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 21:27:47 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? i don't begrudge anyone for wanting to make a profit, Richard. i begrudge businesses that wear their politics are their sleeves.
if you don't, that's cool. the rest of us that do should shop elsewhere. they would get the message but quick. it seems like it is the only way we can communicate that they understand. to beat the crap out of their sales.
|
|
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 21:29:58 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.. ... neither.
|
|
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 21:32:17 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. oh goodie. it doesn't take a mindreader to understand my posts, even when they are terse.
|
|
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 21:34:42 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. disagree all you like, but Angel got it precisely right.
i would be happy if WingDicks made 2x the money, so long as they buried those costs in their prices, rather than throwing them in my face when i eat there. if i want politics, i can turn on FOX and MSNBC. i just want my f(*king wings, already.
|
|
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 22:16:50 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. totally different, imo. hazardous waste is not an employment cost.
however, i don't care much for HW surcharges, either. especially if you are doing it perennially. just figure out a way to work it into your pricing, just like you do with all of your other fixed costs.
|
|
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 22:19:19 GMT -5
Change all the menus? Add a line to the receipt? Of course, we should change all the menus! or eat the cost. your choice.
i think that most businesses find that they need to change prices every so often. that is kinda part of the deal.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jan 31, 2015 22:54:33 GMT -5
How about democrats pay double!
|
|
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 23:15:38 GMT -5
How about democrats pay double! fine by me.
but remember, it was Reagan that started socializing these costs, not Obama. Obama is just the guy to finish it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 23:49:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 0:03:09 GMT -5
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. I didn't mischaracterize anything.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 1, 2015 2:18:20 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. Don't agree...If they are charging, looks like this establishment is, 2% sur charge to cover their employees ..{keeping them full time rather then cut hours and not have to cover them } health insurance...what isn't said is that they also may be kicking in their own $ too toward coverage ..and if you have been reading some of the posts here you will see some of us really don't mind the sur charge now that we know what it is for..In fact welcome it if we know that the wait staff and others are getting full time hours and medical coverage for themselves and families. What is interesting , and I am not going to call out specific folks, they know who they are and don't want moderators having to chase me down in case it is felt I am picking on some specific folks here....but a few here have mentioned many times how well off personally they are and it seems these are the ones who are so upset with this food outlet putting a sur charge of 2% on the presented check...Normally a wing order with soda and stuff ..what $25 tops if that..sur charge what..... .50 cents and a thread over all that....[sheesh....] I know, I know.....It's the principal of the thing....
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 1, 2015 6:01:23 GMT -5
You are welcome to disagree with my opinion. Just don't mischaracterize my position as anti-profit. I didn't mischaracterize anything. Post #2 and the post in response to DJ's boycott both made assumptions that anybody upset by this doesn't want companies to make a profit. You clearly don't understand why this might bother people and that it isn't about believing companies shouldn't make profit.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 23:49:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 6:12:28 GMT -5
I didn't mischaracterize anything. Post #2 and the post in response to DJ's boycott both made assumptions that anybody upset by this doesn't want companies to make a profit. You clearly don't understand why this might bother people and that it isn't about believing companies shouldn't make profit. Post #2 (reply #1, actually) was in response to EVT's comment of " 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" The receipt STATES that the 2% is going to healthcare... yet he thinks they are "a greedy bunch of dicks". Since DJ's point was not attributed, and since there are some people that understand there's nothing wrong with it being a "line item"... that's not exactly an invalid assumption. At worst, it's a "coin toss". So, I say again. I didn't mischaracterize anything.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 1, 2015 10:32:04 GMT -5
Post #2 and the post in response to DJ's boycott both made assumptions that anybody upset by this doesn't want companies to make a profit. You clearly don't understand why this might bother people and that it isn't about believing companies shouldn't make profit. Post #2 (reply #1, actually) was in response to EVT's comment of " 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" The receipt STATES that the 2% is going to healthcare... yet he thinks they are "a greedy bunch of dicks". Since DJ's point was not attributed, and since there are some people that understand there's nothing wrong with it being a "line item"... that's not exactly an invalid assumption. At worst, it's a "coin toss". So, I say again. I didn't mischaracterize anything. I would say if you've paid any attention to what DJ has posted in the past, calling him anti-profit is a pretty poor assumption. Had it been a new poster, it indeed could have been a coin toss. Knowing DJ, it was pretty obvious. So you either don't pay attention, don't understand him, or intentionally mischaracterized.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 1, 2015 10:43:15 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. And yet dj is a businessman who passes his cost onto his customer base. He has to, otherwise he would be at the food pantry.
|
|
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 Feb 1, 2015 10:47:57 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. And yet dj is a businessman who passes his cost onto his customer base. He has to, otherwise he would be at the food pantry.
I don't think he's argued otherwise, VB. I believe his objections are not to passing on the costs of doing business. I believe he's talking about the method used here and whether it's being used only to recoup losses or whether the main purpose is to make a political statement. As a business man, he is the one who makes the decision as to how his business will run and how profits will be made. As consumers, we all are entitled to make decisions as to whether a business' practices are compatible with our principles.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 1, 2015 10:51:19 GMT -5
In all honesty, we receive our utility bills with breakdowns of all the charges. We even have to round up to the next dollar for the people who cannot pay their utility bills. I really do not have a problem with that. It probably averages to fifty cents a month-sometimes higher, sometimes lower on an average bill of about $125 monthly. If I did have a problem with it, I could always unplug some appliances when not in use, and gain the money back.
I sometimes think the big restaurant chains make a big big profit on the typical bill. Heck, four or five dollars for a beer or $7 for a glass of medium priced wine I know is a rip off. I would not have a problem of seeing a breakdown of taxes, insurance, food cost, employee cost, etc, listed on the bill so I can make an informed decision if I am being ripped off or not. If I have to pay 2% to help guarantee an employee has health insurance, and keep them off Medicaid, etc, not a problem.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 1, 2015 10:55:42 GMT -5
And yet dj is a businessman who passes his cost onto his customer base. He has to, otherwise he would be at the food pantry.
I don't think he's argued otherwise, VB. I believe his objections are not to passing on the costs of doing business. I believe he's talking about the method used here and whether it's being used only to recoup losses or whether the main purpose is to make a political statement. As a business man, he is the one who makes the decision as to how his business will run and how profits will be made. As consumers, we all are entitled to make decisions as to whether a business' practices are compatible with our principles. Businesses have different ways of passing on costs to their customers. This happens to be one way. Whether it is right or wrong, we do not know. Boycott the business out of existence, does not help their employees either.
|
|
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 Feb 1, 2015 10:56:17 GMT -5
Utility bills have breakdowns because they are regulated monopolies. The breakdowns are specified by law.
|
|
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 Feb 1, 2015 10:58:16 GMT -5
I don't think he's argued otherwise, VB. I believe his objections are not to passing on the costs of doing business. I believe he's talking about the method used here and whether it's being used only to recoup losses or whether the main purpose is to make a political statement. As a business man, he is the one who makes the decision as to how his business will run and how profits will be made. As consumers, we all are entitled to make decisions as to whether a business' practices are compatible with our principles. Businesses have different ways of passing on costs to their customers. This happens to be one way. Whether it is right or wrong, we do not know. Boycott the business out of existence, does not help their employees either.
As I said, as a consumer I, or any other consumer, have a right to make a decision as to where, and with whom I will do business. If a business' practices offend me I will probably decide not to do business with that organization. That's how it all works.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 1, 2015 11:03:28 GMT -5
Businesses have different ways of passing on costs to their customers. This happens to be one way. Whether it is right or wrong, we do not know. Boycott the business out of existence, does not help their employees either.
As I said, as a consumer I, or any other consumer, have a right to make a decision as to where, and with whom I will do business. If a business' practices offend me I will probably decide not to do business with that organization. That's how it all works. would this 2% billing offend you?
If so, why is it offensive? Does it say, damn Obamacare! on the receipt ?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 1, 2015 11:06:06 GMT -5
I imagine since these are privately run franchised sites, that corporate headquarters will tell them they are in violation of their franchise agreement (somehow) and tell them to remove it from the receipt.
|
|
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 Feb 1, 2015 11:18:07 GMT -5
As I said, as a consumer I, or any other consumer, have a right to make a decision as to where, and with whom I will do business. If a business' practices offend me I will probably decide not to do business with that organization. That's how it all works. would this 2% billing offend you?
If so, why is it offensive? Does it say, damn Obamacare! on the receipt ?
Like dj, I see this as a political statement. It doesn't have to say "damn Obamacare!" on the receipt. I view it as I view it. Dj views it as he views it. You may view it differently and that's fine. We're each entitled to make our own decisions. Frankly, if I saw that on a receipt, I'd find another place to do business but I'm not about to tell you what you should do. That's up to you.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 1, 2015 11:18:24 GMT -5
I imagine since these are privately run franchised sites, that corporate headquarters will tell them they are in violation of their franchise agreement (somehow) and tell them to remove it from the receipt. Headquarters did. Read the Snopes link in the opening post.
|
|
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 Feb 1, 2015 11:18:46 GMT -5
As I said, as a consumer I, or any other consumer, have a right to make a decision as to where, and with whom I will do business. If a business' practices offend me I will probably decide not to do business with that organization. That's how it all works. would this 2% billing offend you?
If so, why is it offensive? Does it say, damn Obamacare! on the receipt ?
Yes it offends me. Its put out as a separate charge to draw attention to it. So yes its logical to assume it means 'damn Obamacare' and I hate having to give more of my employees insurance. I want you to see this on your bill, I want you to be upset about it.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 1, 2015 11:23:09 GMT -5
Of course it is a political statement. Only anti-ACA proponents or the naive would think otherwise.
|
|
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 Feb 1, 2015 12:06:52 GMT -5
Post #2 and the post in response to DJ's boycott both made assumptions that anybody upset by this doesn't want companies to make a profit. You clearly don't understand why this might bother people and that it isn't about believing companies shouldn't make profit. Post #2 (reply #1, actually) was in response to EVT's comment of " 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" The receipt STATES that the 2% is going to healthcare... yet he thinks they are "a greedy bunch of dicks". Since DJ's point was not attributed, and since there are some people that understand there's nothing wrong with it being a "line item"... that's not exactly an invalid assumption. At worst, it's a "coin toss". So, I say again. I didn't mischaracterize anything. for the record, I wasn't responding to the greedy dicks comment either. did you assume I was?
|
|
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 Feb 1, 2015 12:09:52 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. And yet dj is a businessman who passes his cost onto his customer base. He has to, otherwise he would be at the food pantry.
precisely. and so do WingDicks. it is what you do. you can either do it quietly, like I do, or you can make it all whiney and excusey. I have never advocated the latter, and I never will. have the balls to charge what you need to to make a profit, or go work for someone else. in either case, stfu. I don't want to hear about WHY.
|
|
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 Feb 1, 2015 12:12:49 GMT -5
In all honesty, we receive our utility bills with breakdowns of all the charges. We even have to round up to the next dollar for the people who cannot pay their utility bills. I really do not have a problem with that. It probably averages to fifty cents a month-sometimes higher, sometimes lower on an average bill of about $125 monthly. If I did have a problem with it, I could always unplug some appliances when not in use, and gain the money back.
I sometimes think the big restaurant chains make a big big profit on the typical bill. Heck, four or five dollars for a beer or $7 for a glass of medium priced wine I know is a rip off. I would not have a problem of seeing a breakdown of taxes, insurance, food cost, employee cost, etc, listed on the bill so I can make an informed decision if I am being ripped off or not. If I have to pay 2% to help guarantee an employee has health insurance, and keep them off Medicaid, etc, not a problem. I don't actually like the breakdown on the utility bills, either. I don't give a fuck about the telecommunications act of 1996, or whatever it is on my bill. I care about the bottom line. just give me the number, so I can shop it. this business of pretending like you are not really charging me what you are charging me is rubbish. if I want to read about your cost structure, I will download a copy of the "banker's book".
|
|
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 Feb 1, 2015 12:14:02 GMT -5
As I said, as a consumer I, or any other consumer, have a right to make a decision as to where, and with whom I will do business. If a business' practices offend me I will probably decide not to do business with that organization. That's how it all works. would this 2% billing offend you?
If so, why is it offensive? Does it say, damn Obamacare! on the receipt ?
if they are one of the few companies doing this....YES. it pretty much does.
edit: and to be clear, they have every RIGHT to do this. and I have every RIGHT to boycott the shit out of them for doing it.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Feb 1, 2015 12:21:19 GMT -5
Liberals hate to be reminded of the price of their policies!
|
|