Far more common here are ~3% "kitchen appreciation fees" that get paid directly to the kitchen staff. I'm AOK with these but some people really complain about them.
Far more common here are ~3% "kitchen appreciation fees" that get paid directly to the kitchen staff. I'm AOK with these but some people really complain about them.
It’s annoying because they could price it in up front. A restaurant bill looks like a utility bill these days with all of the line item charges, just include the damn fees in the price of food!
I am 100% opposed to this. It's manipulative at best. The right way to do it is to pay the staff more and increase the prices. At least that would be upfront and respectable.
Assuming the service charge was even 15%, for it to be $100 more than you thought it would be, your bill would be $600+ (simplifying for taxes)...
I don't go out for $600 dinners that often, though I have.
And that being said, I do think tipping does bring out some less sensical practices - why should the server get five times more for serving me a single bottle of wine if the wine was $100, versus $20? It was still a single bottle of wine.
The last time it happened was ~300 + 20% service charge + a tip that'd have been in the low-mid 20's. That works out to be a bit under $100. It started to bug me on the walk home, and I double checked the receipt. I don't like scrutinizing receipts but I've started to do it a bit more.
> why should the server get five times more for serving me a single bottle of wine if the wine was $100, versus $20? It was still a single bottle of wine.
The argument, which one can choose to agree with or not, is that the kind of place where one is buying a $100 bottle of wine has a higher degree of training, care, etc involved.
What if the restaurant serves both $20 and $100 bottles? Do they adjust the quality of service on the fly to make pouring the $20 bottle profitable? Offer extra labor-intensive services only available with the purchase of the $100 bottle?