I sure wish more restaurants customers would walk if they find out there is a fee. But most just seem to accept it. Maybe money isn't tight enough yet... if this sort of thing is still being accepted.
But it is also surprising how many people don't ask for a receipt and how many more receive a receipt and don't look at it. I'd guess a significant portion of customers being surcharged don't even know they're being surcharged as they don't see a receipt.
CA Senate Bill 478- "Junk fees" bill
-
- Posts: 14925
- Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 341 times
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 2346
- Joined: January 3rd, 2015, 7:53 am
- Has thanked: 1434 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
- Status: Offline
Re: CA Senate Bill 478- "Junk fees" bill
SPOT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!storewanderer wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 8:53 pm I sure wish more restaurants customers would walk if they find out there is a fee. But most just seem to accept it. Maybe money isn't tight enough yet... if this sort of thing is still being accepted.
But it is also surprising how many people don't ask for a receipt and how many more receive a receipt and don't look at it. I'd guess a significant portion of customers being surcharged don't even know they're being surcharged as they don't see a receipt.
-
- Store Manager
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: October 5th, 2010, 7:33 pm
- Been thanked: 64 times
- Status: Offline
Re: CA Senate Bill 478- "Junk fees" bill
That may very well be true, but at the same time those customers are also partially at fault for not asking for such a receipt or at least having an idea when their total is more than it should be.storewanderer wrote: ↑May 7th, 2024, 8:53 pm I sure wish more restaurants customers would walk if they find out there is a fee. But most just seem to accept it. Maybe money isn't tight enough yet... if this sort of thing is still being accepted.
But it is also surprising how many people don't ask for a receipt and how many more receive a receipt and don't look at it. I'd guess a significant portion of customers being surcharged don't even know they're being surcharged as they don't see a receipt.
Then again, some simply don't care (or seem not to), just as some will go to a store and buy whatever they see without regards to what it costs, while others will be more cautious, or buy items from different places to save a bit.
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 3186
- Joined: April 4th, 2016, 10:55 pm
- Has thanked: 59 times
- Been thanked: 325 times
- Status: Offline
Re: CA Senate Bill 478- "Junk fees" bill
It is confirmed, as of July 1st all the fees at restaurants must be folded into the menu prices. No more surcharges. No more automatic gratuities either even for large parties. Link to the AG documents in this article. It's very clear.
https://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/new ... 6y3N6xuwTZ
https://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/new ... 6y3N6xuwTZ
-
- Store Manager
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: October 5th, 2010, 7:33 pm
- Been thanked: 64 times
- Status: Offline
Re: CA Senate Bill 478- "Junk fees" bill
Though it doesn't mean they still can't charge more for paying with a card.ClownLoach wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 10:34 am It is confirmed, as of July 1st all the fees at restaurants must be folded into the menu prices. No more surcharges. No more automatic gratuities either even for large parties. Link to the AG documents in this article. It's very clear.
https://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/new ... 6y3N6xuwTZ
Just list the higher price on the menu, then take off the percentage for anyone who pays with cash (and, of course, note that on the menu, or even on the check if they want to encourage it).
-
- Posts: 14925
- Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 341 times
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
Re: CA Senate Bill 478- "Junk fees" bill
Yes, that is the reasonable way to do it.BillyGr wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 1:05 pmThough it doesn't mean they still can't charge more for paying with a card.ClownLoach wrote: ↑May 10th, 2024, 10:34 am It is confirmed, as of July 1st all the fees at restaurants must be folded into the menu prices. No more surcharges. No more automatic gratuities either even for large parties. Link to the AG documents in this article. It's very clear.
https://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/new ... 6y3N6xuwTZ
Just list the higher price on the menu, then take off the percentage for anyone who pays with cash (and, of course, note that on the menu, or even on the check if they want to encourage it).
Quit playing games- be honest about the prices.
Is it really that hard to just list the price of your product on a menu in a flat straightforward manner?
If you currently do a 5% surcharge for "health and benefits" and a 3% surcharge for cards just do a menu price increase of 8% and be done with it. Heck, take a 10% menu price increase. Quit playing games and be transparent and straightforward with customers.
The restaurant owners who are fighting this are very out of touch and do not understand their customers.
I also think these surcharges have an adverse effect on tipping. For instance someone who may have left a 20% tip sees these surcharges 5%+3% and decides to only leave a 12% tip.
-
- Assistant Store Manager
- Posts: 652
- Joined: February 1st, 2021, 11:18 pm
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
- Status: Offline
Re: CA Senate Bill 478- "Junk fees" bill
Oh, they understand their customers perfectly well. They know that drip pricing works well. That is why it is so common, and why they are so upset about this law.storewanderer wrote: ↑May 11th, 2024, 12:39 am
The restaurant owners who are fighting this are very out of touch and do not understand their customers.
I also think these surcharges have an adverse effect on tipping. For instance someone who may have left a 20% tip sees these surcharges 5%+3% and decides to only leave a 12% tip.
I totally agree that these surcharges have an adverse effect on tipping. Unfortunately, that doesn't bother the owners at all, since they don't get a cut of tips, and they won't have any trouble retaining staff.
-
- Posts: 14925
- Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 341 times
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
Re: CA Senate Bill 478- "Junk fees" bill
They understand, until they don't. They've been pulling a fast one on customers who aren't paying attention for years. Unsuspecting tourists (me) who may draw certain conclusions due to political opinions who go in and just assume the "San Francisco Health and Wellness Fee" that pops up at so many restaurants is a city ordinance and pay without question or pushback then find out that is no city ordinance that explicitly dictates they are to surcharge in this manner (the ordinance defines a benefit cost that the employer must pay, if they exceed a certain number of employees, but it doesn't define how to pass it on to the customer). More recently the credit card surcharge thing has exploded. Money is getting tighter for many people due to the cost increases, you will see more and more service businesses/retailers/restaurants report poor results in the coming months due to what has happened. More and more people are watching their budgets more closely. This is a good topic to bring attention to because I think if more consumers knew what was going on, there would be more pushback about it.HCal wrote: ↑May 12th, 2024, 11:31 pmOh, they understand their customers perfectly well. They know that drip pricing works well. That is why it is so common, and why they are so upset about this law.storewanderer wrote: ↑May 11th, 2024, 12:39 am
The restaurant owners who are fighting this are very out of touch and do not understand their customers.
I also think these surcharges have an adverse effect on tipping. For instance someone who may have left a 20% tip sees these surcharges 5%+3% and decides to only leave a 12% tip.
I totally agree that these surcharges have an adverse effect on tipping. Unfortunately, that doesn't bother the owners at all, since they don't get a cut of tips, and they won't have any trouble retaining staff.
The tips may be more relevant to retaining employees when the employees can just go work fast food for $20/hr...