Restaurant Customers OUTRAGED Over Unexpected Surcharge

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,433
Reaction score
544
Customers at Buffalo Wild Wings locations in some parts of Texas were surprised when they found a new charge on their receipts — in addition to taxes and gratuity.

Then they read it — and were outraged.

As News Channel 10 reported, it turns out that the Amarillo and Lubbock locations of the popular chain had attempted to pass off the cost of Obamacare to their customers in the form of a new “tax” on their meals.

That tax appeared on customers’ receipts on January 1, the very same day that businesses who employ more than 100 employees began to be forced to provide at least 70 percent of their full-time employees with health insurance coverage.

These Buffalo Wild Wings — like tens of thousands of businesses across America – were forced by ObamaCare to make a choice: cut the hours of their employees, raise prices on the menu, or take the hit themselves. The franchises, run by Howard Restaurant Group, made their call, and added the 2% surcharge onto the total of every bill.

Needless to say, given the unpopularity of ObamaCare, the fee didn’t sit well with customers, and many of them questioned the managers as to why they were being forced to pay it.

“At first I thought this was a joke,” customer Joey Keenum said. “I asked the server, ‘What is this for?’ She said, ‘It’s for the Obamacare cost.‘”

When he spoke to the manager, they explained that it was their way of subsidizing the company’s healthcare costs, which is something many conservatives have been saying for quite some time would happen. However, Keenum was irate about it and doesn’t feel it’s his responsibility to pay for others’ healthcare.

“It’s just absurd that I have to use my after-tax money to pay for someone else’s health insurance,” he said.

The company released a statement explaining why customers were seeing the new tax on their checks:


“Due to the Affordable Healthcare Act and its requirement of healthcare coverage to all full-time employees,” the company statement said, “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.”

However this did nothing to quell the customer backlash — and the company was soon forced to overturn their new fee.

“The health care surcharge at our franchised Buffalo Wild Wings in Lubbock and Amarillo has been removed,” she said. “We regret any inconvenience this may have caused. Our priority is to always provide our guests a great experience every day so they can enjoy our wings, beer and sports.”

The bottom line decision for businesses: fire your workers, or pass through the costs to other consumers. Many have done the former, or converted full-time workers to part-time status. Increasingly more are opting for the latter, with the number of part-time workers exploding to an all-time high.

Of course, NONE of this was told to the American people, when the Democrats rammed ObamaCare through by one vote.

As Milton Friedman famously said: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Turns out “free” healthcare is not exactly free. When government “provides” a “service,” the costs to the economy, and country are always far worse than advertised.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=8059
 
Customers at Buffalo Wild Wings locations in some parts of Texas were surprised when they found a new charge on their receipts — in addition to taxes and gratuity.

Then they read it — and were outraged.

As News Channel 10 reported, it turns out that the Amarillo and Lubbock locations of the popular chain had attempted to pass off the cost of Obamacare to their customers in the form of a new “tax” on their meals.

That tax appeared on customers’ receipts on January 1, the very same day that businesses who employ more than 100 employees began to be forced to provide at least 70 percent of their full-time employees with health insurance coverage.

These Buffalo Wild Wings — like tens of thousands of businesses across America – were forced by ObamaCare to make a choice: cut the hours of their employees, raise prices on the menu, or take the hit themselves. The franchises, run by Howard Restaurant Group, made their call, and added the 2% surcharge onto the total of every bill.

Needless to say, given the unpopularity of ObamaCare, the fee didn’t sit well with customers, and many of them questioned the managers as to why they were being forced to pay it.

“At first I thought this was a joke,” customer Joey Keenum said. “I asked the server, ‘What is this for?’ She said, ‘It’s for the Obamacare cost.‘”

When he spoke to the manager, they explained that it was their way of subsidizing the company’s healthcare costs, which is something many conservatives have been saying for quite some time would happen. However, Keenum was irate about it and doesn’t feel it’s his responsibility to pay for others’ healthcare.

“It’s just absurd that I have to use my after-tax money to pay for someone else’s health insurance,” he said.

The company released a statement explaining why customers were seeing the new tax on their checks:


“Due to the Affordable Healthcare Act and its requirement of healthcare coverage to all full-time employees,” the company statement said, “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.”

However this did nothing to quell the customer backlash — and the company was soon forced to overturn their new fee.

“The health care surcharge at our franchised Buffalo Wild Wings in Lubbock and Amarillo has been removed,” she said. “We regret any inconvenience this may have caused. Our priority is to always provide our guests a great experience every day so they can enjoy our wings, beer and sports.”

The bottom line decision for businesses: fire your workers, or pass through the costs to other consumers. Many have done the former, or converted full-time workers to part-time status. Increasingly more are opting for the latter, with the number of part-time workers exploding to an all-time high.

Of course, NONE of this was told to the American people, when the Democrats rammed ObamaCare through by one vote.

As Milton Friedman famously said: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Turns out “free” healthcare is not exactly free. When government “provides” a “service,” the costs to the economy, and country are always far worse than advertised.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=8059




As Milton Friedman famously said: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Turns out “free” healthcare is not exactly free. When government “provides” a “service,” the costs to the economy, and country are always far worse than advertised.


Duh!!! Thanks Democrats for your wonderful Obama Care. It will only get worse, with all kinds of price raises to pay for it. :mad2:
 
A 25¢ surcharge on a $13 bill seems pretty petty. My guess is that it is fake, or some owner has a political agenda. Since I went uninsured for several years, I am happy that I have some coverage now. Note that I have a job, and I would prefer to have insurance covered by my employer.

BTW, if my employer provides healthcare insurance, who pays for it? Don't think for a minute that it doesn't come from American tax payers in some way.

And before every Conservative cries foul, realize that there are people that benefit from this. We aren't all sitting home watching Springer and refreshing our bank accounts waiting for the welfare checks to hit.
 
It doesn't make sense. Know why? The ACA is available online for unemployed people, low-income employees or employees who are not covered by the employer to apply and then get tax refunds if they are eligible. The restaurants stopped the surcharge because it's illegal. IRS will catch those restaurants to pay.
 
tumblr_m4ihbkgi521qz50ez.gif
 
I go over ALL my bills, receipts and bank statements. Once, my insurance company overcharged me by $1...might sound petty to some, but not to me...I called about it, questioned the rep...and she said..."well, it's only a $1"...say what?...That $1 was taken off and is in my own pocket.

$.25 cent overcharge can add up to big cash...would I complain, even tho' it's petty?...Yes, I would....and it's understandable.... (some)....people not having Insurance. But in my case, my Social Security only goes so far...and I pay for my own insurance.
 
I go over ALL my bills, receipts and bank statements. Once, my insurance company overcharged me by $1...might sound petty to some, but not to me...I called about it, questioned the rep...and she said..."well, it's only a $1"...say what?...That $1 was taken off and is in my own pocket.

$.25 cent overcharge can add up to big cash...would I complain, even tho' it's petty?...Yes, I would....and it's understandable.... (some)....people not having Insurance. But in my case, my Social Security only goes so far...and I pay for my own insurance.
I see your point; every dollar counts. The thing is, this isn't the water bill. They ate out at a restaurant. A lot of metro areas have tax surcharges for stadiums built for NFL or MLB teams. Why should someone with trouble paying their rent subsidize a sports franchise that employs wife beaters, drug abusers, and other felons?

Ah, we could go around a few times...
 
I see your point; every dollar counts. The thing is, this isn't the water bill. They ate out at a restaurant. A lot of metro areas have tax surcharges for stadiums built for NFL or MLB teams. Why should someone with trouble paying their rent subsidize a sports franchise that employs wife beaters, drug abusers, and other felons?

Ah, we could go around a few times...

The things that you brought up in the quoted post are known before you buy the ticket, etc. I think the biggest part of the problem came from finding it when they went to pay their bill not so much the amount.
 
The things that you brought up in the quoted post are known before you buy the ticket, etc. I think the biggest part of the problem came from finding it when they went to pay their bill not so much the amount.
Really? I've checked into hotels that advertise rates, with a car full of tired passengers. Imagine the surprise when I find I am paying an extra $15 over the quoted rate for stadium taxes. I don't follow every state for new taxes. Should I balk, load the kids back in the car?

I wasn't talking about buying tickets to see sports. I would fully enjoy the new stadiums if that were the case.

These people ate out. They chose to go there. It wasn't a need. They probably get out the calculator to determine the exact tip, not a penny more. Those low life folks that work tables are just money grubbers. :roll:

Anyhow, given the source link, I'd be shocked if this wasn't proven false.
 
If employers treated the employees properly in the first place, there would have been no need for the new system.
 
San Francisco has allowed a restaurant surcharge for health care for employees for about 5 years. Not getting into the discussion of good or bad. Just saying such a surcharge isn't new just because of ObamaCare.
 
San Francisco has allowed a restaurant surcharge for health care for employees for about 5 years. Not getting into the discussion of good or bad. Just saying such a surcharge isn't new just because of ObamaCare.

Just 1 restaurant or all restaurants in San Francisco?....and the State of Calif. allows this...legally?
 
Just 1 restaurant or all restaurants in San Francisco?....and the State of Calif. allows this...legally?


Some San Francisco businesses have elected to impose a surcharge (i.e. an extra fee or cost) on the goods or services they sell to customers to cover, in whole or in part, the expense of complying with the Health Care Security Ordinance.

Employers impose such surcharges at their discretion. The City neither requires nor prohibits them.

Every restaurant I've been to while visiting SF has imposed such a charge.
 
Some San Francisco businesses have elected to impose a surcharge (i.e. an extra fee or cost) on the goods or services they sell to customers to cover, in whole or in part, the expense of complying with the Health Care Security Ordinance.

Employers impose such surcharges at their discretion. The City neither requires nor prohibits them.

Every restaurant I've been to while visiting SF has imposed such a charge.

Never been to SF...so this is news to me...however, I will check my restaurant receipts more carefully next time here in my city. Do the restaurants in SF post or let the customers know of this surcharge before dining?
 
It was a surprise to me the first time it happened. Asked the waiter about it after the bill arrived. I've never noticed any notices posted informing customers of the charge, but I haven't looked for any. They might be there.
 
It was a surprise to me the first time it happened. Asked the waiter about it after the bill arrived. I've never noticed any notices posted informing customers of the charge, but I haven't looked for any. They might be there.

Well, I would question it too (the surcharge)...how can they or anyone prove it's going for the Health Care Ordinance for the employees....and not into the owner's own pockets?...
 
Millions in SF health fees don't go to workers

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Restaurants and other businesses in this food-loving tourist mecca collected almost $14 million dollars in extra fees last year from their patrons, as they sought to comply with the progressive city's landmark universal health-care ordinance.

But an Associated Press analysis of records showed that roughly 40 percent of that money hasn't been spent on their workers' health care.

The surcharges, which range from 3 to 5 percent and often appear in fine print on receipts, are one result of San Francisco's five-year-old health care program, which includes some of the most far-reaching such requirements mandated by any U.S. city.

The law applies to more than 4,000 businesses with as few as 20 part-time workers, from nail salons to international banks with local branches, requiring them to set aside for workers an extra $1 to $3 an hour for health care.

The city's mandate is unrelated to the federal health care law that takes effect in 2014 and will apply only to companies with 50 or more employees. They could face fines if they don't provide coverage. And the IRS will collect the money, minimizing the chances of gaming the system.

In San Francisco, the fees have become a vexing issue for local officials, labor leaders and restaurants, whose owners say they are doing their best to comply with what many consider to be a confusing law with an admirable goal.

City officials say the vast majority of businesses in San Francisco go beyond what's required to make sure their workers have health care. But Donna Levitt, who is head of the city's Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement, said self-reporting by the 5 percent of businesses with surcharges last year confirms the city's suspicion that the money doesn't always go to health care.

There was nothing on the books in 2011 that required businesses to spend all the health surcharge money they took in. But a new law took effect this year requiring them to use the money for its intended purpose, or face a consumer fraud investigation.

In July, the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury raised concerns about abuse of the surcharges after looking at about three dozen restaurants jury members had patronized. It concluded many businesses were misleading customers into believing that every dollar was going to the health and well-being of workers.

"Most residents are socially conscious and embrace social changes, and paying a surcharge for employee health care is something we would readily agree to," said Mark Busse, a retired real estate agent who led the investigation. "But to discover they would make profits off surcharges really turned our stomachs."

The AP, through a public records request, later obtained names and health care expense breakdowns of the 172 businesses that reported imposing surcharges. There are likely even more that didn't file their numbers, city officials said. The records showed that 14 businesses collected at least $100,000 more than what they paid out for costs such as doctor's visits, medication and insurance. A third of the businesses spent less than half of what they collected from customers for health care.

In interviews, representatives of a dozen companies that collected more than they paid out denied hoodwinking anyone. Instead, they said the businesses are saving excess money for the future, or had workers who didn't fully take advantage of free money for medical expenses. Others disputed the figures they had filed, saying they were confused by the reporting requirements.

Celebrity chef Michael Mina, a business partner of tennis-legend Andre Agassi, owns high-end restaurants that include RN74 and a namesake eatery that was declared Esquire's 2011 Restaurant of the Year. Both spots reported collecting about $540,000 in health surcharges from customers last year while paying out about $211,000 in health-care money.

Paula Kaduce, a Mina Group controller, said the company worked hard, even held mandatory meetings, to get its workers to apply for reimbursement of medical expenses. But many of the 150 plus employees did not, although the company recently started seeing a bump in health care spending.

"Why they are not all excited about it like we are, I don't know," Kaduce said.

Some, like American eatery The Blue Plate, have ditched the surcharge. It raised $40,000 with the fee but spent only $500 in 2011. Co-owner Jeff Trenam said he noticed many of his young, healthy employees didn't have many medical expenses, so he stopped charging his customers for them. The company plans to use the extra money for future health care needs.

"No one really wants to feel like we are collecting money or charging guests in a way that is irresponsible or secretive," Trenam said. "That's not how we want to make our money or how most people want to make their money in this business."

Some local politicians and labor advocates say the gap between surcharges and health care spending reflects a wider problem, namely that businesses are skirting their obligations to pay workers' health care costs. The law doesn't say how money should be spent on health care. As a result, critics say many businesses set up accounts to reimburse medical expenses that disallow many types of them.

Ian Lewis, a representative for Unite Here Local 2, said his union has advocated for stricter employer health care spending rules, though its restaurant worker members receive benefits over and above the law's requirements. He said these reimbursement accounts "are structured so employees don't know they are there, and there are strict limitations on their use; and as a result, workers can't take advantage of them, which undermines very much the spirit of the law."

Records show more than $50 million set aside for workers were not paid out last year.

Squat and Gobble, a chain of five local restaurants, reported collecting more than $160,000 from its customers in surcharges but spending nothing from a reimbursement account for more than 80 employees in 2011. The company reported workers could not be reimbursed for services such as health insurance premiums and over-the-counter drugs.

The owner did not return calls for comment. Deisy Bach, whose company HR Ideas helps dozens of companies including Squat and Gobble comply with the law, said the company was among several clients who presented slideshows and updated their handbooks to instruct workers about their benefits, but employees may not have understood. "This restaurant has gone above and beyond to educate their people," Bach said.

Mayor Ed Lee signed legislation last fall requiring businesses to inform individual employees about their reimbursement accounts and keep left-over money available for workers for two years.

The 800-member Golden Gate Restaurant Association, which unsuccessfully fought the health care spending requirements in court, said it expects that new legislation will increase the amount spent on health care this year. The 2011 spending, said Executive Director Rob Black, "does not reflect at all how successful the amendments were at achieving goals set forth by the mayor."

William Dow, a University of California, Berkeley health economist who has studied San Francisco's health care law, said the disparity between what businesses have collected through surcharges and what they pay out is "striking."

"This seems as if they are bringing in funds under the guise of paying health care for employees and in fact that's not where the funds are going," he said.

However, Dow said it is too early to conclude companies are deliberately pocketing unspent money, because they could spend it on health care later.

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/millions-sf-health-fees-dont-go-workers
 
As I suspected, it is mostly false. From Snopes


Claim: The Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant chain has added a new surcharge in order to cover the cost of Obamacare.


TRUE: Buffalo Wild Wings in one city briefly added a surcharge to customers' bills to cover the costs of the Affordable Care Act.
FALSE: The Buffalo Wild Wings chain has added an Obamacare surcharge at all their restaurants.

content-divider.gif

Example: [Collected via e-mail, January 2015]

Is this true? Obamacare surcharge at popular Buffalo wild wings?


Origins: In January 2015, numerous customers at a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant in Lubbock, Texas, were upset to find a new Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) surcharge tacked onto their bills:


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 that 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.
On 9 January 2015, Eater reported that the Howard Restaurant Group decided to remove the surcharge after receiving several customer complaints. Heather Leiferman, Director of Public Relations for Buffalo Wild Wings, added in a statement that the decision to add the 2% surcharge was made by a local franchise owner and did not affect other restaurants around the country: The health care surcharge at our franchised Buffalo Wild Wings in Lubbock, Texas, has been removed. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused. Our priority is to always provide our guests a great experience every day so they can enjoy our wings, beer and sports.
The Buffalo Wild Wings in Lubbock wasn't the only restaurant to add an Affordable Care Act surcharge in January 2015. According to CNN Money, several restaurants in Florida have also started charging customers extra to cover the cost of the ACA.
 
Back
Top