EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 30, 2015 20:28:00 GMT -5
To illustrate the horrendous costs of providing health care to employees- and slightly more nightmarish than the Papa Johns 15 cents a pizza insurmountable burden:
www.opposingviews.com/i/health/restaurant-group-adds-surcharge-customers-bills-cover-costs-affordable-care-act
The surcharge was implemented at Buffalo Wild Wings locations owned by the Howard Restaurant Group in Lubbock, Texas. Samantha Spitzer, director of marketing for Howard Restaurant Group, said in a statement the surcharge was meant to cover the cost of the Affordable Healthcare Act (commonly known as "Obamacare"): Due to the Affordable Healthcare Act and its requirement of healthcare coverage to all full-time employees, our restaurant group has decided instead of cutting employee hours and raising food and beverage prices, to implement a two percent surcharge on all guest checks to offset the cost of the federally mandated employee healthcare with the least possible impact to the consumer.
Read more at www.snopes.com/politics/business/buffalowildwings.asp#Gt0ihChBEfJDs3Dk.99
Know what- I would gladly pay 2% more for anything I buy if I was assured it would go directly to providing health insurance for the employees. The message that receipt really sends is that we are a greedy bunch of dicks- and I see it backfired.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:37:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 20:51:13 GMT -5
So, basically, you are saying they should just "eat" the cost and not pass it on to the consumer.
Do you understand how "for profit" companies work? They pass their costs on to the consumer. If they don't do this, they don't stay in business.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 30, 2015 21:37:15 GMT -5
So, basically, you are saying they should just "eat" the cost and not pass it on to the consumer. Do you understand how "for profit" companies work? They pass their costs on to the consumer. If they don't do this, they don't stay in business. No- they raise prices rather than add a stupid line on the receipt to make some kind of statement. It's 2% more on the bill- sounds like they raised prices. When you are charging 4.49 for a child's hot dog is 10 more cents a deal breaker? Or 3.50 instead of 3.29 for a side of macaroni?
It is that same old bullshit over and over- we can't raise prices, because if we could do that we would have already done that and pocketed the difference, competition yada yada yada, except the competition has the same law to deal with so raise the prices and STFU already.
These people really piss me off- and it all started with the Papa John's asshole lamenting a quarter a pizza cost for employee healthcare from his gigantic mansion fundraising for Mitt.
If businesses don't like it then they can get behind a national system and we will GLADLY leave them out of it. No reason they should be involved in it anyway except for the giant screw-up this country made by doing squat when everyone else went for universal systems.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jan 30, 2015 21:57:40 GMT -5
So, basically, you are saying they should just "eat" the cost and not pass it on to the consumer. Do you understand how "for profit" companies work? They pass their costs on to the consumer. If they don't do this, they don't stay in business. No one said that. I don't even care how they raise prices. But I do think the point they are trying to make with this isn't coming across. I think I'm supposed to be outraged that my $50 meal now cost $51. Instead, seeing that all it takes is a 2% increase to cover insurance, then I wonder why the hell they didn't do this already.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:37:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 22:56:57 GMT -5
So, basically, you are saying they should just "eat" the cost and not pass it on to the consumer. Do you understand how "for profit" companies work? They pass their costs on to the consumer. If they don't do this, they don't stay in business. No- they raise prices rather than add a stupid line on the receipt to make some kind of statement. It's 2% more on the bill- sounds like they raised prices. When you are charging 4.49 for a child's hot dog is 10 more cents a deal breaker? Or 3.50 instead of 3.29 for a side of macaroni?
It is that same old bullshit over and over- we can't raise prices, because if we could do that we would have already done that and pocketed the difference, competition yada yada yada, except the competition has the same law to deal with so raise the prices and STFU already.
These people really piss me off- and it all started with the Papa John's asshole lamenting a quarter a pizza cost for employee healthcare from his gigantic mansion fundraising for Mitt.
If businesses don't like it then they can get behind a national system and we will GLADLY leave them out of it. No reason they should be involved in it anyway except for the giant screw-up this country made by doing squat when everyone else went for universal systems.
Or they could be pre-empting the people that would complain about the price increase. The "Last week, I only paid $4.79 for my kid's tenders. Now they're $4.89... What are you doing? Screwing me?!?!?" people. With a "line item" they easily raise the prices to cover the cost, and it's not a "hidden fee". ETA: I see it as a "here's what it is, and here's why we did it". I like it done that way, actually.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 30, 2015 23:07:43 GMT -5
The line item is there to make a political statement. When gas prices go up or vendors raise their prices restaurants don't add line items to their bills for it and adjust it up and down based on gas or vendors prices. They just adjust how they charge for it.
My guess is they were using their bills as a way to foster public outcry against ACA. Instead it seemed to have hurt their business so they removed it.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 30, 2015 23:15:22 GMT -5
Increase the items on the menu by $.25 each and be done with it.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 31, 2015 0:03:29 GMT -5
Anyone's lunch get cheaper since transportation costs dropped like a stone?
Didn't think so.
Really- fuck 'Papa John' and his millionaire friends that think a couple dimes increase in the cost of a pizza is the end of the world.
And on that horse I jump to "Americans for Prosperity" which is code for "billionaires with agendas of hate"- they are advertising in my city to not expand Medicaid, and the state is already in trouble for letting people die. The Republican in charge wants it, the hospitals want it, and yet it is right wing versus righter wing. That's right- the Koch disgraces to humanity are spending millions of dollars to make sure poor people do not get medical care. WHY comes to mind- and the only answer out there is hatred- why else? But so far here we have competing ads on the same right wing network- so I do not expect much.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 31, 2015 0:46:32 GMT -5
So, basically, you are saying they should just "eat" the cost and not pass it on to the consumer. Do you understand how "for profit" companies work? They pass their costs on to the consumer. If they don't do this, they don't stay in business. No one said that. I don't even care how they raise prices. But I do think the point they are trying to make with this isn't coming across. I think I'm supposed to be outraged that my $50 meal now cost $51. Instead, seeing that all it takes is a 2% increase to cover insurance, then I wonder why the hell they didn't do this already. I'm with you Angel...I know what I am comfortable paying when I go out to eat and I have my limits ..Example..I have gone to Ruth Chris steak house twice in my life...special, special occasion...Steak was like butter and great and the bill too..ZOWIE .No problem but this is not a place I would consider as a regular hang out...example , my attendance there..twice in my life time. More my speed ..today..early evening dinner..place under new management ..instead of a Three guys hamburg and fries I was driving to , I felt like a little treat of my self and it being Friday...went to a place for a lobster..{ I am a Yankee at heart..}...$14.99..Soup or salad..I took the soup..Lobster Bisque..{outstanding..} Lobster..small one ..1 1/4..either baked or boiled..I took boiled..choice of a side..I took FFries ..seem to go with lobster best like a shore dinner..{fries were really very good..Lobster, how can one ruin a lobster..very good..even took claws home and will make a lobster roll tomorrow while watching the game..{Super Bowl }..Desert and coffee..Desert was some kind of coffee flavored layered something or other..outstanding..left a $3.00 tip...Only problem was ..server either brand new or just not all together..very polite and all but rarely saw her ..served dessert no coffee..finished desert , then had coffee , not what i wanted but oh well..and when she stopped bye seemed she was in a race to leave ..had to go to another server head what ever..to get my check and pay the tab..but that's what I am comfortable with in my eating out as far as $ spent..amount....remember..retired...If they had added, what was it..2%..that would be .30 and server would be covered...what is the problem there....in a way I would be happy knowing she was covered...and the tip would be the same.. Remember...this took place in Lubbox Texas.....I know Texas very well..lived there ..Galveston and then Pasadena 11 years..People very nice but they have their way..Conservative on just about everything...anti liberal and anti Obama big time...Oh yeah on any and everything he stands for and would initiate or even suggest...so not surprising....Surprised customers didn't take to it as a tell em how we really feel about that...I am thinking many Texans now are covered Insurence wise where before they wearn't..Texas usually ranks bottom or near the bottom for any social benefits for workers..so here many, while won't admit it publickely gad forbid..are really quite pleased if they are now covered...just won't talk about it..{Shhhhhhh}
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jan 31, 2015 1:11:05 GMT -5
The restaurant is in Texas but the surcharge says FL?
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jan 31, 2015 1:21:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:37:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 2:30:59 GMT -5
Joe
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 31, 2015 2:40:12 GMT -5
Joe Don't like Joe B2r??..I like Joe....
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 31, 2015 8:54:46 GMT -5
So, basically, you are saying they should just "eat" the cost and not pass it on to the consumer. Do you understand how "for profit" companies work? They pass their costs on to the consumer. If they don't do this, they don't stay in business. No one said that. I don't even care how they raise prices. But I do think the point they are trying to make with this isn't coming across. I think I'm supposed to be outraged that my $50 meal now cost $51. Instead, seeing that all it takes is a 2% increase to cover insurance, then I wonder why the hell they didn't do this already. Well if someone was already paying $300/month for their OWN insurance, they might be slightly pissed off that they now have to pay 2% more on a check to cover someone ELSE's insurance. Maybe?
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,893
|
Post by haapai on Jan 31, 2015 9:29:39 GMT -5
I sincerely hope that the restaurant owner that thought that this surcharge was a good idea has his or her ass handed back to them.
Charging one price on the menu and presenting a customer with a bill that includes an unusual and undisclosed charge ought to be a misdemeanor. Making servers disclose this charge at the same time that their tip is being calculated is insufferable.
I'd tip the server 100% of the bill, ask for a doggie bag for the wings and ask where the owner's car was parked. If it was winter, and chicken wings inserted into a vehicle's upholstery would take a while to ripen, I might take a side trip to the nearest open purveyor of eggs and toilet paper before leaving a tip for the owner.
Advertising one price and charging another is wrong.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 31, 2015 9:59:11 GMT -5
I sincerely hope that the restaurant owner that thought that this surcharge was a good idea has his or her ass handed back to them. Charging one price on the menu and presenting a customer with a bill that includes an unusual and undisclosed charge ought to be a misdemeanor. Making servers disclose this charge at the same time that their tip is being calculated is insufferable. I'd tip the server 100% of the bill, ask for a doggie bag for the wings and ask where the owner's car was parked. If it was winter, and chicken wings inserted into a vehicle's upholstery would take a while to ripen, I might take a side trip to the nearest open purveyor of eggs and toilet paper before leaving a tip for the owner. Advertising one price and charging another is wrong. So if a notice of such a charge was inserted on the menu ..or order counter for take out..or on a notice on the sit down table...that would be ok correct? Then up to customer to make decision ..order or not...Possible some might leave..doubt it..hungry and looking forward to the wings..and if wings are good will come back...As said by many here..for the reason given...no problem paying the sur charge , just glad their employees getting full time job {hours } and are covered.. I wouldn't mind even a hugh retail establishment like Walmart consider this...Their prices are very good , we all know that..They make a big deal out of making a deal out of price reducing in the flyers.." old price $9.97..new reduced price...$9.73...LOL...a 2% charge on a $100.00 ticket is $2.00...not going to faze me and it is one of the contenuouse problems many have with the chain....their care of their employees being the largest retailer..businesses in the world... Would some customers stop going to the chain? Possible but where is the alternative? Target..?For every lost customer I suggest they would gain one or possible thinking me..possible knowing their now being more fair with their employees, while I shop there occasionally and know I will save $ there especially on food costs..canned goods for example..It is a hassle for me..don't really like shopping there..to many incidents with other customers..really to large a store even though I use a motorized many times now..and yep , not happy with their treatment with employees..
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jan 31, 2015 11:07:43 GMT -5
No one said that. I don't even care how they raise prices. But I do think the point they are trying to make with this isn't coming across. I think I'm supposed to be outraged that my $50 meal now cost $51. Instead, seeing that all it takes is a 2% increase to cover insurance, then I wonder why the hell they didn't do this already. Well if someone was already paying $300/month for their OWN insurance, they might be slightly pissed off that they now have to pay 2% more on a check to cover someone ELSE's insurance. Maybe? I think anyone that has ever had employer subsidized insurance or govt subsidized insurance has no right to complain about 2% to provide someone else insurance. I certainly wouldn't begrudged the 0.10 on a $5 meal. Even though I pay $300/month for my family, my employer pays $600. So our clients are paying slightly higher prices so I could have this benefit. I think I would have to be considered a huge ass if I was so stingy that I was unwilling to pay a tiny bit so others could enjoy the same benefits I receive.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 31, 2015 15:51:27 GMT -5
people should just boycott enterprises like this out of existence, imo.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 31, 2015 16:28:10 GMT -5
people should just boycott enterprises like this out of existence, imo. Is it that you begrudge the say extra $1.00 you would have added to the bill..thinking a $50.00 check ...[lets say your a wings fanatic or you invited the boys over for a Poker night..]or are you upset the wait staff might have insurance coverage now plus more hours to work as full time employees.. ...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:37:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 19:17:48 GMT -5
people should just boycott enterprises like this out of existence, imo. Where would anyone shop/dine if they boycotted all the places that want to turn a profit?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 31, 2015 19:24:59 GMT -5
people should just boycott enterprises like this out of existence, imo. Where would anyone shop/dine if they boycotted all the places that want to turn a profit? <chuckle> I don't have any problem figuring out where I want to shop/dine while still finding no difficulty in avoiding those whose practices offend me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:37:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 19:32:09 GMT -5
Where would anyone shop/dine if they boycotted all the places that want to turn a profit? <chuckle> I don't have any problem figuring out where I want to shop/dine while still finding no difficulty in avoiding those whose practices offend me. That wasn't what I asked though. The suggestion was " boycott enterprises like this out of existence". They are wanting to keep up their profit, ergo, they are in business to make money. So... if one limits themselves to places that DON'T want to make a profit... what businesses will that leave them? The answer is "None, eventually... because they will all have to close their doors."
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 31, 2015 19:34:15 GMT -5
<chuckle> I don't have any problem figuring out where I want to shop/dine while still finding no difficulty in avoiding those whose practices offend me. That wasn't what I asked though. The suggestion was " boycott enterprises like this out of existence". They are wanting to keep up their profit, ergo, they are in business to make money. So... if one limits themselves to places that DON'T want to make a profit... what businesses will that leave them? The answer is "None, eventually... because they will all have to close their doors." I'm sure dj meant enterprises who used that sort of method to keep up their profit, Richard. Seems pretty obvious to me that's what he was talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:37:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 19:37:34 GMT -5
That wasn't what I asked though. The suggestion was " boycott enterprises like this out of existence". They are wanting to keep up their profit, ergo, they are in business to make money. So... if one limits themselves to places that DON'T want to make a profit... what businesses will that leave them? The answer is "None, eventually... because they will all have to close their doors." I'm sure dj meant enterprises who used that sort of method to keep up their profit, Richard. Seems pretty obvious to me that's what he was talking about. Since that's his first (and only, up to this point) post on the thread, there's no way of knowing. My point is still a valid one even without me having quoted him though... If we don't go to the places that want to make sure they are still around to serve us... what will we be left with?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 31, 2015 19:43:22 GMT -5
I'm sure dj meant enterprises who used that sort of method to keep up their profit, Richard. Seems pretty obvious to me that's what he was talking about. Since that's his first (and only, up to this point) post on the thread, there's no way of knowing. My point is still a valid one even without me having quoted him though... If we don't go to the places that want to make sure they are still around to serve us... what will we be left with? Places whose practices and values are compatible with our own. They still want to make a profit but find ways to do it that aren't offensive. What might offend you might not offend me, but I'm not at all worried about not having a place to dine/shop. There are restaurant/shop owners whose outlook isn't that much different than mine - or, at least, isn't offensive to me. It's not an all or nothing matter.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jan 31, 2015 19:51:29 GMT -5
<chuckle> I don't have any problem figuring out where I want to shop/dine while still finding no difficulty in avoiding those whose practices offend me. That wasn't what I asked though. The suggestion was " boycott enterprises like this out of existence". They are wanting to keep up their profit, ergo, they are in business to make money. So... if one limits themselves to places that DON'T want to make a profit... what businesses will that leave them? The answer is "None, eventually... because they will all have to close their doors." This isn't about profit. This is about making a stupid political statement. They should have just raised their prices and moved on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:37:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 20:13:26 GMT -5
That wasn't what I asked though. The suggestion was " boycott enterprises like this out of existence". They are wanting to keep up their profit, ergo, they are in business to make money. So... if one limits themselves to places that DON'T want to make a profit... what businesses will that leave them? The answer is "None, eventually... because they will all have to close their doors." This isn't about profit. This is about making a stupid political statement. They should have just raised their prices and moved on. I disagree. having to pay higher wages (insurance benefits are technically part of the "Wages") is having to pay higher wages. Period. Doing it like this is actually better because when it (Obamacare) fails (as it will), they can remove the "line item", and everyone will be happy. As opposed to places that simply raised the prices... they are more likely to keep the higher prices even when they are no longer necessary.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 31, 2015 20:28:28 GMT -5
I don't think this is a bad deal, It just lays this at the door step of what is responsible for the charge.
In my business I tacked on a hazards waste fee, I did not have a single complaint.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jan 31, 2015 20:38:52 GMT -5
Change all the menus? Add a line to the receipt? Of course, we should change all the menus!
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jan 31, 2015 20:42:14 GMT -5
This isn't about profit. This is about making a stupid political statement. They should have just raised their prices and moved on. I disagree. having to pay higher wages (insurance benefits are technically part of the "Wages") is having to pay higher wages. Period. Doing it like this is actually better because when it (Obamacare) fails (as it will), they can remove the "line item", and everyone will be happy. As opposed to places that simply raised the prices... they are more likely to keep the higher prices even when they are no longer necessary. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion. Just don't mischaracterize my position as anti-profit.
|
|