Please can we add a surcharge?

[Jeff Grossman]

It was always you, dear diner, who paid for it all, anyway. click

With yes to a real minimum wage and no to raiding the tip jar, the customer is the last hope. Or something like that.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

Can someone please explain what's going on here? The restaurants are claiming they need to charge customers more money to stay in business, but they need to do it through some kind of "surcharge" instead of just raising their prices? So they're basically saying they want to raise their prices but still keep the old cheaper prices on the menu so nobody *realizes* they raised their prices until they get the check?

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Can someone please explain what's going on here? The restaurants are claiming they need to charge customers more money to stay in business, but they need to do it through some kind of "surcharge" instead of just raising their prices? So they're basically saying they want to raise their prices but still keep the old cheaper prices on the menu so nobody *realizes* they raised their prices until they get the check?

Yes, Keith, that is exactly what they are saying. Same old prices, but you get a 7% surcharge with the bill (or whatever it is) and they expect you to tip on the surcharge, I'm guessing.

They want to repeat that horseshit perpetrated by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association (I consider them the NRA of restaurant owner groups - vile politics and truly nasty attitude toward restaurant workers). This happened as a result of SF's healthcare mandate originally.

The restaurants NOT signing that letter are significant in their absence, too.

I'm not adverse to "service included" as the Union Square Hospitality Group has done, BUT that must be very carefully regulated with proper oversight to prevent owners from keeping the money rather than the intended purpose: a more equitable distribution of tip money to both front and back of the house.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

And what kind of Orwellian nonsense is the term "optional surcharge," anyway? Doesn't sound like it's "optional" for the customer.

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
And what kind of Orwellian nonsense is the term "optional surcharge," anyway? Doesn't sound like it's "optional" for the customer.

Well, some SF restaurants would reprint the bill without the service charge (not all) if the customer complained bitterly about it. This would just depend on the restaurant's culture of hospitality (rather than their culture of hostility).

 

[robert ames]

when enough restaurants go out of business (as is being predicted), the enduring market demand for eating out will allow the remaining restaurants to charge enough for their offerings to remain in business.

taking an entree from say $30 to $32.10 seems way less likely to be off-putting than presenting a bill with a 7% surcharge. this comes across as a way to stir up the masses about rising costs.

running a restaurant that offers savoury food that is worth paying for is not a cheap proposition, nor is it a path to quick riches. but i am grateful for those that make that endeavour their life's passion.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

How does this differ from say, a cover charge (coperto, whatever you want to call it)?

 

[robert ames]

not much, except that a cover charge is usually a fixed amount.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by robert ames:
not much, except that a cover charge is usually a fixed amount.

And a de minimis amount at that.