Restaurant Owner to Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare

page: 1
39
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+21 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
John Metz owns numerous restaurant outlets and plans to impose a 5% surcharge to each customer's bill to pay for his employees' health care insurance.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Metz is the franchisor of Hurricane Grill & Wings, which has 48 locations, five of which are corporate owned, and president and owner of RREMC Restaurants, which runs approximately 40 Denny's and several Dairy Queen locations. He planned to use the 5 percent surcharge tactic in all his restaurants starting in January 2014, when Obamacare is fully implemented.


Metz admits that this tactic will effect the tips, which servers rely on as a substantial part of their earnings. So, while servers are already required to share their tips with bussers, bartenders, kitchen staff and the front desk, plus the fact that they are taxed on 8% of their sales in income tax, Metz refuses to bear any financial responsibility himself, or for his bottom line to suffer one iota.


"If I leave the prices the same, but say on the menu that there is a 5 percent surcharge for Obamacare, customers have two choices. They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare,"


This statement really gets my goat! Servers are not greedy, selfish, lazy, enemies of capitalism. Neither are they the primary beneficiaries of Obamacare. There are also the bussers, dishwashers, cooks and preps, hostesses, commissary and warehouse workers, office staff, etc. who's salaries are derived from the customer's check, and who will also benefit from Obamacare.

This "D bag" wants to place the onus of Obamacare squarely on one employee, the server. The earnings of other, non tipped hourly employees will not be effected.

In my opinion, this is class warfare and dirty politics.

What say you ATS? Do you think it's right to make restaurant servers collect this surcharge personally from each customer and deal with their complaints, most likely loosing a good portion of what would have been tipped to them for their good service. Or do you think that the restaurants in question should raise their prices to reflect their rising costs?



edit on 15-11-2012 by windword because: OCD Spelling and Grammar



+18 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
It will eventually affect their bottom line. Newton stated that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. These servers are going to look for work in other establishments that don't affect their wages. That will leave the company with substandard servers. You know how people hate lousy service. "Will we be eating at X tonight honey?" "Nah, remember the last time? Let's try....."


+28 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
He is the owner of the restaurant and can charge whatever he wants. This is the way taxes work... the cost of all taxes and regulations imposed on business by the government is always passed on to the consumer, and yet this logic seems to escape the progressive policy makers in government. Whenever the cost to produce goes up, or whenever the cost to employ goes up, the cost is paid for in the end by the consumer buying a product or using a service. I do think that it is somewhat foolish for this restaurant owner to advertise the 5% charge, because it is clearly a political statement, and considering half of the voters last week voted for Obama, it is safe to assume that he will lose customers as a result of this 5% charge, which will ultimately end up costing him more than the added cost of ObamaCare. This is the free market at work, and the employees may get tired of the reduced tips and seek employment elsewhere as a direct result of the owners tactics and ideas. Now, let's get rid of the federally mandated minimum wage and apply this same logic and then we can clearly see that employers would be forced to pay competitive wages or suffer the consequences of having substandard employees and perhaps even going out of business, instead of having the "excuse" of paying the substandard, non-competitive minimum wage.
edit on 15-11-2012 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I think it's a free country and the restaurant owner can do as he pleases. You don't have to eat there if you don't like his policies. His employees are likewise, also free to choose to work somewhere else. Actions have consequences.

edit on 15-11-2012 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)


+21 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
RIDICULOUS!

If I, or my daughter, worked at Denny's and this was passed off I'd immediately quit but not before speaking my mind.

Epitome of greed. The man owns 20 GODDAMN restaurants.

EVERYONE is going to have to chip in to make this a reality. I pay 30% of my gross pay to taxes, about 800$ every 2 weeks, but I don't complain. My brother just had massive brain surgery in Eastern Canada (free, btw) which would have cost 380k in the U.S, so I don't mind paying my cut.


+10 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Guess what? There is probably a restaurant down the street with better food, and employees that give better service.

Who's going to be the loser at the end of this?


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Talk about taking the fast track to bankruptcy. Screwing customers over isn't the best way to stay in business.
edit on 15-11-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Something glaringly obvious that government just can't understand is that raising taxes hurts the poor first. You can tax the wealthy all you want in the name of helping the poor and it will make the poor worse off than they were. Suffering always starts at the bottom and never even comes close to reaching the top.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
What's the big deal? His business, his decision. People can frequent the establishment, or not. Let the market speak. Isn't that's how it's supposed to work?

He could also raise his prices 5% across the board, but he's using his establishment to make a statement. Nobody has to patronize him, nobody has to work for him. If it's a bonehead move, he'll suffer. I've got no problem with that.


+10 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Hmm...Hamburgers is his biggest seller and beef prices have increased nearly 100% over the past few years...and yet he is going to tag a 5% Obamacare preium on peoples bill for an expense that he hasn't incurred yet and doesn't know if it will cost him anything?

I smell idealogical retard...

Beef prices...

www.indexmundi.com...
edit on 15-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


Ironically free market capitalism will punish these retards with employees leaving and customers going elsewhere for both political reasons and financial ones.
edit on 15-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
This gentlemen expects society to pick up the tab if his employees get; cancer, have a heart attack, get hit by a car, bitten by a snake, shot by a robber, burnt up in car wreck, hit head in a bike accident or a whole host of other things.

Who pays for that?

We do, at a much steeper price.

I am glad America is being forced to grow up, we are not here just to make money.


+11 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
It's a smart tactic in the sense that he's going to raise the prices to cover the cost of Obamacare but he's going to do it in a manner that makes Obama, and his plan, the enemy, not him.

It's a moronic tactic because there will be many people who won't eat at his restaurants as a result and, more important, if obamacare is overhauled, or reversed, in later years, he will be forced to remove the surcharge whereas, if he just raised his prices, he wouldn't have the same need to remove the obamacare increases as the customers won't know the primary reason for the increase in the first place.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
I think it's a free country and the restaurant owner can do as he pleases. You don't have to eat there if you don't like his policies. His employees are likewise, also free to choose to work somewhere else. Actions have consequences.

edit on 15-11-2012 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)



He's gonna look like a petty troll, maybe all the fat ass Fox News watchers will be excited to eat at a place owned by such a jerkoff.

I bet he is in this video.




posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Exactly. This guy could simply raise his prices, not say a damn word about it, and cover any anticipated added expenses. Instead he has chosen the passive aggressive route with a "surcharge" that just gets tacked on to the bill.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
You people.
You. People.
You. Effing. People.
"HES RICH HE CAN PAY HIMSELF HERP DA DERP"
Nah, economics man, it doesn't work like that. Yes, he COULD pay for it, but he wont. Not because he's a greedy selfish b*stard but because he couldn't pay for it forever. He would run out of money, and then the whole restaurant chain would go bankrupt. That's basically the same thing with taxing the rich; they're taxed into poverty and then take benefits from the other people who aren't poor yet. Eventually everyone becomes poor, and anyone who barely pulls themselves out of that hole will be taxed right back into it because nobody would be entitled to success, and the government would pocket the difference. But I digress. You see, by adding a 5% tax in order to pay for obamacare (of course, he could have just raised his prices, but didn't for whatever reason) The restaurants would continue to make money and, by extension, be able to pay their workers.

Come on guys; think for a second, and don't just assume that because that guy has more money than you he's a selfish pig.
edit on 15-11-2012 by CrisMajor because: I FORGOT SOMETHING AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
His companies, he is entitled to charge whatever he wants, impose whatever fees he wants, etc. I personally don't eat at any of the restaurants that he owns so no skin off of my back. Even if I did, I'd stop eating at these places. The fact that the 5% fee is being labeled as ObamaCare fee means he is going to alienate his customer base. I just hope that his employees will realize that they are getting shafted and leave to go work elsewhere. Of course that isn't so easy with the current job market which is only going to get worse.


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The .gov should not be able to "force" the people to purchase a product or service, whats next, they gonna be telling us we have to buy a government motors volt, or Iphone?

The owner can charge an price and add on any surcharge he wants, it is his business, although I wouldnt consider it a good idea IMHO



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by CrisMajor
 


I think its more along the lines of him politicizing the issue by calling it a surcharge. Like has been previously been pointed out he could have easily raised all his prices by 5% and no one would be any the wiser. Also he wouldn't be cutting into servers' means of living.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Thepump
 


WOW!

The Parkinson victim in that video, being treated that way is shocking.

This Metz fellow, by making the statement that the 5% surcharge is for the server, who, he says, is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare, is pretty much doing the same to his servers. He's making them seem like beggars for health care, every time they drop a check at a table.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
How is it different from any other job with benefits?

If you earn a paycheck at an employer who provides benefits you're paying in even if you dont see that "surcharge."

Waiters wanted health insurance. Well, they got it.

The fun starts when you get married and put your wife on it. Then the kids.





new topics

top topics



 
39
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join