Restaurants' sneaky fees -- a guide

[Anonymous]

I am happy to pay the fee in lieu of tipping, whether it’s 20%, 22% whatever.
I haven’t been to a place that charges a high service fee like 20% *and* says that it’s *not* a tip.

The only place where this agitates me is a counter service place like Breadfurst which charges a 20% service fee (again, fine) but then you are expected to tip on the iPads. Honestly, after my last trip, adding 40% to buying 2 baguettes, I decided I wouldn’t go back. I mean 2 baguettes- $14. Plus 20% service fee, 10% sales tax, then then another tip at the counter? It’s like $20 for 2 loaves of bread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiters are surely making less now, if only because now it’s a lot harder to avoid paying taxes

I don’t have a problem with this, and the industry opposition to this is really all about owners not wanting to pay payroll taxes and workers not wanting to pay income taxes.

industry opposition was about owners not wanting to see huge numbers of people stop going to restaurants because it's too expensive, and that's what has happened.

But shouldn't it be the same net cost? Instead we got double dipping.

A National Restaurant Association poll of nearly 1,000 D.C.-area adults found more than half are dining out less because of higher prices. Some said they’re choosing to patronize restaurants in Maryland or Virginia instead."

Prices are up because they added additional fees above and beyond what a tip would be.

I didn't realize we could stop tipping. I went somewhere where there were TWO mysterious fees added at the end, and then I tipped on top of that. This shouldnt be this complicated.

Thanks, DC, for making going out to eat suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waiters are surely making less now, if only because now it’s a lot harder to avoid paying taxes

I don’t have a problem with this, and the industry opposition to this is really all about owners not wanting to pay payroll taxes and workers not wanting to pay income taxes.

industry opposition was about owners not wanting to see huge numbers of people stop going to restaurants because it's too expensive, and that's what has happened.

It was also about servers who opposed the bill because they were afraid this would mean the end of tipping. As someone who was a waiter and bartender for a decade, I can safely say that very few servers wanted this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

Many of these places were doing OK until the DSA guilt-tripped DC residents to supporting this ridiculous new bill. The bar and restaurant model, while odd, was working very well for a long time. I paid my way though college working primarily for tips at an upstate NY bar. We did serve wings so that helped. But my point is that very few servers wanted this bill and no owners wanted it. But communists are going to be communists and can't help themselves when it comes to things like this.

A few things:

1) No one was tricked into voting for getting rid of the tipped wage. DC voters went to the polls TWICE to make this decision in elections where it was widely discussed. They had to do it a second time because the restaurant lobby got the council to overturn it the first time.

2) People voted for it because most people in DC are consumers. They want transparent pricing at restaurants. This was the #1 reason people voted for the bill -- because they want to know in advance how much their meal will cost, including service. Secondarily, they want to know the employees at the restaurant are being paid a fair wage because they don't want to patronize business that exploit workers. But it's mostly a selfish desire for transparent pricing.

3) Restaurants in DC made the second bill more likely to pass by engaging in the proliferation of fees during and after Covid. At first people were okay with pandemic fees that restaurants charged to help furloughed workers, pay for upgrades to facilitate outdoor dining and contactless pickup, etc. But after the vaccine, things started returning to normal and not only did the fees stick around, there were more of them. Adding service fees, or fees to pay for employee healthcare, or inflation fees. Even where these fees made logical sense, they made pricing less transparent.

4) The fees also created confusion around tipping. Lots of people were unsure how much to tip or whether to tip at all, because there was no consistency in the industry as to what the "service charge" was for or where it went. People didn't want to stiff servers, but they also didn't want to pay both a 20% service charge AND a gratuity, especially when doing so made dining out cost considerably more than they expected.

5) Restaurants in DC had an opportunity to come together between the two different ballot initiatives on the tipped wage, and settle on an industry standard with regards to tipping, service fees, and employee compensation. Not necessarily to do all the same thing, but to create transparency so people would know what it meant when they got a "Service fee" and what it covered or didn't cover, and therefor know when and how much to tip. They didn't. So consumers responded by voting for the initiative. It had nothing to do with communism or the DSA.

6) And now restaurants continue to refuse to give consumers what they want, which is transparent menu pricing, and are sticking with these fees and blaming customers for their own business failures. And, big surprise, the result is a decline in demand at restaurants and more people just saying screw it, I'll cook at home or get takeout from a fast casual restaurant where I know how much it costs, and be done with it.

It's crazy to me that industry workers and owners still cling to this idea that voters were hoodwinked. NO. Consumers want you to be clear about how much you service costs and what it covers, and you consistently refuse to do this. This is your OWN FAULT.

You get the award for the most Orwellian comment on DCUM.

Pricing at restaurants is completely untransparent now. No one knows which restaurants have these crazy fees and how much they are until they get the bill.

That’s why so many of us have said F this and stopped going to restaurants.

Restaurant pricing is "untransparent" (read: opaque) because restaurants want it to be. All they have to do is roll these fees into their menu pricing and then it would be transparent. It not the elimination of a tipped wage that causes this, it's the desire of restaurants to try and trick customers into dining there by keeping menu prices artificially low and then tacking on fees on the back end.

However, tipping in general does exacerbate this problem because if you could eliminate tipping as a practice, then at least you could just have a conversation about whether a service charge makes sense or is deceptive. But with tipping, it's maximally confusing. Does the service charge take the place of a tip, or is it separate? Are you supposed to tip on top of the charge? If you don't tip on top of the charge, how will that impact your server? Tipping as a practice makes the practice of tacking on fees more confusing from the consumer's perspective.

I don't think you know what "Orwellian" means. Most of this is a question of market behavior, not government regulation.

If your solution involves changing a deeply ingrained part of American culture (i.e. ending tipping), you have a bad solution.

Most Americans hate tipping and would be overjoyed to see it disappear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

Many of these places were doing OK until the DSA guilt-tripped DC residents to supporting this ridiculous new bill. The bar and restaurant model, while odd, was working very well for a long time. I paid my way though college working primarily for tips at an upstate NY bar. We did serve wings so that helped. But my point is that very few servers wanted this bill and no owners wanted it. But communists are going to be communists and can't help themselves when it comes to things like this.

A few things:

1) No one was tricked into voting for getting rid of the tipped wage. DC voters went to the polls TWICE to make this decision in elections where it was widely discussed. They had to do it a second time because the restaurant lobby got the council to overturn it the first time.

2) People voted for it because most people in DC are consumers. They want transparent pricing at restaurants. This was the #1 reason people voted for the bill -- because they want to know in advance how much their meal will cost, including service. Secondarily, they want to know the employees at the restaurant are being paid a fair wage because they don't want to patronize business that exploit workers. But it's mostly a selfish desire for transparent pricing.

3) Restaurants in DC made the second bill more likely to pass by engaging in the proliferation of fees during and after Covid. At first people were okay with pandemic fees that restaurants charged to help furloughed workers, pay for upgrades to facilitate outdoor dining and contactless pickup, etc. But after the vaccine, things started returning to normal and not only did the fees stick around, there were more of them. Adding service fees, or fees to pay for employee healthcare, or inflation fees. Even where these fees made logical sense, they made pricing less transparent.

4) The fees also created confusion around tipping. Lots of people were unsure how much to tip or whether to tip at all, because there was no consistency in the industry as to what the "service charge" was for or where it went. People didn't want to stiff servers, but they also didn't want to pay both a 20% service charge AND a gratuity, especially when doing so made dining out cost considerably more than they expected.

5) Restaurants in DC had an opportunity to come together between the two different ballot initiatives on the tipped wage, and settle on an industry standard with regards to tipping, service fees, and employee compensation. Not necessarily to do all the same thing, but to create transparency so people would know what it meant when they got a "Service fee" and what it covered or didn't cover, and therefor know when and how much to tip. They didn't. So consumers responded by voting for the initiative. It had nothing to do with communism or the DSA.

6) And now restaurants continue to refuse to give consumers what they want, which is transparent menu pricing, and are sticking with these fees and blaming customers for their own business failures. And, big surprise, the result is a decline in demand at restaurants and more people just saying screw it, I'll cook at home or get takeout from a fast casual restaurant where I know how much it costs, and be done with it.

It's crazy to me that industry workers and owners still cling to this idea that voters were hoodwinked. NO. Consumers want you to be clear about how much you service costs and what it covers, and you consistently refuse to do this. This is your OWN FAULT.

You get the award for the most Orwellian comment on DCUM.

Pricing at restaurants is completely untransparent now. No one knows which restaurants have these crazy fees and how much they are until they get the bill.

That’s why so many of us have said F this and stopped going to restaurants.

Restaurant pricing is "untransparent" (read: opaque) because restaurants want it to be. All they have to do is roll these fees into their menu pricing and then it would be transparent. It not the elimination of a tipped wage that causes this, it's the desire of restaurants to try and trick customers into dining there by keeping menu prices artificially low and then tacking on fees on the back end.

However, tipping in general does exacerbate this problem because if you could eliminate tipping as a practice, then at least you could just have a conversation about whether a service charge makes sense or is deceptive. But with tipping, it's maximally confusing. Does the service charge take the place of a tip, or is it separate? Are you supposed to tip on top of the charge? If you don't tip on top of the charge, how will that impact your server? Tipping as a practice makes the practice of tacking on fees more confusing from the consumer's perspective.

I don't think you know what "Orwellian" means. Most of this is a question of market behavior, not government regulation.

If your solution involves changing a deeply ingrained part of American culture (i.e. ending tipping), you have a bad solution.

Most Americans hate tipping and would be overjoyed to see it disappear.

Of course! But your children's children's children's children's children will still be tipping, and to base public policy on something that stands no chance of happening, ever, is the definition of bad policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am happy to pay the fee in lieu of tipping, whether it’s 20%, 22% whatever.
I haven’t been to a place that charges a high service fee like 20% *and* says that it’s *not* a tip.

The only place where this agitates me is a counter service place like Breadfurst which charges a 20% service fee (again, fine) but then you are expected to tip on the iPads. Honestly, after my last trip, adding 40% to buying 2 baguettes, I decided I wouldn’t go back. I mean 2 baguettes- $14. Plus 20% service fee, 10% sales tax, then then another tip at the counter? It’s like $20 for 2 loaves of bread.

It's a shady way to avoid raising prices but I'm assuming there are tax or other benefits. If you are charging a service fee, and not paying your staff that fee, I'm not going to the restaurant. And, I'm not tipping for products, just table service. You should not have to tip for someone grabbing you two loafs of bread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

Many of these places were doing OK until the DSA guilt-tripped DC residents to supporting this ridiculous new bill. The bar and restaurant model, while odd, was working very well for a long time. I paid my way though college working primarily for tips at an upstate NY bar. We did serve wings so that helped. But my point is that very few servers wanted this bill and no owners wanted it. But communists are going to be communists and can't help themselves when it comes to things like this.

A few things:

1) No one was tricked into voting for getting rid of the tipped wage. DC voters went to the polls TWICE to make this decision in elections where it was widely discussed. They had to do it a second time because the restaurant lobby got the council to overturn it the first time.

2) People voted for it because most people in DC are consumers. They want transparent pricing at restaurants. This was the #1 reason people voted for the bill -- because they want to know in advance how much their meal will cost, including service. Secondarily, they want to know the employees at the restaurant are being paid a fair wage because they don't want to patronize business that exploit workers. But it's mostly a selfish desire for transparent pricing.

3) Restaurants in DC made the second bill more likely to pass by engaging in the proliferation of fees during and after Covid. At first people were okay with pandemic fees that restaurants charged to help furloughed workers, pay for upgrades to facilitate outdoor dining and contactless pickup, etc. But after the vaccine, things started returning to normal and not only did the fees stick around, there were more of them. Adding service fees, or fees to pay for employee healthcare, or inflation fees. Even where these fees made logical sense, they made pricing less transparent.

4) The fees also created confusion around tipping. Lots of people were unsure how much to tip or whether to tip at all, because there was no consistency in the industry as to what the "service charge" was for or where it went. People didn't want to stiff servers, but they also didn't want to pay both a 20% service charge AND a gratuity, especially when doing so made dining out cost considerably more than they expected.

5) Restaurants in DC had an opportunity to come together between the two different ballot initiatives on the tipped wage, and settle on an industry standard with regards to tipping, service fees, and employee compensation. Not necessarily to do all the same thing, but to create transparency so people would know what it meant when they got a "Service fee" and what it covered or didn't cover, and therefor know when and how much to tip. They didn't. So consumers responded by voting for the initiative. It had nothing to do with communism or the DSA.

6) And now restaurants continue to refuse to give consumers what they want, which is transparent menu pricing, and are sticking with these fees and blaming customers for their own business failures. And, big surprise, the result is a decline in demand at restaurants and more people just saying screw it, I'll cook at home or get takeout from a fast casual restaurant where I know how much it costs, and be done with it.

It's crazy to me that industry workers and owners still cling to this idea that voters were hoodwinked. NO. Consumers want you to be clear about how much you service costs and what it covers, and you consistently refuse to do this. This is your OWN FAULT.

You get the award for the most Orwellian comment on DCUM.

Pricing at restaurants is completely untransparent now. No one knows which restaurants have these crazy fees and how much they are until they get the bill.

That’s why so many of us have said F this and stopped going to restaurants.

Restaurant pricing is "untransparent" (read: opaque) because restaurants want it to be. All they have to do is roll these fees into their menu pricing and then it would be transparent. It not the elimination of a tipped wage that causes this, it's the desire of restaurants to try and trick customers into dining there by keeping menu prices artificially low and then tacking on fees on the back end.

However, tipping in general does exacerbate this problem because if you could eliminate tipping as a practice, then at least you could just have a conversation about whether a service charge makes sense or is deceptive. But with tipping, it's maximally confusing. Does the service charge take the place of a tip, or is it separate? Are you supposed to tip on top of the charge? If you don't tip on top of the charge, how will that impact your server? Tipping as a practice makes the practice of tacking on fees more confusing from the consumer's perspective.

I don't think you know what "Orwellian" means. Most of this is a question of market behavior, not government regulation.

If your solution involves changing a deeply ingrained part of American culture (i.e. ending tipping), you have a bad solution.

Most Americans hate tipping and would be overjoyed to see it disappear.

Of course! But your children's children's children's children's children will still be tipping, and to base public policy on something that stands no chance of happening, ever, is the definition of bad policy.

Why does it have no chance of happening? Voters in DC have TWICE voted to get rid of it and that was before the current insanity of self-checkout tip screens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am happy to pay the fee in lieu of tipping, whether it’s 20%, 22% whatever.
I haven’t been to a place that charges a high service fee like 20% *and* says that it’s *not* a tip.

The only place where this agitates me is a counter service place like Breadfurst which charges a 20% service fee (again, fine) but then you are expected to tip on the iPads. Honestly, after my last trip, adding 40% to buying 2 baguettes, I decided I wouldn’t go back. I mean 2 baguettes- $14. Plus 20% service fee, 10% sales tax, then then another tip at the counter? It’s like $20 for 2 loaves of bread.

It's a shady way to avoid raising prices but I'm assuming there are tax or other benefits. If you are charging a service fee, and not paying your staff that fee, I'm not going to the restaurant. And, I'm not tipping for products, just table service. You should not have to tip for someone grabbing you two loafs of bread.

To be clear for the record, I believe BreadFurst does say that the service fee goes to staff and the tipping is “optional.” But let’s be real- it’s the rare situation where you are *so* moved by the service you received in buying 2 loaves of bread that you will want to tip on top of the service charge (maybe at a restaurant if you think the service was above and beyond).

Breadfurst should eliminate the “optional” tip screen on their payment iPads. It’s obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Some restaurants don't list the fees anywhere. They're not on the menu, they're not on their Web sites. There's no way to know what they are until you get the bill, unless you specifically ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

Many of these places were doing OK until the DSA guilt-tripped DC residents to supporting this ridiculous new bill. The bar and restaurant model, while odd, was working very well for a long time. I paid my way though college working primarily for tips at an upstate NY bar. We did serve wings so that helped. But my point is that very few servers wanted this bill and no owners wanted it. But communists are going to be communists and can't help themselves when it comes to things like this.

A few things:

1) No one was tricked into voting for getting rid of the tipped wage. DC voters went to the polls TWICE to make this decision in elections where it was widely discussed. They had to do it a second time because the restaurant lobby got the council to overturn it the first time.

2) People voted for it because most people in DC are consumers. They want transparent pricing at restaurants. This was the #1 reason people voted for the bill -- because they want to know in advance how much their meal will cost, including service. Secondarily, they want to know the employees at the restaurant are being paid a fair wage because they don't want to patronize business that exploit workers. But it's mostly a selfish desire for transparent pricing.

3) Restaurants in DC made the second bill more likely to pass by engaging in the proliferation of fees during and after Covid. At first people were okay with pandemic fees that restaurants charged to help furloughed workers, pay for upgrades to facilitate outdoor dining and contactless pickup, etc. But after the vaccine, things started returning to normal and not only did the fees stick around, there were more of them. Adding service fees, or fees to pay for employee healthcare, or inflation fees. Even where these fees made logical sense, they made pricing less transparent.

4) The fees also created confusion around tipping. Lots of people were unsure how much to tip or whether to tip at all, because there was no consistency in the industry as to what the "service charge" was for or where it went. People didn't want to stiff servers, but they also didn't want to pay both a 20% service charge AND a gratuity, especially when doing so made dining out cost considerably more than they expected.

5) Restaurants in DC had an opportunity to come together between the two different ballot initiatives on the tipped wage, and settle on an industry standard with regards to tipping, service fees, and employee compensation. Not necessarily to do all the same thing, but to create transparency so people would know what it meant when they got a "Service fee" and what it covered or didn't cover, and therefor know when and how much to tip. They didn't. So consumers responded by voting for the initiative. It had nothing to do with communism or the DSA.

6) And now restaurants continue to refuse to give consumers what they want, which is transparent menu pricing, and are sticking with these fees and blaming customers for their own business failures. And, big surprise, the result is a decline in demand at restaurants and more people just saying screw it, I'll cook at home or get takeout from a fast casual restaurant where I know how much it costs, and be done with it.

It's crazy to me that industry workers and owners still cling to this idea that voters were hoodwinked. NO. Consumers want you to be clear about how much you service costs and what it covers, and you consistently refuse to do this. This is your OWN FAULT.

You get the award for the most Orwellian comment on DCUM.

Pricing at restaurants is completely untransparent now. No one knows which restaurants have these crazy fees and how much they are until they get the bill.

That’s why so many of us have said F this and stopped going to restaurants.

Restaurant pricing is "untransparent" (read: opaque) because restaurants want it to be. All they have to do is roll these fees into their menu pricing and then it would be transparent. It not the elimination of a tipped wage that causes this, it's the desire of restaurants to try and trick customers into dining there by keeping menu prices artificially low and then tacking on fees on the back end.

However, tipping in general does exacerbate this problem because if you could eliminate tipping as a practice, then at least you could just have a conversation about whether a service charge makes sense or is deceptive. But with tipping, it's maximally confusing. Does the service charge take the place of a tip, or is it separate? Are you supposed to tip on top of the charge? If you don't tip on top of the charge, how will that impact your server? Tipping as a practice makes the practice of tacking on fees more confusing from the consumer's perspective.

I don't think you know what "Orwellian" means. Most of this is a question of market behavior, not government regulation.

If your solution involves changing a deeply ingrained part of American culture (i.e. ending tipping), you have a bad solution.

Most Americans hate tipping and would be overjoyed to see it disappear.

Of course! But your children's children's children's children's children will still be tipping, and to base public policy on something that stands no chance of happening, ever, is the definition of bad policy.

Why does it have no chance of happening? Voters in DC have TWICE voted to get rid of it and that was before the current insanity of self-checkout tip screens.

Because shame and peer pressure is a powerful thing?

People have had it beaten into their heads since forever that if you don't tip your server, you're a complete *sshole.

This whole thing also flies in the face of the bigger trend in our society of more people asking for more and bigger tips for more things. The idea that people are going to turn around and completely stop tipping waiters because of some ballot initiative is kind of insane.

[Anonymous]

Come on people, it's very simple.

Start with 20% on the pre-tax check. Consider subtracting 10% if a 3.5% service fee is automatically included. There's no need to tip on a .5% environmental fee, but feel free to only tip 15% if the suggested gratuity is based on a figure that includes the 10.25% sales tax.

It's only necessary to tip 12% on bottles of wine that cost over $200, but you should provide a full 22% on wine poured by the glass or 24% on non-alcoholic cocktails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

No one made you eat at restaurants either. The vast majority of people whining here about fees and tipping can easily afford both but yet they have nothing better to do than act like they are being bled dry by such costs. It's pathetic.

Then assumption that every single person who dines at a restaurant can "easily" afford to pay both a 20% service charge and a 20% gratuity over the listed menu prices is precisely why people don't want to go to these restaurants. A lot of people have created this false dichotomy where the world is composed of waiters and rich people and no one else.

No, friend. Middle class people go to restaurants. Grad students on teaching stipends go to bars. Lots of people have limited budgets for dining out or getting drinks and when every time the go, they have to pay 40% more for service, it results in them going out less.

If you only want to serve rich people, get a job at Minibar or go work at a resort in Aspen and maybe they won't complain about these charges. If you are a waiter at a middling restaurant in Logan Circle or Capitol Hill serving a mix of working stiffs, families, and tourists, expect people to complain because no, not everyone can afford to pay this garbage.

Well put. We are upper middle class (or DCUM middle class lol), but are going out less. Have been for a while. We used to eat out at $$-$$$$ restaurants 2-4x a month. We are into food/cooking/wine. Now we cook at home and entertain our friends at home, and vice versa. When we were grad students or had entry level jobs, we still went out to eat. We both come from families who believe in tipping generously, but going out to eat is not what it used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am happy to pay the fee in lieu of tipping, whether it’s 20%, 22% whatever.
I haven’t been to a place that charges a high service fee like 20% *and* says that it’s *not* a tip.

The only place where this agitates me is a counter service place like Breadfurst which charges a 20% service fee (again, fine) but then you are expected to tip on the iPads. Honestly, after my last trip, adding 40% to buying 2 baguettes, I decided I wouldn’t go back. I mean 2 baguettes- $14. Plus 20% service fee, 10% sales tax, then then another tip at the counter? It’s like $20 for 2 loaves of bread.

Primrose in Brookland does this. We stopped going because not only is it on a whole piece of paper explaining that it’s a NOT a tip in a tone, but they’ve also jacked up their prices. It’s sad bc it’s a lovely neighborhood joint but I can’t afford their prices on a casual Tuesday no special occasion meal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t studied the fees controversy in depth but it always seemed to me that restaurants were using it as the scapegoat for raising prices by adding fees. The tipped wage increase should have just been added to the cost of doing business but owners would rather add fees in random ways that result in more revenue under the guise of “but you voted for this!”

When you ask people in the restaurant industry about this, they'll say they can't just raise prices to cover the costs because then people won't come to eat/drink there because it will be too expensive. This is pretty explicitly an admission that the fees are *intentionally* misleading, to bring people in with artificially low prices and then hit them with extra fees on the backend when they can't do anything about it. But people in the restaurant industry in DC think this is a persuasive argument.

And the whole thing obscures the larger issue, which is that if you can't figure out how to offer your product/service at a price people are willing to pay, then your business model is fundamentally bankrupt. Now this isn't entirely the fault of bars and restaurants -- as is the case with many cost issues in DC, a lot of the blame lies with landlords who overcharge on rent because they are inadequately disincentivized to leave storefronts empty (they can use them to declare a business loss and write down taxes, and DC doesn't not sufficiently penalize landlords who don't make real efforts to find tenants for commercial spaces). But it's still annoying when we have so many restaurants and bars charging these fees specifically to trick customers into dining there, thinking it costs less than it does, but then complain that this is the only possible way for them to stay afloat as a business. Then your business is bad! No one made you open a restaurant.

No one made you eat at restaurants either. The vast majority of people whining here about fees and tipping can easily afford both but yet they have nothing better to do than act like they are being bled dry by such costs. It's pathetic.

Then assumption that every single person who dines at a restaurant can "easily" afford to pay both a 20% service charge and a 20% gratuity over the listed menu prices is precisely why people don't want to go to these restaurants. A lot of people have created this false dichotomy where the world is composed of waiters and rich people and no one else.

No, friend. Middle class people go to restaurants. Grad students on teaching stipends go to bars. Lots of people have limited budgets for dining out or getting drinks and when every time the go, they have to pay 40% more for service, it results in them going out less.

If you only want to serve rich people, get a job at Minibar or go work at a resort in Aspen and maybe they won't complain about these charges. If you are a waiter at a middling restaurant in Logan Circle or Capitol Hill serving a mix of working stiffs, families, and tourists, expect people to complain because no, not everyone can afford to pay this garbage.

Well put. We are upper middle class (or DCUM middle class lol), but are going out less. Have been for a while. We used to eat out at $$-$$$$ restaurants 2-4x a month. We are into food/cooking/wine. Now we cook at home and entertain our friends at home, and vice versa. When we were grad students or had entry level jobs, we still went out to eat. We both come from families who believe in tipping generously, but going out to eat is not what it used to be.

You are not upper middle class to eat at pricy restaurants twice a month.

[Anonymous]

Makan has a 22 percent surcharge on take out. We haven’t been back since.