Poll of the Day > NYC to allow Pandemic Surcharge for Diners...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/nyc-restaurants-can-start-charging-diners-a-covid-19-recovery-charge/ar-BB1a8onm?ocid=hplocalnews

Think it's fair? (Poll Question)

Not only you have to tip, but also pay a fee due to the Pandemic?

Seems like a roundabout way to pretend they aren't just increasing their prices to help manage their expenses. It's not really a question of being fair (restaurants can charge whatever they want, after all) so much as it is a question of whether or not the loss of sales from raising the price will be too great to justify the potential for increased revenue.

---

Why would an increase in price for a restaurant be a legal issue?

If you don't want to pay more for dining in, then don't. Get takeout or delivery.

---

I mean, considering that they have to have additional staff to manage the indoor customers, this doesn't seem unreasonable. Not to mention the reduced capacity is affecting their income as well.

---

No.

---

Oh yes, 10% price hike is gonna keep these places in business.

---

How is this even a question, and why did it have to be made into a law?

They can charge for whatever the fuck they want, it's their business. If you don't like it, you don't have to eat there.

---

The problem I see is that, if you couch it in terms of an added tax, that may discourage people from going to places that implement it, which in turn will just hurt their business even more, sort of negating the entire point of the thing.
---

i think this is more of a "we know your businesses are dying but we dont want to help so instead we will encourage you to raise your prices and pretend that helps" angle

---

I always see this as a sneaky way to raise prices. Just make the food cost more to offset the costs instead of this shit.

---

I wouldnt go out anymore at all. So that would backfire on them because I probably wouldnt be alone in that.

---

The only possible benefit I can see to the city explicitly "allowing" it is that customers are more likely to be sympathetic to a "Covid surcharge" than to the restaurants increasing their prices without such a public justification. It also takes some of the competitive angle out of it, since you're more likely to get more people adopting the idea with explicit approval than doing it independently.

Basically, it's not a legal benefit, it's a psychological/social one.

---

adjl posted...

The only possible benefit I can see to the city explicitly "allowing" it is that customers are more likely to be sympathetic to a "Covid surcharge" than to the restaurants increasing their prices without such a public justification.

I can actually see it working the opposite way as well, though. Namely, some people might be more understanding if a business needs to raise prices to survive in the current climate (especially if it's a smaller, local restaurant where they feel like the owners are "just trying to get by"), whereas people in general tend to have a very strong knee-jerk negative reaction to anything involving "tax".

The key problem is that people hear the word "tax" and assume the extra money is going to the government, and there's pushback because of that, whereas business owners explicitly saying "We have to raise prices to survive during a pandemic" is more likely to trigger people's innate sympathy (or fear that "If I don't pay more, this place I like might have to close").
---

The article doesn't call it a tax, that I'm seeing. "Covid-19 recovery charge" is what it says, which I think most people will associate more with helping a struggling business than with taxes. It'll probably still trigger some animosity from the people that are upset that people are doing anything about Covid, who don't clue in that the charge is to help with the ramifications of the shutdowns and not actually contributing to them, but such stupidity is fortunately pretty uncommon.

---

adjl posted...

Seems like a roundabout way to pretend they aren't just increasing their prices to help manage their expenses. It's not really a question of being fair (restaurants can charge whatever they want, after all) so much as it is a question of whether or not the loss of sales from raising the price will be too great to justify the potential for increased revenue.

More or less this. Restaurants are free to raise their prices however they want to either profit or offset costs. The only difference here is that the framing -- which only impacts in-person eating -- clearly denotes that the price increase is temporary.

The only silly thing is that there was a bill "allowing" them to do what they could always do.

ChimeraBlue posted...

I mean, considering that they have to have additional staff to manage the indoor customers, this doesn't seem unreasonable. Not to mention the reduced capacity is affecting their income as well.

The kinda unreasonable element is that they've always been charging the same price for takeout as in-person despite the fact that in-person has always had additional costs (although part of the wage cost is offset by tipping (allowing them to pay less than minimum wage) and they make some of the money up on drinks -- or, in the case of alcohol, often more on the drinks than the food).

SirPikachu posted...

How is this even a question, and why did it have to be made into a law?

They can charge for whatever the fuck they want, it's their business. If you don't like it, you don't have to eat there.

Yeah, the whole bill thing was a silly way to go about it, but I guess they're doing it as a uniform measure so it doesn't feel like it's just some places doing it... although not everybody has to participate.

adjl posted...

The article doesn't call it a tax, that I'm seeing. "Covid-19 recovery charge" is what it says, which I think most people will associate more with helping a struggling business than with taxes. It'll probably still trigger some animosity from the people that are upset that people are doing anything about Covid, who don't clue in that the charge is to help with the ramifications of the shutdowns and not actually contributing to them, but such stupidity is fortunately pretty uncommon.

tbh, the way that it's couched on the bill will make it look like a tax so I imagine at least some consumers will assume it's a government thing.

---

Zeus posted...

tbh, the way that it's couched on the bill will make it look like a tax so I imagine at least some consumers will assume it's a government thing.

That's basically how "gratuity" and "service charge/fee" get tacked on, for places that automatically add that, and I don't believe anyone assumes those are extra taxes. Those concepts are better established, though, which I imagine makes a fair difference in how acceptable they are.

Really, the best option is probably just to have a few signs up asking people to tip more generously to help them recover, possibly indicating that half (or whatever) of all tips received will be going toward recovery efforts. That won't have the same potential for extra revenue, but it'll probably actually attract extra business by explicitly telling people that their favourite restaurant is in serious danger of going out of business.

---

This won't help businesses. Many people are still fearful of public spaces especially being indoors. Making people pay extra to go out will likely slow down business. Those restaurants that choose to make other adjustments (reduced menu, reduced staff, minute rising of prices, etc.) without adding this surcharge, will fair better moving forward instead of just charging $20 to even sit.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

This won't help businesses. Many people are still fearful of public spaces especially being indoors. Making people pay extra to go out will likely slow down business. Those restaurants that choose to make other adjustments (reduced menu, reduced staff, minute rising of prices, etc.) without adding this surcharge, will fair better moving forward instead of just charging $20 to even sit.

It may encourage people to get takeout instead of eating in, which reduces the associated costs (cleaning being the big one that's been inflated by all of this). That is going to result in restaurants cutting down on front-of-house staff, but it'll help the business stay afloat.

---

adjl posted...

It may encourage people to get takeout instead of eating in, which reduces the associated costs (cleaning being the big one that's been inflated by all of this). That is going to result in restaurants cutting down on front-of-house staff, but it'll help the business stay afloat.

But there's the added associated cost of take out materials. It's a dumb surcharge. The article states that businesses can use it to help with health insurance costs and sicktime, both of which are commonly withheld from restaurant staff for all the wrong reasons. It's the only skilled workforce that is still treated like unskilled labor in the US. And just like with tipping the government is expecting the consumer to cover the cost of something they shouldn't have to.

---

adjl posted...

That is going to result in restaurants cutting down on front-of-house staff

Those people are already paid extremely lightly, from the business perspective. You won't need 5+ waiters and a host, sure, but, those people are being paid less than minimum wage.

Restaurants work on really tight margins, sure, but when you're looking at paying someone, like $2 an hour, it's really not that much of a difference if you have 3 people or 8.

---

Businesses can literally charge you for anything they want.

If they feel like you owe them for enjoying their A/C, they can put it on your bill as a "convenience fee" if they wanted.

More power to them. It's their choice and diners aren't typically where you'd go to eat on a budget anyways. No one's forcing you to do anything.

---

Zeus posted...

pionear posted... Not only you have to tip, but also pay a fee due to the Pandemic?

Why, is there a law saying tipping is mandatory now? Most restaurants don't even have a set tipping policy in the absence of large groups.

adjl posted...

Never said it was a 'law' to tip, but some/most restaurants add a 'Tip' charge to the bill...

so they want to charge more at a time when people have less money?

sound business strategy.

---

adjl posted...

The only possible benefit I can see to the city explicitly "allowing" it is that customers are more likely to be sympathetic to a "Covid surcharge" than to the restaurants increasing their prices without such a public justification. It also takes some of the competitive angle out of it, since you're more likely to get more people adopting the idea with explicit approval than doing it independently.

Basically, it's not a legal benefit, it's a psychological/social one.

Agreed. Individual businesses would be afraid to "take the lead" in charging more. This surcharge lets them pretend like it's "out of their hands" to an extent (which it is anyway, but you know how it's easier to just blame "the government").

DirtBasedSoap posted...

I always see this as a sneaky way to raise prices. Just make the food cost more to offset the costs instead of this shit.

Tips for waiters are based off the price of the food, as are the usual taxes. By making it a separate surcharge, those costs aren't going up for the diners. Which is good for them...obviously kinda screws the waiters.