Where Art Thou, O Tipping Point?
Not content with "mandatory" 18–20% surcharges on restaurant bills as "tips for a living wage," now the gob servers are tacking on an additional fee (ranging around 5%) for "mandated employer-provided health insurance."
Will the froggies soaked by this "health tax" (yes, some menus call it that) jump out of the heating water? Will the last bastion of resistance to forced socialization of doctor bills – us, the individual citizens – stand up and say "No"?
Initially a small annoyance ($1 or 1% per meal) and a rarity in 2008, shortly after the city and county voted to institute the mandate, the tactic has become widespread in this foggy social(ist) capital of the Left Coast. Oh yes, be sure: time after time, patterns set there seem to spread, like flesh-eating bacteria. If the "health fee" still eliciting complaints in this pander haven does not result in noticeable losses in patronage, expect its cousin to appear soon on a menu near you all across the fruited plains (all the way across, in the Boston-NYC-DC corridor, earliest). That the surcharge could become so widespread in 18 months, and rise by 500% in the bargain (cough), does NOT suggest a stalwart antipathy to this wallet wank.
No hard data yet on whether this practice has affected the number of those choosing to spend their money in San Fran eateries, but not one story detailing any flight of tourists or locals popped up in a primary search. Maybe the locals won't change their eating-out habits at all: after all, San Fransicko sports an overwhelming majority of the self-righteous left among its population. Early reports of this practice from June 2008 found that the patrons interviewed by the local ABC station "7 On Your Side" were quite supportive. Hmmm, a pro-left media outlet related that most patrons think it's peachy to pump up the price consumers pay to keep the corporate profits up? Of course not, silly, don't confuse lefties with reality or truth.
"It looks like a hidden fee or even a second tax and that can rub people the wrong way," said Joe Rideout from Consumer Action.
That's true, and most consumers 7 On Your Side spoke with supported paying extra, so restaurant workers get health care.
"Health care is important so that's not unreasonable," said one restaurant patron.
Grr, it's not health care, it isn't even insurance, it's a bastard amalgam of pseudo-insurance and a discount service plan. But whatever. There we go trying to get lefties and other fog-brains to deal with facts instead of feeeeelings.
But how does the story get played these days? Anyone revolting against paying it, and the reason they are having to pay it?
Not.
They're revolting against being told that they're paying it. These brainiacs main complaint is that it is a naked, out-of-the-closet surcharge, and therefore indecent. It should be hidden properly within the menu prices. Who says Puritans were right-wingers? Hah!
From the locally-famous Akit's Complaint Department:
The San Francisco Restaurant Health Surcharge - It's Confusing
MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2010
You might have noticed it on your restaurant bill, and maybe not at another place you visited... it's that 2-5% fee tacked-on to your meal. Restaurants call it a "health fee," others call it a "health surcharge" and others call it a "health tax."
It's really confusing, ain't it?
Since the City and County of San Francisco requires all employees to have some form of health insurance, some city restaurants decided to get all whiny about it by charging a percentage surcharge to every bill. Others have decided to obey the law by not offering a percentage surcharge and may simply just absorb that cost or just revise the prices on their menus.
Today, I'm going to target those pesky restaurants who sneak in that little surcharge.
Here's the rules I do understand if a restaurant wants to do a health fee/surcharge/tax:
-
It must be clearly noted on every single restaurant menu (even if it's in small print). That's called informed consent; you have a right to know of any additional surcharges being tacked on, other than the sales tax. This is similar to the 18% gratuity charge for parties larger than 6 people and must be clearly noted on the menu.
- The restaurant must clearly note this charge on their receipts.
- Can it legally be called a "tax" on the receipts and/or menu? For the consumer, it's pointless which phrase/word(s) used because you pay the same. But in a legal standpoint, it can be risky to call it a "tax" as it is only used for a government collection purpose.
- How is the health percentage charge applied? Here's three possible examples of potential problems: (1) Using the subtotal, calculate the health percentage and the sales tax separately; add them together for the grand total. (2) Using the subtotal, calculate the health percentage, add the two together, and calculate the sales tax. (3) Using the subtotal, calculate the sales tax, add the two together, and using the new total, calculate the health percentage.
To understand the difference between taxes and surcharge/fee, here's a great example:
- California State University students pay "fees" but not "tuition" since California residents get their education tuition-free; legally, CSU campuses cannot use the word "tuition" unless the student is not a legal resident of California.
- McCormick and Schmicks in San Francisco charged my gift card a "SF Health Tax" of 62 cents, and this was calculated by using the subtotal of my food and beverage cost (pre-sales tax) and adding 3.5%. The sales tax was calculated using the food and beverage total (not including the health percentage charge) at 9.5%.
--------------------
I don't like these health percentage charges. It pisses me off when I'm being charged extra when I get my bill and they could have easily sneaked it into their menu by just charging a couple of dimes to the prices (or using cheaper ingredients). It's like the airlines advertising great fares, but not including the $20-$35 fees until you start booking it online.
Legal note: I am not a lawyer or attorney. This is not legal advice. Consult with a lawyer, city attorney, district attorney, or someone with a law degree for help. I may sound like some kind of lawyer, but I'm not one... I'm an Administrative Assistant.
New charge on dinner tab is in bad taste
The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a “health” charge added to restaurant bills. This scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.
February 28, 2010
Nothing succeeds in the travel industry like a bad idea. The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a "health" charge added to restaurant bills. As far as I know, this scam cropped up first inSan Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.
The rationale for this one is to cover the employers' mandatory contribution to the City's "Healthy San Francisco" health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer's bill to cover this charge.
The restaurants' excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they're paying for employees' health coverage. That's the same excuse hotels use when they add "resort" or "housekeeping" fees to unsuspecting guests' room bills. It's the same excuse airlines would use to exclude fuel surcharges from their advertised fares if the Department of Transportation would allow them. And it's sheer nonsense. Employees' health insurance is no less of a cost of doing business than rent, property taxes, food costs, security services and all the other inputs businesses require to operate. To single out health care for a separate surcharge is unwarranted.
The restaurants adding this fee self-righteously proclaim, "It's not hidden; we print a notice on our menus." But that, too, is nonsense: Presumably, restaurants could apply that same rationale for extra fees to cover the cost of electricity, heat or linen service. I haven't seen any reports yet that San Francisco hotels are adding a similar charge. But hotels aren't shy about piling on other fees and charges.
So far, I haven't heard of "health" fees anywhere other than San Francisco. But, as noted, bad ideas travel fast, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it copied in one form or another by restaurants in other areas.
What can you do to avoid this fee? Presumably, not many of you would feel strongly enough about this minor scam to get up and walk out of a restaurant the minute you saw a notice about such a fee. And you probably wouldn't feel like making a fuss when you're paying your bill, either. But when you leave, you can certainly let the restaurant know that you resent this deception and that you won't be returning.
I've noted before — and you have undoubtedly found out firsthand — that hidden mandatory fees have become a bane of travelers and of consumers generally. The reason seems clear: As more and more of you use the Internet to compare prices, suppliers find it increasingly important to make their first-screen prices look as low as possible. As a result, they've taken to carving out part of what should be the true base price and instead adding it in only later — sometimes before you buy, sometimes not until later.
Currently, mandatory extra hotel fees are far more troublesome than restaurant fees. Trip-Advisor (tripadvisor.com) posts more than 72,000 traveler reports of unexpected hotel fees of various types. Although some of those reports obviously cover the same hotels, the number of hotels resorting to this deception has got to be in the thousands.
Normally I write about practical information travelers can use, and I avoid taking "there oughta be a law" soapbox positions. But it seems to me that hidden mandatory fees are becoming prevalent enough to warrant some sort of government action. The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to police deceptive advertising, but it moves at a glacially slow pace and even then gives wide latitude to miscreants. What consumers need is some sort of overall national "buyability" standard for advertised prices, along with robust enforcement authority. Certainly, such a requirement is workable; it works pretty well right now for airfares.
So... no froggies jumping, just some croaking. 
3 Comments
JasonRines
Nice post TLaCour. You are correct, this idea will spread coast-to-coast. The restaraunts may tack on the surcharge for employee Healthcare contribution but I wager they will keep the change quite often. The restaraunt owners themselves are hurting.