PDA

View Full Version : New charge on dinner tab is in bad taste



Gingersnap
03-03-2010, 12:23 PM
New charge on dinner tab is in bad taste

The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a “health” charge added to restaurant bills. This scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.

Restaurant and Catering Industry By Ed Perkins, Tribune Media Services

February 28, 2010
E-mail Print Share Text Size

Nothing succeeds in the travel industry like a bad idea. The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a "health" charge added to restaurant bills. As far as I know, this scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.

The rationale for this one is to cover the employers' mandatory contribution to the City's "Healthy San Francisco" health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer's bill to cover this charge.

The restaurants' excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they're paying for employees' health coverage. That's the same excuse hotels use when they add "resort" or "housekeeping" fees to unsuspecting guests' room bills. It's the same excuse airlines would use to exclude fuel surcharges from their advertised fares if the Department of Transportation would allow them. And it's sheer nonsense. Employees' health insurance is no less of a cost of doing business than rent, property taxes, food costs, security services and all the other inputs businesses require to operate. To single out health care for a separate surcharge is unwarranted.

The restaurants adding this fee self-righteously proclaim, "It's not hidden; we print a notice on our menus." But that, too, is nonsense: Presumably, restaurants could apply that same rationale for extra fees to cover the cost of electricity, heat or linen service. I haven't seen any reports yet that San Francisco hotels are adding a similar charge. But hotels aren't shy about piling on other fees and charges.

So far, I haven't heard of "health" fees anywhere other than San Francisco. But, as noted, bad ideas travel fast, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it copied in one form or another by restaurants in other areas.

Chicago Trib (http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/family/ct-trav-0228-health-charge-20100226,0,6658174.story)

FlaGator
03-03-2010, 12:28 PM
Chicago Trib (http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/family/ct-trav-0228-health-charge-20100226,0,6658174.story)

Perhaps customers should introduce restruants to the arson tax... which happens to be equal to the extra changes added on to a bill.

Gingersnap
03-03-2010, 12:42 PM
I'd introduce them to the Eat Somewhere Else Tax. It's kind of harsh (100% of all operating costs and profit) but it's 'for the children'. Just not the owner's children. :cool:

Eagle
03-06-2010, 05:18 PM
Just another Nancy Pelosi San Francisco scam. Nancy wants all house dems from around the country to commit hari-kari just to save her own ass in out of touch San Fran. They will abandon her because she has no clue what the rest of the country is thinking.

Speedy
03-06-2010, 10:08 PM
I don't believe in adding extra fees to pay for anything. You set your prices according to what your expenses are. I have had a couple of businesses and they did well. I had a very good expenses and overhead to profits ratio. I did not provide healthcare to my employees and felt no obligation to provide it for them. I could not afford it unless in the end they were going to be taking home more in their pay envelope than I was. I was not in business to provide jobs, I was in business to make a profit.

In either one of businesses, should the government have madated health coverage, I would have closed down and laid everyone off.

If you can't cover your expenses, madated or not, raise your prices or close down.

Rockntractor
03-06-2010, 10:12 PM
I don't believe in adding extra fees to pay for anything. You set your prices according to what your expenses are. I have had a couple of businesses and they did well. I had a very good expenses and overhead to profits ratio. I did not provide healthcare to my employees and felt no obligation to provide it for them. I could not afford it unless in the end they were going to be taking home more in their pay envelope than I was. I was not in business to provide jobs, I was in business to make a profit.

In either one of businesses, should the government have madated health coverage, I would have closed down and laid everyone off.

If you can't cover your expenses, madated or not, raise your prices or close down.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/pimp-c-715217.jpg?t=1267931596

Speedy
03-06-2010, 10:17 PM
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/02/08-15/pimp-c-715217.jpg

You know what, I would rather someone like him get my money (at least he would be providing some ladies for entertainment) than the government who would not be providing anything. Obama claims that our money "saved" hundreds of thousands of school teacher jobs, firefighter jobs, police jobs. What the fuck dude? He needed to raise taxes to pay people already on the payroll? Why the fuck were they there if he could not afford it in the first place?

PoliCon
03-07-2010, 12:54 AM
First time a resteraunt hits me with that will be the last. It will also take the place of the tip too.

djones520
03-07-2010, 01:03 AM
First time a resteraunt hits me with that will be the last. It will also take the place of the tip too.

I'd still tip. Not the waitress/waiters fault. But it would be the last time I ate there.