[p1necone]

This seems insane to me. Paying your employees a living wage is just another cost of producing the food, it should be part of the menu cost like everything else.

Splitting it out is no more sensible that adding "building rent" or "ingredient cost" as extra line items on the final bill.

[pengaru]

It is insane, and what's even more insane is that restaurants pulling this shit still have customers.

[TOMDM]

The problem near me is that basically every restaurant is doing it, avoiding it would essentially mean avoiding eating out.

[linguae]

This practice is becoming widespread in the Bay Area, and I saw this in Boston earlier this year on a business trip (and what made it worse was that the particular restaurant I ate at didn’t announce the fee in the menu; it wasn’t until I saw the check that I saw the 4% surcharge). I refuse to dine at restaurants that charge “kitchen fees” or “service fees.” There are still restaurants that don’t engage in this practice, but more are adopting it. Unfortunately if I’m with someone else who invites me to a restaurant that engages in such practices, then it’s harder for me to boycott.

[sokoloff]

I have no issue with restaurants who want to use service fees or kitchen fees, provided they're entirely clearly displayed before ordering.

If you add a 4% kitchen fee to the bill, my typical 18-20% tip becomes 14-16%, exactly the same as if you added a "parties of 6 or more have an automatic 18% service fee" then my tip becomes 0% (on top of the 18% you're already charging me).

If you try to sneak in a 4% fee that wasn't disclosed, let's just say that my tip changes, but does not become larger, if I discover your deception.

[pengaru]

> If you add a 4% kitchen fee to the bill, my typical 18-20% tip becomes 14-16%, exactly the same as if you added a "parties of 6 or more have an automatic 18% service fee" then my tip becomes 0% (on top of the 18% you're already charging me).

It's unclear to my why you're equating tips with the bill (which 4% kitchen fee is part of, it's not gratuity). One of these goes to the peons, the other goes to the restaurant.

Your approach is just doing the the restaurateur's dirty work of fleecing the employees' tips by shifting it directly into the restaurant's pot. Congratulations, working as intended from the restaurateur's perspective.

[hot_gril]

This is what I did in SF, then I moved.

[TOMDM]

Happy for you, I'm back to Australia at the end of the year, American restaurant culture is going to be in the top 3 things I won't miss.

[dylan604]

i'm assuming the use a flat number of expected guests to arrive each day so that each guest is paying the same amount of that prorated "cost". if not, do they start increasing each guest's prorated amount to cover shortfalls until the day when only one guest shows up and is expected to cover the full rate?

the entire "making up shorted earnings via tips" is utter bullshit

edit: s/guest/customer/

[sircastor]

It should be, yes. But consider the approach from the capitalist mindset. If, instead of charging your customers more (which disincentivizes their patronage) you can arbitrarily leave that portion of your employee’s wage on the customer’s shoulders. Someone else will pay the expense. And the government says it’s totally okay. And the restaurant industry is already razor thin margins.

This doesn’t make it right, of course.