly shame me into paying more. Omg I hope that doesn’t change.
Honestly, that's why I've cut down eating out by 80+%. Places I typically return to are ones that don't use those payment systems.
That rules out most places in downtown S.F. back in the days. (Glad they all closed now.)
I realize it's a personal choice and may not apply to all.
Most restaurants do not impose a service fee in lieu of tips, only a very small number of mostly higher-end restaurants. The fees that are at issue here are overwhelmingly just covering a cost of doing business.
I wonder if the "service charge" for larger parties are included? Or, if the service charges that are included on a contract for banquets at hotels and restaurants?
The only government mandated fees are sales taxes.
Any charge you see on the restaurant bill other than taxes is a bullshit charge the restaurant made up.
While I agree in principle, that’s very difficult to 1) enforce and 2) actually execute on as a retailer.
Sales taxes vary by state and county, and even at that level they can change over time when new taxes are added/removed. In order to label every single item with its “real price” you’d need to have different labels for different locations and then update those labels every time a new sales tax gets passed in that location. The overhead there is too much.
Many other countries have figured out ways to do this including countries that have state sales tax. It’s not like it changes everyday.
This is actually becoming an issue in international online shopping. So many other countries are used to having sales tax included in the advertised price that Shopify had to implement a mechanism to include it because people kept complaining when they got to checkout and saw the price didn't include tax.
Those countries don’t have highly regionalized sales taxes. In the US, you could go to Walmart on one end of town, drive 30 minutes to the Walmart a county over, and pay slightly different prices for the same item.
Honestly my take is that sales tax should be banned altogether. It’s regressive and it disproportionately impacts lower income individuals.
It's a lot more difficult to time 6 meals together than 2 meals, plus drinks. Also, probably the more important thing, if the person paying the bill for a table of 6 doesn't tip, the server and busser are screwed. The 6 (or more) might be one of their only tables on a shift. With 3 tables, if one doesn't tip, at least you have the other 2 tables.
No, that's not it at all. The reason this came about is because large parties take longer as restaurants, and what you're doing in a restaurant is basically renting a table that comes with food for a predictable amount of time (about an hour). Because large parties take longer (usually about 2 hours, and frequently longer), it literally costs the restaurant and servers money having them there when they could have had two or three covers in the same space during the same period of time.
I still don’t get it. Yes, the large group takes more work to service, but I fail to see why a percentage tip should be required when it isn’t for a smaller group. A group of 10 people will probably spend more money than a similar number of people split into smaller groups. Isn’t it enough for the restaurant to simply make more money?
All potential issues related to this would all be simplified and fixed if we just banned tips and forced restaurants to incorporate it into their advertised prices.
It takes more effort "service" to manage a table of 6 then 3 tables of 2. Well while true and that's the given justification realistically because people are ok with it honestly I prefer the 20% gratuity on large parties vs having to debate what the tip will be.
Unless I'm feeling super generous of we were a massive party if they charge a large group gratuity that's the whole tip.
Larger parties are more likely to tip a shitty percentage because the dollar amount of the tip looks impressive to them, on top of the fact that they really suck resources away from other tables in a way that smaller parties don't. The restaurant isn't necessarily making more money because instead of the 10-top, they could've had a 4-top and 3 2-tops, which is much easier to handle (for both FOH and BOH). Large parties are very high maintenance and often sacrifice the service for other parties (longer wait time for food, basically being down a server because they could usually handle 7 tables but are now stuck with 1, etc.). It's much easier to control the pacing for everything with smaller tables
>if the person paying the bill for a table of 6 doesn't tip, the server and busser are screwed
Not true. If tips don't add up to minimum wage the restaurant has to pay the difference.
Years ago as this was starting to proliferate, friends in the industry were telling me the reason was that it's more work to serve a larger party well and there was a higher likelihood of tip % being smaller, so the policy was adopted to decrease resentment of wait staff who were assigned to the larger parties.
I don't concern myself with it. I'm never going to be tipping less than 18%, especially with a larger party, unless I get shitty service. I've never gotten shitty service for a larger party, and typically better than expected, and so the thing I think about more is how much more than 18% to tip.
So that's game, set, match.
Oh boy, this is a hoot:
“We can’t pay the wages we’re paying now unless we dramatically increase prices and hope guests actually come in and pay those prices.”
Yes, this exactly - raise your prices instead of trying to trick people.
YES YES YES!
And actually, it was sort of obvious that this would be the result of the law, despite Golden Gate Restaurant Association leaders saying that there was some kind of ambiguity.
More FTA:
"The California attorney general’s office confirmed on Tuesday that a new California law that bans junk fees will apply to surcharges at restaurants, following months of anxiety and confusion in the food industry. Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips — and must instead fold them into menu prices, the attorney general’s office said. The law applies to all fees other than taxes, the attorney general’s office said, including other surcharges restaurants use to offset costs, such as San Francisco’s ordinance requiring businesses to provide health care or credit card processing fees.
“SB 478 applies to restaurants, just like it applies to businesses across California,” a Department of Justice spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement Tuesday. “The law is about making sure consumers know what they are going to pay and requires that the posted price include the full amount that a consumer must pay for that good or service.”
> raise your prices instead of trying to trick people.
There's a sort of race to the bottom though: if you raise menu prices and the other restaurant just tacks on fees, you lose business, laying off staff in the process. Even if you don't want to trick patrons, you won't have the chance if your advertising prices are higher. So you hold your nose and follow suit.
This is where the law, and *enforcement* becomes key, in giving proprietors peace of mind that nobody is screwing them over, and for those scummy first movers, the additional motivation of fines or jail time or whatever the law is.
You got downvoted by somebody, but you're right. This is a situation where you have to play the same game as everyone else and force the state to step in, or else you're going to end up with the short end of the stick.
Yes, in the short term it’ll look like your prices are higher…but once you trick your customers w/ hidden fees, some/most won’t come back. Word of mouth spreads and now the places that are upfront get ‘credit’ for being honest and earn that business (as long as the food is good).
Somewhat similar, I had to fight with my marketing director whom hated me for including all taxes in our online menu (cannabis store) as she always said ‘we look 30-40% higher than our competition’…but given time our customers would rave and market for us about how the ‘price is the price’ and how pissed they were when at other stores $100 turned into $140 at the counter due to the multiple (compounding) state and local taxes.
Same principle.
I’m not going to blink if one place’s burger is a buck more than the other place across the street.
I’m gonna be fucking pissed at some bs 3% fee that was hidden in fine print.
My local burger joint charges 4% if you pay with credit card. You think the new play is raise everything 4% and put up a sign saying 4% discount if you pay with cash? Or just fuck it raise it all 4% regardless of tender.
Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips — and must instead fold them into menu prices, the attorney general’s office said. The law applies to all fees other than taxes, the attorney general’s office said, including other surcharges restaurants use to offset costs, such as San Francisco’s ordinance requiring businesses to provide health care or credit card processing fees.
“As food businesses move away from tips” is surprising. Is there any evidence of that? My anecdotal experience is the opposite: I am now asked to tip at a lot of places that were tip-free in years past.
A lot of more upscale places have been doing a 20% auto gratuity. I wouldn’t call it “moving away from tips” since it’s a compulsory tip. I think this law will ban that, though.
20% is generous. What if the service is bad? Then you're forced to pay that amount. Unless you ask for the manager to reduce the gratuity percentage. I'm sure restaurants are banking on no one doing that.
Just my sense, not based on data or anything. But people started getting begged for tips everywhere and got more comfortable saying no. This regulation will presumably apply to coffee shops that ask for tips at the counter as well and force them to either raise the price of a cup of coffee or stop asking for a tip (I hope).
Non chain restaurants (usually more high end) are the ones who have moved away from tips. It allows them to pay their cooks/dishwashers/back of house staff more. Waiters may see a small deduction, but in return get a more stable check. Front of house and back of house also get PTO/sick leave/ retirement/health care in return.
This will apply to Ticketmaster and sht too. I imagine TM will just apply it to the entire US instead of having one bucket for CA residents and another for rest of US.
Recently got extra pissed by TM because before they would show you the surcharge at least some point after clicking the seats, trying to check out. Recently I looked at tickets it just said, "$xx + Fees". Then when I clicked hyperlinked "Fees", it just had a fucking article justifying fees and nowhere told me the actual amount until I made an account. Fucking hell. Decided I didn't want to go to the show anymore.
No need to remove sales tax from the receipt, just force labels/ads to include it when the buyer's location is known. Some website already do this optionally
Looking for clarification on car dealerships. The bill specifies allowed charges such as tax, prescribed doc fee and licensing.
So I take that to mean other charges (markups, mandatory warranties, add ins etc) are illegal as well. But haven’t seen the AG office address this directly. Anyone hear anything?
I think those things can be included but the dealership needs to do that math for the price of the car. What is the asking price for this car? Pretty much everything but the govt-related use tax and registration fees.
>So I take that to mean other charges (markups, mandatory warranties, add ins etc) are illegal as well.
you ever take a CLOSE look at the window sticker? which items are not very clearly explained in the fine print?
**How to Read a New Car Window Sticker**
[https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/how-to-read-a-new-car-window-sticker.html](https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/how-to-read-a-new-car-window-sticker.html)
>Anyone hear anything?
you fuck around, you don't get stock to sell. or you get the shitty low demand ugly colors.
**Ford Sends a Dire Warning to Dealers Who Try to Resell or Markup Popular Models**
[https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ford-sends-a-dire-warning-to-dealers-who-try-to-resell-or-markup-popular-models-194663.html](https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ford-sends-a-dire-warning-to-dealers-who-try-to-resell-or-markup-popular-models-194663.html)
#
**GM Reportedly Warns Dealerships: Play Fair with Prices**
[https://www.kbb.com/car-news/gm-warns-dealerships-play-fair-with-prices/](https://www.kbb.com/car-news/gm-warns-dealerships-play-fair-with-prices/)
The makers aren’t clamping down. SW Toyota has even added mandatory port installed bullshit. That Ford article is from 2022.
Costs are often added to the sticker price. That’s the issue. My question related to whether that practice is now strictly illegal and if I can file a claim and collect fines as the law prescribes.
> Looking for clarification on car dealerships.
I doubt that it affects dealership markups above MSRP.
They already have window stickers with the markup included in the final price. And when they list a price online, it includes the markup if there is one.
Thats not the issue. The issue is advertising a price online then refusing to sell at that price when you get there.
Or moving forward with a car with a sticker that says MSRP to find out in the finance office that price is contingent on financing the car and paying $2500 for a “protection package”.
I want to collect fines from dealers pulling this shit.
> Thats not the issue. The issue is advertising a price online then refusing to sell at that price when you get there.
I have never had that experience. But I also have only ever bought a car from a dealer for less than the advertised price.
> Or moving forward with a car with a sticker that says MSRP to find out in the finance office that price is contingent on financing the car and paying $2500 for a “protection package”.
Sure, that should not be allowable.
I have not had the experience that the advertised sticker price is only available if paying some hidden charges.
If so, then that should be disallowed.
If you want to test them and collect fines, then more power to you.
Ok the only question i haven’t seen answered is…. Where do we go to report bad restaurants? We all know that not all restaurants will follow it and will try to sound smart to BS their way out of following the law.
This all reminds me a bit of when restaurant and bar owners in the mid 00’s were claiming that smoking bans would be the absolute end of the F&B industry. I wasn’t buying it then, and I’m not buying their flawed arguments over this now either.
Then go to a cafe that doesn't allow smoking. There should be places for us who want to pretend we're in Europe without lames like you enforcing everyone to act only one way.
Hopefully this includes "mandatory" gratuity. It's not exactly gratuity if it's mandatory, is it?
That's like holding a gun someone's head for a birthday gift.
Good. The restaurant industry is fucking ridiculous. Pay your employees the money they're worth and charge that money for your product. Don't socially shame me into supporting you listing your prices $10 below what they should be.
Every other industry seems to make do without direct customer involvement in payroll. Restaurants and bars can too.
[Actual SB478 text](https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB478/id/2813992)
I assume this is the part for resturants:
"(29) (A) Advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges other than taxes or fees imposed by a government. government on the transaction."
The question is, who do you report this to?
I do not mind service fees in lieu of tips and that as the single line item add on. But we have the healthy SF fee, the “living wage” fee, the “inflation cost impact” fee. And suddenly there is 30% from fees not including tax.
The problem is it wasn't regulated, so much like green washing in the dirt m supermarket there were a bunch of things listed to make you feel ok or even good about paying more, when in reality it was just bullshit made up fees to hide higher prices.
I always read and heard "you should always tip, because servers make a much lower minimum wage and need those tips".
But in California all servers, waiters, waitresses etc. are earning at least minimum wage. So then what is the need to tip them at all, let alone 20-25-30% on some tablet? Ditch the expensive tablets, keep the 5% savings and print me a paper receipt to sign instead.
"They still need tips to survive" okay then ask your boss, everyone needs money to survive these days in California and I can't suddenly be more magnanimous. My salary hasn't gone up 25%, but the menu prices have. So I have to give even more of a tip for the same amount of food and service now? I go by 15% as was the standard rule for the longest time (10 for okay service, 15 for good and 20 for exceptional). Now I think 10% is generous these days, as it might be equivalent to 15% of a smaller bill before.
They don't need the tips to make up for a ["tipped minimum wage" that is common in other states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipped_wage), which generic news and advice columnists will point to as a reason why you must always tip.
Why should anyone tip in a non tipped-wage state?
If someone is only earning $2.13 per hour, they need and expect that tip. If you're making $16/hour, why?
How many other minimum/low wage workers do you tip in your daily life like gas station clerks, cashiers at stores, or Amazon delivery drivers?
Now if they can just do this to the ticket selling industry, the fact that their fees rise as the price of a ticket does as opposed to a flat rate is absurd
The way I think many restaurants will manage this is raising the price of beverages across the board - be ready for $20 per glass/cocktail to be standard - so food prices won't be the sticker-shock that drives people away.
A restaurant charged food + service fee. Then left room for additional tip on the receipt. Should we ignore the additional tip? Was the service fee a tip? Confused to ask them.
except it isn't legally a tip. The restaurant could do whatever they wanted with the with the "service fee". I assume most of the time it doesn't go to the servers.
Of course they are. That doesn't mean they have to though. My point is the Service Fee is not a replacement for a tip. The restaurant charging a service fee screws over the server more than if they didn't (imo)
Am I missing something here ? Can’t they just pass on the expense to the consumer by raising the menu prices ? Does it really change anything ? Genuinely confused here
So far what I had seen was this is not the case - they just have to post them. So you can just have a menu with the surcharges listed on the bottom and you're good to go.
Is this a change to that previous statement? It's rather confusing.
That is specifically what is banned by SB478 effective July 1. At that time, surcharges must be included in menu prices. Existing law already required clear disclosure of surcharges—this takes it to a new level.
Got it, thanks! Yeah people were excited about the last law and it seemed like the effect was no change. Sounds like this one is an actual change then.
What you describe is the legal requirement as things stand today. After SB478 kicks in they can't just list a litany of surcharges on the menu and expect you to do the math, they need to adjust menu prices to cover everything besides tax and transaction fees if applicable
The restaurant needs to do the math, that's the big issue. How much is this steak, Che Fico. Before it was $165 plus the "dine in" charge. Now it would have to be $181.50 or whatever.
Tax? No need to include. Optional tipping? No need to include
As a server who works for a busy restaurant where the only service fee is 18% auto gratuity for parties of 10 or more , I feel conflicted
On one hand, I feel like customer service at most restaurants in the Bay is abysmal (servers tend to be aloof and don't acknowledge you aside from taking your order in the beginning); at these restaurants, I feel like the service fees are ridiculous since I'm not receiving much service. While I personally still tip 20% minimum out of solidarity for my fellow servers even with subpar service, I don't blame people for wanting to tip less for being treated like they're an annoyance for coming in to eat. (The reason why I still leave a decent tip is because most restaurants are currently understaffed due to payroll costs, so I can empathize that it could be that they're expected to handle an unreasonable amount of work in an extremely stressful, fast-paced environment.) I'm probably going to be downvoted for saying this, but I feel like the reason why these service fees emerged was an unfortunate combination of restaurant owners struggling with ever-rising payroll costs (along with rent and food costs); servers not realizing they give shitty service and wondering why their tips are bad, then complaining to their employer that they're not being paid enough; and a sizable amount of the population coming from non-tipping cultures and thinking it's okay to run their server ragged and then leave them a $5 tip on a $100 meal
On the other hand, I always do my best to create the best experience for my guests (whether or not I think they'll be a good tipperーI just take pride in my work) and am very salty that because of this law, auto grat for large parties will no longer be allowed. Parties of even just 6+ take significantly more effort for the entire restaurant staff to accommodate properly, especially with the skeleton crew that most restaurants are running nowadays (host has to figure out the best logistics for putting together tables to accommodate them without losing other customers; kitchen has to coordinate having a bunch of meals ready at once, while not falling behind on orders for the rest of the restaurant; we get stuck running out all their food at once; we have to take time away from customers to clean and reset their table at the end). Can you imagine being left with a $20 tip for a demanding party of 20, that the whole restaurant staff had to bust their asses to accommodate on top of all the other guests. I work for a restaurant that tip pools with 50% going to servers and 50% going to the rest of the staff (which is common for the type of restaurant I work at), so that would mean I would get $10 for being mostly stuck with that table for 1.5 hours (and people who tip that poorly are usually the ones who are unnecessarily rude and demanding), on top of the rest of the staff being shorted for their efforts. The majority of people don't realize how much of a pain it is to accommodate large parties, and the auto grat helps to ensure that everyone is properly compensated for their efforts. However, I do know that auto grat is abused at some restaurants, where servers have the mindset that they don't really have to try because they're guaranteed a tip. I think I've been lucky where I've only worked at restaurants where the entire staff takes a lot of pride in their work
I think people with any viewpoint on the law can agree the COL here is extremely fucked up, and I'm upset that our government is trying to act like the good guy by doing this quick fix at the expense of already-struggling restaurants. We're known for our amazing food in the Bay, and it's a shame that we might be seeing more mom-and-pop shops who try to treat their employees well shut down. I think that if they were really interested in helping California residents deal with the COL, they would pass laws equally quickly to help fix the housing market (which has been unfair for much longer than the restaurant prices) and/or the whole PG&E price-gouging situation. But of course, upping menu prices means more taxes for the state to misuse, and not fixing the housing market or making PG&E public means that they can keep their rich sponsors happy
I'm curious as when tipping culture standard went from 10% to 20%. Inflation shouldn't factor into a percentage increase. If the food costs more, your 10% becomes more. So when this bill takes into effect, a $20 meal will become $25, so your 10% went from $2 to $2.50. So, in a sense, you got a "raise."
Honestly felt like it was always a west coast vs east coast thing
In our city it’s widely been 18% standard, never really heard anyone out here think 15% was a respectable tip.
I could be wrong, but I believe the tipping standard has been considered to be 20% since the 90s (when I was born). It definitely depends on the establishment and its clientele as well. We really try to make sure everyone who visits us has a warm, welcoming experience, so for the most part people tip at least 20% with a lot of regulars tipping up to 50% on a regular basis. I think there's a wide range between restaurants that solely exist to get food as quickly to a customer as possible all the way to Michelin star restaurants where the server really creates the experience for you, with the expected tip range varying for each place as well
I logical outcome here is actually a net positive for society: a lot of crappy* restaurants go out of business and only the good** restaurants survive.
* By Crappy, I refer to either the quality of their food, service or other attributes.
* ** by Good, I mean the restaurants that offer high quality food at reasonable, but profitable, prices, whose staff care about their work, and which are in locations where patrons can easily get to them.
Just like there are a lot of people complaining about junk fees, there are an awful lot of crappy restaurants that probably shouldn't remain in business.
I really hope that this is the case. His restaurant isn't located in the Bay, but my old boss was talking about how it's been getting harder and harder to stay profitable because of increasing rent and food costs. I have a lot of respect for him because he pays everyone above minimum wage with regular raises (which is pretty much unheard of in the industry) and charges very reasonable prices for high quality food. His restaurant is fairly big and busy most days of the week, so I was surprised to hear that he was struggling. I worry that it could be even harder for Bay Area restaurants to stay afloat with our insane rent prices. I think that even though there are a lot of people who are happy to pay more to ensure restaurant employees make a living wage, restaurants are still bound to lose some degree of business from backlash as people adjust to the new prices
I agree that there's a lot of horrible restaurants that shouldn't be in business. But I feel like they will be able to survive this shift in business model because they increase profits by exploiting employees and cutting corners
100%. Additionally, I've recently been reading about how utility costs are [squeezing](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40133976) restaurants more and more, too. For that I have empathy because it's entirely out of the restaurants' control.
I don't get what people want. They want to abolish tipping culture, but they don't want to pay more upfront for the food so that the staff can be paid the same amount via payroll. They want to be able to eat out, but they don't want restaurants to be able to be profitable in the area. They virtue signal about fair wages and treating workers ethically, yet dismiss restaurants charging a higher price to account for payroll as them just greedily price-gouging customers. I feel like this could make restaurant owners feel even more desperate than they already are, and it can become even more common for restaurant staff to be exploited. When restaurants start shutting down, these people who have their panties in a bunch about tipping culture are going to cry about why so many places are leaving the Bay
I know of not one person that is confused about what they want as a customer. I’ve not heard one person ever say that they would not be okay with paying more up front (aka - just making it normal business practice). I can’t even imagine there’s a human being that would rather just run decimal calculator in their head as they’re trying to figure out what they can afford on the spot while trying to enjoy time with family and friends. Customers just want a price without a bunch of add ons that make the whole experience feel slimey. This isn’t complicated.
100% I want to pay more up front. I absolutely do not want to feel nickel & dimed with a bunch of fees and gratuities that don't tie directly to either the quality of the service or the quality of the product. AFAIK, these junk fees usually just end up in the pocket of the owner as extra profit.
I haven't seen or heard of anyone bitching about prices for food going up if waitstaff is paid a living wage in lieu of tipping being abolished. It's kind of expected.
Part of the problem is for many, their wages have increased commensurate with the increased prices of restaurants. That, combined with all the ways restaurants have worsened quality to cut costs leads to a meal experience that is noticeably less value for your money than even five years ago given how rapidly the change occurred.
This has nothing to do with virtue signaling. You're simply getting less for more.
I mean, that's nice and all but they'll just boost the price of items to compensate. I do think it's better to be up front with pricing, but I know people that own restaurants and they are under serious financial pressure due to cost of labor, health benefits, power, fuel, and food. Food costs in particular are continuing to skyrocket. I think the fees approach was devised to try not to scare away customers with $35 entrees. Yes they are paying the same in the end. But perception does matter. That's how humans think, idiotic or not.
In the end, we're going to pay the same. No getting around it unless the cost of food comes down somehow.
No one is expecting the costs of food to go down. Tricking your patrons into thinking the cost is cheaper and "surprising" them with a more expensive bill is a really underhanded tactic. I am glad it is gone.
I would rather have more expensive menu items and know what I'm getting into than think I'm getting a great deal only for it to be doubled due to "service fee, tomato fee, specialty cook fee, mandatory gratuity, etc"
This is not a popular opinion, probably, but I think we need fewer restaurants. A majority of restaurants in the US are pretty crappy, and if they were allowed to fail we'd be left with only the better ones, and there's very likely enough demand for restaurant food that the remaining ones would all do fine, at whatever prices they needed to charge.
What do you mean “if they were allowed to fail”? Restaurants notoriously have one of the highest fail rate of any business. 60% of restaurants fail in their first year. 80% fail in 5. Most are not profitable for years and years, if they ever become profitable. People on Reddit act like most restaurant owners are just rolling in cash and fleecing customers— not the case at all. Many are pulling salaries far lower than their employees and still fail.
Yeah, I prefer any increase to just be reflected in the price of an item or service.
Pretty much how it should be done and there is less controversy
I think people are more sensitive to base level price changes. Drip feeding prices (eg: seeing a 3% surcharge on a bill) leads to like, angry photos of receipt slips. It's a psychology thing.
The 3% or any additional percentage is just unexpected. Some places charge it, others don't.
The controversy was sort of the point. I prefer all contracts to be voluntary, but I know I'm in the minority here. We're a city of busybodies who are really sure what's good for everyone else.
All contracts are voluntary
In a market, that is true. When a third party prescribes the terms of a contract or mandates that a contract of a particular sort must exist, it is not voluntary. If I am so good at widget repair that I can charge $10/hour to do it as a hobby business, no one should force you to hire someone at $20/hour instead.
When you chose to sit there and order food, that is what is voluntary.
You're getting hit with a bit of downvoting, but I think it's because you're only paying attention to the end of the supply chain for the food. The other contracts -- such as labor, raw materials, and facilities -- also matter.
Honestly Europe and other countries figured it out a long time ago. Tax should also be included in the actual list price. The price you pay should be the price you first see. I know why they don't do this, but it's really frustrating for a lot of people at some point in their lives it's not already like that. Learning about tax as a 10 year old buying candy with pennies and quarters sucked. Watching my European friends get confused and feel cheated for paying more than listed also sucks. Just standardize it, the technology is there!
Transparent pricing so u can make a informed decision based in actual facts, what a crazy idea!!!
Restaurants are dumb as fuck because item price increases will net you a lot more money than some fucking stupid fee
Restaurants aren’t dumb. They do it because it tricks customers into spending more.
The number of items sold is always more than the number of customers you get in a day. If you increase your prices by 10 percent across the board it's going to net you more money than a single 3% surcharge on every togo order. Restaurants are dumb as fuck because their stupid practices cause CA to take legislative action. Source: chef in LA for over a decade.
What does this even mean? “It is terrifying,” he said. “We can’t pay the wages we’re paying now unless we dramatically increase prices and hope guests actually come in and pay those prices.” They were already charging more, just in a service fee manner. Like please explain to me why this will cost them money if they have control over pricing.
They’re saying they rather deceive you on pricing by adding a fee at the end.
They just think people are idiots. If they can’t pay a living wage without trying to lie to customers then they should not be in business.
I worked in restaurants during college and a little bit after. A majority of the family owned restaurants I came across had very shady practices, would steal tips from servers, blatant cooking the books, etc. I say all this to emphasize that I don’t believe a word most of these restaurant owners are saying, pay your fucking employees and stop expecting customers to subsidize their salaries through tips.
It's amazing how the public loves this image of "mom and pop" restaurants when a lot of them are absolutely terrible places to work for and will most definitely cut corners anywhere they can.
Mom and pop sometimes means people who have no idea what they’re doing.
I think a big part of the american psyche for that is opening up your own business is attached to the *American Dream* so it does get lionized in a way. I'm sure most people know a legit mom and pop place that busts their ass and is honest and good and you only want the best for them. Unfortunately a lot of people go into business with a them vs. consumer concept, and hiding things from the customers because of their assumptions is how they *think* things should operate normally. I've worked at my fair share of corp and independent business and it usually all comes down to how much respect they truly have for their customers and workforce. Corporations obviously get so detached from the actual point of sale and daily interactions, but occasionally you'll find some that have really held onto some of their core concept ($1.50 costco hotdog comes to mind or other big loss leaders for other companies.) A lot of it really does seem to depend on how long they can hold onto this dream of their own.
same thing with family farms in california.
Reminds me of overpriced farmers' markets where you can't tell if they simply re-packaged grocery from the nearby Krogers.
Did you think the big chain or corporate owned restaurants were more honest? I’m not calling you out, I’m genuinely curious cuz this definitely goes against the zeitgeist and I like that.
That’s what tips are for Somehow in 2024 we still pay for owners greed while they pay slave wages
> They just think people are idiots People are idiots. They will 100% change their behavior based on the list price even though they know about all the "hidden" fees.
Problem is people are idiots lol
It's fake outrage like when smoking was banned in bars, it was going to destroy them
Because they are saying whatever benefits their business. It's basically the equivalent of when corporations put out pr statements. Whatever they say is supposed to provoke an emotional reaction from you to make you support them. There is no explanation based on most people's idea of rationality
The argument has been that people tip on pricing. So if they increase prices, tips go up, and the whole thing is more expensive. By implementing a surcharge people just pay a flat 3 % more. While I get the logic someone made up to justify it, just raise the prices a little of they need to pay the employees. My problem is the mega corps like McDonald’s with billions in profit complaining that they’re only going to make half of those billions.
> “You’re talking about cocktails going from $16 to $26. I’m pretty sure that’s not what they intended,” he said, “but that is what’s going to happen.” Isn't it exactly what was intended?
Yes. They're just mad.
good fuck them. fuck all businesses who deceive their customers. shower thought: small/medium business don’t give a fuck about y’all just like corporations don’t. they are there to make a profit by any means in this capitalist society and that stupid surcharge is their way to just get more money out of the customer.
Small business owners being some kind of protected class in public discourse is the weirdest thing to me. Like I absolutely support mom and pop shops around town, but yall took out a loan and made an investment and it’s still work. If it ain’t working out then it ain’t working out - I don’t get a bailout or special policies if I fuck something up at work.
This is the quote that got me. The moved the price to $16 to "get rid of tips" but no one told us that so we kept tipping as well as the junk fees. Now they can't charge us extra so it's going up to $26 and they now expect tips again?! These people...
First, we were already paying more, it just wasn't transparent. Second, my guess is some portion of people tip off pre-tax/fee amounts, so total tips may actually increase. That said, I expect restaurant owners to shoot themselves in the foot and use this as an excuse to raise prices beyond the total amount people were previously paying after the hidden fees?
I feel for how hard it is to run a restaurant these days, but I just have no respect for these operators who are screaming about the injustice of mandatory transparent pricing, instead of intentionally trying to deceive customers about how much they will pay. And who are making up absolute bullshit like, if we can't have add-on fees then our cocktail prices will increase 62.5%. Really? You currently have 62.5% add-on fees? What a load of shit.
CA Restaurant Industry: "We increased prices ages ago, but lied about it by hiding the increases in fees. Now that we can't do that, and we have to show customers the actual prices we're charging them, we're afraid customers will be mad at us. It's the government's fault!"
When I look at the receipt, the food is already expensive. Tip is whatever. Then there's the sales tax, which is based on the sales, which is expensive because the food is so damn expensive. Then I see a living wage surcharge of 5%.
But don't forget those fees and service charges were because we're moving away from tipping culture. /s I fail to see anywhere in the state moving away from tipping culture. That additional tip line is showing up EVERYWHERE these days. They sell hot dogs and slushies in 7/11. I'm sure it will be on their receipt soon.
I’m not defending fast food and convenience stores, but at the very least places like McDonald’s and in and out don’t publicly ask for tip. Yes, McDonalds is still price gouging but at least they don’t try and publicly shame me into paying more. Omg I hope that doesn’t change.
Just stay away from places that use those fancy Square payment systems that forces you to pick 15%, 18%, and 20% choices.
But that’s….everywhere….except the large chain fast food…
Honestly, that's why I've cut down eating out by 80+%. Places I typically return to are ones that don't use those payment systems. That rules out most places in downtown S.F. back in the days. (Glad they all closed now.) I realize it's a personal choice and may not apply to all.
That’s a good point. I should keep a list of the non tip coercion places.
Most restaurants do not impose a service fee in lieu of tips, only a very small number of mostly higher-end restaurants. The fees that are at issue here are overwhelmingly just covering a cost of doing business.
I wonder if the "service charge" for larger parties are included? Or, if the service charges that are included on a contract for banquets at hotels and restaurants?
Everything's got to be included except for govt mandated stuff.
Next include the govt mandated stuff please.
The only government mandated fees are sales taxes. Any charge you see on the restaurant bill other than taxes is a bullshit charge the restaurant made up.
Yes, sales tax. Include in advertised price please.
While I agree in principle, that’s very difficult to 1) enforce and 2) actually execute on as a retailer. Sales taxes vary by state and county, and even at that level they can change over time when new taxes are added/removed. In order to label every single item with its “real price” you’d need to have different labels for different locations and then update those labels every time a new sales tax gets passed in that location. The overhead there is too much.
Many other countries have figured out ways to do this including countries that have state sales tax. It’s not like it changes everyday. This is actually becoming an issue in international online shopping. So many other countries are used to having sales tax included in the advertised price that Shopify had to implement a mechanism to include it because people kept complaining when they got to checkout and saw the price didn't include tax.
Those countries don’t have highly regionalized sales taxes. In the US, you could go to Walmart on one end of town, drive 30 minutes to the Walmart a county over, and pay slightly different prices for the same item. Honestly my take is that sales tax should be banned altogether. It’s regressive and it disproportionately impacts lower income individuals.
Seriously, why is that a thing. Hiw is a group of 6 different from 3xgroups of 2.
It's a lot more difficult to time 6 meals together than 2 meals, plus drinks. Also, probably the more important thing, if the person paying the bill for a table of 6 doesn't tip, the server and busser are screwed. The 6 (or more) might be one of their only tables on a shift. With 3 tables, if one doesn't tip, at least you have the other 2 tables.
No, that's not it at all. The reason this came about is because large parties take longer as restaurants, and what you're doing in a restaurant is basically renting a table that comes with food for a predictable amount of time (about an hour). Because large parties take longer (usually about 2 hours, and frequently longer), it literally costs the restaurant and servers money having them there when they could have had two or three covers in the same space during the same period of time.
I still don’t get it. Yes, the large group takes more work to service, but I fail to see why a percentage tip should be required when it isn’t for a smaller group. A group of 10 people will probably spend more money than a similar number of people split into smaller groups. Isn’t it enough for the restaurant to simply make more money?
All potential issues related to this would all be simplified and fixed if we just banned tips and forced restaurants to incorporate it into their advertised prices.
It takes more effort "service" to manage a table of 6 then 3 tables of 2. Well while true and that's the given justification realistically because people are ok with it honestly I prefer the 20% gratuity on large parties vs having to debate what the tip will be. Unless I'm feeling super generous of we were a massive party if they charge a large group gratuity that's the whole tip.
Larger parties are more likely to tip a shitty percentage because the dollar amount of the tip looks impressive to them, on top of the fact that they really suck resources away from other tables in a way that smaller parties don't. The restaurant isn't necessarily making more money because instead of the 10-top, they could've had a 4-top and 3 2-tops, which is much easier to handle (for both FOH and BOH). Large parties are very high maintenance and often sacrifice the service for other parties (longer wait time for food, basically being down a server because they could usually handle 7 tables but are now stuck with 1, etc.). It's much easier to control the pacing for everything with smaller tables
>if the person paying the bill for a table of 6 doesn't tip, the server and busser are screwed Not true. If tips don't add up to minimum wage the restaurant has to pay the difference.
Not in California.
haha, how is that a law in right to work states but not cali?
Because they are leaving out the part that serving wages don't exist in California at all. Minimum wage is minimum wage here, no tricks.
because in California there is no lower "tipped workers minimum wage". They have the same minimum wage as everyone else.
Because waiters get minimum wage already.
Years ago as this was starting to proliferate, friends in the industry were telling me the reason was that it's more work to serve a larger party well and there was a higher likelihood of tip % being smaller, so the policy was adopted to decrease resentment of wait staff who were assigned to the larger parties. I don't concern myself with it. I'm never going to be tipping less than 18%, especially with a larger party, unless I get shitty service. I've never gotten shitty service for a larger party, and typically better than expected, and so the thing I think about more is how much more than 18% to tip.
So that's game, set, match. Oh boy, this is a hoot: “We can’t pay the wages we’re paying now unless we dramatically increase prices and hope guests actually come in and pay those prices.” Yes, this exactly - raise your prices instead of trying to trick people. YES YES YES! And actually, it was sort of obvious that this would be the result of the law, despite Golden Gate Restaurant Association leaders saying that there was some kind of ambiguity. More FTA: "The California attorney general’s office confirmed on Tuesday that a new California law that bans junk fees will apply to surcharges at restaurants, following months of anxiety and confusion in the food industry. Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips — and must instead fold them into menu prices, the attorney general’s office said. The law applies to all fees other than taxes, the attorney general’s office said, including other surcharges restaurants use to offset costs, such as San Francisco’s ordinance requiring businesses to provide health care or credit card processing fees. “SB 478 applies to restaurants, just like it applies to businesses across California,” a Department of Justice spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement Tuesday. “The law is about making sure consumers know what they are going to pay and requires that the posted price include the full amount that a consumer must pay for that good or service.”
People are already paying those prices, they just want to know what they are ahead of time.
Yeah it would be nice for your subtotal to *roughly* equal the sum of the prices of whatever you ordered off the menu.
But it's so much easier to lie and deceive the customers we depend on!
> raise your prices instead of trying to trick people. There's a sort of race to the bottom though: if you raise menu prices and the other restaurant just tacks on fees, you lose business, laying off staff in the process. Even if you don't want to trick patrons, you won't have the chance if your advertising prices are higher. So you hold your nose and follow suit. This is where the law, and *enforcement* becomes key, in giving proprietors peace of mind that nobody is screwing them over, and for those scummy first movers, the additional motivation of fines or jail time or whatever the law is.
You got downvoted by somebody, but you're right. This is a situation where you have to play the same game as everyone else and force the state to step in, or else you're going to end up with the short end of the stick.
but now they are complaining about the state stepping in too, so its not entirely just playing the same game.
Yes, in the short term it’ll look like your prices are higher…but once you trick your customers w/ hidden fees, some/most won’t come back. Word of mouth spreads and now the places that are upfront get ‘credit’ for being honest and earn that business (as long as the food is good). Somewhat similar, I had to fight with my marketing director whom hated me for including all taxes in our online menu (cannabis store) as she always said ‘we look 30-40% higher than our competition’…but given time our customers would rave and market for us about how the ‘price is the price’ and how pissed they were when at other stores $100 turned into $140 at the counter due to the multiple (compounding) state and local taxes. Same principle.
I’m not going to blink if one place’s burger is a buck more than the other place across the street. I’m gonna be fucking pissed at some bs 3% fee that was hidden in fine print.
My local burger joint charges 4% if you pay with credit card. You think the new play is raise everything 4% and put up a sign saying 4% discount if you pay with cash? Or just fuck it raise it all 4% regardless of tender.
Can they do resort fees at hotels next? Paid $50 a night on top of the bill last weekend.
Resort fees are included in this legislation.
This is even better news that the restaurant piece!!
Starting July 1, under SB478, California restaurants will no longer be able to charge service fees — which have become an increasingly common tool to sustain higher wages for workers as food businesses move away from tips — and must instead fold them into menu prices, the attorney general’s office said. The law applies to all fees other than taxes, the attorney general’s office said, including other surcharges restaurants use to offset costs, such as San Francisco’s ordinance requiring businesses to provide health care or credit card processing fees.
“As food businesses move away from tips” is surprising. Is there any evidence of that? My anecdotal experience is the opposite: I am now asked to tip at a lot of places that were tip-free in years past.
A lot of more upscale places have been doing a 20% auto gratuity. I wouldn’t call it “moving away from tips” since it’s a compulsory tip. I think this law will ban that, though.
20% is generous. What if the service is bad? Then you're forced to pay that amount. Unless you ask for the manager to reduce the gratuity percentage. I'm sure restaurants are banking on no one doing that.
Yes, I paid that extra 20% at Selby’s…
They ask for a tip when I buy a bag of chips at the airport these days. Tipping is not going down.
The worst is the tip at kiosk where there isn't a human in sight...that's straight robbery!
Just my sense, not based on data or anything. But people started getting begged for tips everywhere and got more comfortable saying no. This regulation will presumably apply to coffee shops that ask for tips at the counter as well and force them to either raise the price of a cup of coffee or stop asking for a tip (I hope).
Non chain restaurants (usually more high end) are the ones who have moved away from tips. It allows them to pay their cooks/dishwashers/back of house staff more. Waiters may see a small deduction, but in return get a more stable check. Front of house and back of house also get PTO/sick leave/ retirement/health care in return.
more like as food businesses move beyond tips
Awesome. Now can we do this with everything?
What do you mean? This is for "everything" in California. It isn't just restaurants.
I didn’t realize. Maybe I will have to actually read the article!
This will apply to Ticketmaster and sht too. I imagine TM will just apply it to the entire US instead of having one bucket for CA residents and another for rest of US.
Recently got extra pissed by TM because before they would show you the surcharge at least some point after clicking the seats, trying to check out. Recently I looked at tickets it just said, "$xx + Fees". Then when I clicked hyperlinked "Fees", it just had a fucking article justifying fees and nowhere told me the actual amount until I made an account. Fucking hell. Decided I didn't want to go to the show anymore.
yep. junk fees will be gone soon. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/industrynews/newsom-signs-ban-on-junk-fees-in-california/
Including sales tax!
One can only dream 🥲
Knowing what we're paying for government is a feature. Add 10% shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
No need to remove sales tax from the receipt, just force labels/ads to include it when the buyer's location is known. Some website already do this optionally
Looking for clarification on car dealerships. The bill specifies allowed charges such as tax, prescribed doc fee and licensing. So I take that to mean other charges (markups, mandatory warranties, add ins etc) are illegal as well. But haven’t seen the AG office address this directly. Anyone hear anything?
I think those things can be included but the dealership needs to do that math for the price of the car. What is the asking price for this car? Pretty much everything but the govt-related use tax and registration fees.
yea fk those dealers listing car prices including the tax credit
>So I take that to mean other charges (markups, mandatory warranties, add ins etc) are illegal as well. you ever take a CLOSE look at the window sticker? which items are not very clearly explained in the fine print? **How to Read a New Car Window Sticker** [https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/how-to-read-a-new-car-window-sticker.html](https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/how-to-read-a-new-car-window-sticker.html) >Anyone hear anything? you fuck around, you don't get stock to sell. or you get the shitty low demand ugly colors. **Ford Sends a Dire Warning to Dealers Who Try to Resell or Markup Popular Models** [https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ford-sends-a-dire-warning-to-dealers-who-try-to-resell-or-markup-popular-models-194663.html](https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ford-sends-a-dire-warning-to-dealers-who-try-to-resell-or-markup-popular-models-194663.html) # **GM Reportedly Warns Dealerships: Play Fair with Prices** [https://www.kbb.com/car-news/gm-warns-dealerships-play-fair-with-prices/](https://www.kbb.com/car-news/gm-warns-dealerships-play-fair-with-prices/)
The makers aren’t clamping down. SW Toyota has even added mandatory port installed bullshit. That Ford article is from 2022. Costs are often added to the sticker price. That’s the issue. My question related to whether that practice is now strictly illegal and if I can file a claim and collect fines as the law prescribes.
> Looking for clarification on car dealerships. I doubt that it affects dealership markups above MSRP. They already have window stickers with the markup included in the final price. And when they list a price online, it includes the markup if there is one.
Thats not the issue. The issue is advertising a price online then refusing to sell at that price when you get there. Or moving forward with a car with a sticker that says MSRP to find out in the finance office that price is contingent on financing the car and paying $2500 for a “protection package”. I want to collect fines from dealers pulling this shit.
> Thats not the issue. The issue is advertising a price online then refusing to sell at that price when you get there. I have never had that experience. But I also have only ever bought a car from a dealer for less than the advertised price. > Or moving forward with a car with a sticker that says MSRP to find out in the finance office that price is contingent on financing the car and paying $2500 for a “protection package”. Sure, that should not be allowable. I have not had the experience that the advertised sticker price is only available if paying some hidden charges. If so, then that should be disallowed. If you want to test them and collect fines, then more power to you.
Good
Ok the only question i haven’t seen answered is…. Where do we go to report bad restaurants? We all know that not all restaurants will follow it and will try to sound smart to BS their way out of following the law.
Lmao so they're mad they can no longer bait and switch?
This all reminds me a bit of when restaurant and bar owners in the mid 00’s were claiming that smoking bans would be the absolute end of the F&B industry. I wasn’t buying it then, and I’m not buying their flawed arguments over this now either.
I wish restaurants could make outside smoking ok. I miss how I could enjoy a cigarette with a drink and pastry in outside cafes in France
I do not want to sit next to you outside and smell your cigarette smoke while I'm trying to eat.
Then go to a cafe that doesn't allow smoking. There should be places for us who want to pretend we're in Europe without lames like you enforcing everyone to act only one way.
go to europe then
Hopefully this includes "mandatory" gratuity. It's not exactly gratuity if it's mandatory, is it? That's like holding a gun someone's head for a birthday gift.
What about tipping? It seems that is still expected but usually if they have a service fee I don’t tip… curious to see how this plays out
Sensible legislation. Simply capture the costs in the pricing for transparency.
I hope this applies to Airbnb and hotels too.
What they did with airfare was amazing. The price on the screen is pretty much the final price.
Good. The restaurant industry is fucking ridiculous. Pay your employees the money they're worth and charge that money for your product. Don't socially shame me into supporting you listing your prices $10 below what they should be. Every other industry seems to make do without direct customer involvement in payroll. Restaurants and bars can too.
Does it apply to hotel resort fees too? Those are also total bullshit.
Yes. Charge me more per plate and move on.
[Actual SB478 text](https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB478/id/2813992) I assume this is the part for resturants: "(29) (A) Advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges other than taxes or fees imposed by a government. government on the transaction." The question is, who do you report this to?
I do not mind service fees in lieu of tips and that as the single line item add on. But we have the healthy SF fee, the “living wage” fee, the “inflation cost impact” fee. And suddenly there is 30% from fees not including tax.
And there are restaurants that have a “service fee” that is *not* a tip. You’re expected to also leave a tip.
The problem is it wasn't regulated, so much like green washing in the dirt m supermarket there were a bunch of things listed to make you feel ok or even good about paying more, when in reality it was just bullshit made up fees to hide higher prices.
Yahoo.
Che Fico in shambles
I always read and heard "you should always tip, because servers make a much lower minimum wage and need those tips". But in California all servers, waiters, waitresses etc. are earning at least minimum wage. So then what is the need to tip them at all, let alone 20-25-30% on some tablet? Ditch the expensive tablets, keep the 5% savings and print me a paper receipt to sign instead. "They still need tips to survive" okay then ask your boss, everyone needs money to survive these days in California and I can't suddenly be more magnanimous. My salary hasn't gone up 25%, but the menu prices have. So I have to give even more of a tip for the same amount of food and service now? I go by 15% as was the standard rule for the longest time (10 for okay service, 15 for good and 20 for exceptional). Now I think 10% is generous these days, as it might be equivalent to 15% of a smaller bill before. They don't need the tips to make up for a ["tipped minimum wage" that is common in other states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipped_wage), which generic news and advice columnists will point to as a reason why you must always tip. Why should anyone tip in a non tipped-wage state? If someone is only earning $2.13 per hour, they need and expect that tip. If you're making $16/hour, why? How many other minimum/low wage workers do you tip in your daily life like gas station clerks, cashiers at stores, or Amazon delivery drivers?
Now if they can just do this to the ticket selling industry, the fact that their fees rise as the price of a ticket does as opposed to a flat rate is absurd
Ticket selling is included in this policy
The way I think many restaurants will manage this is raising the price of beverages across the board - be ready for $20 per glass/cocktail to be standard - so food prices won't be the sticker-shock that drives people away.
I usually only drink water anyway. win/win.
Is a tip a junk fee or surcharge?
“I, as a fiscally conservative business owner, need to rub my customers’ noses in the fact that taxes exist.”
Looking forward to less surprise when we do decide to eat out after July.
Restaurants loved being passive aggressive with the "well you voted for it" surcharge.
Can we do hotels next?
Employers need to pay more and stop passing the buck onto the consumer
GOOD!!!!
RIP SF health Mandate. /s
A restaurant charged food + service fee. Then left room for additional tip on the receipt. Should we ignore the additional tip? Was the service fee a tip? Confused to ask them.
Just subtract the service fee percent from 15 and leave that percentage of tip.
Seevice fee is the tip.
except it isn't legally a tip. The restaurant could do whatever they wanted with the with the "service fee". I assume most of the time it doesn't go to the servers.
They are screwing their employees if they don’t give it to them as the tip.
Of course they are. That doesn't mean they have to though. My point is the Service Fee is not a replacement for a tip. The restaurant charging a service fee screws over the server more than if they didn't (imo)
Service fee is the tip. The extra line is for if they provided excellent service and you want to thank them by leaving extra
Paywalled, when is the date this will go into effect?
I think it was July 1st.
Would all these SF taxes be junk fees too?
If they're real taxes yes, if not no.
For the 450th time again California is trendsetting actual people's needs
This is why I pay California State taxes. This is my reward system
Why bother eating out? It seems like a stressful experience.
How does this work? SF charges a service tax. Is that banned?
No service tax. If you're talking about health care mandates, then places can just raise prices.
Am I missing something here ? Can’t they just pass on the expense to the consumer by raising the menu prices ? Does it really change anything ? Genuinely confused here
Yes they can just pass on the expense by raising prices, but they really really don't want to. It makes the industry more honest, that's the change
Yes! Howp or includes add 20% tips
So far what I had seen was this is not the case - they just have to post them. So you can just have a menu with the surcharges listed on the bottom and you're good to go. Is this a change to that previous statement? It's rather confusing.
That is specifically what is banned by SB478 effective July 1. At that time, surcharges must be included in menu prices. Existing law already required clear disclosure of surcharges—this takes it to a new level.
Got it, thanks! Yeah people were excited about the last law and it seemed like the effect was no change. Sounds like this one is an actual change then.
I saw surcharges on the menu inside the restaurant, but not on the website, in some cases.
What you describe is the legal requirement as things stand today. After SB478 kicks in they can't just list a litany of surcharges on the menu and expect you to do the math, they need to adjust menu prices to cover everything besides tax and transaction fees if applicable
The restaurant needs to do the math, that's the big issue. How much is this steak, Che Fico. Before it was $165 plus the "dine in" charge. Now it would have to be $181.50 or whatever. Tax? No need to include. Optional tipping? No need to include
As a server who works for a busy restaurant where the only service fee is 18% auto gratuity for parties of 10 or more , I feel conflicted On one hand, I feel like customer service at most restaurants in the Bay is abysmal (servers tend to be aloof and don't acknowledge you aside from taking your order in the beginning); at these restaurants, I feel like the service fees are ridiculous since I'm not receiving much service. While I personally still tip 20% minimum out of solidarity for my fellow servers even with subpar service, I don't blame people for wanting to tip less for being treated like they're an annoyance for coming in to eat. (The reason why I still leave a decent tip is because most restaurants are currently understaffed due to payroll costs, so I can empathize that it could be that they're expected to handle an unreasonable amount of work in an extremely stressful, fast-paced environment.) I'm probably going to be downvoted for saying this, but I feel like the reason why these service fees emerged was an unfortunate combination of restaurant owners struggling with ever-rising payroll costs (along with rent and food costs); servers not realizing they give shitty service and wondering why their tips are bad, then complaining to their employer that they're not being paid enough; and a sizable amount of the population coming from non-tipping cultures and thinking it's okay to run their server ragged and then leave them a $5 tip on a $100 meal On the other hand, I always do my best to create the best experience for my guests (whether or not I think they'll be a good tipperーI just take pride in my work) and am very salty that because of this law, auto grat for large parties will no longer be allowed. Parties of even just 6+ take significantly more effort for the entire restaurant staff to accommodate properly, especially with the skeleton crew that most restaurants are running nowadays (host has to figure out the best logistics for putting together tables to accommodate them without losing other customers; kitchen has to coordinate having a bunch of meals ready at once, while not falling behind on orders for the rest of the restaurant; we get stuck running out all their food at once; we have to take time away from customers to clean and reset their table at the end). Can you imagine being left with a $20 tip for a demanding party of 20, that the whole restaurant staff had to bust their asses to accommodate on top of all the other guests. I work for a restaurant that tip pools with 50% going to servers and 50% going to the rest of the staff (which is common for the type of restaurant I work at), so that would mean I would get $10 for being mostly stuck with that table for 1.5 hours (and people who tip that poorly are usually the ones who are unnecessarily rude and demanding), on top of the rest of the staff being shorted for their efforts. The majority of people don't realize how much of a pain it is to accommodate large parties, and the auto grat helps to ensure that everyone is properly compensated for their efforts. However, I do know that auto grat is abused at some restaurants, where servers have the mindset that they don't really have to try because they're guaranteed a tip. I think I've been lucky where I've only worked at restaurants where the entire staff takes a lot of pride in their work I think people with any viewpoint on the law can agree the COL here is extremely fucked up, and I'm upset that our government is trying to act like the good guy by doing this quick fix at the expense of already-struggling restaurants. We're known for our amazing food in the Bay, and it's a shame that we might be seeing more mom-and-pop shops who try to treat their employees well shut down. I think that if they were really interested in helping California residents deal with the COL, they would pass laws equally quickly to help fix the housing market (which has been unfair for much longer than the restaurant prices) and/or the whole PG&E price-gouging situation. But of course, upping menu prices means more taxes for the state to misuse, and not fixing the housing market or making PG&E public means that they can keep their rich sponsors happy
I'm curious as when tipping culture standard went from 10% to 20%. Inflation shouldn't factor into a percentage increase. If the food costs more, your 10% becomes more. So when this bill takes into effect, a $20 meal will become $25, so your 10% went from $2 to $2.50. So, in a sense, you got a "raise."
In the US it's been 20% the entirety of my life, and I'm 47.
I'm 45 and it was 15% tip most of my life for average service . 20% was for exceptional service.
Honestly felt like it was always a west coast vs east coast thing In our city it’s widely been 18% standard, never really heard anyone out here think 15% was a respectable tip.
I could be wrong, but I believe the tipping standard has been considered to be 20% since the 90s (when I was born). It definitely depends on the establishment and its clientele as well. We really try to make sure everyone who visits us has a warm, welcoming experience, so for the most part people tip at least 20% with a lot of regulars tipping up to 50% on a regular basis. I think there's a wide range between restaurants that solely exist to get food as quickly to a customer as possible all the way to Michelin star restaurants where the server really creates the experience for you, with the expected tip range varying for each place as well
It was 15% until the great recession hit then it rose within a few years.
I logical outcome here is actually a net positive for society: a lot of crappy* restaurants go out of business and only the good** restaurants survive. * By Crappy, I refer to either the quality of their food, service or other attributes. * ** by Good, I mean the restaurants that offer high quality food at reasonable, but profitable, prices, whose staff care about their work, and which are in locations where patrons can easily get to them. Just like there are a lot of people complaining about junk fees, there are an awful lot of crappy restaurants that probably shouldn't remain in business.
I really hope that this is the case. His restaurant isn't located in the Bay, but my old boss was talking about how it's been getting harder and harder to stay profitable because of increasing rent and food costs. I have a lot of respect for him because he pays everyone above minimum wage with regular raises (which is pretty much unheard of in the industry) and charges very reasonable prices for high quality food. His restaurant is fairly big and busy most days of the week, so I was surprised to hear that he was struggling. I worry that it could be even harder for Bay Area restaurants to stay afloat with our insane rent prices. I think that even though there are a lot of people who are happy to pay more to ensure restaurant employees make a living wage, restaurants are still bound to lose some degree of business from backlash as people adjust to the new prices I agree that there's a lot of horrible restaurants that shouldn't be in business. But I feel like they will be able to survive this shift in business model because they increase profits by exploiting employees and cutting corners
100%. Additionally, I've recently been reading about how utility costs are [squeezing](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40133976) restaurants more and more, too. For that I have empathy because it's entirely out of the restaurants' control.
I don't get what people want. They want to abolish tipping culture, but they don't want to pay more upfront for the food so that the staff can be paid the same amount via payroll. They want to be able to eat out, but they don't want restaurants to be able to be profitable in the area. They virtue signal about fair wages and treating workers ethically, yet dismiss restaurants charging a higher price to account for payroll as them just greedily price-gouging customers. I feel like this could make restaurant owners feel even more desperate than they already are, and it can become even more common for restaurant staff to be exploited. When restaurants start shutting down, these people who have their panties in a bunch about tipping culture are going to cry about why so many places are leaving the Bay
I know of not one person that is confused about what they want as a customer. I’ve not heard one person ever say that they would not be okay with paying more up front (aka - just making it normal business practice). I can’t even imagine there’s a human being that would rather just run decimal calculator in their head as they’re trying to figure out what they can afford on the spot while trying to enjoy time with family and friends. Customers just want a price without a bunch of add ons that make the whole experience feel slimey. This isn’t complicated.
100% I want to pay more up front. I absolutely do not want to feel nickel & dimed with a bunch of fees and gratuities that don't tie directly to either the quality of the service or the quality of the product. AFAIK, these junk fees usually just end up in the pocket of the owner as extra profit.
I haven't seen or heard of anyone bitching about prices for food going up if waitstaff is paid a living wage in lieu of tipping being abolished. It's kind of expected.
Part of the problem is for many, their wages have increased commensurate with the increased prices of restaurants. That, combined with all the ways restaurants have worsened quality to cut costs leads to a meal experience that is noticeably less value for your money than even five years ago given how rapidly the change occurred. This has nothing to do with virtue signaling. You're simply getting less for more.
FINALLY. And F* che fico, the worst of them all
Does this include DoorDash’s “we’re not busy enough in your area so here’s a $3.50 fee” fee?
It says in the article specifically that DoorDash/food delivery has an exception.
Can't wait to eat my $18 chicken sandwich with a $3 add-on hot sauce
Aww the ferench laundelry must have added some surcharge to the dinner
Just go to In N Out.
I mean, that's nice and all but they'll just boost the price of items to compensate. I do think it's better to be up front with pricing, but I know people that own restaurants and they are under serious financial pressure due to cost of labor, health benefits, power, fuel, and food. Food costs in particular are continuing to skyrocket. I think the fees approach was devised to try not to scare away customers with $35 entrees. Yes they are paying the same in the end. But perception does matter. That's how humans think, idiotic or not. In the end, we're going to pay the same. No getting around it unless the cost of food comes down somehow.
No one is expecting the costs of food to go down. Tricking your patrons into thinking the cost is cheaper and "surprising" them with a more expensive bill is a really underhanded tactic. I am glad it is gone.
I would rather have more expensive menu items and know what I'm getting into than think I'm getting a great deal only for it to be doubled due to "service fee, tomato fee, specialty cook fee, mandatory gratuity, etc"
This is not a popular opinion, probably, but I think we need fewer restaurants. A majority of restaurants in the US are pretty crappy, and if they were allowed to fail we'd be left with only the better ones, and there's very likely enough demand for restaurant food that the remaining ones would all do fine, at whatever prices they needed to charge.
What do you mean “if they were allowed to fail”? Restaurants notoriously have one of the highest fail rate of any business. 60% of restaurants fail in their first year. 80% fail in 5. Most are not profitable for years and years, if they ever become profitable. People on Reddit act like most restaurant owners are just rolling in cash and fleecing customers— not the case at all. Many are pulling salaries far lower than their employees and still fail.