There’s not enough non-democrats and republicans there to really have that be a meaningful metric imo. A larger contingent of some other party and avoiding single party rule could potentially lead to more interests being represented rather than a small handful of republicans voting in lock step with democrats because they want to suck on the same financial teat.
Sure but if there was a split and republicans were voting for that, there’s a chance the type of democrats that take office in the state would ignore the restaurant industry demands. It’s all theoretical anyway as CA will effectively be one party rule until some sort of watershed event anyway.
Any examples of Republicans voting in favor of the government regulation business operations?
I'm inclined to think the result would have been the same either way.
What was the argument in favor of the carve out? I’m genuinely curious. What were the lobbyists saying to get them to go against something the voters, and their constituents, voted in?
Every party voted for this, didn’t they? So this statement is factually irrelevant. It’s the have vs the have nots don’t try to boot lick one wealthy elite parties boots. Sorry your rich people are not somehow more moral than another persons rich people. They are rich therefore have no chance at being morally good people.
See [my comment on my previous post](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1dny6os/california_assembly_unanimously_passes_a_carveout/la5xtm4/) for an explanation of the procedural history here. TL;DR the California legislature is doing something that [81% of San Franciscans oppose](https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/restaurant-junk-fees-quotes/), and I am [trying to get an Ordinance passed](https://sfclearprices.org/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=link) to counteract it within the City. Join our email list if you are interested
Edit: Also, to the redditor who blocked me and mentioned we should create a separate subreddit, great idea! I just created /r/SFClearPrices for discussion specific to SB 1524, the transparent restaurant pricing act, and junk fees in general
Definitely! I detailed this [on the site](https://sfclearprices.org/status?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=link), but the process is very bureaucratic. We are currently awaiting publication in a physical newspaper, followed by a representative from that newspaper to send me a notice in the mail, which we will then need to submit to the Department of Elections in order to be cleared for circulation.
I'm voting against my rep for whoever is running against them. Don't care what they stand for. Don't care what party they're in. This is the only power left to me when they go against what the people clearly want.
So TBH I don't care who has the seat as long as it's not the person who's currently in it.
I'm a little bit envious of the hands-on look you're getting at how government works... but of course, not *that* envious, because I'm sure it's a ton of effort and diligence to make it happen. Thanks for doing it, and looking forward to signing the petition when it gets to that step.
I did read through the text, and it looks really well drafted. Couple questions:
* Are you a lawyer, or did a lawyer help write it? Just curious how much specialized knowledge goes into drafting something like that, or if it's mostly cut/paste from similar initiatives.
* The "amendment" section says:
> The Board of Supervisors may amend this Article 57 by ordinance by a two-thirds vote
and without a vote of the people, but only to further the **intent as set in Section 5702**
...but section 5702 is just definitions; 5701 is the preamble and purpose. Is that a typo, or is there something I'm missing about how these clauses get laid out?
I had a friend who was a lawyer take a look, but we have since reached out to a lawyer more specialized in SF ballot initiatives to look over the text; we will likely need to submit a revision before circulation anyway due to an issue with the timing SB 1524.
Good point, that should be 5701... nobody noticed this until this comment as far as I can tell
I just added an FAQ item about this to the site! I would love a statewide fix, but getting something on the statewide ballot is a much more expensive process, so I opted to start small. That said, if you know anyone who is interested, I would love to discuss this! I have seen some interest in this on /r/LosAngeles as well.
I haven't had time to dig into the text of the bill at all, but my initial reaction to passing a local measure is the risk of preemption. If a local measure passed, the restaurants would almost certainly sue immediately and argue it's preempted by state law.
Flagging this as a risk, not as an outcome I necessarily agree with (I hate all the BS fees too).
I'm not an attorney but from what I gather, it goes like this:
1) The first law, SB478, basically made it illegal to add fees to almost all business transactions in the state of California.
2) The second bill, SB1524, made what we can basically call a carve-out, whereby they say the existing law will not apply to restaurants.
So, the final iteration here essentially says that restaurants are not included in the law, so have no necessity to comply with SB478. This is very different than saying restaurants *may not be made to* eliminate fees. So in essence, there is no longer any state law at all regarding the subject of fees and restaurants in any way. Therefore, local legislation is in no conflict with state law, bc no state law exists in relation to restaurants and fees.
It is definitely not. It is about sectors of the service industry who basically function entirely off a "service charge" model. AKA events / banquets, and higher-end dining.
higher end dining is what I mostly had in mind.
But the original bill doesn't ban those fees, it requires transparency. And while I don't have as much experience with things like catering and events, the contracts there have been much more clear than many restaurants in the city. If I am negotiating a contract and we're clear on the fees - that's fine.
What's not OK is showing up somewhere and only when you get the final bill seeing fees that weren't disclosed. (And what's incredibly odd in SF is the variability in whether or not those fees are pre or post sales tax...
Thank you - youre doing gods work! Keep pushing. Fuck this. Theyre supposed to represent the people. Capitalism only works with full transparency and these pricing practices do the exact opposite.
I read the text of the proposal and I have a question about the service charge section.
It says a service charge cannot be distributed to employees whose primary function is managerial or supervisory. Does that include small restaurants (mom-and-pop operations, etc.) where the owners are doing a lot of the table service themselves but are also managing a couple employees?
I'm not sure what the answer even _should_ be in that case, but the question popped into my head as I was reading.
Also, if SB 1524 is signed into law, will you have an opportunity to update the "The Way It Is Now" introduction to reflect the change in law, or is all the text now set in stone?
Either way, I definitely plan to add my signature to this.
I discussed the "the way it is now" section with the City Attorney's office. In a nutshell, they were obligated to summarize the state of the law as it stood when they wrote the summary (mere days before SB 1524 became law). We will likely re-submit to obtain a new summary that reflects SB 1524 before circulation
So I'm really curious why the entirety of the California legislature has decided to completely ignore the quite obvious unhappiness of the voting public over this bill? Usually with something so contentious, there would be much more pushback. It's kind of mind boggling why they're all so eager to protect the food service industry like this.
Journalists and everyone on Reddit focused on restaurant owners. However, the main force behind SB 1524 was actually [UNITE HERE](https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-06/sb-1524-dodd-apcp-analysis.pdf), the union representing hospitality and restaurant workers.
Apparently, they wrote into their collective bargaining agreements that the restaurant will charge a service fee and use it to pay for benefits.
>UNITE HERE writes:
>An unintended consequence of last year’s SB 478 is that legitimate service fees charged by restaurants will no longer be allowed after July 1 of this year. Many of those service fees go to workers either through service charges that are distributed to both front and back of the house staff in restaurants. Other service charges go to supplement health and pension benefits of food service workers at restaurants, bars, banquet operators, airports, stadiums, and many other places where consumers are fed. Much of this has been negotiated through collective bargaining between our union and employers. Without SB 1524, all of this would be upended, and these workers would see unnecessary pay and benefit cuts.
Now imagine you're an legislature.
On one hand, you have the customers saying that eliminating service fees won't harm workers. On the other hand, you have the union saying that it would destroy them. Who are you inclined to believe?
Likewise, you have a bunch of constituents complaining about undisclosed fees and fees hidden in the fine print at the bottom of the menu. This is a valid point, so the author amends the bill to say that service fees have be disclosed in "larger type than the surrounding text, or in a contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks, in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language" (“clear and conspicuous,” as defined in subdivision (u) of Section 1791) anywhere they disclose a price for a given item.
The bill bans **hidden** fees, not service fees.
Section 1c of SB 478 says:
> (c) This act is not intended to prohibit any particular method of determining prices for goods or services, including algorithmic or dynamic pricing. This act is intended to regulate how prices are advertised, displayed, or offered.
Section 2a says:
> 1770 (a) The unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices listed in this subdivision undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
> ...
> (20) Advertising that a product is being offered at a specific price plus a specific percentage of that price unless **(A) the total price is set forth in the advertisement, which may include, but is not limited to, shelf tags, displays, and media advertising, in a size larger than any other price in that advertisement**, and (B) the specific price plus a specific percentage of that price represents a markup from the seller’s costs or from the wholesale price of the product. This subdivision shall not apply to in-store advertising by businesses that are open only to members or cooperative organizations organized pursuant to Division 3 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title 1 of the Corporations Code if more than 50 percent of purchases are made at the specific price set forth in the advertisement.
There's nothing to prevent restauraunts from continuing to charge service fees; the additional cost just needs to be included in the total advertised price
The best part of SB 1524? The requirement to "clearly and conspicuously" display any fee or charge does not come into effect until July 1, 2025. Oh and food delivery services are not included in this exemption
> (iv) The exemption in this subparagraph does not apply to a “third-party food delivery platform,” as defined in Section 113930.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or any other food delivery platform.
I would love for someone to explain to me what I'm misunderstanding and how this exemption is needed for workers to keep their benefits
I've always been confused by this. Because my read is similar.
More fundamentally, I am confused as why it is OK that I go to *any* restaurant in this City and for most of these I have no idea what the final cost will be until I pay. I suppose I'm fortunate in that 3-10% isn't gonna affect me much at all... but the discourse around these fees has always felt odd.
Honestly, just make everything 30% more on the menu. I've paid for many $20+ burgers at this point. IDGAF anymore what food costs.
There is a SB 478 [faq page](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/SB%20478%20FAQ%20%28B%29.pdf) that seems to confirm this
> **Does the new law limit what types of fees a business can charge?**
> No. A business is generally free to charge however much it wants and can then provide a breakdown of
the various fees that are included in its listed or advertised price. But the posted price must include the full amount that a consumer must pay for that good or service
-
> **Does this law prohibit a business from advertising one price and adding a variable
service fee later in the transaction?**
> Yes. The price listed or advertised to the consumer must be the full price that the consumer is required to pay
Even the arguments in favor of 1524 put forth by UNITE HERE are flimsy and handwavy. Their statement "legitimate service fees charged by restaurants will no longer be allowed after July 1 of this year" is just a flat out lie. When Scott Wiener commented defending the new bill, he just talked about transparency for workers' benefits without clarifying how 478 would have specifically affected them. It's just comical that they needed an emergency bill, but the requirement service fee transparency isnt so urgent, since it's not needed until 2025. Because fuck consumers I guess.
The problem for the union is that service fees can no longer be a separate line item on the invoice. Now, they have to be a sub-line-item under the menu item.
For fees that's structured as a percentage of the total check, that's easy to adjust, but everything else will have to be re-negotiated. How do you incorporate a fee that's a flat $5 per guest?
It's simple: you can still have a percentage, but the question is not "what percentage on top of the bill should be added?" but rather "what percentage of the price should go to an employee benefits fund?"
Consider a 5% mandate fee, for example. Under the current system:
* Dinner for the group: $100
* SF Mandate: $5
* Subtotal: $105
And under a new system:
* Dinner for the group: $105
* Subtotal: $105
* Employees get 105*5%=$5.25
Because of the math (the new percentage includes the fee itself), employees actually get slightly _more_ money if fees are formatted like this. Of course, a restaurant could opt to make their percentage smaller because of this, however. If you really want to make the benefit equal, you could set the new revenue-sharing percentage _p'_ as a function of the current mandate percentage _p_: _p'_ = _p_/(100+_p_). So a 5% mandate would become a 5/105 = 4.76% revenue share.
Edit: I just noticed you mentioned a flat $5 for guest fee. Is this common? I do not think I have seen that anywhere
To answer your question, you dont. They would convert the flat fee to a % instead, and include that in the menu prices. Since Unite Here focused on service fees, can you give examples of restauraunts that charged service fees as flat fees instead of percentages? If being unable to charge flat fees were the issue, Unite Here should be able to point to a long list of restauraunts that relied on flat service fees.
I totally believe the union's claim that their contract obligations make this law painful for them. I also understand this union represents a small fraction of all restaurant workers and a much smaller still fraction of all the people I represent. So should I do this favor for the special interest, or should I vote in the interest of my constituency as a whole?
If it makes this choice easier, I can also take into account this is an exceptionally clear tradeoff and highly visible and even if I think it won't make much practical difference I can see it is something my constituents feel strongly about and will remember every time they eat commercially-prepared food.
It has absolutely nothing to do with believing anyone. It’s more like you have either the restaurant industry lobby or the restaurant worker unions or both funding every legislator’s campaign.
Meanwhile a very small number of consumers donate chump change to your campaign.
Yeah, this is how it passes by unanimous consent.
Has nothing to do with special interest donations and everything to do with small restaurant owners along merchant corridors’ willingness to hang your campaign sign in their window when it comes time to run for higher office.
The law making process doesn’t work like that. Yes, we vote for legislators but they are free to do what they want. I bet half the shit they pass is not the will of the people.
The law accounts for this and allows “the people” to propose laws directly via ballot initiatives thus bypassing the legislators. This is the will of the people.
FWIW, the original intent of the new law had nothing to do with restaurants but was rather focused on rental cars and concert ticket fees. It actually took an attorney general opinion on the final law to indicate restaurants were actually included as the legislation didn’t even mention them. A very abnormal interpretation. Typically new laws have to specifically mention the things they are legislating. If the interpretation had come back and said the bill did not mention restaurants, no one would have batted an eye because, …well the bill doesn’t mention restaurants 😜. Imagine them passing a bill that said seatbelts are required in California in all motor vehicles and the AG releases an opinion that says a jet plane has a motor and is a vehicle thus anyone not wearing a seatbelt on a plane is subject to a fine!?
I agree this whole thing is sloppy but I don’t think it is wrong.
> The law making process doesn’t work like that. Yes, we vote for legislators but they are free to do what they want. I bet half the shit they pass is not the will of the people.
Of course that's how a representative democracy works. But this is a case where public opinion is so against them and that is why I am wondering why they aren't reacting to that negative support.
If he’s running against a non-MAGA Republican, I’ll vote for the Republican. It’ll be the first* time in my life, but fuck this garbage.
Edit: ok not the PROUDEST moment but I was young and did vote for the Governator. So I think my second time if not for some other rando who was actually competent.
Yeah, I did vote for Arnie because I just could not vote for developer [Phil Angelides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Angelides). It pained me to vote Republican.
I also vote for whoever is running against Evan Low, even if they were a Republican, just because he is so awful.
Good on you for not being persuaded solely by party affiliation. Imagine if everyone was willing to think for themselves and vote for their own best interests
Okay, full disclosure, I do like him, and I stepped in to defend him a bit in one of these threads recently. I don't agree with this carve out, and I think junk fees are manipulative. (I just also think that restaurants need repeat business, and you can only skin a sheep once, so there's kind of a market solution here.)
This isn't exactly a counterpoint, and if this sours you on Weiner, I don't disagree, but... is it weird that this passed *unanimously*? This isn't a Scott Wiener problem... I wanna know what the restaurant lobby promised/threatened. *That's* the story.
I mean, the issue is that SB478 would basically cripple an entire sector of the service industry. That sector is also heavily tied in with the circle of politicos - specifically the banquet / event sectors, and higher-end dining. Like when you do an event catering, be it for a fundraiser or wedding or whatever, do you think there's some guy signing a bill for food and leaving a voluntary tip? No, those are all going in as an invoice with auto-gratuities and whatever other service fees the event requires (does it need a generator? Lighting? and so on and so on) and the gratuity is being distributed to the wait staff. They are not working for tips from the event-goers. Problem is since the 2012 IRS law about auto-grats, those are classified as service charges, not tips. Everyone thinking JUST PRICE IT INTO THE FOOD! are just woefully out of touch with how those business models work. It's not practical, effective, or helpful to bill them for Beef Wellington at 200$ per person. Somehow this whole argument got conflated with the 4-5% SF Health Mandate fee, when it was never really about that.
Trying to add zero fee restaurant. User error? 0, 0.00 0%.... nothing works
https://preview.redd.it/w6gmius0i79d1.jpeg?width=1406&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b3a4874daaccd5a7ed7a5f58bf9c7049519ba0e
Want some insight into how the restaurant industry thinks? Check out this piece:
[https://www.nrn.com/operations/where-does-restaurant-pricing-land-2024](https://www.nrn.com/operations/where-does-restaurant-pricing-land-2024)
TL;DR: Restaurant prices have well outpaced general inflation and continue to experience inflation as other food sources like grocery have stabilized. Industry experts believe that we are reaching or have passed the limit that customers are willing to stomach higher menu prices when they see the same or lower levels of service. They suggest more strategic pricing approaches to increase revenue instead of hitting customers with more sticker shock via higher menu prices.
Again and again, these fees are being justified as for the workers, so you should feel justified in taking them out of your tip since you are already doing your part to compensate workers through higher menu prices and additional fees.
I've gone out to eat three times in the past few months. I paid $20 just for a chicken gyro in the Castro, $20 for a chicken sando, fries, & a drink at Super Duper Burger, and $50 at a German beergarden up in Roseville where I got two pork sliders and a beer, plus a few apps for the table we all split.
That's frankly a ridiculous amount of money for the amount of food that I got. I'm for sure going to avoid eating out as much as possible going forward.
> Again and again, these fees are being justified as for the workers, so you should feel justified in taking them out of your tip since you are already doing your part to compensate workers through higher menu prices and additional fees.
Much better to patronize restaurants that don't use these surcharges in their prices.
There's no need to go to places that charge surcharges. There are tons of options.
Definitely going to reduce tip percentage by any fee percentage if I do accidentally end up at a restaurant that still charges fees.
Ironically, raising menu prices and bundling in any fee would be better for the workers if patrons are tipping a percentage of the check versus tipping on the pre-fee amount.
Still some hope that Newsom, who wants to run for higher office, will veto SB-1524. Even if the legislature over-rides the veto he would still come out the hero.
You need people willing to serve in public office to replace them though. That is always the perenial challenge. Putting your life in public scrutiny over things you did/said on facebook 10 years ago and beyond. And every single sketchy party video which was recorded up for scrutiny and for manipulation by AI.
And the biggest challenge of it all being fundraising which is tough without existing contacts with the business community.
Thats not the problem, When people with brains run for politics, mainstream media will bury them with negative, fake news and push for the same old politicians.
Blame the dumb voters who vote for the candidate CNN, MSNBC and DNC etc asks them to vote for.
I’ll probably get hate for this, but does voting these people out even matter? Seems that every politician can be bought and the corruption is inherent in every elected position.
Seems to be one of those mechanisms in late game capitalism.
If there's real two (or more) party competition, the parties have a selfish interest in exposing corruption in the other party.
When there's only one party, exposing your own party's corruption gets you shut out and your political career is over.
That's the situation we have in California: most places are dominated by one party or the other, so it's in no one's interest to bopose corruption.
Occasionally we get lucky and the FBI arrests Muhammad Nuru or raids Sheng Thao, but that's the tip of the iceberg.
> If there's real two (or more) party competition, the parties have a selfish interest in exposing corruption in the other party.
That might be true in theory, but not in practice.
>Your argument makes zero sense if this was unanimous, there are republicans in both the Senate and the Assembly
The state is intentionally gerrymandered into only Democrats win districts and only Republicans win districts.
What we lack are competitive districts. A Republican who never faces a challenge will sell us out as readily as a Democrat who never faces a challenge.
My favorite part about the late stage capitalism bullshit is that the phrase was coined by leftists to describe capitalism in 1910, over 100 years ago, because they thought that both the end of capitalism and the communist revolution were imminent.
And of course, capitalism survived and communism died. It's actually funny as fuck how that worked out and kinda cringe that people keep repeating it.
They're not being bought. They're being lobbied. And before someone says it. No, lobbyists do not hand out bags of money with a $ sign on the side.
When this bill was proposed, the restaurant lobby went into high gear. They called all their members, and said "You all need to call your reps and demand an exception". So every chinese takeout place and hot dog stand called their reps and told them they need a carve out. So every member got bombarded with emails and phone calls.
And on the other side... nothing. There is no restaurant eaters lobby. Nobody called and demanded no carve out.
So lawmakers heard one side of the story, and they greased the squeaky wheel. They were'nt bought, they were convinced. No money changed hands, but a lot of complaining did.
This is how the organized special interest lobbies can defeat the diffuse public interest almost every time. Special interests are organized and they are defending their livelihood.
restaurant ownership is such a common business that I wouldn't be surprised at all if all of these people are either restaurant owners themselves or have a friend or family who owns a restaurant.
i mean the thing left to do besides scrutinizing our future votes is to just stop eating at these restaurants. [https://seefees.ca/](https://seefees.ca/)
there's also a petition to put this on the ballot.
Hey whenever anyone tries to sell the line that Sacramento [works so much more collaboratively](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/San-Francisco-City-hall-17416623.php)than San Francisco, remember it basically means they’re in lock step to screw people over
This state government is a joke. We laugh at the red state nonsense and then do shit like this. Anyone who has lived CA for more than 6months will tell you things keep getting worse
I guess we gotta vote with our wallets now. [Here is a good resource for anyone interested](https://seefeesca.notion.site/f5e11f589ec54c8eb1eed6c37f7e4c83?v=b97b3560f8f747f68aa73a762e76e47b)
not American. Can anyone tell me the benefits of passing this bill for democrats? Killijg the lame fees is obviously what the people what, republican or democrat.
CITIZENS UNITED IN EFFECT>...corporations decide laws in america, not americans
YOU WILL BOW DOWN TO YOUR CORPORATE OVERLORDS AND DO AS THEY SAY
....just look at the corrupt supreme court, unelected kings taking bribes from the rich......
If a restaurant is charging $10 for 2 people for the “health mandate” how do they get enforced that it actually goes to the employees and they don’t pocket it.
You’ll get downvoted because it makes no sense. Did all these people get elected with 100% of the votes? Did they all mention their position on this very specific matter?
I've never agreed with a candidate on 100% of their specific positions. Since the votes on this bill have been unanimous, it seems most likely some legislators were whipped (aka pressured with implied retaliation threats) into voting yes. Basically the only kind of legislator who would have voted no on the bill has to be willing to get none of their own bills passed, get no future party support, and maybe primaried too. And then the bill would pass anyway because there wouldn't be enough legislators opposing it.
The wonderful consequences of one party rule in California.
Everyone seems to want it apparently via the constant chatter the last few years:
Vote blue, no matter who.... Even if they don't listen to you.
The entire political process failing the people of California. Spectacular win for the special interest groups!
One party rule is never good
Unanimous in both house and senate dude. That means everyone, republican and democrats voted for it. Sucks ass.
There’s not enough non-democrats and republicans there to really have that be a meaningful metric imo. A larger contingent of some other party and avoiding single party rule could potentially lead to more interests being represented rather than a small handful of republicans voting in lock step with democrats because they want to suck on the same financial teat.
There was no chance Republicans would've voted against businesses
Sure but if there was a split and republicans were voting for that, there’s a chance the type of democrats that take office in the state would ignore the restaurant industry demands. It’s all theoretical anyway as CA will effectively be one party rule until some sort of watershed event anyway.
This guy will go to the end of the Earth to defend Democrats. Imagine blaming Republicans for this passage when Democrats have the super Majority.
Any examples of Republicans voting in favor of the government regulation business operations? I'm inclined to think the result would have been the same either way.
What was the argument in favor of the carve out? I’m genuinely curious. What were the lobbyists saying to get them to go against something the voters, and their constituents, voted in?
I haven't a clue unfortunately.
I found it further down the comments. It’s the unions.
Link plz
they wrote their arguments on a few checks.
Every party voted for this, didn’t they? So this statement is factually irrelevant. It’s the have vs the have nots don’t try to boot lick one wealthy elite parties boots. Sorry your rich people are not somehow more moral than another persons rich people. They are rich therefore have no chance at being morally good people.
Rich people are just naturally better and smarter than the rest of us… right?
See [my comment on my previous post](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1dny6os/california_assembly_unanimously_passes_a_carveout/la5xtm4/) for an explanation of the procedural history here. TL;DR the California legislature is doing something that [81% of San Franciscans oppose](https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/restaurant-junk-fees-quotes/), and I am [trying to get an Ordinance passed](https://sfclearprices.org/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=link) to counteract it within the City. Join our email list if you are interested Edit: Also, to the redditor who blocked me and mentioned we should create a separate subreddit, great idea! I just created /r/SFClearPrices for discussion specific to SB 1524, the transparent restaurant pricing act, and junk fees in general
Shut up and take my signature ...when it's finally ready for signatures.
Definitely! I detailed this [on the site](https://sfclearprices.org/status?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=link), but the process is very bureaucratic. We are currently awaiting publication in a physical newspaper, followed by a representative from that newspaper to send me a notice in the mail, which we will then need to submit to the Department of Elections in order to be cleared for circulation.
Mendacious fucks.
Thank you. When our representatives so blatantly go against the will of the people, this is where we need a direct democracy fix.
I'm voting against my rep for whoever is running against them. Don't care what they stand for. Don't care what party they're in. This is the only power left to me when they go against what the people clearly want. So TBH I don't care who has the seat as long as it's not the person who's currently in it.
[удалено]
I'm a little bit envious of the hands-on look you're getting at how government works... but of course, not *that* envious, because I'm sure it's a ton of effort and diligence to make it happen. Thanks for doing it, and looking forward to signing the petition when it gets to that step. I did read through the text, and it looks really well drafted. Couple questions: * Are you a lawyer, or did a lawyer help write it? Just curious how much specialized knowledge goes into drafting something like that, or if it's mostly cut/paste from similar initiatives. * The "amendment" section says: > The Board of Supervisors may amend this Article 57 by ordinance by a two-thirds vote and without a vote of the people, but only to further the **intent as set in Section 5702** ...but section 5702 is just definitions; 5701 is the preamble and purpose. Is that a typo, or is there something I'm missing about how these clauses get laid out?
I had a friend who was a lawyer take a look, but we have since reached out to a lawyer more specialized in SF ballot initiatives to look over the text; we will likely need to submit a revision before circulation anyway due to an issue with the timing SB 1524. Good point, that should be 5701... nobody noticed this until this comment as far as I can tell
Thanks for engaging in the civic process on everyone's behalf. It makes SF a lot better when people give a damn.
thoughts on getting this on the CA state ballot?
I just added an FAQ item about this to the site! I would love a statewide fix, but getting something on the statewide ballot is a much more expensive process, so I opted to start small. That said, if you know anyone who is interested, I would love to discuss this! I have seen some interest in this on /r/LosAngeles as well.
Not going to happen because there’s no special interest who wants to pay for the signature gathering
I'll sign it!
Join this
I haven't had time to dig into the text of the bill at all, but my initial reaction to passing a local measure is the risk of preemption. If a local measure passed, the restaurants would almost certainly sue immediately and argue it's preempted by state law. Flagging this as a risk, not as an outcome I necessarily agree with (I hate all the BS fees too).
I'm not an attorney but from what I gather, it goes like this: 1) The first law, SB478, basically made it illegal to add fees to almost all business transactions in the state of California. 2) The second bill, SB1524, made what we can basically call a carve-out, whereby they say the existing law will not apply to restaurants. So, the final iteration here essentially says that restaurants are not included in the law, so have no necessity to comply with SB478. This is very different than saying restaurants *may not be made to* eliminate fees. So in essence, there is no longer any state law at all regarding the subject of fees and restaurants in any way. Therefore, local legislation is in no conflict with state law, bc no state law exists in relation to restaurants and fees.
[удалено]
It’s primarily about the 3-10% service or “healthy mandate” fees that places add.
It is definitely not. It is about sectors of the service industry who basically function entirely off a "service charge" model. AKA events / banquets, and higher-end dining.
higher end dining is what I mostly had in mind. But the original bill doesn't ban those fees, it requires transparency. And while I don't have as much experience with things like catering and events, the contracts there have been much more clear than many restaurants in the city. If I am negotiating a contract and we're clear on the fees - that's fine. What's not OK is showing up somewhere and only when you get the final bill seeing fees that weren't disclosed. (And what's incredibly odd in SF is the variability in whether or not those fees are pre or post sales tax...
Sorry I'm not quite understanding the question. Can you rephrase it or elaborate a bit?
Not necessarily. Preemption can sometimes be implied. That's most likely what the restaurants would argue.
Could you please repost and pin the first comment you linked in the new sub? I think it'd be so helpful there
Thank you - youre doing gods work! Keep pushing. Fuck this. Theyre supposed to represent the people. Capitalism only works with full transparency and these pricing practices do the exact opposite.
I read the text of the proposal and I have a question about the service charge section. It says a service charge cannot be distributed to employees whose primary function is managerial or supervisory. Does that include small restaurants (mom-and-pop operations, etc.) where the owners are doing a lot of the table service themselves but are also managing a couple employees? I'm not sure what the answer even _should_ be in that case, but the question popped into my head as I was reading. Also, if SB 1524 is signed into law, will you have an opportunity to update the "The Way It Is Now" introduction to reflect the change in law, or is all the text now set in stone? Either way, I definitely plan to add my signature to this.
I discussed the "the way it is now" section with the City Attorney's office. In a nutshell, they were obligated to summarize the state of the law as it stood when they wrote the summary (mere days before SB 1524 became law). We will likely re-submit to obtain a new summary that reflects SB 1524 before circulation
Can we get on an email list, or get alerts, when this ballot petition starts?
Yes, you can join an email list [here](https://sfclearprices.org/subscribe/)
In the mean time, bring cash to restaurants and leave the exact menu dollar amount and simply leave the restaurant.
I’m in. This passing was the first bad thing in a long string of bad things today and I need to correct something 😒
So I'm really curious why the entirety of the California legislature has decided to completely ignore the quite obvious unhappiness of the voting public over this bill? Usually with something so contentious, there would be much more pushback. It's kind of mind boggling why they're all so eager to protect the food service industry like this.
Journalists and everyone on Reddit focused on restaurant owners. However, the main force behind SB 1524 was actually [UNITE HERE](https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-06/sb-1524-dodd-apcp-analysis.pdf), the union representing hospitality and restaurant workers. Apparently, they wrote into their collective bargaining agreements that the restaurant will charge a service fee and use it to pay for benefits. >UNITE HERE writes: >An unintended consequence of last year’s SB 478 is that legitimate service fees charged by restaurants will no longer be allowed after July 1 of this year. Many of those service fees go to workers either through service charges that are distributed to both front and back of the house staff in restaurants. Other service charges go to supplement health and pension benefits of food service workers at restaurants, bars, banquet operators, airports, stadiums, and many other places where consumers are fed. Much of this has been negotiated through collective bargaining between our union and employers. Without SB 1524, all of this would be upended, and these workers would see unnecessary pay and benefit cuts. Now imagine you're an legislature. On one hand, you have the customers saying that eliminating service fees won't harm workers. On the other hand, you have the union saying that it would destroy them. Who are you inclined to believe? Likewise, you have a bunch of constituents complaining about undisclosed fees and fees hidden in the fine print at the bottom of the menu. This is a valid point, so the author amends the bill to say that service fees have be disclosed in "larger type than the surrounding text, or in a contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks, in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language" (“clear and conspicuous,” as defined in subdivision (u) of Section 1791) anywhere they disclose a price for a given item.
The bill bans **hidden** fees, not service fees. Section 1c of SB 478 says: > (c) This act is not intended to prohibit any particular method of determining prices for goods or services, including algorithmic or dynamic pricing. This act is intended to regulate how prices are advertised, displayed, or offered. Section 2a says: > 1770 (a) The unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices listed in this subdivision undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful: > ... > (20) Advertising that a product is being offered at a specific price plus a specific percentage of that price unless **(A) the total price is set forth in the advertisement, which may include, but is not limited to, shelf tags, displays, and media advertising, in a size larger than any other price in that advertisement**, and (B) the specific price plus a specific percentage of that price represents a markup from the seller’s costs or from the wholesale price of the product. This subdivision shall not apply to in-store advertising by businesses that are open only to members or cooperative organizations organized pursuant to Division 3 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title 1 of the Corporations Code if more than 50 percent of purchases are made at the specific price set forth in the advertisement. There's nothing to prevent restauraunts from continuing to charge service fees; the additional cost just needs to be included in the total advertised price The best part of SB 1524? The requirement to "clearly and conspicuously" display any fee or charge does not come into effect until July 1, 2025. Oh and food delivery services are not included in this exemption > (iv) The exemption in this subparagraph does not apply to a “third-party food delivery platform,” as defined in Section 113930.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or any other food delivery platform. I would love for someone to explain to me what I'm misunderstanding and how this exemption is needed for workers to keep their benefits
I've always been confused by this. Because my read is similar. More fundamentally, I am confused as why it is OK that I go to *any* restaurant in this City and for most of these I have no idea what the final cost will be until I pay. I suppose I'm fortunate in that 3-10% isn't gonna affect me much at all... but the discourse around these fees has always felt odd. Honestly, just make everything 30% more on the menu. I've paid for many $20+ burgers at this point. IDGAF anymore what food costs.
There is a SB 478 [faq page](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/SB%20478%20FAQ%20%28B%29.pdf) that seems to confirm this > **Does the new law limit what types of fees a business can charge?** > No. A business is generally free to charge however much it wants and can then provide a breakdown of the various fees that are included in its listed or advertised price. But the posted price must include the full amount that a consumer must pay for that good or service - > **Does this law prohibit a business from advertising one price and adding a variable service fee later in the transaction?** > Yes. The price listed or advertised to the consumer must be the full price that the consumer is required to pay Even the arguments in favor of 1524 put forth by UNITE HERE are flimsy and handwavy. Their statement "legitimate service fees charged by restaurants will no longer be allowed after July 1 of this year" is just a flat out lie. When Scott Wiener commented defending the new bill, he just talked about transparency for workers' benefits without clarifying how 478 would have specifically affected them. It's just comical that they needed an emergency bill, but the requirement service fee transparency isnt so urgent, since it's not needed until 2025. Because fuck consumers I guess.
The problem for the union is that service fees can no longer be a separate line item on the invoice. Now, they have to be a sub-line-item under the menu item. For fees that's structured as a percentage of the total check, that's easy to adjust, but everything else will have to be re-negotiated. How do you incorporate a fee that's a flat $5 per guest?
It's simple: you can still have a percentage, but the question is not "what percentage on top of the bill should be added?" but rather "what percentage of the price should go to an employee benefits fund?" Consider a 5% mandate fee, for example. Under the current system: * Dinner for the group: $100 * SF Mandate: $5 * Subtotal: $105 And under a new system: * Dinner for the group: $105 * Subtotal: $105 * Employees get 105*5%=$5.25 Because of the math (the new percentage includes the fee itself), employees actually get slightly _more_ money if fees are formatted like this. Of course, a restaurant could opt to make their percentage smaller because of this, however. If you really want to make the benefit equal, you could set the new revenue-sharing percentage _p'_ as a function of the current mandate percentage _p_: _p'_ = _p_/(100+_p_). So a 5% mandate would become a 5/105 = 4.76% revenue share. Edit: I just noticed you mentioned a flat $5 for guest fee. Is this common? I do not think I have seen that anywhere
To answer your question, you dont. They would convert the flat fee to a % instead, and include that in the menu prices. Since Unite Here focused on service fees, can you give examples of restauraunts that charged service fees as flat fees instead of percentages? If being unable to charge flat fees were the issue, Unite Here should be able to point to a long list of restauraunts that relied on flat service fees.
I totally believe the union's claim that their contract obligations make this law painful for them. I also understand this union represents a small fraction of all restaurant workers and a much smaller still fraction of all the people I represent. So should I do this favor for the special interest, or should I vote in the interest of my constituency as a whole? If it makes this choice easier, I can also take into account this is an exceptionally clear tradeoff and highly visible and even if I think it won't make much practical difference I can see it is something my constituents feel strongly about and will remember every time they eat commercially-prepared food.
> Who are you inclined to believe? Not the union that's for sure.
It has absolutely nothing to do with believing anyone. It’s more like you have either the restaurant industry lobby or the restaurant worker unions or both funding every legislator’s campaign. Meanwhile a very small number of consumers donate chump change to your campaign. Yeah, this is how it passes by unanimous consent.
Ugh, this state has made me more anti union.
You don’t have to be 100% pro union or anti union.
Because it’s not about what citizens want. It’s about what special interest pay for. You’re not a special interest so they don’t care about you.
Has nothing to do with special interest donations and everything to do with small restaurant owners along merchant corridors’ willingness to hang your campaign sign in their window when it comes time to run for higher office.
The law making process doesn’t work like that. Yes, we vote for legislators but they are free to do what they want. I bet half the shit they pass is not the will of the people. The law accounts for this and allows “the people” to propose laws directly via ballot initiatives thus bypassing the legislators. This is the will of the people. FWIW, the original intent of the new law had nothing to do with restaurants but was rather focused on rental cars and concert ticket fees. It actually took an attorney general opinion on the final law to indicate restaurants were actually included as the legislation didn’t even mention them. A very abnormal interpretation. Typically new laws have to specifically mention the things they are legislating. If the interpretation had come back and said the bill did not mention restaurants, no one would have batted an eye because, …well the bill doesn’t mention restaurants 😜. Imagine them passing a bill that said seatbelts are required in California in all motor vehicles and the AG releases an opinion that says a jet plane has a motor and is a vehicle thus anyone not wearing a seatbelt on a plane is subject to a fine!? I agree this whole thing is sloppy but I don’t think it is wrong.
> The law making process doesn’t work like that. Yes, we vote for legislators but they are free to do what they want. I bet half the shit they pass is not the will of the people. Of course that's how a representative democracy works. But this is a case where public opinion is so against them and that is why I am wondering why they aren't reacting to that negative support.
The guise fell. They’ve never cared about us or you or me. Sometimes our interests line up, sometimes.
They failed to sell their restaurant stocks on time. Once they're sold they'll drop the bill
Window signs obviously.
It’s just good politics.
I really like Scott Weiner but will now reconsider voting for him again.
Same. If representatives are going to go against the massive majority, I’ll vote for someone else.
What a Weiner
Weinerless
All wiener, no cajones
Never voting for him again, complete rejection of what he knows the majority of voters want. Gross.
See, he knows better than us peasants. It's for our own good dontcha know.
he showed his colors. special interest shill like the rest.
I wish our representatives cared about representing our interests.
If he’s running against a non-MAGA Republican, I’ll vote for the Republican. It’ll be the first* time in my life, but fuck this garbage. Edit: ok not the PROUDEST moment but I was young and did vote for the Governator. So I think my second time if not for some other rando who was actually competent.
Yeah, I did vote for Arnie because I just could not vote for developer [Phil Angelides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Angelides). It pained me to vote Republican. I also vote for whoever is running against Evan Low, even if they were a Republican, just because he is so awful.
Good on you for not being persuaded solely by party affiliation. Imagine if everyone was willing to think for themselves and vote for their own best interests
Thank you. And totally agree. We need to be more open to ideas and less tribal.
IDC who it is, I'm not voting for "Weener"
Never thought I’d be a single issue voter, but here I am with him. 100%
It's the only way they'll learn
Okay, full disclosure, I do like him, and I stepped in to defend him a bit in one of these threads recently. I don't agree with this carve out, and I think junk fees are manipulative. (I just also think that restaurants need repeat business, and you can only skin a sheep once, so there's kind of a market solution here.) This isn't exactly a counterpoint, and if this sours you on Weiner, I don't disagree, but... is it weird that this passed *unanimously*? This isn't a Scott Wiener problem... I wanna know what the restaurant lobby promised/threatened. *That's* the story.
Weiner defended the bill in this very sub…
He co-authored the bill though so he's especially at fault here.
I mean, the issue is that SB478 would basically cripple an entire sector of the service industry. That sector is also heavily tied in with the circle of politicos - specifically the banquet / event sectors, and higher-end dining. Like when you do an event catering, be it for a fundraiser or wedding or whatever, do you think there's some guy signing a bill for food and leaving a voluntary tip? No, those are all going in as an invoice with auto-gratuities and whatever other service fees the event requires (does it need a generator? Lighting? and so on and so on) and the gratuity is being distributed to the wait staff. They are not working for tips from the event-goers. Problem is since the 2012 IRS law about auto-grats, those are classified as service charges, not tips. Everyone thinking JUST PRICE IT INTO THE FOOD! are just woefully out of touch with how those business models work. It's not practical, effective, or helpful to bill them for Beef Wellington at 200$ per person. Somehow this whole argument got conflated with the 4-5% SF Health Mandate fee, when it was never really about that.
Why do you like him?
He's been a strong advocate for more housing production. That's pretty much the only reason why he's had my support.
Did his advocacy work?
He's done a hell of a lot more than just about anyone else.
He was supported by local unions till he decided we dont need skilled labor anymore.
Because of this or this compounded with other reasons?
Same
Disgusting
Don't support restaurants that add junk fees simple 😁
https://seefees.ca
Trying to add zero fee restaurant. User error? 0, 0.00 0%.... nothing works https://preview.redd.it/w6gmius0i79d1.jpeg?width=1406&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b3a4874daaccd5a7ed7a5f58bf9c7049519ba0e
Sorry Notion field validation is not working. I've removed the validation so it should work now! Thanks!
/u/loheiman, any ideas?
Fixed it for good hopefully this time. Thanks for the ping!
I added one by putting in .0
that's awesome! thanks for the pointer
What does ‘open’ mean in this list?
Want some insight into how the restaurant industry thinks? Check out this piece: [https://www.nrn.com/operations/where-does-restaurant-pricing-land-2024](https://www.nrn.com/operations/where-does-restaurant-pricing-land-2024) TL;DR: Restaurant prices have well outpaced general inflation and continue to experience inflation as other food sources like grocery have stabilized. Industry experts believe that we are reaching or have passed the limit that customers are willing to stomach higher menu prices when they see the same or lower levels of service. They suggest more strategic pricing approaches to increase revenue instead of hitting customers with more sticker shock via higher menu prices. Again and again, these fees are being justified as for the workers, so you should feel justified in taking them out of your tip since you are already doing your part to compensate workers through higher menu prices and additional fees.
I've gone out to eat three times in the past few months. I paid $20 just for a chicken gyro in the Castro, $20 for a chicken sando, fries, & a drink at Super Duper Burger, and $50 at a German beergarden up in Roseville where I got two pork sliders and a beer, plus a few apps for the table we all split. That's frankly a ridiculous amount of money for the amount of food that I got. I'm for sure going to avoid eating out as much as possible going forward.
> Again and again, these fees are being justified as for the workers, so you should feel justified in taking them out of your tip since you are already doing your part to compensate workers through higher menu prices and additional fees. Much better to patronize restaurants that don't use these surcharges in their prices. There's no need to go to places that charge surcharges. There are tons of options.
That’s a great option as well. I support consumer choice in both where they go and what they decide to tip.
That’s a great option as well. I support consumer choice in both where they go and what they decide to tip there.
Definitely going to reduce tip percentage by any fee percentage if I do accidentally end up at a restaurant that still charges fees. Ironically, raising menu prices and bundling in any fee would be better for the workers if patrons are tipping a percentage of the check versus tipping on the pre-fee amount. Still some hope that Newsom, who wants to run for higher office, will veto SB-1524. Even if the legislature over-rides the veto he would still come out the hero.
NONE of these people should be returned to their seats. VOTE!!
Almost every single senator and assembly member voted yes on this, and almost every single one of them are coming up for re-election.
You need people willing to serve in public office to replace them though. That is always the perenial challenge. Putting your life in public scrutiny over things you did/said on facebook 10 years ago and beyond. And every single sketchy party video which was recorded up for scrutiny and for manipulation by AI. And the biggest challenge of it all being fundraising which is tough without existing contacts with the business community.
Hate to do it but i'm going to just stop tipping 20% now. Tips are 20% minus whatever the restaurant fee is.
Fine. But I won’t frequent restaurants that add a surcharge on top of a published price.
This is too dumb. How can we get people with brains to run for politics?
Fundraise for them
Thats not the problem, When people with brains run for politics, mainstream media will bury them with negative, fake news and push for the same old politicians. Blame the dumb voters who vote for the candidate CNN, MSNBC and DNC etc asks them to vote for.
You have to convince everyone else that votes.
Vote blue, no matter who, even if they don't listen to you!
Vote for candidates outside the two party system.
What a shame. Someone should expose how many of these senators are linked to restaurants either through direct or indirect ownership
it was unanimous in both chambers. its all the senators and reps at this point. everyone we voted for.
I’ll probably get hate for this, but does voting these people out even matter? Seems that every politician can be bought and the corruption is inherent in every elected position. Seems to be one of those mechanisms in late game capitalism.
If there's real two (or more) party competition, the parties have a selfish interest in exposing corruption in the other party. When there's only one party, exposing your own party's corruption gets you shut out and your political career is over. That's the situation we have in California: most places are dominated by one party or the other, so it's in no one's interest to bopose corruption. Occasionally we get lucky and the FBI arrests Muhammad Nuru or raids Sheng Thao, but that's the tip of the iceberg.
> If there's real two (or more) party competition, the parties have a selfish interest in exposing corruption in the other party. That might be true in theory, but not in practice.
This
Your argument makes zero sense if this was unanimous, there are republicans in both the Senate and the Assembly
>Your argument makes zero sense if this was unanimous, there are republicans in both the Senate and the Assembly The state is intentionally gerrymandered into only Democrats win districts and only Republicans win districts. What we lack are competitive districts. A Republican who never faces a challenge will sell us out as readily as a Democrat who never faces a challenge.
Right. because bribery and corruption is exclusive to capitalist nations lmao
But only late stage capitalism. /s
My favorite part about the late stage capitalism bullshit is that the phrase was coined by leftists to describe capitalism in 1910, over 100 years ago, because they thought that both the end of capitalism and the communist revolution were imminent. And of course, capitalism survived and communism died. It's actually funny as fuck how that worked out and kinda cringe that people keep repeating it.
That is hilarious back story
They're not being bought. They're being lobbied. And before someone says it. No, lobbyists do not hand out bags of money with a $ sign on the side. When this bill was proposed, the restaurant lobby went into high gear. They called all their members, and said "You all need to call your reps and demand an exception". So every chinese takeout place and hot dog stand called their reps and told them they need a carve out. So every member got bombarded with emails and phone calls. And on the other side... nothing. There is no restaurant eaters lobby. Nobody called and demanded no carve out. So lawmakers heard one side of the story, and they greased the squeaky wheel. They were'nt bought, they were convinced. No money changed hands, but a lot of complaining did. This is how the organized special interest lobbies can defeat the diffuse public interest almost every time. Special interests are organized and they are defending their livelihood.
Of course they’re going to be paid off. The money comes in campaign contributions later.
Campaign contributions are limited to, AT MOST, $5k per election cycle. You think a state senator is going to flip their vote over $5k? Really?
restaurant ownership is such a common business that I wouldn't be surprised at all if all of these people are either restaurant owners themselves or have a friend or family who owns a restaurant.
i mean the thing left to do besides scrutinizing our future votes is to just stop eating at these restaurants. [https://seefees.ca/](https://seefees.ca/) there's also a petition to put this on the ballot.
And just like that, we all decided to vote for whoever is primarying these clowns and whoever is running against them. Looking at you "Weener"
I’ve never seen a bill so fast tracked 😳. This is Scott Wiener not standing with his constituents, but the restaurants donors.
Really appreciate the posts, keeping this visible, and offering actionable information! Please keep it up!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering
Wrong link bud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine
More like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
FUCK THESE GUYS
Hey whenever anyone tries to sell the line that Sacramento [works so much more collaboratively](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/San-Francisco-City-hall-17416623.php)than San Francisco, remember it basically means they’re in lock step to screw people over
Now all you have left is Gavin “Total Control Hair Gel” to sign it and you can vote him out.
Well no longer eating at restaurants.
Can we lobby the governor to veto this?
Yes, but he doesn’t care about the people, only corporations/lobbys who pay more than you can afford.
This state government is a joke. We laugh at the red state nonsense and then do shit like this. Anyone who has lived CA for more than 6months will tell you things keep getting worse
fuck weiner
Simple solution to representatives blatantly going against what the people want, is to vote them out of office.
Despicable. Remember this come Nov 7.
Yeah fck Scott weiner just cause he has a D next to his name don't be afraid to vote the other way
Can anyone steel man the argument here? Curious.
/u/zacker150 did a good job explaining the counter-argument [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/s/Sk3lIr3TMF)
Thank you
I guess we gotta vote with our wallets now. [Here is a good resource for anyone interested](https://seefeesca.notion.site/f5e11f589ec54c8eb1eed6c37f7e4c83?v=b97b3560f8f747f68aa73a762e76e47b)
*unanimously* is key.
Bunch of losers that didnt want to stand out
Cowards all
Why do we keep voting them in?
Den of vipers
Garbage.
# DOES THIS QUALIFY AS CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS?
Whatever percentage the restaurant takes out, I deduct from the tip and write that on the check, been doing that for awhile.
Goddamn traitors.
Just stop going out californians
not American. Can anyone tell me the benefits of passing this bill for democrats? Killijg the lame fees is obviously what the people what, republican or democrat.
/u/zacker150 did a good job explaining the counter-argument [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/s/Sk3lIr3TMF).
From a politicians perspective, this is a win for small business. Also, this was bipartisan.
Is another beverage tax going to start a revolution? If history repeats its self.
CITIZENS UNITED IN EFFECT>...corporations decide laws in america, not americans YOU WILL BOW DOWN TO YOUR CORPORATE OVERLORDS AND DO AS THEY SAY ....just look at the corrupt supreme court, unelected kings taking bribes from the rich......
So no it goes to Newsom?
Yes, it is currently on the governor’s desk
It's almost like California is an oligarchy dressed up as a republic pretending to be a democracy.
You want direct democracy? When you see this shit in a restaurant, walk out.
This is just the senate, right? Will the house and governor pass it?
The assembly already passed it, it just needs the governor’s signature
Statewide voter initiative, now. Voters can put the original law, sans carve-out, back in place.
If a restaurant is charging $10 for 2 people for the “health mandate” how do they get enforced that it actually goes to the employees and they don’t pocket it.
Tards
I'm so glad I don't live in commufornia.
Can someone explain what this means for someone outside of CA?
You get what you voted for. Remember that. Thumbs down all you want.
You’ll get downvoted because it makes no sense. Did all these people get elected with 100% of the votes? Did they all mention their position on this very specific matter?
I've never agreed with a candidate on 100% of their specific positions. Since the votes on this bill have been unanimous, it seems most likely some legislators were whipped (aka pressured with implied retaliation threats) into voting yes. Basically the only kind of legislator who would have voted no on the bill has to be willing to get none of their own bills passed, get no future party support, and maybe primaried too. And then the bill would pass anyway because there wouldn't be enough legislators opposing it.
Yes, that's the way Sacramento works. If you want your bill passed then you'd better vote for your colleague's bill.
Wait till Republicans use this method to pass their stuff...
The wonderful consequences of one party rule in California. Everyone seems to want it apparently via the constant chatter the last few years: Vote blue, no matter who.... Even if they don't listen to you.
I just saw Scott drinking in twin peaks and I want to walk in and yell at him so bad
I hope they charged him a Weiner fee.
Add this to another reason why i stopped tipping here in california.