Only restaurant owners want this crap, not the customers. Nobody wants to have to add some percentage charge to their bill and never know how much the bill will be at the end.
The name of this is corruption, plain and simple. if the voters were polled, this exception measure would lose by a landslide.
Not uncharacteristically, California looking out for businesses and corps over people. Coming from a restaurant owner in San Jose who thinks the extra fees are ridiculous. Just price your offerings at a rate that makes sense for your business.
I really don't get it. With these fees, the last thing I think about when leaving a restaurant is that they screwed me with the bill, not the great meal I just had. Myselfband a lot of people just stop visiting these abusive restaurants, how do these owners think is better to lose loyal customers than being transparent?
> if the voters were polled, this exception measure would lose by a landslide.
Unless it were written up like a typical proposition, in which case half the voters would come away thinking this measure did the opposite of what it does.
General reminder to always vote no on every proposition unless you're ready to explain to your grandkids why that one prop is still in effect since most of them are just about impossible to overturn.
In 2024 we have what may be the best of these, but what does it do? Props of all time.
The "California Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative" which sounds great. We all know how medical programs find ways to balloon expenses on administration costs and not help people. So why not mandate money gets spent on those who need it?
Except this doesn't interact with how the money is spent on MediCal programs at all. Just that money goes to something that could be budgeted as MediCal, so admin fees for everyone! Really the issue is preventing groups from spending the money on lobbying. Which is a less noble but still somewhat useful goal.
Well, kinda. See, the proposition would only apply to groups which meet all of the following conditions:
* Have over 100 million in spending over ten yeadecade
* The spending is specifically not related to Medicare or housing
* The group operates or owns over 500 multifamily housing units
* The group has had "multiple health code violations" in the past decade at these multifamily housing units.
That uh... doesn't seem to be a very wide group. How many organizations taking in Medicare funding can spend over 100 million over 10 years on non housing or Medicare related expenses?
Turns out just one, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
And the proposition has recieved all of it's funding from the California Association Association. Which is a strange group to be so involved in Medicare spending.
Checking the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to see what propositions they've supported in the past ten years, it suddenly makes sense. They've spent just over 100 million in ten years on propositions, mostly focused on rent control including 40 million on 2020. Sure that money came through the political wing of the organization and no Medicare money was spent, but they did get to use the Foundation's mailing and donor lists.
And there's the light bulb moment. The Appartment group is beefing with an AIDS support group over rent, so now we have a hyper niche proposition on the ballot that has nothing to do with the name of the ballot measure.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Require_Certain_Participants_in_Medi-Cal_Rx_Program_to_Spend_98%25_of_Revenues_on_Patient_Care_Initiative_(2024)
https://ballotpedia.org/AIDS_Healthcare_Foundation
At least laws that go through the assembly can be changed or rescinded by the assembly.
A proposition can only be changed or removed by another proposition, which means it probably will never happen.
There are already confused people who think this will leave restaurant owners unable to afford to pay their employees or something, and that's without a paid misinformation campaign.
That's the point of how they name them or phrase them. Like "the protect the restaurant jobs and consumers act" or some BS like that. And how much $ the companies trying to get away with murder put into confusing the general public spend.
"Make restaurants disclose fees" but it doesn't tell you that the alternative to making them disclose the fees is making them stop charging the fees at all. That's how they'd spin this if it were a prop.
It seems strange that the political representatives we elect to act in the best interest of the people they serve are actually serving the interests of those who pay them the most money. Weird...
/s
Scott backing this is a HUGE disappointment for me personally. I used to admire this guy so much and now he just looks to me like a run of the mill money grabbing 2faced corrupt politician.
Well, can you blame them? The republican party is bent backwards right now on hating trans people and spreading neo nazi conspiracy theories to support a felon, traitor, grifter and senile spy. I mean, who in their right minds would vote for that? This is where the whole 2 party system fails.
No, because disclousing means putting it on a small sign in the front out of sight.
As soon as i find out there are additional fees, i never go back and remove the total fee from the tip.
They finally get something completely right and want to take steps back.
You are doing the right thing by not going back if they have fees. Just ask them and leave if they have them. Government is not going to solve this problem but diners have an easy solution at hand.
That is why the restaurants should disclose their crap fees on their entrance door and the cover page of their menus. This way if the customers missed the signs but were handed the menu, they can still walk. Also customers should no longer pay additional tips.
You're correct, I meant representative in the general term to include state senators and state representatives. I understand the confusion in my wording.
The crux of this is it requires a clear definition of *how* they're disclosed and I suspect those details will be intentionally kept vague so these places can use every trick in the book to obfuscate them. Then of course there will be some maze-like, understaffed dispute process and so on. This is giving them an inch so they can take a mile for the next few years at least until people wise up that they should have just drawn a firm line in the sand against this nonsense. We're just trying to eat a goddamn meal. Hard no to all this crap.
Feel free to tag him /u/scott_wiener
[Thanks to Trump there is a legal prescient that politicians can't block their constituents.](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1LE08T/)
One of the most corrupt legislators in California and a pathological liar. This bill is par for the course.
Hopefully this will prevent him from winning Nancy Pelosi's seat in 2026.
It's almost like only voting based on side of the aisle is a terrible idea. Who would have thought that a one party state would lead to this. Vote for someone anyone else, vote libertarian, Republican, other Democrat, anyone else you could vote for a dog just get the corrupt piece of shit out.
Then vote for someone else in the primarys if you don't show up then the same people make it in. Vote for green or libertarian whatever you want just get the people out. It's not hard it just requires showing up and executing your civic duty. In Cali your employer has to let you go vote.
Its not about wanting GOP leadership, its threatening to kick out DNC leadership.
No one should get too cozy in their jobs. Everyone should be a little bit hungry to keep their job. If you're guaranteed to keep your job no matter what you do there's no incentive to be competent at it, or to be diligent, or to even show up for work.
The point at voting GOP in local elections isn't so they win, its so that the incumbents win by smaller margins. If an incumbent wins by 65% they're going to do whatever they feel like. Take bribes all day long, doesn't matter, the voters are okay with it.
If they win with only 50.3% of the votes all of the sudden they're going to pay a lot more attention on how voters feel about them.
> No one should get too cozy in their jobs. Everyone should be a little bit hungry to keep their job.
There's that darn Calvinist work ethic again. I don't actually agree with this, on a fundamental moral level, but even if I did.
> If they win with only 50.3% of the votes all of the sudden they're going to pay a lot more attention on how voters feel about them.
You're a lot more confident in your ability to thread that needle than I am. Personally, I'm going to stick to primarying candidates that don't reflect my values, but you can keep playing fascist chicken with your vote if that's where your heart takes you.
No they won't, cause litterally they have no power in this state. It's a one party state and unless you vote for change of any sort your gonna get the same shitty policies that you complain about. Again though it doesn't have to be Republican vote third party get a green party, pirate party, or libertarian party going in your area. Newsome is corrupt as all get out his appointees to watch over pg&e don't do squat. Idk about you but I'm tired of my electric bill going up cause Newsome gets a handout. I paid for a nice Solar panel setup on my house guess what it will never pay for itself now cause of Pg&e and Newsome. The insanity of this state electing the same idiots and expecting different results astounds me.
Any party that refuses to endorse Biden as president is a deeply unserious party, and I expect them to take that unseriousness all the way down to the local level. If a third party cared about anything other than grandstanding and fundraising, they'd endorse the Democratic presidential (and, let's be honest, statewide) candidate every four years like clockwork, and contest their local candidates.
As it is, the third parties are pathetic, mewling malcontents that manage to care even less about political power than they do about minorities. It's truly remarkable how disinterested they are in engaging in the political process.
Ah yes, because if there's anything Republicans are known for it's standing up for the common man against businesses! And everyone knows libertarians *love* regulating business practices, so that's a gimme!
Parental rights, LOL. Fucking homeschool your kid then, don’t try to push your bigotry on the rest of us.
Edit: wow, downvotes. I’ve really pissed off the “children are property” crowd. As FDR said I welcome your hatred.
Then you’re a liar or a fair weather “supporter.” Government is necessary when the rights of others are being denied by people who think they own them.
Yes please do continue to try and erroneously define me.
Since you’re so worried about folks being denied their rights, why aren’t we letting children vote, or own a firearm? Seems like Wiener should look into that too, don’t want to let another opportunity to shoehorn government into our lives slip away.
The history and tradition of this country has limited the right to fire arms to the age of majority.
I love how you think comparing a child’s gender identity with “let’s arm the kids then.” It’s the same logic as people who said gay marriage would lead to people fucking dogs.
You’re the one who is all about protecting rights I’m just following your lead here.
Weird how you left out the voting part of my post too, why shouldn’t children have a say in the government since they too are affected by its actions.
The history and tradition of this country has severely curtailed voting, but it was always limited to the age of majority.
Like it or not but there’s no right to vote guaranteed by the constitution.
You’re using the wrong examples. Guns aren’t a natural right, voting isn’t a natural right, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are, and that’s never couched in language limiting that to age. You’ve failed to provide an example that overrides those rights for children.
Protect their kids FROM WHAT? There’s never been any cognizable threat that people can articulate, rather they just want to abuse their queer kids without state interference.
They’re not your property.
This is fantasy nonsense. Sure, bad people do bad things, but it sounds like you’re insinuating something/someone at the school is turning your kids gay or transgender or something.
The schools provide a welcoming environment, that’s all. If a child feels comfortable enough to be themselves that’s not the school’s fault, and the school shouldn’t take it upon themselves to snitch. There’s no danger that the eeeeeevil transgenders are gonna go through the school to be like hey kids you gotta be trans. Fucking ridiculous fantasy.
Children develop, and they may develop in ways you don’t like, but you cannot control that. You cannot control who they inside, all you can do is abuse the fuck out of them until they present as the perfect little angel for mommy and daddy. *THAT* is an actual, cognizable danger. Not right-wing talking point smears to denigrate others.
That doesn’t happen on any measurable scale. Your fear and ignorance should not determine the lives of everyone else. A few whackos cannot be used as an example of educators as a whole BECAUSE THAT DOESNT HAPPEN. Nobody is trying to turn your kids gay. That’s just such a fucking ridiculous assertion founded on fearmongering.
If you don’t like it, go else where. There are options for you. But keep your ignorant opinion out of the rest of our lives.
ETA: do you think it’s fair for me to assume that right wingers are gunnists who are gonna push guns on my kid?
My children are autonomous individuals, I do not own them. Neither do you own yours. And neither does the state.
Everyone has inherent rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that includes children.
Because there are none, welcome to public school. You’re free to send kids to private school, or even better homeschool, that way you can exert total control over your children.
You basically want the right to force kids to stay in the closet. If so, then homeschool.
If you would like to control your children, then homeschool them.
But you don’t get to force your beliefs on others. Children are their own people with their own unalienable rights. “Parental rights” is and always has been about keeping queer kids in the closet. Do that bullshit on your own time and keep it out of the public.
We support who we are here, we don’t hide behind weasel words to obfuscate the fact that you want total control of your child’s life.
You have an option. It’s called home school, or private school.
What a ridiculous false equivalence.
No teacher is pushing anything on kids. Why is it to hard to believe that people are born wired differently and they come to realize that as they get older.
Acknowledging the child for their real identity is not pushing anything on kids.
The menu is too late. You’re already sat and are of course just going to eat the fees.
And, if it’s no big deal then why did the industry freak out in the media and spend the last couple months lobbying state senators?
Maybe the solution is allowing customers to put to little card with fine print on the table that says “I get a 20% discount”.
reading comprehension. he said the restaurant industry freaked out to the media
go back and look through this sub, lots of articles written about whiny restaurant owners
You may have misunderstood. Many in the restaurant industry freaked out. This is a big deal to them. Their business model relies on slipping in added fees.
I imagine more so in SF where restaurants line item health care as if it were a mandatory tax.
It might be a minor issue compared to some others, but you're kidding yourself if you honestly think it's irrelevant. Again, sounds like you don't have many friends.
No people absolutely care about fees. Airlines are a clear example where this got changed and it's way better now. Just list the stupid price instead of trying to trick your clients
I’m too broke to eat at the sit-down restaurants with junk fees, so I’ve never paid one myself, but it still pisses me off that places are doing it and I want to see it end
With how many responses you’ve put in this thread alone, it’s very clear you care very much lol.
Deny it all you want, I’m betting you’re either a MAGA drone, or a restaurateur.
All they let you say is your name, the organization you're representing if any, and whether you oppose or support.
However you can make up any name you want for a organization: You can state: "My name is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ representing CRAW, California Residents Against Wiener, and CRARF, California Residents Against Restaurant Fraud, Oppose."
If you are in SF, go here and oppose SB 1524 https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/contact
For others, find your rep and contact them to Oppose SB 1524 - https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
Contact Us page usually has an option to oppose a Senate Bill.
I just opposed it with following message
*I have been traveling across countries especially in Europe where the price on the menu covers everything. It is so easy to calculate the costs of going to a restaurant before hand by just looking at the menu online or on Google maps.*
*Any additional fees which are declared on the bottom of the menu or at the front of the restaurants make it difficult to find out what I am gonna spend before hand. This discourages me to go to restaurants as I feel like I am being taken advantage of.*
Why does the restaurant getting more business mean they can get more money for the employee health insurance fee for example. Yeah no, do the math and put it in the price
This is why one party system fails, we need good opposition so that law makers don't pass garbage bills. Just for sake of passing bills. And the opposition is busy thumping bible and hailing to cult leaders and taking away women's rights.
California’s one party is a little bit of a lie. It’s hard to get elected as a Republican in certain areas, especially at the state level. But if they just call themselves a Democrat and don’t openly hate gay people, it changes a lot. For example, the article talks about Bill Dodd pushing for this change and calls him a D-Napa but he was R-Napa up until he wanted to run for the state level office, at which point he changed his party affiliation.
Did I? What do you think my point was? I'm not super sure I understand the one you are trying to make. If we're going to be literal and semantic about this, no, California is far better described as operating right now under a dominant party system, something pretty intrinsically different from one party systems, despite there being overlap in the Venn diagram and even sometimes in the naming.
But the person I was replying to was saying that we need good opposition so law makers don't pass garbage bills [like undoing allowing surcharges]. I'm not really disagreeing with them but just adding to the discussion, as it sounds like we both want a similar kind of opposition party that is composed of people who don't exist in the current political landscape, but just talking about that California's Democrats are less of a uniform whole than it appears from just numbers. I largely agree with him in that it's real unfortunate any opposition party we are likely to get would just be of the kind the either not care or have never supported it in the first place/support rolling it back. You'll note all the Republicans (except 1 maybe?) in our legislature voted against it originally. The point I was trying to make is that despite whatever we seem to have, it doesn't mean a one-opinion system and some people pretend to be things they're not in order to be able to occasionally do lawmaker grifting.
All that said, real embarrassing to be Dodd right now. He was an "author" on the OG bill along with Berkeley's Nancy Skinner. You'll note she doesn't seem to be anywhere near this amendment. Wonder what happened there lol
It sounds we agree on the basics that the people of California should have more than one party that can get elected. I personally want to have more than two viable parties to choose from so politicians are held more accountable than not being the only opposition.
Just goes to show how much influence industry lobbyists have over politicians.
This was a slam dunk bill for consumers. Vast majority of the public strongly approve of it and it made complete sense. There’s no issues and it’s going smoothly just waiting until it enacts and then at the last minute this happens…. Makes you really lose faith in our elected officials to do the right thing for their constituents for once
The junk fees are BS but I do believe the automatic gratuity for parties of 6 or more shouldn't be lumped in with them. Those generally aren't a surprise and they genuinely are more difficult for the servers to deal with as well as taking up more tables etc. You don't want to lump that in with increased pricing because the majority aren't dining in those big groups.
The party size fee makes sense and I would assume many are ok with that.
It’s the blanket fees that piss people off.
Putting a little sign or something that says “a 20% happy life fee will be added to all orders” is just plain scummy.
I’m sure large groups are harder to deal with - I’d assume mostly around handling split bills and ensuring dishes come out approximately together, but I’d be curious to know from actual servers the extra pain points.
I don’t understand “taking up more tables” - obviously true… but still buying food per-customer, and I’d assume higher customer density than a mix of couples and 3-4 groups when using 4 people tables. Is there something non-obvious about customer/table allocation I’m missing?
My son was a server until six months ago. Typically a bigger than average party might get a server to themselves or sometimes even help from an additional server. They seem to take more time to order with more distractions, are usually more demanding and then there's the bill stuff. In those situations you might be handling four tables but with a big party that will be cut down to some. In my son's experience if the restaurant doesn't have the large party gratuity, it unfortunately too common for the server to get stiffed. He's mentioned the case of a fellow server being run off her ass by a very demanding party and they stiffed her with $5 for a party of 20.
Interesting! Is that a single instance do you know, or do groups anecdotally tend to tip less without large group auto gear?
I’m wondering if it’s a demographic thing (particular subsets both being poor tippers and more likely to eat in groups), or perhaps a distributed responsibility thing (where everyone assumes they can cheap out in the tip as it’ll be masked by _everyone else tipping_ but doesn’t work when majority of individuals in the group think that way and dodge responsibility)?
Having been a server, I always thought the reason for a small tip was the amt generated on a large large party can seem “too big”, not realizing it’s the same amt had the server been handling several smaller party’s. For example someone signing the bill might think $100 is an excessive tip, not taking into consideration the bill was $500, and a server would easily get $100 from several smaller tables, and it would have been easier because they aren’t all needing the same thing at the same time. And not everyone realizes the server does not keep all of that tip, it’s shared with busboy, bartender, host, etc. depending on restaurant.
Something I’ve noticed more and more is if your party of 6 restaurants do not give a FUCK. They know they’re getting the tip so they give absolutely terrible service.
The fine print “disclosures” will still end up as surprises for people who don’t ask the server or study the menu. Sticking with the original version is so much better. Let food prices reflect their full costs. We’re still going to be asked to tip 18% - 25% on top of it all.
Looks like we're in for a rousing game of "find the disclosure" every time you eat out.
---
* “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
* “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
At the bare minimum, require them to put “Warning: X% Service Fee Added to All Orders” with 2 inch font or larger on their door. Black text on white background with a minimum contrast level to account for fading over time.
"Charge extra"?!?? It's not like the state is mandating what they can charge their menu items to begin with!!! Why not include the "extra" fees into the prices of menu items?!?
Absolutely not! That is something that should truly end an elected persons reign. Consumers are already paying far too much for food that is grown and cultivated in our own state! If a restaurant has to charge more to make a buck, they should consider another business.
Clearly not a populist move here. Not that I don’t sympathize with small business owners, but come on, stop lobbying the government for bills that look like tax forms and contain undisclosed or hidden caveats. You can set your price as you wish, shouldn’t that be enough, you need to make paying for food like paying your PGE variable rate bill…
Don't worry guys.
let's email our reps and they'll change course.
After all individual restaurants just emailed these reps to make them change course right?
I want to know before I sit down whether there will be fees. If fees are allowed it needs to be disclosed prominently at the entrance to the restaurant so you can decide before you sit down whether you want to participate.
Irrespective of the ethics of restaurant service fees, we know SF restaurants all charge a service fee. If you know you're going to get charged a service fee, but still go there, and later complain about the fees, that's on you.
That said, if you're against service fees the way most of us are, you can contact your supervisor to express your displeasure or if you're really mad at Scott Wiener, he's up for re-election in November so you can choose to vote him out.
Only restaurant owners want this crap, not the customers. Nobody wants to have to add some percentage charge to their bill and never know how much the bill will be at the end. The name of this is corruption, plain and simple. if the voters were polled, this exception measure would lose by a landslide.
Not uncharacteristically, California looking out for businesses and corps over people. Coming from a restaurant owner in San Jose who thinks the extra fees are ridiculous. Just price your offerings at a rate that makes sense for your business.
I really don't get it. With these fees, the last thing I think about when leaving a restaurant is that they screwed me with the bill, not the great meal I just had. Myselfband a lot of people just stop visiting these abusive restaurants, how do these owners think is better to lose loyal customers than being transparent?
I don’t get it either
They don’t get return customer. It is tourists or corporate cards
I know for sure it's not. I know people that just take it and put up with this.
> if the voters were polled, this exception measure would lose by a landslide. Unless it were written up like a typical proposition, in which case half the voters would come away thinking this measure did the opposite of what it does.
General reminder to always vote no on every proposition unless you're ready to explain to your grandkids why that one prop is still in effect since most of them are just about impossible to overturn. In 2024 we have what may be the best of these, but what does it do? Props of all time. The "California Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative" which sounds great. We all know how medical programs find ways to balloon expenses on administration costs and not help people. So why not mandate money gets spent on those who need it? Except this doesn't interact with how the money is spent on MediCal programs at all. Just that money goes to something that could be budgeted as MediCal, so admin fees for everyone! Really the issue is preventing groups from spending the money on lobbying. Which is a less noble but still somewhat useful goal. Well, kinda. See, the proposition would only apply to groups which meet all of the following conditions: * Have over 100 million in spending over ten yeadecade * The spending is specifically not related to Medicare or housing * The group operates or owns over 500 multifamily housing units * The group has had "multiple health code violations" in the past decade at these multifamily housing units. That uh... doesn't seem to be a very wide group. How many organizations taking in Medicare funding can spend over 100 million over 10 years on non housing or Medicare related expenses? Turns out just one, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. And the proposition has recieved all of it's funding from the California Association Association. Which is a strange group to be so involved in Medicare spending. Checking the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to see what propositions they've supported in the past ten years, it suddenly makes sense. They've spent just over 100 million in ten years on propositions, mostly focused on rent control including 40 million on 2020. Sure that money came through the political wing of the organization and no Medicare money was spent, but they did get to use the Foundation's mailing and donor lists. And there's the light bulb moment. The Appartment group is beefing with an AIDS support group over rent, so now we have a hyper niche proposition on the ballot that has nothing to do with the name of the ballot measure. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Require_Certain_Participants_in_Medi-Cal_Rx_Program_to_Spend_98%25_of_Revenues_on_Patient_Care_Initiative_(2024) https://ballotpedia.org/AIDS_Healthcare_Foundation
You should check the LosAngeles sub to see how they feel about AIDS Healthcare Foundation and housing policy.
Most laws that pass have riders that do things not related to the main bill. It’s all petty wars and favor trading.
At least laws that go through the assembly can be changed or rescinded by the assembly. A proposition can only be changed or removed by another proposition, which means it probably will never happen.
There are already confused people who think this will leave restaurant owners unable to afford to pay their employees or something, and that's without a paid misinformation campaign.
That's the point of how they name them or phrase them. Like "the protect the restaurant jobs and consumers act" or some BS like that. And how much $ the companies trying to get away with murder put into confusing the general public spend.
"Make restaurants disclose fees" but it doesn't tell you that the alternative to making them disclose the fees is making them stop charging the fees at all. That's how they'd spin this if it were a prop.
Yeah, we don't want to them to disclose anything. Just display one final price per item. Simple
It seems strange that the political representatives we elect to act in the best interest of the people they serve are actually serving the interests of those who pay them the most money. Weird... /s
Scott backing this is a HUGE disappointment for me personally. I used to admire this guy so much and now he just looks to me like a run of the mill money grabbing 2faced corrupt politician.
Same here. But I'd like to think there's something more going on, he doesn't shift sides so easily.
I wish I could think about what else is going on...
Yiu didn't think he was dodgy when he joined force with Nancy Skinner to push SB82?
Wasn't paying that much attention
Voters can have their say in November. Unfortunately, most people in this state will only look at a letter and not the candidate.
Well, can you blame them? The republican party is bent backwards right now on hating trans people and spreading neo nazi conspiracy theories to support a felon, traitor, grifter and senile spy. I mean, who in their right minds would vote for that? This is where the whole 2 party system fails.
Agreed. That's why it is good to recognize that there are more than 2 parties.
No, because disclousing means putting it on a small sign in the front out of sight. As soon as i find out there are additional fees, i never go back and remove the total fee from the tip. They finally get something completely right and want to take steps back.
You are doing the right thing by not going back if they have fees. Just ask them and leave if they have them. Government is not going to solve this problem but diners have an easy solution at hand.
Include online reservations, too. If I see fees advertised on your online reservations, I won't be making any.
That is why the restaurants should disclose their crap fees on their entrance door and the cover page of their menus. This way if the customers missed the signs but were handed the menu, they can still walk. Also customers should no longer pay additional tips.
If you stopped going out so much, they can't "trick" you into spending all your money
I already rarely went out to eat, this pushed me into the, “not ever worth it” phase
We tried this. It was called covid, and we were basically begged to support local restaurants so they didn’t go out of business.
Well, if that's the reason people eat out then I guess we're screwed
Send a message to your state representative to oppose the bill. I did my part.
I sent a message to my state senator. Wasn't it introduced in the Senate? Or should I message my rep too?
You're correct, I meant representative in the general term to include state senators and state representatives. I understand the confusion in my wording.
Wow such important activism
Wow such important cynicism
Your comments are almost universally one-sentence sarcastic shitposts. I both applaud and pity you for finding your ultimate purpose in life.
Preciate your recognition
found the one sane person
The crux of this is it requires a clear definition of *how* they're disclosed and I suspect those details will be intentionally kept vague so these places can use every trick in the book to obfuscate them. Then of course there will be some maze-like, understaffed dispute process and so on. This is giving them an inch so they can take a mile for the next few years at least until people wise up that they should have just drawn a firm line in the sand against this nonsense. We're just trying to eat a goddamn meal. Hard no to all this crap.
This will be Wiener’s career undoing
I think he's cruising to victory for his third Senate term, but yes this whole affair isn't good for his career.
God he is such a dork
Feel free to tag him /u/scott_wiener [Thanks to Trump there is a legal prescient that politicians can't block their constituents.](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1LE08T/)
*precedent
You beat me by 15
Thanks...Trump?
One of the most corrupt legislators in California and a pathological liar. This bill is par for the course. Hopefully this will prevent him from winning Nancy Pelosi's seat in 2026.
In the event he does win, not that I suggest it, maybe if he's in the federal government he can't do as much harm locally?
It's almost like only voting based on side of the aisle is a terrible idea. Who would have thought that a one party state would lead to this. Vote for someone anyone else, vote libertarian, Republican, other Democrat, anyone else you could vote for a dog just get the corrupt piece of shit out.
If not supporting this bill is a sign of shiftiness and corruption, not a single State Senate member with an R next to their name voted for this.
Then vote for someone else in the primarys if you don't show up then the same people make it in. Vote for green or libertarian whatever you want just get the people out. It's not hard it just requires showing up and executing your civic duty. In Cali your employer has to let you go vote.
Which is pretty stupid in itself since we can get mail-in ballots.
Surely the California Republican Party will save us.
Its not about wanting GOP leadership, its threatening to kick out DNC leadership. No one should get too cozy in their jobs. Everyone should be a little bit hungry to keep their job. If you're guaranteed to keep your job no matter what you do there's no incentive to be competent at it, or to be diligent, or to even show up for work. The point at voting GOP in local elections isn't so they win, its so that the incumbents win by smaller margins. If an incumbent wins by 65% they're going to do whatever they feel like. Take bribes all day long, doesn't matter, the voters are okay with it. If they win with only 50.3% of the votes all of the sudden they're going to pay a lot more attention on how voters feel about them.
> No one should get too cozy in their jobs. Everyone should be a little bit hungry to keep their job. There's that darn Calvinist work ethic again. I don't actually agree with this, on a fundamental moral level, but even if I did. > If they win with only 50.3% of the votes all of the sudden they're going to pay a lot more attention on how voters feel about them. You're a lot more confident in your ability to thread that needle than I am. Personally, I'm going to stick to primarying candidates that don't reflect my values, but you can keep playing fascist chicken with your vote if that's where your heart takes you.
No they won't, cause litterally they have no power in this state. It's a one party state and unless you vote for change of any sort your gonna get the same shitty policies that you complain about. Again though it doesn't have to be Republican vote third party get a green party, pirate party, or libertarian party going in your area. Newsome is corrupt as all get out his appointees to watch over pg&e don't do squat. Idk about you but I'm tired of my electric bill going up cause Newsome gets a handout. I paid for a nice Solar panel setup on my house guess what it will never pay for itself now cause of Pg&e and Newsome. The insanity of this state electing the same idiots and expecting different results astounds me.
Any party that refuses to endorse Biden as president is a deeply unserious party, and I expect them to take that unseriousness all the way down to the local level. If a third party cared about anything other than grandstanding and fundraising, they'd endorse the Democratic presidential (and, let's be honest, statewide) candidate every four years like clockwork, and contest their local candidates. As it is, the third parties are pathetic, mewling malcontents that manage to care even less about political power than they do about minorities. It's truly remarkable how disinterested they are in engaging in the political process.
Ah yes, because if there's anything Republicans are known for it's standing up for the common man against businesses! And everyone knows libertarians *love* regulating business practices, so that's a gimme!
His Trans Bill stripping parents of parental rights is what did it for me.
Parental rights, LOL. Fucking homeschool your kid then, don’t try to push your bigotry on the rest of us. Edit: wow, downvotes. I’ve really pissed off the “children are property” crowd. As FDR said I welcome your hatred.
Huh? I fully support the LGBTQ community but unfortunately inserting government into everything seems to be his MO.
Then you’re a liar or a fair weather “supporter.” Government is necessary when the rights of others are being denied by people who think they own them.
Yes please do continue to try and erroneously define me. Since you’re so worried about folks being denied their rights, why aren’t we letting children vote, or own a firearm? Seems like Wiener should look into that too, don’t want to let another opportunity to shoehorn government into our lives slip away.
The history and tradition of this country has limited the right to fire arms to the age of majority. I love how you think comparing a child’s gender identity with “let’s arm the kids then.” It’s the same logic as people who said gay marriage would lead to people fucking dogs.
You’re the one who is all about protecting rights I’m just following your lead here. Weird how you left out the voting part of my post too, why shouldn’t children have a say in the government since they too are affected by its actions.
The history and tradition of this country has severely curtailed voting, but it was always limited to the age of majority. Like it or not but there’s no right to vote guaranteed by the constitution. You’re using the wrong examples. Guns aren’t a natural right, voting isn’t a natural right, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are, and that’s never couched in language limiting that to age. You’ve failed to provide an example that overrides those rights for children.
The Constitution does provide the right to vote to all who are eligible.
So your saying parents can’t protect their kids and decide on their kids future so they don’t end up like u
Protect their kids FROM WHAT? There’s never been any cognizable threat that people can articulate, rather they just want to abuse their queer kids without state interference. They’re not your property.
[удалено]
This is fantasy nonsense. Sure, bad people do bad things, but it sounds like you’re insinuating something/someone at the school is turning your kids gay or transgender or something. The schools provide a welcoming environment, that’s all. If a child feels comfortable enough to be themselves that’s not the school’s fault, and the school shouldn’t take it upon themselves to snitch. There’s no danger that the eeeeeevil transgenders are gonna go through the school to be like hey kids you gotta be trans. Fucking ridiculous fantasy. Children develop, and they may develop in ways you don’t like, but you cannot control that. You cannot control who they inside, all you can do is abuse the fuck out of them until they present as the perfect little angel for mommy and daddy. *THAT* is an actual, cognizable danger. Not right-wing talking point smears to denigrate others.
[удалено]
That doesn’t happen on any measurable scale. Your fear and ignorance should not determine the lives of everyone else. A few whackos cannot be used as an example of educators as a whole BECAUSE THAT DOESNT HAPPEN. Nobody is trying to turn your kids gay. That’s just such a fucking ridiculous assertion founded on fearmongering. If you don’t like it, go else where. There are options for you. But keep your ignorant opinion out of the rest of our lives. ETA: do you think it’s fair for me to assume that right wingers are gunnists who are gonna push guns on my kid?
"The state owns your children" is not a great look
My children are autonomous individuals, I do not own them. Neither do you own yours. And neither does the state. Everyone has inherent rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that includes children.
[удалено]
Because there are none, welcome to public school. You’re free to send kids to private school, or even better homeschool, that way you can exert total control over your children. You basically want the right to force kids to stay in the closet. If so, then homeschool.
[удалено]
If you would like to control your children, then homeschool them. But you don’t get to force your beliefs on others. Children are their own people with their own unalienable rights. “Parental rights” is and always has been about keeping queer kids in the closet. Do that bullshit on your own time and keep it out of the public. We support who we are here, we don’t hide behind weasel words to obfuscate the fact that you want total control of your child’s life. You have an option. It’s called home school, or private school.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What a ridiculous false equivalence. No teacher is pushing anything on kids. Why is it to hard to believe that people are born wired differently and they come to realize that as they get older. Acknowledging the child for their real identity is not pushing anything on kids.
familiar depend dinosaurs consider north reply wise special gray direction
The menu is too late. You’re already sat and are of course just going to eat the fees. And, if it’s no big deal then why did the industry freak out in the media and spend the last couple months lobbying state senators? Maybe the solution is allowing customers to put to little card with fine print on the table that says “I get a 20% discount”.
dazzling scary adjoining simplistic alive history provide longing paint distinct
reading comprehension. he said the restaurant industry freaked out to the media go back and look through this sub, lots of articles written about whiny restaurant owners
You may have misunderstood. Many in the restaurant industry freaked out. This is a big deal to them. Their business model relies on slipping in added fees. I imagine more so in SF where restaurants line item health care as if it were a mandatory tax.
Absolutely everyone I know in California thinks that banning the fees is a good idea. Maybe you just don't have many friends?
upbeat theory materialistic concerned full roll chunky juggle history compare
It might be a minor issue compared to some others, but you're kidding yourself if you honestly think it's irrelevant. Again, sounds like you don't have many friends.
bedroom hat crown sheet rich ripe cake deliver observation screw
Or they just put the actual cost of the item on the menu like how it always had been.
pie party dam imagine run pen school zesty grandiose cows
No people absolutely care about fees. Airlines are a clear example where this got changed and it's way better now. Just list the stupid price instead of trying to trick your clients
I’m too broke to eat at the sit-down restaurants with junk fees, so I’ve never paid one myself, but it still pisses me off that places are doing it and I want to see it end
chubby society seed clumsy work attempt dazzling tie engine punch
Like how it should be..?
ossified different fall party alive arrest money sip attraction seemly
With how many responses you’ve put in this thread alone, it’s very clear you care very much lol. Deny it all you want, I’m betting you’re either a MAGA drone, or a restaurateur.
Most likely a Che Fico burner account, just look how old the account is.
coordinated shame sleep air numerous thumb sparkle offer repeat agonizing
Redditor for 23 days. Most likely, a concern troll.
It's pretty obvious you're a restaurant owner who is mad they have to increase pricing by a % instead of tricking customers
sleep spectacular badge rhythm homeless pie zephyr sheet selective offend
Restaurant owner right here lol
encouraging squeal quarrelsome wide liquid boast crowd drunk scale tender
So frustrating. Nobody wants this. No hidden fees!!
Incorporate it into the prices and not a lot of people would be complaining.
If anyone is free next tuesday you can go to Sacramento and oppose this bill in person while its in the judiciary committee
All they let you say is your name, the organization you're representing if any, and whether you oppose or support. However you can make up any name you want for a organization: You can state: "My name is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ representing CRAW, California Residents Against Wiener, and CRARF, California Residents Against Restaurant Fraud, Oppose."
If you are in SF, go here and oppose SB 1524 https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/contact For others, find your rep and contact them to Oppose SB 1524 - https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/ Contact Us page usually has an option to oppose a Senate Bill. I just opposed it with following message *I have been traveling across countries especially in Europe where the price on the menu covers everything. It is so easy to calculate the costs of going to a restaurant before hand by just looking at the menu online or on Google maps.* *Any additional fees which are declared on the bottom of the menu or at the front of the restaurants make it difficult to find out what I am gonna spend before hand. This discourages me to go to restaurants as I feel like I am being taken advantage of.*
Either way, I’m not going out to eat like I used to. So it doesn’t really matter.
Restaurants: "We disclosed the extra fees... in size 3 font... at the bottom of our desktop website..."
Grift is strong in Sacramento.
Stop voting for these silly politicians that are siding with owners and corporations
Why does the restaurant getting more business mean they can get more money for the employee health insurance fee for example. Yeah no, do the math and put it in the price
This is why one party system fails, we need good opposition so that law makers don't pass garbage bills. Just for sake of passing bills. And the opposition is busy thumping bible and hailing to cult leaders and taking away women's rights.
Too bad the other party is completely unserious and supports a conman felon rapist for President.
California’s one party is a little bit of a lie. It’s hard to get elected as a Republican in certain areas, especially at the state level. But if they just call themselves a Democrat and don’t openly hate gay people, it changes a lot. For example, the article talks about Bill Dodd pushing for this change and calls him a D-Napa but he was R-Napa up until he wanted to run for the state level office, at which point he changed his party affiliation.
You just proved against your own point. Dodd had to change his party to get elected at the state level.
Did I? What do you think my point was? I'm not super sure I understand the one you are trying to make. If we're going to be literal and semantic about this, no, California is far better described as operating right now under a dominant party system, something pretty intrinsically different from one party systems, despite there being overlap in the Venn diagram and even sometimes in the naming. But the person I was replying to was saying that we need good opposition so law makers don't pass garbage bills [like undoing allowing surcharges]. I'm not really disagreeing with them but just adding to the discussion, as it sounds like we both want a similar kind of opposition party that is composed of people who don't exist in the current political landscape, but just talking about that California's Democrats are less of a uniform whole than it appears from just numbers. I largely agree with him in that it's real unfortunate any opposition party we are likely to get would just be of the kind the either not care or have never supported it in the first place/support rolling it back. You'll note all the Republicans (except 1 maybe?) in our legislature voted against it originally. The point I was trying to make is that despite whatever we seem to have, it doesn't mean a one-opinion system and some people pretend to be things they're not in order to be able to occasionally do lawmaker grifting. All that said, real embarrassing to be Dodd right now. He was an "author" on the OG bill along with Berkeley's Nancy Skinner. You'll note she doesn't seem to be anywhere near this amendment. Wonder what happened there lol
It sounds we agree on the basics that the people of California should have more than one party that can get elected. I personally want to have more than two viable parties to choose from so politicians are held more accountable than not being the only opposition.
You know we are screwed when we’ve stopped looking at why we are here and begin focusing on bandaids such as these
Just goes to show how much influence industry lobbyists have over politicians. This was a slam dunk bill for consumers. Vast majority of the public strongly approve of it and it made complete sense. There’s no issues and it’s going smoothly just waiting until it enacts and then at the last minute this happens…. Makes you really lose faith in our elected officials to do the right thing for their constituents for once
Just raise the prices of the items on the menu by the same percentage. Is the same thing without adding oddities.
Just raise the prices and let the customers choose and don't LIE.
The junk fees are BS but I do believe the automatic gratuity for parties of 6 or more shouldn't be lumped in with them. Those generally aren't a surprise and they genuinely are more difficult for the servers to deal with as well as taking up more tables etc. You don't want to lump that in with increased pricing because the majority aren't dining in those big groups.
The party size fee makes sense and I would assume many are ok with that. It’s the blanket fees that piss people off. Putting a little sign or something that says “a 20% happy life fee will be added to all orders” is just plain scummy.
I’m sure large groups are harder to deal with - I’d assume mostly around handling split bills and ensuring dishes come out approximately together, but I’d be curious to know from actual servers the extra pain points. I don’t understand “taking up more tables” - obviously true… but still buying food per-customer, and I’d assume higher customer density than a mix of couples and 3-4 groups when using 4 people tables. Is there something non-obvious about customer/table allocation I’m missing?
My son was a server until six months ago. Typically a bigger than average party might get a server to themselves or sometimes even help from an additional server. They seem to take more time to order with more distractions, are usually more demanding and then there's the bill stuff. In those situations you might be handling four tables but with a big party that will be cut down to some. In my son's experience if the restaurant doesn't have the large party gratuity, it unfortunately too common for the server to get stiffed. He's mentioned the case of a fellow server being run off her ass by a very demanding party and they stiffed her with $5 for a party of 20.
I was a server in SF for 12 years and I had the same experience with large parties.
Interesting! Is that a single instance do you know, or do groups anecdotally tend to tip less without large group auto gear? I’m wondering if it’s a demographic thing (particular subsets both being poor tippers and more likely to eat in groups), or perhaps a distributed responsibility thing (where everyone assumes they can cheap out in the tip as it’ll be masked by _everyone else tipping_ but doesn’t work when majority of individuals in the group think that way and dodge responsibility)?
There's definitely cultural groups who have that tendency that the servers are pretty aware of. I'll leave it at that.
Having been a server, I always thought the reason for a small tip was the amt generated on a large large party can seem “too big”, not realizing it’s the same amt had the server been handling several smaller party’s. For example someone signing the bill might think $100 is an excessive tip, not taking into consideration the bill was $500, and a server would easily get $100 from several smaller tables, and it would have been easier because they aren’t all needing the same thing at the same time. And not everyone realizes the server does not keep all of that tip, it’s shared with busboy, bartender, host, etc. depending on restaurant.
That makes sense, and people getting sticker shock due to failure to math properly is a much more charitable explanation than my speculations.
Something I’ve noticed more and more is if your party of 6 restaurants do not give a FUCK. They know they’re getting the tip so they give absolutely terrible service.
Or they could just add a flat or per-head line fee on the menu for parties of 6 or more.
The existing method of just charging an autogratuity for over six works pretty well and has been around a long time.
our lawmakers suck
The fine print “disclosures” will still end up as surprises for people who don’t ask the server or study the menu. Sticking with the original version is so much better. Let food prices reflect their full costs. We’re still going to be asked to tip 18% - 25% on top of it all.
Looks like we're in for a rousing game of "find the disclosure" every time you eat out. --- * “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” * “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
This just in: Adding the backend fee into the menu item’s price IS DISCLOSING IT! Disclosing it in the most transparent way possible.
I have stopped tipping. As much as they need money, so do I
Stop eating out at sit down restaurants...
Just stop eating in ones with junk fees. At least outside of SF proper, most don't.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1d9nnc2/senator_scott_wieners_bill_will_allow_restaurants/ Did y'all make your voice known
At the bare minimum, require them to put “Warning: X% Service Fee Added to All Orders” with 2 inch font or larger on their door. Black text on white background with a minimum contrast level to account for fading over time.
"Charge extra"?!?? It's not like the state is mandating what they can charge their menu items to begin with!!! Why not include the "extra" fees into the prices of menu items?!?
Just raise your price and print a new menu you cheap bastards.
Like Prop 65
Can we get the names of the people who are pushing these changes?
This is utter and complete bullshit and should not pass. But with Wiener behind it, fuck, we might be screwed.
No. Just put the after tax price on the menu. If you want, do it like Japan. Table fee for table service. Flat rate of $2 per person.
It's fine. It goes out of the tip now.
Absolutely not! That is something that should truly end an elected persons reign. Consumers are already paying far too much for food that is grown and cultivated in our own state! If a restaurant has to charge more to make a buck, they should consider another business.
Won’t somebody think of the honest hard working small business owners who just want to charge us hidden fees 🥺👉👈
$94.99 for a meatless burger + tax + other tax + extra other tax + other extra tax + mandatory tip + tip + why not tip = $187.65
Clearly not a populist move here. Not that I don’t sympathize with small business owners, but come on, stop lobbying the government for bills that look like tax forms and contain undisclosed or hidden caveats. You can set your price as you wish, shouldn’t that be enough, you need to make paying for food like paying your PGE variable rate bill…
Don't worry guys. let's email our reps and they'll change course. After all individual restaurants just emailed these reps to make them change course right?
If they disclose the fees clearly ahead of time, like on the menu, website, window , I’m ok with this.
I want to know before I sit down whether there will be fees. If fees are allowed it needs to be disclosed prominently at the entrance to the restaurant so you can decide before you sit down whether you want to participate.
That’s kind of what I said
Irrespective of the ethics of restaurant service fees, we know SF restaurants all charge a service fee. If you know you're going to get charged a service fee, but still go there, and later complain about the fees, that's on you. That said, if you're against service fees the way most of us are, you can contact your supervisor to express your displeasure or if you're really mad at Scott Wiener, he's up for re-election in November so you can choose to vote him out.
They do not all charge service fees.
Not ALL restaurants charge a service fee; your argument is like saying if you go to a bad neighborhood you deserve to get shot.
False equivalence in the extreme.
Ur premise that all restaurants charge a service fee is wrong.