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 2, 2015 14:22:39 GMT -5
you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. I already said that I had the choice of not eating there, and I would exercise it RATHER than having their politics shoved down my throat. what spurred the uprising on the part of the wing wanker was that I said I would boycott him. that was a tit for tat argument on my part. they ask me to pay for their politics, they expose themselves to the risk of paying for mine. I believe a person's right to publicly boycott a restaurant and to orally and verbally disparage the restaurant on the Internet and other forms of media for the restaurant's political position is the same free speech right as the franchise owner's right to list and demand payment on the restaurant tab for the 'FL Surcharge Afford Care'. A poster seems to think "Boycotting out of existence seem like some pretty extreme measures". Yet boycotting is free speech. Either you support free speech without any conditions attached or you do not support free speech. I also believe your free speech ends at the tip of my nose. Why should I have to pay a mandatory surcharge for your right to free speech? I should be free to exercise my free speech too by deducting the surcharge from my restaurant tab and paying only the remainder. Free speech only for some, eh? this is PRECISELY my position. PRECISELY.
I already said that I would be just as likely to boycott someone who put an ACLU surcharge or some other liberal thing on the bill as the Westboro Baptist surcharge. this is not "issue" related for me. it is not left/right. WingBastard has his right to free speech, and I have mine. if he feels compelled to make an issue of things, then so do I.
and as I say, I posted here mostly because I think it is bad business. not because I have a serious axe to grind, or that I am "upset" in any way. I went after this thread without mercy because I wanted to illustrate WHY it was a bad idea.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,270
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 2, 2015 14:24:51 GMT -5
Does anybody REALLY believe that Buffalo Wild Wings would lower their new prices if only Obamacare was repealed?
Just like the food manufacturers kept claiming it was all Big Oil's fault thanks to gas prices been so high?
Haven't seen the supermarket prices go down despite being below $2/gallon in some areas have you?
No what BWWs will do is wait till everyone adjusts to the new normal. If Obamacare is repealed they'll just keep the new prices and claim thanks to it being repealed now they won't have to raise them.
This is a great way to raise your prices and have an easily available scapegoat to point towards. Brilliant marketing IMO.
Personally I am getting really tired of the receipt selfie political statements. Be it BWW or someone trying to claim their table was a bad tipper.
|
|
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 2, 2015 14:26:51 GMT -5
why would i want to engage with you if i liked your posts? that seems absurd to me.
and why would i NOT want to engage with you if i didn't? that defies logic.
and nothing is personal for me here, sweets. nothing. it is all 1's and 0's. i don't care what you think of me, but for the record, i don't think of you at all. i don't know if you are a man or woman, young or old, black or white, Republican or Democrat. i don't "like" or "dislike" posters here, because, as i have often said, i don't know any of you. i just look at posts, and i respond to them "in kind" based on merit, or lack thereof. if it is a discussion worth having, i will be part of it, and if it is not, then i won't. i am very interested in the business related discussions because i live them every day, and will rarely miss the opportunity to offer my opinion on them.
again: my opinion is that businesses are best off not pulling back the curtain and showing people what is going on on their balance sheets and income and expense reports. there are only two possible reactions to that, and neither of them are any good for the business. the first is for customers to be agitated at the cost itself, which is a distraction from what you are trying to sell. the second is that it pisses them off that you even mention it.
customers often ask what my markup is. i never tell them. i WILL sometimes volunteer what my net profit is, so that they know that the discount they are asking for would eat every penny of it. but other than that, i don't make an issue out of my costs, because, imo, it is bad business. i doubt we disagree on that, but i don't care if we do.
You are not bunched up about it but would like to boycott him out of business why then?
If you can't shut them up then call them names ("wing wanker ")? Luckily some of us don't get as offended by words and speech as easily others.
I already explained why: as a cautionary tale. so that other businesses don't think they can just do this without consequences. so that I don't have to put up with this EVERYWHERE.
I am all about the universalizing principle, sweets. if WingDing can do it, then so can WalMart. bad ideas deserve to be beaten soundly. that is all this is: a reaction to a bad idea, to stop it before it spreads.
as to the name calling, why should anyone get personally offended, unless they are WingDildo?
|
|
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 2, 2015 14:28:07 GMT -5
Does anybody REALLY believe that Buffalo Wild Wings would lower their new prices if only Obamacare was repealed?
Just like the food manufacturers kept claiming it was all Big Oil's fault thanks to gas prices been so high?
Haven't seen the supermarket prices go down despite being below $2/gallon in some areas have you?
No what BWWs will do is wait till everyone adjusts to the new normal. If Obamacare is repealed they'll just keep the new prices and claim thanks to it being repealed now they won't have to raise them.
This is a great way to raise your prices and have an easily available scapegoat to point towards. Brilliant marketing IMO.
Personally I am getting really tired of the receipt selfie political statements. Be it BWW or someone trying to claim their table was a bad tipper. this is also it. rather than being a baby about your costs, just charge what you need to make a living. I have said this about 5x on this thread. have some courage, and charge what you need to charge, rather than showing us your owie when we go to pay.
edit: I had an ex-business-partner that suggested some sort of a fuel or HW surcharge on our bills. it is one of many reasons he is an EX-partner.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Feb 2, 2015 14:44:19 GMT -5
It's harder to criticize the evil, greedy coporation for increased prices if they tell you in writing why they're up!
|
|
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 2, 2015 15:56:50 GMT -5
It's harder to criticize the evil, greedy coporation (sic) for increased prices if they tell you in writing why they're up! clearly that is not true. i have nothing against raising prices and making a profit, but i am full of criticism for them telling me why.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 2, 2015 16:22:15 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.
Transparency is key to stopping the invisible creep of big government. If transparency bothers you, perhaps you agree with the architect that it was a "lack of transparency" that was crucial to getting ObamaCare passed?
|
|
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 2, 2015 17:28:32 GMT -5
Does anybody REALLY believe that Buffalo Wild Wings would lower their new prices if only Obamacare was repealed?
Just like the food manufacturers kept claiming it was all Big Oil's fault thanks to gas prices been so high?
Haven't seen the supermarket prices go down despite being below $2/gallon in some areas have you?
No what BWWs will do is wait till everyone adjusts to the new normal. If Obamacare is repealed they'll just keep the new prices and claim thanks to it being repealed now they won't have to raise them.
This is a great way to raise your prices and have an easily available scapegoat to point towards. Brilliant marketing IMO.
Personally I am getting really tired of the receipt selfie political statements. Be it BWW or someone trying to claim their table was a bad tipper. DQ I was thinking about food prices. There are a couple items that went up in cost dramatically at Wegmans and still have not come down or in one case came down only half of a large increase.
One, Marantha Almond Butter jumped I think from $4.99 to about $6.99 almost over night. I do wonder if part of that was because Wegmans put out their own brand in a larger jar so they wanted the price spread to be less? IDK, but grocery stores seem to be fast to raise prices and very slow to lower them.
|
|
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 2, 2015 18:33:52 GMT -5
Does anybody REALLY believe that Buffalo Wild Wings would lower their new prices if only Obamacare was repealed?
Just like the food manufacturers kept claiming it was all Big Oil's fault thanks to gas prices been so high?
Haven't seen the supermarket prices go down despite being below $2/gallon in some areas have you?
No what BWWs will do is wait till everyone adjusts to the new normal. If Obamacare is repealed they'll just keep the new prices and claim thanks to it being repealed now they won't have to raise them.
This is a great way to raise your prices and have an easily available scapegoat to point towards. Brilliant marketing IMO.
Personally I am getting really tired of the receipt selfie political statements. Be it BWW or someone trying to claim their table was a bad tipper. DQ I was thinking about food prices. There are a couple items that went up in cost dramatically at Wegmans and still have not come down or in one case came down only half of a large increase.
One, Marantha Almond Butter jumped I think from $4.99 to about $6.99 almost over night. I do wonder if part of that was because Wegmans put out their own brand in a larger jar so they wanted the price spread to be less? IDK, but grocery stores seem to be fast to raise prices and very slow to lower them.
no, it is due to extremely low crop yields in California due to the drought of '14, I believe. you can check it out to verify that.
|
|
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 2, 2015 20:07:04 GMT -5
DQ I was thinking about food prices. There are a couple items that went up in cost dramatically at Wegmans and still have not come down or in one case came down only half of a large increase.
One, Marantha Almond Butter jumped I think from $4.99 to about $6.99 almost over night. I do wonder if part of that was because Wegmans put out their own brand in a larger jar so they wanted the price spread to be less? IDK, but grocery stores seem to be fast to raise prices and very slow to lower them.
no, it is due to extremely low crop yields in California due to the drought of '14, I believe. you can check it out to verify that. Two years ago walnuts skyrocketed because China bought most of the crop. Wonder if this was true with almonds too, as well as the drought
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 2, 2015 20:13:01 GMT -5
I believe a person's right to publicly boycott a restaurant and to orally and verbally disparage the restaurant on the Internet and other forms of media for the restaurant's political position is the same free speech right as the franchise owner's right to list and demand payment on the restaurant tab for the 'FL Surcharge Afford Care'. A poster seems to think "Boycotting out of existence seem like some pretty extreme measures". Yet boycotting is free speech. Either you support free speech without any conditions attached or you do not support free speech. I also believe your free speech ends at the tip of my nose. Why should I have to pay a mandatory surcharge for your right to free speech? I should be free to exercise my free speech too by deducting the surcharge from my restaurant tab and paying only the remainder. Free speech only for some, eh? this is PRECISELY my position. PRECISELY.
I already said that I would be just as likely to boycott someone who put an ACLU surcharge or some other liberal thing on the bill as the Westboro Baptist surcharge. this is not "issue" related for me. it is not left/right. WingBastard has his right to free speech, and I have mine. if he feels compelled to make an issue of things, then so do I.
and as I say, I posted here mostly because I think it is bad business. not because I have a serious axe to grind, or that I am "upset" in any way. I went after this thread without mercy because I wanted to illustrate WHY it was a bad idea.
" I went after this thread without mercy because I wanted to illustrate WHY it was a bad idea."The above is your opinion...being a bad idea is your call, not all posters..As you can see by comments on this thread , some of the posters feel it is anything but and have no problem with the sur charge...as long as it is used for the reason stated...Allowing employees to have the hours to qualify as full time workers and covered medically where they would not be covered 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 2, 2015 22:07:16 GMT -5
this is PRECISELY my position. PRECISELY.
I already said that I would be just as likely to boycott someone who put an ACLU surcharge or some other liberal thing on the bill as the Westboro Baptist surcharge. this is not "issue" related for me. it is not left/right. WingBastard has his right to free speech, and I have mine. if he feels compelled to make an issue of things, then so do I.
and as I say, I posted here mostly because I think it is bad business. not because I have a serious axe to grind, or that I am "upset" in any way. I went after this thread without mercy because I wanted to illustrate WHY it was a bad idea.
" I went after this thread without mercy because I wanted to illustrate WHY it was a bad idea."The above is your opinion...being a bad idea is your call, not all posters..As you can see by comments on this thread , some of the posters feel it is anything but and have no problem with the sur charge...as long as it is used for the reason stated...Allowing employees to have the hours to qualify as full time workers and covered medically where they would not be covered otherwise... this is a false dichotomy. it is not EITHER/OR. you can charge an extra 2%, do the same thing, and nobody would be the wiser. no, the ONLY purpose this nonsense serves is to air grievances on the part of management, which is highly unbusinesslike.
as to the disagreement, I couldn't care less. my point was this: if you lose ONE customer because of this, it was a bad decision, because you didn't need to do it. you may have had your reasons, but those reasons are not very businesslike. that is my gripe.
|
|
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 2, 2015 22:14:01 GMT -5
incidentally, the "unbusinesslike business" doesn't seem to bother quite a few people, here. I remember the gay wedding cake quite well. I have always thought it a little odd to run a business the way you run a church- to sacrifice a perfectly good income stream at the alter of some phantom grievances- but I guess I just think of business as something that should be focused on the people you serve and your employees rather than yourself.
i know. socialist, right?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 2, 2015 22:37:32 GMT -5
" I went after this thread without mercy because I wanted to illustrate WHY it was a bad idea."The above is your opinion...being a bad idea is your call, not all posters..As you can see by comments on this thread , some of the posters feel it is anything but and have no problem with the sur charge...as long as it is used for the reason stated...Allowing employees to have the hours to qualify as full time workers and covered medically where they would not be covered otherwise... this is a false dichotomy. it is not EITHER/OR. you can charge an extra 2%, do the same thing, and nobody would be the wiser. no, the ONLY purpose this nonsense serves is to air grievances on the part of management, which is highly unbusinesslike.
as to the disagreement, I couldn't care less. my point was this: if you lose ONE customer because of this, it was a bad decision, because you didn't need to do it. you may have had your reasons, but those reasons are not very businesslike. that is my gripe.
As I said....that is your opinion...your assuming the employer, business owner, really objects to having his workers covered medically and prefers having them considered part time workers over full time..I doubt that ..I believe he just feels he can't afford to pay the full costs of the workers medical under Obama care ..I believe he figured that if he can get some of those costs back from the customers, and felt it would be beneficial to let customers know why prices are higher rather then just arbitrarily raise the item charges with out the customers knowing why...this way in his mind was the better way. Now you are free to disagree with my ideas as I am with yours..neither of us really will know which is the correct one will we.. I really have a hard time accepting folks TELLING me stuff rather then suggesting possible scenarios when they really don't know..are just surmising , believing offering different possibilities... In a way so full of themselves as they have all the answers...it's their way or the highway...not saying your that way ..just saying....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 22:41:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 23:02:26 GMT -5
" I went after this thread without mercy because I wanted to illustrate WHY it was a bad idea."The above is your opinion...being a bad idea is your call, not all posters..As you can see by comments on this thread , some of the posters feel it is anything but and have no problem with the sur charge...as long as it is used for the reason stated...Allowing employees to have the hours to qualify as full time workers and covered medically where they would not be covered otherwise... this is a false dichotomy. it is not EITHER/OR. you can charge an extra 2%, do the same thing, and nobody would be the wiser. no, the ONLY purpose this nonsense serves is to air grievances on the part of management, which is highly unbusinesslike.
as to the disagreement, I couldn't care less. my point was this: if you lose ONE customer because of this, it was a bad decision, because you didn't need to do it. you may have had your reasons, but those reasons are not very businesslike. that is my gripe.
What is the purpose of putting a line that says "State Sales Tax X%: {tax amount}"? I mean, you COULD just include that tax in the shelf/menu price (I used to work at a place that did just that, so I know it CAN be done)... so what kind of statement is it making if it's at the bottom of the receipt? ETA: And if you lose 1 but gain 2... was it still a bad decision? What if you lose customers because they think you are like every other fast food joint in town that's cutting hours instead... is it a bad decision to have NOT made mention that you didn't do that?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 2, 2015 23:42:27 GMT -5
this is a false dichotomy. it is not EITHER/OR. you can charge an extra 2%, do the same thing, and nobody would be the wiser. no, the ONLY purpose this nonsense serves is to air grievances on the part of management, which is highly unbusinesslike.
as to the disagreement, I couldn't care less. my point was this: if you lose ONE customer because of this, it was a bad decision, because you didn't need to do it. you may have had your reasons, but those reasons are not very businesslike. that is my gripe.
As I said....that is your opinion...your assuming the employer, business owner, really objects to having his workers covered medically and prefers having them considered part time workers over full time..I doubt that ..I believe he just feels he can't afford to pay the full costs of the workers medical under Obama care ..I believe he figured that if he can get some of those costs back from the customers, and felt it would be beneficial to let customers know why prices are higher rather then just arbitrarily raise the item charges with out the customers knowing why...this way in his mind was the better way. Now you are free to disagree with my ideas as I am with yours..neither of us really will know which is the correct one will we.. I really have a hard time accepting folks TELLING me stuff rather then suggesting possible scenarios when they really don't know..are just surmising , believing offering different possibilities... In a way so full of themselves as they have all the answers...it's their way or the highway...not saying your that way ..just saying.... How many customers do you think actually pay enough attention that they would notice their meal went from $7.25 to $7.40? More importantly, how many of those few that noticed do you think would seriously question a 2% increase and possibly opt to no longer dine at that location? Prices increase often, especially on food. It really isn't that big of a deal to raise prices slightly.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 2, 2015 23:59:41 GMT -5
As I said....that is your opinion...your assuming the employer, business owner, really objects to having his workers covered medically and prefers having them considered part time workers over full time..I doubt that ..I believe he just feels he can't afford to pay the full costs of the workers medical under Obama care ..I believe he figured that if he can get some of those costs back from the customers, and felt it would be beneficial to let customers know why prices are higher rather then just arbitrarily raise the item charges with out the customers knowing why...this way in his mind was the better way. Now you are free to disagree with my ideas as I am with yours..neither of us really will know which is the correct one will we.. I really have a hard time accepting folks TELLING me stuff rather then suggesting possible scenarios when they really don't know..are just surmising , believing offering different possibilities... In a way so full of themselves as they have all the answers...it's their way or the highway...not saying your that way ..just saying.... How many customers do you think actually pay enough attention that they would notice their meal went from $7.25 to $7.40? More importantly, how many of those few that noticed do you think would seriously question a 2% increase and possibly opt to no longer dine at that location? Prices increase often, especially on food. It really isn't that big of a deal to raise prices slightly. I reviewed the check in the opening post. Eleven items were ordered and the surcharge came to $1.12. That comes out to roughly $.10 an item, big or small item. Surely the franchise owner could increase the price of each item by $.10 without complaint from the customers.
|
|
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 3, 2015 8:02:17 GMT -5
How many customers do you think actually pay enough attention that they would notice their meal went from $7.25 to $7.40? More importantly, how many of those few that noticed do you think would seriously question a 2% increase and possibly opt to no longer dine at that location? Prices increase often, especially on food. It really isn't that big of a deal to raise prices slightly. I reviewed the check in the opening post. Eleven items were ordered and the surcharge came to $1.12. That comes out to roughly $.10 an item, big or small item. Surely the franchise owner could increase the price of each item by $.10 without complaint from the customers. True, but on the other hand (there is always another hand) if this is a political statement, since over 50% disagree with the ACA the company has taken a stand the opposite of some people here. They know there are more people who are not happy with the program so rather than arbitrarily raise food cost without a reason, they are pissing off fewer customers than they would have if they just raised retail prices. Right now they are only upsetting the Gruber's of the world. And a couple of the more liberal posters here, who quite frankly should be happy a company is being open and honest about cost of service. Like I previously stated we all know we get ripped off on some items on the menu. In this case they are telling you upfront, it is not because of "normal costs", but an added tax by our government. Since this "tax" is being told to you upfront, I have no problem paying the servers this amount to keep them employed rather than laid off. Yes, laid off. One of the staff would have to go to pay for the tax.
|
|
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 3, 2015 8:06:44 GMT -5
One other thought about it's only ten cents per item.... All businesses do not raise it automatically just ten cents. Businesses like to keep the same margin percentage in place. IF retail is $2.97, a retailer does not go to $3.07 $3.07 is a price many retailers ignore, as customers ask their self why isn't just $2.99 New price becomes $3.09 or even $3.19 to keep the margin the same amount.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 3, 2015 9:03:19 GMT -5
I reviewed the check in the opening post. Eleven items were ordered and the surcharge came to $1.12. That comes out to roughly $.10 an item, big or small item. Surely the franchise owner could increase the price of each item by $.10 without complaint from the customers. True, but on the other hand (there is always another hand) if this is a political statement, since over 50% disagree with the ACA the company has taken a stand the opposite of some people here. They know there are more people who are not happy with the program so rather than arbitrarily raise food cost without a reason, they are pissing off fewer customers than they would have if they just raised retail prices. Right now they are only upsetting the Gruber's of the world. And a couple of the more liberal posters here, who quite frankly should be happy a company is being open and honest about cost of service. Like I previously stated we all know we get ripped off on some items on the menu. In this case they are telling you upfront, it is not because of "normal costs", but an added tax by our government. Since this "tax" is being told to you upfront, I have no problem paying the servers this amount to keep them employed rather than laid off. Yes, laid off. One of the staff would have to go to pay for the tax.
Of the over 50% you say who disagree with the ACA, what percentage of those who disagree is because they believe it does not go far enough and want it improved from where it is today? DJ has often said a percentage of those who disagree with the ACA disagree not because they want it gone but because it does not go far enough and needs to be improved. For example, here is a poll from March 2014. More disagree with the ACA than agree. But not everyone who disagrees with it want the ACA trashed. In fact, a majority want their elected officials to make it work. ACA at Age 4: More Disapproval than Approval But Most Opponents Want Politicians to Make Law WorkAs for raising the price of each restaurant item by $.10 each, very few people would even notice, let alone care. You might, I don't know. Only someone who ate at the restaurant 3 meals a day over an extended period of time and ordered the same item(s) three times a day would notice a very slight increase in price. I really don't need an explanation why an item has increased in price by $.10. If I even notice it, I assume it is the cost of running a business. And that includes offering benefits to employees. I don't need a restaurant, or any other business for that matter, wearing their discontent with the ACA on their sleeve. I suppose I could, in the example of the restaurant tab in the opening post, reduce the price of the tip by the same amount of the ACA surcharge because I am paying for the server's medical benefits. I could write on the tab that I have reduced the tip amount and applied it toward their ACA coverage because we all know benefits are part of an overall compensation package.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 3, 2015 9:15:02 GMT -5
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Feb 3, 2015 9:50:54 GMT -5
I have to pay an MTA surcharge on my phone bill. Too bad I can't boycott the phone company(and all of it's employees) out of business Isn't the ACA a tax? so why shouldn't the added expense of that tax be included on the bill. also it's "only" 2% this year, it could be 4% next year, 12% two years from now, 25% 6 years from now. better to start showing the cost now? if we didn't know what was in it until it was passed, how will we know how much the cost will increase while it's in use?
|
|
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 3, 2015 11:14:56 GMT -5
this is a false dichotomy. it is not EITHER/OR. you can charge an extra 2%, do the same thing, and nobody would be the wiser. no, the ONLY purpose this nonsense serves is to air grievances on the part of management, which is highly unbusinesslike.
as to the disagreement, I couldn't care less. my point was this: if you lose ONE customer because of this, it was a bad decision, because you didn't need to do it. you may have had your reasons, but those reasons are not very businesslike. that is my gripe.
What is the purpose of putting a line that says "State Sales Tax X%: {tax amount}"? I mean, you COULD just include that tax in the shelf/menu price (I used to work at a place that did just that, so I know it CAN be done)... so what kind of statement is it making if it's at the bottom of the receipt? ETA: And if you lose 1 but gain 2... was it still a bad decision? What if you lose customers because they think you are like every other fast food joint in town that's cutting hours instead... is it a bad decision to have NOT made mention that you didn't do that? for two reasons.
first, some items are not taxable. i would be puzzled if Stupid Wings did not charge tax on some items. second, in terms of sales tax, those items are not actually owned by the retailer. the retailer COLLECTS them, and the GOVERNMENT owns them. it is a very strict accounting system (to the penny) that creates a flow through revenue for states whose point of origin is at the retailer. the ACA tax doesn't work that way, since it is not paid universally, only by some of those that don't offer insurance.
|
|
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 3, 2015 11:20:14 GMT -5
this is a false dichotomy. it is not EITHER/OR. you can charge an extra 2%, do the same thing, and nobody would be the wiser. no, the ONLY purpose this nonsense serves is to air grievances on the part of management, which is highly unbusinesslike.
as to the disagreement, I couldn't care less. my point was this: if you lose ONE customer because of this, it was a bad decision, because you didn't need to do it. you may have had your reasons, but those reasons are not very businesslike. that is my gripe.
As I said....that is your opinion... no, actually. those are not opinions. those are FACTS. it is a FACT that Bumble Wings does NOT need to call out the 2% as a separate item. it is also true that several people here, having found this item on the bill, would choose to shop for wings elsewhere.
there is no opinion there. those are facts. I BELIEVE that it is very unbusinesslike to behave this way in the face of these facts. if you don't believe that this is ALSO a fact, I would be curious as to 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 3, 2015 11:22:10 GMT -5
I have to pay an MTA surcharge on my phone bill. Too bad I can't boycott the phone company(and all of it's employees) out of business Isn't the ACA a tax? so why shouldn't the added expense of that tax be included on the bill. also it's "only" 2% this year, it could be 4% next year, 12% two years from now, 25% 6 years from now. better to start showing the cost now? if we didn't know what was in it until it was passed, how will we know how much the cost will increase while it's in use? I believe the phone companies are required to call out that tax, but I might be mistaken.
and it is only a "tax" if you refuse to insure your employees. what are you going to do when you make that choice? call that out on the bill too?
|
|
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 3, 2015 11:24:25 GMT -5
I reviewed the check in the opening post. Eleven items were ordered and the surcharge came to $1.12. That comes out to roughly $.10 an item, big or small item. Surely the franchise owner could increase the price of each item by $.10 without complaint from the customers. True, but on the other hand (there is always another hand) if this is a political statement, since over 50% disagree with the ACA the company has taken a stand the opposite of some people here. They know there are more people who are not happy with the program so rather than arbitrarily raise food cost without a reason, they are pissing off fewer customers than they would have if they just raised retail prices. Right now they are only upsetting the Gruber's of the world. And a couple of the more liberal posters here, who quite frankly should be happy a company is being open and honest about cost of service. Like I previously stated we all know we get ripped off on some items on the menu. In this case they are telling you upfront, it is not because of "normal costs", but an added tax by our government. Since this "tax" is being told to you upfront, I have no problem paying the servers this amount to keep them employed rather than laid off. Yes, laid off. One of the staff would have to go to pay for the tax.
you don't have to lay anyone off. just raise prices, like a grown up.
and your logic is bad on the unpopularity of the law. if you even lose ONE customer, it was a bad idea to put it on the tab, even if it is wildly popular with the rest of your customers, UNLESS you think that customers will FLOCK to your restaurant because you are putting the ACA tax on your bill.
is that what you think?
|
|
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 3, 2015 11:27:26 GMT -5
One other thought about it's only ten cents per item.... All businesses do not raise it automatically just ten cents. Businesses like to keep the same margin percentage in place. IF retail is $2.97, a retailer does not go to $3.07 $3.07 is a price many retailers ignore, as customers ask their self why isn't just $2.99 New price becomes $3.09 or even $3.19 to keep the margin the same amount. that's not how it works. if your costs go up 2%, by raising prices 2%, your margins will stay the same, and your net profit will RISE, because your costs are not 100% of revenue.
|
|
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 3, 2015 11:44:24 GMT -5
this is a false dichotomy. it is not EITHER/OR. you can charge an extra 2%, do the same thing, and nobody would be the wiser. no, the ONLY purpose this nonsense serves is to air grievances on the part of management, which is highly unbusinesslike.
as to the disagreement, I couldn't care less. my point was this: if you lose ONE customer because of this, it was a bad decision, because you didn't need to do it. you may have had your reasons, but those reasons are not very businesslike. that is my gripe.
As I said....that is your opinion...your assuming the employer, business owner, really objects to having his workers covered medically and prefers having them considered part time workers over full time..I doubt that ..I believe he just feels he can't afford to pay the full costs of the workers medical under Obama care ..I believe he figured that if he can get some of those costs back from the customers, and felt it would be beneficial to let customers know why prices are higher rather then just arbitrarily raise the item charges with out the customers knowing why...this way in his mind was the better way. Now you are free to disagree with my ideas as I am with yours..neither of us really will know which is the correct one will we.. I really have a hard time accepting folks TELLING me stuff rather then suggesting possible scenarios when they really don't know..are just surmising , believing offering different possibilities... In a way so full of themselves as they have all the answers...it's their way or the highway...not saying your that way ..just saying.... i am not following your last paragraph. first of all, i suggested that taxing people some fake tax is only different than changing pricing in the sense that it draws attention to the tax. second, i suggested that although some people won't mind the attention to the workings of Whiney Wings business, others will. and finally, i suggested that those that don't like it will go elsewhere, which will cost the company far more money than simply burying the cost like other businesses do.
i am not telling anyone to do anything. i am saying they are STUPID to make an issue out of this. you are free to disagree, but i think i have made a good case for my position, and so i would like you to describe WHY it is not stupid from a business perspective.
|
|
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 3, 2015 12:04:48 GMT -5
in case i wasn't clear, i am a strong advocate of the freedom to be stupid. if Whackjob Wings wants to advertise his hatred for the ACA, and suffer the consequences for that decision, he should have the right to do that (provided that it is not a violation of his franchise agreement, which it probably is). economic Darwinism should handle the rest.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 22:41:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 12:44:51 GMT -5
you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. I already said that I had the choice of not eating there, and I would exercise it RATHER than having their politics shoved down my throat. what spurred the uprising on the part of the wing wanker was that I said I would boycott him. that was a tit for tat argument on my part. they ask me to pay for their politics, they expose themselves to the risk of paying for mine. I believe a person's right to publicly boycott a restaurant and to orally and verbally disparage the restaurant on the Internet and other forms of media for the restaurant's political position is the same free speech right as the franchise owner's right to list and demand payment on the restaurant tab for the 'FL Surcharge Afford Care'. A poster seems to think "Boycotting out of existence seem like some pretty extreme measures". Yet boycotting is free speech. Either you support free speech without any conditions attached or you do not support free speech. I also believe your free speech ends at the tip of my nose. Why should I have to pay a mandatory surcharge for your right to free speech? I should be free to exercise my free speech too by deducting the surcharge from my restaurant tab and paying only the remainder. Free speech only for some, eh? No. I think the way the guy is expressing his opinion on the ACA is a little out there, but he is not doing it in a hateful manner, he is not singling anyone out, this is just how he decides to express his opinion on the law every one is getting the same thing on their bill. Maybe he will lose a few customers that don't like it, he's willing to take the risk. Opposed to boycott him out of business. Attempt to take away his livelihood, his means of supporting his family if he has one. The ability of his employees to support themselves and their families. Yes, I think that's way out there, extreme, and twisted.
|
|