PrintEntrées, Plus Tip, Plus Tax, Plus ... Health Service Surcharge?
Food critics, such as Michael Bauer of the San Francisco Chronicle, are noticing that more restaurants are tacking on a surcharge to diners' final tabs to cover extra costs imposed by new programs that make all San Francisco businesses pay into a fund for universal healthcare.
People understand what the prices were and instead of raising them, adding a service charge simply points out what's going on. [...] I would think that at some point in the near future, those will go away and the restaurants will simply reflect the increase in the cost of each item on the menu.
[...] However, I understand the restaurants' dilemma. They want to provide benefits for employees, but they also want to remain competitive, and they want customers to know why it's more expensive to eat in San Francisco than it is in other parts of the Bay Area.
It's a delicate position for restaurants to be in. Epic Roasthouse, for example, has come under fire for adding on a 4 percent service charge to cover employees' health benefits. Trattoria Delfina, on the other hand, charges a $1.25 coperto per guest, explaining the reasons in a letter attached to the menu. Would you be willing to pay up willingly—or grudgingly? Or should restaurants just raise the prices of their dishes instead?
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
4 Comments:
I would rather they raise their prices (and I don't know the reason why) than put a note on the menu. If they choose NOT to protest the 'idiots' at City Hall who are forcing them to become a Socialist city/state, then they must live with the consequences of their actions or non-actions.
"people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" is a phrase attributed to Ben Franklin. Substitute " employee health benefits" for "temporary security" and it still works. If you give up your freedom to run YOUR business YOUR way, you will not only lose YOUR business, but will just become a puppet for Big Government and you will have lost the freedom which made this country one that people are STILL wanting to come to. (I'll get off my soapbox now). Hog Semeach (Happy Holidays) to my fellow Hebrews.
Cantor Shmuli
CantorShmuli at 2:49PM on 04/18/08
I would personally have no problem whatsoever paying it, especially since it's going straight into their healthcare. If paying another $1.25 or 4% is out of your budget, wouldn't it be better to just eat at home anyway?
akino luna at 2:52PM on 04/18/08
I would rather they just raise their prices. Knowing that the price increase was to pay for their healthcare would make me feel like it was worth it. But to add on a surcharge makes me feel like they are purposely opening a topic for discussion.
RichardCrystal at 3:49PM on 04/18/08
I don't mind a higher dining out bill, but I'd much rather all those "fees" and "service charges" be wrapped up into the food price. It's just psychologically annoying to see your bill hit with all these little extras. If they want to bring in more money to cover employee benefits, I'm all for it, but if you outright tell me that I'm paying 4% of my bill specifically for health care, I'm going to feel weird about it.
threedogkitchen at 3:50PM on 04/18/08