Restaurant adding fee for use of credit card

[audreyh1]

I’m not worrying about this anymore. We don’t have regular restaurants at home because we don’t go out to eat. Our dining out is when we travel. Food in tourist places especially in national parks is already quite expensive. We’re just happy to find places where the food is really good and that’s why we return during the brief time we visit. Same with lodging.

 

[NameTaken2]

Exactly the mindset these restaurants and other businesses adding fees/etc are targeting.

Sure. Except the only thing stiffing the server and not going back accomplishes is having the server being glad that you won't be back.

You are correct.
My comment simply identified the complacent consumer mindset targeted by many businesses adding fees.
I did not endorse stiffing servers.

 

[marko]

You are correct.
My comment simply identified the complacent consumer mindset targeted by many businesses adding fees.
I did not endorse stiffing servers.

I know. There were other comments about either reducing server tip and not going back. The complacency issue is more nuanced. Didn't mean to lump you in the the others....even though I sort of did.

 

[GenXguy]

Note there's another active thread dedicated to tipping

Tipping

I rarely tip the hotel maid mostly because I think it is a ruse the big hotel chains are using to avoid minimum wage laws. We checked into a hotel earlier this week and were assigned a room that had not been cleaned. When we entered it was a little weird because we were not sure if someone...

www.early-retirement.org

 

[cathy63]

I read that California has a new law going in effect in July that bans extra fees over the menu prices. That apparently includes mandatory gratuity not being allowed. Illinois has a bill (Junk Fee Ban Act) for something similar.

I think I mentioned the new law back on page 1 or 2 of this thread, or maybe it was another thread on tipping. I've been following a lot of the online commentary about the change and it's mind boggling that so many restaurant owners are saying that since they'll have to raise prices to cover the service fees they've been tacking on they're going to lose business. Around here, very few places do anything like a 20% mandatory tip for smaller parties, but lots have "4% fair wage" or "healthcare costs" or some other fee.

They all freely admit that they are currently engaged in a bait and switch pricing and that all other restaurants will be on the same level playing field after the law goes into effect and that the final price the customer will pay won't change. Nevertheless, they're convinced that the state requiring them to tell consumers the actual price in advance is a direct attempt to kill off their businesses and put all their employees out of work.

edit: Restaurant workers here get the full minimum wage or more before tips. There is no tipped minimum wage.

 

[marko]

I read that California has a new law going in effect in July that bans extra fees over the menu prices. That apparently includes mandatory gratuity not being allowed. Illinois has a bill (Junk Fee Ban Act) for something similar.

I would welcome that. Eliminate a lot of the BS. But I fear the restaurant lobby in my state would kill any idea of that.

 

[Dtail]

Actually, I find "mandatory" 18 percent tips far worse than honest 3% CC service charges.

If it's mandatory, it's not a tip, it's a service charge.

We only go to one restaurant which charges a mandatory tip (20%), but we know it in advance, it is my typical tip anyway and the service is always great.

 

[Gumby]

.... Nevertheless, they're convinced that the state requiring them to tell consumers the actual price in advance is a direct attempt to kill off their businesses and put all their employees out of work......

The obvious reply is that if openly disclosing the full price of your product will not allow you to stay in business, then maybe it wasn't a very good business in the first place.

 

[Aramis]

This seems to be the next phase of the "forced" tipping approach to restaurant management. Instead of shaming the customer into paying a greater share of the restaurant employees compensation, phase 2 of the assault on customers involves taking away an existing payment option that has been baked into every restaurant's operating costs for DECADES.

The solution is simple; do not patronize any restaurant that does this. If you were considering going and learn that this is their practice, contact them and state that you were going to come but that you will change your plans because of their approach. If you happen to go to a place without knowing if they accept CC payments, inquire as soon as you arrive and if they say they don't, ask to see the manager and tell them the same thing, then leave.

For restaurants that do accept CC payments, tell them that you selected them, in part, because they provide you with that option and that you will continue to patronize them so long as they do.

Things like this happen only if the public accepts it.

 

[ktdtx]

Many businesses have been shopping for the lowest credit card processing fees for a number of years. This can be an expense of thousands of dollars a month and the credit card processors didn't like being squeezed. So, they have been encouraging the businesses to implement the fee, passing it to the consumer.

 

[marko]

.

The solution is simple; do not patronize any restaurant that does this. If you were considering going and learn that this is their practice, contact them and state that you were going to come but that you will change your plans because of their approach. If you happen to go to a place without knowing if they accept CC payments, inquire as soon as you arrive and if they say they don't, ask to see the manager and tell them the same thing, then leave.

For restaurants that do accept CC payments, tell them that you selected them, in part, because they provide you with that option and that you will continue to patronize them so long as they do.

Things like this happen only if the public accepts it.

This only works if everybody does it.

Otherwise the only person you're hurting is yourself. I'd guess that most people would find these practices annoying but not enough to get in the way of an otherwise excellent dining experience.

Most higher-end places around here are so busy that they require reservations made weeks in advance...they're not going to miss you and are probably glad you're not coming in the first place.

 

[jazz4cash]

I have never bought the argument that I’d spend less if using cash, but there are some persuasive points being made for discretionary spending like restaurants. I encountered the 3% surcharge at an auto repair shop.

 

[Aramis]

This only works if everybody does it.

Otherwise the only person you're hurting is yourself. I'd guess that most people would find these practices annoying but not enough to get in the way of an otherwise excellent dining experience.

Most higher-end places around here are so busy that they require reservations made weeks in advance...they're not going to miss you and are probably glad you're not coming in the first place.

We all know that we were paying these fees before, embedded in the cost of the product. It has always been accepted as part of the cost of the product, just like wages, rent, raw goods, etc., and like taxes, and business fees, these all form part of the overhead of any commercial enterprise. When an enterprise decides to shift one of their overhead costs to me, while keeping their prices unchanged, that is nothing more than a forced upcharge. When it is done alongside making the transactional experience structurally less convenient for me, I am out.

This is no different than a restaurant imposing an "employee wellbeing" type of surcharge on a bill, which I have heard of happening. Don't shift your employment costs on to the customers, just raise your prices if you want to pay your employees more, or make more money in the case of the CC fee issue. I will then decide based on the price/value relationship whether I want to patronize the place.

If a restaurant wants to try and present their business management as an exercise in which the customers are required to pay specific identified elements of their overhead costs, and to lose a convenient form of payment in the process, I am out.

I think that only enough people have to do it for many places to stop the practice. Some never will, of course, and I guess that is a win-win scenario. I won't miss going to any restaurant that is taking away a convenience option, and increasing their gross revenue by 3% over what they previously charged me while doing it. And they may not "miss me" exactly, but when that restaurant is not full, I think I am, objectively, going to be in a better place than they are without my revenue.

 

[marko]

.

If a restaurant wants to try and present their business management as an exercise in which the customers are required to pay specific identified elements of their overhead costs, and to lose a convenient form of payment in the process, I am out.

I think that only enough people have to do it for many places to stop the practice. Some never will, of course, and I guess that is a win-win scenario. I won't miss going to any restaurant that is taking away a convenience option, and increasing their gross revenue by 3% over what they previously charged me while doing it. And they may not "miss me" exactly, but when that restaurant is not full, I think I am, objectively, going to be in a better place than they are without my revenue.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that adding these fees are wrong, mostly because I believe that CCs increase their revenue already.

I just don't think that even "enough" people boycotting over it is even remotely possible, especially when restaurants are turning people away at dinner time. As I noted, while annoying, I don't see it as being enough of a "cause" for most people to avoid a good meal. Pay it as a separate item or bake it into the price, but you end up still paying for it.