Loading ...I remember a dozen years or so ago, an email circulated with supposed names of rejected children’s stories. My favorite was “You’re Different And That’s Bad.” Because that’s so often the lesson that our schools, corporations and institutions teach. In fact, they teach it so well that some people spend their whole life with a fear and loathing of anything that’s different.
At the Linkery, we’re different. Five years ago, we made it our mission to get real, non corporate food — ingredients from local farmers, the kind of food that’s widely available in the Bay Area — easily available in a North Park community restaurant. Most people didn’t think it could be done, or at least not by us, but we were willing to do things totally “out of the box” and, one way or another, things work out.
Of course, some people just hate those who do things differently than the way “everybody” does it. Even now, I get nasty emails from people who are offended that we list all the farms on our menu (“why don’t you just write a novel?”) or that we tell the details of our changing menu (“people who know food know it’s nothing special”). And certainly our decision to charge for table service instead of taking tips upsets a lot of people who, for whatever reason, are really emotionally invested in the tipping system.
Where you or I might think, hey, I don’t like the way this business operates, I’ll go somewhere else, these people think, I don’t like the way this business works, I hate them and am going to try to make them suffer.
Which brings me to a letter I received today from Jan Goldsmith, City Attorney. The City Attorney has decided that our charging for table service is a violation of the State law against advertising one price for an item, and then charging another. In other words, it’s not enough for you to decide whether or not you want to come to a place that charges a table service charge — they are saying the mere act of doing so is illegal.
The accusation is patently false, for a litany of reasons:
* The table service charge is clearly labeled as a charge for table service only, and does not apply to takeout orders. In other words, the food costs something, and table service costs something. The prices listed for the food are exactly what we charge for the food.
* We make it clear that if the guest doesn’t feel the service was worth what we charge for it, we will waive the charge. In fact, if we know that we’ve made a major service mistake, we waive the charge without being asked.
* We provide notice on both the menu (shown above) and on a 3 foot wide sign at the host stand as you enter.
* Almost every catering company charges for food and service separately, with service being at a fixed percentage rate. This has never been found illegal.
* The State of California acknowledges the legitimacy of restaurants charging service charges in its own tax code:
(B) When the menu, brochures, advertisements or other printed materials contain statements that notify customers that tips, gratuities, or service charges will or may be added, an amount automatically added by the retailer to the bill or invoice presented to and paid by the customer is a mandatory charge and subject to tax. These amounts are considered negotiated in advance as specified in subdivision (g)(2)(A). Examples of printed statements include:
“An 18% gratuity [or service charge] will be added to parties of 8 or more.”
“Suggested gratuity 15%,” itemized on the invoice or bill by the restaurant, hotel, caterer, boarding house, soda fountain, drive-in or similar establishment.
“A 15% voluntary gratuity will be added for parties of 8 or more.”
An amount will be considered “automatically added” when the retailer adds the tip to the bill without first conferring with the customer after service of the meal and receiving approval to add the tip or without providing the customer with the option to write in the tip. Nonetheless, any amount added by the retailer is presumed to be mandatory. This presumption may be overcome as discussed in subdivision (g)(2)(C) below.
* Many restaurants charge a fixed service charge for parties of a certain size, for table service. This has never been found illegal.
* Chez Panisse has been charging 17% for table service in California for decades, and the State of California has not had a problem with it. (And, a point courtesy Ben in the comments: Most/all San Francisco restaurants charge a 4% surcharge on each bill for health insurance, with the support of the city government. Clearly this is not in violation of state law.)
So clearly our table service charge is not a violation of the State code. However, the truth is, the City Attorney is spending our money, and we will have to hire expensive attorneys in order to defend ourselves. And that’s the point here — to punish us for being different. And to make it as difficult as possible for us to operate this business to serve the neighborhood.
I get that some people don’t like that we do things this way, and I think it’s great if those people don’t come in. But now they are trying to take away your option to patronize a business that charges a flat rate for table service, instead of taking tips. Clearly, that’s not about consumer protection, but about making sure that new ways of doing business don’t take root.
This is just like the laws that keep coming up to make it difficult to buy food from farmers — instead of buying food the usual way: industrial food from Sysco, Monsanto, Cargill, et al. Change threatens some people.
The bummer is, it really motivates us to stop trying to create the best business possible for North Park, and instead just try to make money like most other businesses do. Because as we are working to make things better here, this sort of thing is continue to happen: there’s always someone out there who see a business that is supported by its community, that is trying to make a difference, who just hates it.
If you’d like to contact the City Attorney’s office, and tell them to try harder to throw me in jail (or perhaps respectfully ask them to not pursue unjust action against honest local businesses) you can do so at Jan Goldsmith, 1200 3rd Ave, Suite 1620, San Diego CA 92101.
click to embiggen
To be honest, your menu misrepresents the price. If you truly believe the table-service fee is separate, it needs to be clearly noted, and shown at the top of the menu as a mandatory fee, or listed next to each ingredient. One price for the item, one price with the additional 18% per item. As your menu is printed, it is hidden at the bottom.
If ordered something, and then saw the 18% snuck in without seeing the bottom addendum, i would be mad.
Granted, I would rather see customers not patronize an establishment like this, because if your “table service” sucks, they should not have to pay it. And this should be labeled clearly, which it is not.
Jay! I’m so sorry that this is happening. I will lob a call over there now.
Honestly, don’t they have something better to do?
xoxo
Lucila
@na
Every “point” you raise is addressed in the blog entry, which you obviously didn’t read. Get a brain, morans.
A tip is a tip. You can sugarcoat the word by saying “table service”, but it is still a tip. As such it should be treated like a tip. (or better worded – gratuity)
If you feel that you should be “earning” more from your patrons then charge more on each food menu item. But, the down and dirty of this is more of a “bait and switch”. You lure the patron in with one price and then at the end tell them it is another. You can play the “ignorance” roll and say that it was clearly stated ahead of time, but as any common patron knows people pay attention to prices on a menu and not so much extra words.
Simple fact: charge more per menu item if you feel you should be earning more. But trying to add on a charge which has always been left at the discretion of each patron is against California state law because of how you are doing such.
I, myself, feel that tips are just society pressuring a patron into spending more when they shouldn’t have to. I came to your restaurant. I paid for my meal. Why should I have to pay extra for something that should have been included in the price of my food? Figure out how to correctly operate a business and stop “whining” that you got caught doing something incorrectly.
I salute your fight against this silly suit. And I hope that they withdrawal it and you countersue with a bill for the waste of your time.
The idea is that wait staff will do a better job and be happier if they don’t have to scratch and beg for a living wage, which is the situation in most dine in restaurants.
The Linkery (presumably, and from what I’ve heard) pays a living wage to the staff by fully accounting for the cost of dine-in service in the check, a la the 18% service fee.
The reason the 18% is not just added to the food price is that folks ordering take-out shouldn’t have to pay the service fee. That point was confusing to me for a while too, but I think it makes sense if any significant portion of the restaurant’s business is take-out.
Bottom line at the Linkery, from my experience: Everyone pays nearly the same amount as they would anyway as long as they’re not a lousy tipper.
Also, to The E-If you don’t understand why you should tip you should go work at the Outback Steakhouse for a month, refusing tips, and see how hard it is to make a living in most in food service.
Anyway, I’m a regular at the Linkery because of the people, and if they weren’t properly compensated I don’t think the restaurant would be the same.
Good luck guys.
The idea is that wait staff will do a better job and be happier if they don’t have to scratch and beg for a living wage, which is the situation in most dine in restaurants.
The Linkery (presumably, and from what I’ve heard) pays a living wage to the staff by fully accounting for the cost of dine-in service in the check, a la the 18% service fee.
The reason the 18% is not just added to the food price is that folks ordering take-out shouldn’t have to pay the service fee. That point was confusing to me for a while too, but I think it makes sense if any significant portion of the restaurant’s business is take-out.
Bottom line at the Linkery, from my experience: Everyone pays nearly the same amount as they would anyway as long as they’re not a lousy tipper.
Also, to The E-If you don’t understand why you should tip you should go work at the Outback Steakhouse for a month, refusing tips, and see how hard it is to make a living in most in food service.
Anyway, I’m a regular at the Linkery because of the people, and if they weren’t properly compensated I don’t think the restaurant would be the same.
Good luck guys.
I’m guessing that the two most wordy comments to this post, by “na” and “The E,” are by lurkers who exist to try and score points against you, Jay, and The Linkery. I’m not sure there are many legitimate blog readers who patently disagree with the philosophy of the blog author, and still subscribe and read every entry.
Having said that, I will certainly write or call Mr. Goldsmith, for whom I voted (as the lesser of two evils), and let him know that this particular constituent is extremely annoyed at this obviously misdirected use of city resources.
It’s particularly appalling that in the second paragraph Mr. Goldsmith’s assistant city attorney makes the assumption that you will go ahead and spend your hard earned money to hire an attorney to fight for you. By the one simple letter, which I’m guessing cost us taxpayers several hundred dollars in salary (plus postage!) to draft, they are causing you to spend a lot of money, guilty or innocent. A travesty.
This is just ridiculous. NA – Why don’t you find a more worthy cause to fight. There’s alot of horrible things going one elsewhere in this world and your energy would be FAR better utilized – some where else.
18% !!!!
QW
I predict a new record for Linkery blog comments.
Fight the good fight, Jay. It’s a shame that you’ll have to spend the time and money contesting this ridiculous suit, but hopefully the final outcome protects the rights of restauranteurs to conduct business as they see fit within the limits of the law.
I’ve always enjoyed the team approach that your staff employs, and from the first time I ate at the Linkery the table service concept was clear. If people choose not to read the information that is presented in front of their noses in multiple places, you shouldn’t be held accountable. I understand the adage “the customer is always right”, but the sense of entitlement that some individuals have when relating to persons working in the service industry is mind-boggling.
Best of luck!
People leaving comments here along the lines of “I don’t like your table service charge” and “The way you do business sucks” are missing the whole point of this post. You are not required to patronize a business if you don’t like it. That’s your choice. However, the city deciding to sue them because they don’t like it is absurd. A business succeeds or fails based on the service they provide. As long as they aren’t doing anything dishonest or harmful. They deserve the same shot as any other business.
Now, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t really care for the Linkery’s table service charge, I would prefer to pay the gratuity that I see fit for the service that I receive. Having said that, I still go there because they have excellent quality food and I usually tip 18%-20% anyways. Lastly, as far as being sneaky about the table service charge, The server there has always made a point to tell me about it as I’m being seated. I don’t see how that’s misleading at all. Seriously, either eat there, or don’t. Don’t file a law suit unless you got food poisoning, found out they’re using slave labor, are secretly drugging you, or something. Jeez.
GO LINKERY!!!
Perhaps your followers, like me, can now be called the 18 percenters. I’m down for a rally.
As the 18% is not “hidden” as others have suggested (it’s clearly on the sign and the menu)and the option to not tip if you get bad service is there, I honestly do not see what the problem is. And if the policy bothers you that much there is a simple fix-don’t order at all or order to go. If you were forced to eat here that would be one thing but—-not to sound cliche—ummm, it’s a free country. I would thing our city has bigger things to worry about.
what a ridiculous move on Jan Goldsmith’s part. Waiters and waitresses at this progressive restaurant deserve the 18%. One would think that a man who considers his past domestic violence reports to be ‘irrelevant’ because his wife forgave him should concern himself with his own personal development.
I personally disagree with the idea of having a table service fee. Most restaurants level a mandatory fee on larger groups because the more people included in figuring out the bill, the more likely they are to undertip, and anyone serving a large table should be tipped (it takes a LOT of coordination). By forcing an individual patron to either pay 18% or not pay at all takes away the grey area which incentivises waiters to do a good job. It would have to take a pretty eggregious error for me to throw enough of a fit to get the table service charge waived, but I would like the liberty to give only 15% if the service was so-so. You may argue that your service is good enough to get 18% everytime, but taking the option away makes the customer powerless, and as we all know, perception is reality.
My opinion on the service fee aside, I think it is shrewed manuvering by the City Attorney to prosecute your restaurant. As you so adaptly argued, they don’t have much ground to stand on, they either have to apply the law equally or not at all. So until they are willing to go up against every restaurant that charges a service fee for large parties, they shouldn’t be going up against you. Good luck, and I hope that you win.
Sorry to hear all of this! You do great work for NP and SD, plus your food and drinks are great! Keep your head up!
I’m calling the city attorney’s office to complain right now.
(complain about them filing a suit, that is. Not about the tipping policy)
What an incredible waste of time and money by the city. Jay, I am so sorry that you have to be bothered by this. Some people simply can not be pleased and decide that the legal system is the only option instead of just not coming in. Ridiculous.
I’m so sorry to hear about this, Jay. Fight them down and know that you have many enthusiastic supporters. People who don’t understand what you’re doing need to pick up a paper, read a book, and stop being idiots. I hope Jan Goldsmith’s mailbox collapses under the weight of all the letters of complaint and voicemail breaks down for similar reasons. CA has enough to worry about without bleeding more taxpayers’ money for frivolous reasons.
This is extremely sad. My guess is that the city attorney is filing suit as a result of people calling and making complaints about the “unfair” 18% gratuity. But I can’t see the legal argument for false advertising when it’s written plain as day on the menu. And at the hostess stand. And the wait staff tells you about it. And, as was mentioned, restaurants other than the Linkery routinely add a service charge to large parties, which they usually note at the bottom of the menu.
I have been dining at the Linkery since it first opened back in the original smaller space, and I’ll continue to dine there regularly. Perhaps even moreso now to help them pay their legal bills.
Good luck in the fight, Jay. Lots of us out here support what you do. I’ll be spreading the word.
Unreal. I wonder if they bothered to do any research at all on The Linkery or they just decided to go full bore and then find out the real facts as they go along. What a waste of taxpayer money, Linkery money and attorney time.
Perhaps if the god awful staff you employed were less interested in fixed gear bicycle conversation by the wait station or the service bar and more interested in serving your guests there would not be such an uproar over your forced gratuity.
Posting an inconspicuous notice to a general public that is largely clueless makes the assumption that you guys will always “nail it.” Gratuity is largely left based on server personality and interaction. In my experiences your servers lacked both. At a restaurant with no dedicated servers it is remarkably appalling that you feel 18% gratuity is deserving to a staff that largely stands around, is not knowledgeable of the menu (good thing there are multiple servers to get fractions of the answers from). I’ve had better personal connections, warmer receptions, and better product knowledge with Starbucks Baristas in 1/60th of the service experience.
To further assume your guests took the time to case your restaurant, its surroundings, and signage before being seated is to suggests that people are coming to your restaurant to do anything other than satiate their body’s need of correcting a rapidly plummeting blood sugar level. How often do you think your guests are opting to not request the waiver for fear of being considered cheap by their friends or your elitist staff?
Get off your high horse and stick to what you know: making good sausage. Perhaps the next time you decide to move restaurants to a larger, custom built location you will take into account the costs of an open space dining room and better price your menu to reflect your overhead rather than expecting your patrons to foot the bill under the guise of a forced gratuity.
http://www.healthysanfrancisco.org/about_us/
I was at Straits Cafe at the SF Centre Mall on Market St. (above the Powell St. BART Station). They tack on a “Healthy San Francisco” tax charge onto every bill at the restaurant. It’s a way of providing SF “Universal Health Care” type coverage to the uninsured. Straits participates and I don’t recall even seeing it anywhere on the menu, host stand, signage… anywhere… Must be legal since the Mayor endorses it… Not sure if you can opt-out… I would guess yes, but by default it’s on the bill (and I believe it is charged per patron).
Of course, you’re missing the point, Jay. If you’re diverting tips from the individuals how rely upon them the most (your servers), the mandatory service charge is simply a pretext to increase your profits. Cloak yourself in the ostentatious garb of quirk to your heart’s content, but diverting tips away from your servers is not different; it’s illegal.
The City isn’t punishing you for being “different”. It’s holding you accountable for the employees’ you’ve stiffed. Indulging in a fact-obfuscating crusade will not change this fact.
Manda, 100% of the service charge money goes directly to the staff here, none of it goes to me or “the business”. None of which is relevant to the legality of it, but I think it’s important.
More to the point, the City (you can read the letter in the blog post) is accusing us not of stiffing our own staff, but of engaging in fraudulent consumer practices. They are surely doing this in order to get us to change our policy not because it’s illegal (it clearly isn’t) but because someone doesn’t like it on a deep emotional level. You can see that kind of response even in some of these blog comments, which occasionally get a bit irrational with antipathy toward us for doing things differently. Which was my whole point in the first place.
Everyone else, thanks for your words of encouragement and support with the city. The City Attorney is an elected office, so if voters express to the CA that this seems like a bad use of city money, there is a chance of nipping this in the bud. Or not, who knows.
I completely understand the reasoning behind the methods by which you charge your patrons, and you should be able to run your business the way you want to.
However, I’m guessing Jan Goldsmith, a former judge, knows a little bit about the law. If people disagree with this state law, then maybe they should do something to try to change it like VOTE or write their local congressmen.
Sincerely,
A teacher who has never taught that different is bad.
CATeacher,
Thanks for commenting.
I think it’s pretty clear that this is not about existing law — as I mention in the post, restaurants in California (most notably, Chez Panisse) have been charging for table service for decades, and no one has ever found it illegal. More notably, as Ben points out, restaurants all over San Francisco charge a 4% surcharge for health insurance, with the knowledge and blessing of the City, and it’s not been a legal violation.
At best, the City Attorney is trying to use us to *create* a new law which makes it illegal to charge for table service. At worst, they don’t like what we do, and they want to punish us for it.
Jay
It’s not comforting to know the city attorney spends time on this while convicted sexual predators are killing our daughters.
Jay-
I totally support your table service charge. I think it is the best way to make the work of your servers not only pleasant and constructive, but also a realistic career with a living wage.
I do have one quibble with the way it is represented on the menu. I think it’s written in an ambiguous way, which might really be causing you more headaches than the policy itself.
You write:
“The cost of table/bar service for dining-in guests is included on each check at 18%.”
This sentence could be read as either (1) 18% will be added to the prices listed here, or (2) 18% of these listed prices will go toward paying the servers.
The issue is that you use the phrase “is included”, rather than “will be added”, which I believe is the standard terminology that restaurants use for the gratuity added (for large groups, etc).
Unfortunately, this causes more negative feelings among patrons than a more clear wording might. The ambiguity causes confusion, which when the check comes, can turn into the feeling of betrayal.
I would suggest changing the wording on the menu to more closely resemble the wording on the wooden sign at the door. Perhaps you could say:
“The prices listed above are for the food only. Dining-in patrons will pay an additional 18% for table/bar service.”
Hope this helps, and I’m so sorry that you have to deal with this BS lawsuit!
Over here in Aus, tipping/gratuity is not the norm. It’s for you to give if you get extra service, great service, god forbid friendly service!!! It’s quite common for menu items to be different prices for takeaway, delivery, and table service. Table service costs more people!!!!!! It takes more people, effort, presentation, washing etc.
I think the percentage amount is a good way of doing it. Sounds like it’s pretty clear to me
Jay -
Wow.
It’s been a long time since I’ve worked in the restaurant business. Both of the places I worked at in the 90s had a fixed gratuity for large parties. I believe it is still very common. Since there was no ‘special menu’ provided to large parties, it’s a similar situation.
I would look for prior judgments on this. If there is none, and Ms Goldsmith is (for God knows what reason) trying to set precedent here, you may find allies in large restaurant groups who have similar large-party, fixed-gratuity policies.
Good luck my friend. You are doing a special thing there in North Park. The Link is one of the things I miss most about San Diego. Don’t let the bastards grind you down.
This upsets me. This is the bad tipper! This
is the non-North Parker, the tightwad, cheap skate, non-reader of BOLD information ahead of time and wasting Jay’s positive vision and many great local eateries. Is there a fund to fight the cheap skate hater against tipping? Sign me up…
Fan of the Kick Out Tightwads..stay home with your TV dinner! You are not a Foodie and don’t try to be…page
Jay, why do you think the CA office is out to get you?
Rather than “not liking what you do”, isn’t it more likely that some cheapskate was unhappy with the food/service they got and complained to their friend, the City Attorney?
As for not prosecuting other businesses doing the same thing, my understanding (IANAL) is that law enforcement is not obligated to bring charges against (or sue) every party they suspect of breaking a law. They have the privilege of choosing who to prosecute, based on the evidence they have or the wishes of their friends, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
So you can’t say, “Why didn’t you sue those other guys?” They don’t have to.
That said, I think you have a rock solid case, given that you *very clearly* list the service fee on your menu.
By looking at B&P 2024.2, it seems like the CA is suggesting that a retailer cannot charge a fee on top of the cumulative price of the items a customer is buying.
If that’s true, why don’t we file a class action suit against TicketMaster’s convenience fee? Or ARCO’s debit card fee?
The answer, I believe, is that you are offering more than the food on the table, i.e., “table/bar service for dine-in guests”, and its not free. Customers can always choose NOT to enjoy table service. I do this routinely when I visit restaurants that require you to order from a window and pick up your own food, like Bronx Pizza.
Of course these kind of places can’t charge a service fee, because they aren’t providing a service. You *do* provide table service, but Jan Goldsmith seems to think that table service isn’t a service, and so you can’t charge for it.
That you offer take-out is irrelevant, I think.
>> the wait staff as is doesn’t deserve a garuanteed 18% tip
Who cares if you think they deserve it? Are you happy with what your dentist pays her hygienist? Is the guy who changes your oil fairly compensated? You don’t know how much they’re paid for their work, but you’re still there getting your teeth polished and deciding between 10W30 and 5W30.
It’s Jay’s prerogative as a business owner to set his pricing and pay his employees any way he wants, and it’s your prerogative as a sentient, free person to spend your money any fucking place you want.
All this hand-wringing about “is the quality of service at this restaurant WORTH 18%?” really misses the point, though. This attorney claims that the Linkery is advertising one price on the menu and charging something else. I suggest the attorney read the menu, read the big sign as she walks in the door, and reflect on the prevalence of service charges and convenience fees in today’s retail environment.
WOW!! I am shocked by this suit and the morons that support it. Talk about a waste of public money. This is a sad day for San Diego, really disappointing.
For the time being you should direct all extra gratuity that customers kindly leave that gets donated to charity be changed to fight/fund this suit.
Thanks for typing that slowly, MJJ. It helps me understand that you misunderstand the Linkery’s practices and that you’re not making much of a point.
At the Linkery, they’re not called “tips” and the charges are not “to insure promptness”. Their servers are not paid minimum wage, nor are they directly beholden to you for any part of their compensation. You might resent this, but that’s how they roll.
Here’s where your analogy breaks down: if someone doesn’t change your oil correctly, he still gets paid. He’s likely an hourly employee. You are free to complain to the manager and get your bill reduced, but you are NOT free to reduce the pay of the guy in the greasy coveralls. If he wants to keep his job, though, he’d better improve.
That’s how Jay has chosen to run the Linkery. He’s stripped your power to directly compensate his employees, and he has accepted the business risk of poor service.
So, unless you disagree with any of the above, your single salient point is “I get bad service at the Linkery, but I like the food and beer.” That might be a fair point, but next time you could make it directly, without all the distraction.
BTW, since you’re from the old school, I should let you know that girls can now be lawyers too, MJJ. In fact, one of them signed the letter we’re discussing.
I love it when I see an auto-gratuity of 18%, you see I always tip in the 20% range and the auto-gratuity actually saves me money.
People that tip according to the societal norms are going to pay the same. What does it matter who you pay? Whether the server or the restaurant, the net effect is the same.
Wait staff take the job based upon an average wage based upon tipping and wages. When they encounter a run of frugal customers, their average wage goes down until they encounter a run of good tippers.
I for one am tired of carrying the cheap skates. This is the worst kind of socialism.
You know who you are. You use any minor slight in service to justifying to yourself the reduction in the tip to the sub 10% range. You then proudly state “I always tip 18% except when the service is bad”. The service is always bad for you, isn’t it? Care to share receipts?
I wrote an email to the city attorney expressing my displeasure.
I hope this works out for you and I hope your practice catches on.
I forgot to make one point. I do not wish to be the Human Resource department of a restaurant. I do not like the fact that my tip is used as an on the spot evaluation of the work performance of my waiter.
If I am unhappy with service I will not return. If I am really, really unhappy with the service I will complain to the manager on duty and eventually to the owner.
It is my belief that anyone who demands the right to tip, “to insure promptness” is just looking for excuses to reduce their tip.
Again, I am tired of subsidizing the meals of the bad tippers.
It is my fervent hope that an auto-gratuity system be adopted at every single restaurant in America or that a no-gratuity is adopted with the understanding that the increase in menu prices are being used to raise the prevailing wage in the restaurant industry.
Reely Fishy, Jan Goldsmith is a man.
Tricia Pummill is not.
Your Shady operation is dishonest and disgraceful.
I am grateful justice is served.
There is now a thread on Yelp.com about this:
http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-diego-18-and-mandatory-table-service-fee-at-the-linkery
If you have a Yelp account, pipe in.
Wow – I am totally surprised out the outpouring of venom over this issue. I eat at a lot of restaurants and The Linkery is one of my favorites. Most of the time when one dines out at an establishment that includes table service, a gratuity of between 15 and 20% is considered a normal cost of the meal. It’s simply an “understood” cost. What Jay has done is ensure that his employees receive a consistent $$ amount for their work. I understand that some people may be uncomfortable with this idea (I was the first couple of times I went), but it hardly seems an issue for our city attorney to prosecute. Those of you who strongly disagree can certainly opt to eat elsewhere – in the end – the free market system will usually take care of a business whose performance or pricing is out of line with the competition. I look at it like a delivery charge – when I pick it up myself all I pay for are the “goods” I purchased – when I have it delivered I pay for the “service” or delivery charge.
If the issue is a “bait and switch,” this seems unfair since the menu and the sign clearly identify the 18% – and especially since most establishments do the same thing for parties over 6 (or 8). Again, I appreciate all that The Linkery has done to bring food from local / regional farms to the table to our area – and I personally like to know where my food comes from so the information on the menu is important to me. If that information bothers you, or the fixed 18% gratuity bothers you there are many eating establishments in North Park or San Diego that offer food without either. Jay, et al – keep up the great work!
Almost every restaurant in the country charges a mandatory service fee for groups of 6 or more.. It’s usually noted in tiny writing on the menu. How is this any different?
I’ll go ahead and say it. I hope that ‘The E’ gets cancer.
E, dont feel bullied. This is the norm with Cult Porter..
As for the issue doesnt Link also add 8.5% tax after the mandatory gratuity errr “table charge”? Not sure but think so. If the menu said we charge 18% on top of the beer and we tax the listed price + the 18% gratuity then who could have an issue.. But 5.00 for a beer that is actually 6.40 seems misleading even if thru the sea of txt laiden with hyperbole and self satisfying worth.
I dont think anyone argues that on paper the concept of the biz is interesting and well minded for the most part but there are underminded agenda hidden in very non transparent ways aka the menu verbage and the end pricing. This isnt about your ability to operate ‘differently’ it’s about not being 100% honest with the consumer base. Change the wording (s/no-tipping/mandatory tipping), adjust the pricing to account for the actual cost and call it a day.. No change to the model but a big change to the honesty and transparency. Jay does have a very high sense of self worth..
Maybe the DA is just seeing what all the fuss is about. On the bright side it’s some good marketing though, right?
Where the real problem may lie is with the same issue that Starbucks ran into – CA law does say you cannot “redirect” tips to those that normally do not receive them (i.e. This could include the kitchen staff) – although this is a bit of a sham – since anyone who has ever been in the business understands that at the end of their shift all the wait staff “tip out” – or hand over a % of their tips to other members of the staff who do not directly receive tips. The legalists may have to determine whether this is legal or not. What is a shame – especially in this economy – is that now a small business owner, who is providing jobs in the local area, and supporting his neighborhood is going to be handing over $$ to an attorney so that he can get involved in legal wrangling over something that appears to be a “non-issue.” If you look around at all of the small businesses whose doors have been shuttered during this economic depression, it seems like a travesty that the city is going to hound small business people for something like this – on top of all of the taxes and fees that get paid – ok – that turned into a rant and I just meant to make one point.
Other restaurants in California that have a mandatory service fee:
Incanto in San Francisco (which started doing this for years before the health insurance bill)
The French Laundry in Napa (though they just build it into the final fee).
JW,
No. Why fight something silly. Simply adhere to a bit more honst approach. Its a 10 minute menu change. Calculate the new price add to menu call it a day. There is no fight only a perceived fight. City is reasonable make a couple changes and the L can make the same amount they are charging but in a transparent and consumer friendly way. A fool would fight this. Serious 10 minute and Jay and FOL can rejoice! Fighting it is silly be sensible make the adjustment on the menu and by adjuting the price guess what the no tipping policy will actually be true!
If I really had a problem with your 18% I wouldn’t patronize the linkery. But I’m not sure I’d complain to the City Attorney about the unfairness.
Plus it is not like your patrons really find that a huge problem since the place is almost always packed to the gills.
Good luck with this!
sdb,
The thing is, that 18% is not the price of food, the price of the food is what we list.
The 18% is the price of table service. That’s the cost of the livelihoods of servers and dishwashers and other workers who bust their asses so that you can enjoy eating your meal at the restaurant’s table. At most places, you cover that cost with a tip, here, we charge for their time and effort.
Some people, like you and, apparently, the City Attorney, are desperate to live in a world where table service has no cost, its just free, and a “tip” is some little bit extra that your server is just delighted to receive. This is a ridiculous fantasy, and I think it stems from not wanting to think about what it means to have so many restaurants, so many servers, cooks and dishwashets, working at low wages, with no health insurance, so that we can have a culture with easy access the good life of restaurants and food and beer and wine. People are often uncomfortable having low-paid servants, that’s just not how they see themselves.
I want to change this into a more honest culture, where we acknowledge that table service costs money, we pay the servers as professionals, and we can look each other in the eye as equals. You and the City Attorney do not want that, instead you want to perpetuate an underclass that is supposed to be overjoyed at the few shillings you leave at the end of the meal.
I get that it kills you to know there’s a place in San Diego that says that people who provide restaurant service should be paid a set amount for their time and effort. The flavor of contempt that you, and the City Attorney, have for the people who work to provide restaurant service, depresses me.
J
Jay,
Cmon, you are a very sharp person you get what the majority of people who have issue with this is saying. You can accomplish the exact same thing which you claim to strive for (which is a good cause and reason) in a more transparent manner. You know this. I know this.. People will respect it a hellavu lot more if you just took a better approach. The service industry is a standard and a culture. If people want a different line of business then find a different job but that incentive that you make mandatory absolute affects the performance. At the end of the day you dont have to make ANY changes to your business model at all. All that you need to do is make a minor adjustment to that literature. If you stop spinning the yarn and you just come out with a different approach your end goal is the same. Isnt that the goal?
Au contraire, sdb. It seems to me that Jay is trying to effect change in the way our society looks at restaurant dining, not “work within the system” just to be left alone by the city attorneys. That purpose is better served by adding a separate charge for table service than it would be by changing the list price of menu items.
The way the menu is currently structured is by far more transparent to me than it would be if prices were simply increased across the board. I realize this is a bit of hyperbole, but the point stands: If you walked into what looked like a typical non-fancy restaurant, glanced at their menu, and saw they offered a baloney sandwich for $10, would you stay and order dinner? I certainly wouldn’t. $10 is not an accurate representation of the quality of the food.
Jay, I applaud your business model. It doesn’t take a lot of digging to discover that the rest of the world views the American system of underpaying waitstaff and expecting tips to make up for it as bizarre and unfair. It’s time we changed that. I’m drafting a letter to Mr. Goldsmith immediately.
sdb,
What about the take-out prices? Currently, they use the same menu for dine-in and take-out. Do you want him to print a second menu every day with the take-out prices? Or include both prices on the menu? Doesn’t that sound ridiculous?
The language about the service fee is very clear and prominent, not hidden in fine print, and is repeated by wait staff (in my experience). I’d say they should make it more prominent, but they don’t have to, its no less prominent than the traditional “mandatory gratuity for parties of 6 or more.”
Just call the city of San Diego and ask if mandatory gratuity for parties of X is legal, and if it is then change the menu to say manditory gratuty of 18% is added for parties of 1 or more.
I wonder how many times Jay can say ‘Chez Panisse’ before people believe they are anywhere near the same type of establishment. Higher class, charging 1% less, and not in San Diego, so it is likely that if they were, they’d be receiving the same letter.
It isn’t the fact that you’re different. Your blatant arrogance shines right through in everything you do. You’re not making the world a better place with what you do, you’re serving a very elite subset of the community who likes to feel “different”.
For all of you that don’t like the 18% being automatically added, I have an idea. GO TO A DIFFERENT PLACE TO EAT! There is nothing wrong with you taking your business elsewhere — that is what consumer choice in this country is about.
Acting like this is a moral outrage and somehow deceptive and should be make illegal? Really?
I had been assuming that a competitor restaurant somehow has an “in” at the Attorney’s office and is doing this just to hurt the Linkery….
Jay –
I am sad and outraged to read that an already broke San Diego is spending tax payer money (my hard earned money in the education & food service industries) to pay for this lawsuit. I agree with you that the 18% gratuity is for your staff only and have loved how you use extra tip money for local communites.
I wish more places did this!
Each time I hear a restaurant is doing a charity event for a school or non-profit organization where a % of cost goes to them, I try to eat there.
I love how many places in the Bay Area are finally fighting for grower’s and server’s health and wages. Doing what they do already legally is nothing to be ashamed of.
It is ok to be different and look out for coworkers while providing customers quality product and service.
I wish more places did this!
Those people who think 18% is too high or wrong must leave terrible tips themselves when dining out. It’s a shame. I can attest to you having adequate and clear signage explaining the gratuity. And the staff is always clear and open to discuss this.
I will follow your journey with this. I will spread the word of how you are unfairly being sued.
I don’t know the local politics, but reading this blog tells me that the owner of the Linkery seems to have some enemies. Many of these posts do not seem to stem from people who do not like to tip. I sense deeper purpose, ulterior motives.
People who do not notice the signs or the printed message on the menu are not idiots; nobody walks into a restaurant and reads everything in sight nor the whole menu. That said, the arrival of an 18% gratuity on their check may come as a surprise and be met with derision if unaccompanied by an explanation. The admonition to “go eat elsewhere if you don’t like it” is a bit heavy-handed given that there is a firm social expectation in this country towards an elective tip. This is standard and this expectation should ALWAYS be assumed by restaurants until things change dramatically. More importantly, this attitude is short-sighted and self-righteous given the larger social issues involved. Admittedly, I had a similar experience after dining at the Linkery a few months ago. We were drawn to the restaurant based on its food model and some word-of-mouth reviews. I came in for lunch with my wife and we were both surprised to see the addition of the 18% gratuity (we normally tip 20% unless service sucks, and then, well, we usually tip 20%). Neither of us are morons (as far as we know), but my immediate reaction at the time was that the owners thought an awful lot of themselves and decided that his servers were so good, they didn’t need incentives to perform, or the owners were just deceitfully pricing their meals and pocketing the profit. No server or (possibly unread) sign countered this reaction. I would imagine many others have had similar reactions. Months later, after reading the various blogs and most importantly, the interesting social commentary in the NYT, I think a little differently about the practice of tipping in general, and this restaurant’s policy in particular. I support any business model that seeks a living wage for its employees and grants them dignity and “ownership” (i.e., a sense of pride in the business, not outright fiscal ownership, although I’m not opposed to that either). My main concern for the Linkery is that the principles that are being used to defend these practices may be being used to support a policy which ultimately benefits the owner; only its employees can address that concern. In the meantime, the fact that 100% of the table-service fee goes to the service workers and the fact that health insurance is paid to ALL workers (am I wrong here?) does not suggest a financial windfall for the owner. There are obviously limits on this restaurant’s model of equity; I doubt the owner has the same lifestyle, lives in a similar home, nor puts a cap on his income relative to his workers’ wages, and I doubt the owner washes a lot of dishes during the course of a typical week. However, improving the lifestyle of service workers is an admirable goal and one worth supporting with my money. In the end, my expectations have been officially challenged (although many months later) and I’m generally on board with this concept under the assumptions that the business model is guided by principles of equity. Good luck with the City Attorney fight, and more importantly, good luck persuading people to challenge their assumptions about dining and tipping; I’m happy to help with the latter. As for the quality of the meal I had and whether it was worth the money…..well, I’ll head on over to Yelp to grind that axe.
Geez. How much do you people tip? Do you seriously tip less than 18% elsewhere and are not bothered by that?
I’ve sent an email to Jan Goldsmith in your support.
Wow, well where do I start?
First, if you don’t like it, don’t go. I, having worked in the food industry, think the automatic 18% service charge is fabulous. There are so many instances in all of our lives where groups of people out dining cannot, for the lives of them, figure out how much to leave, who is responsible for what amount etc… and someone, most like you, get stuck forking out more than what you owe. Personally I would prefer to dine somewhere where the “bill at the end” doesn’t cause me indigestion.
Second, who wouldn’t want to know where their food comes from? And don’t you think that paying 18% gratuity rather than 15% is worth knowing that? I mean at the very least, can’t you see the cost justified there? Not to mention that you are doing your part in keeping local businesses, your local economy and the supporting the betterment of your children’s health by eating fresh local food.
Third, what a witch for blatantly trying to scavenge money in our slow economy. Obviously someone is hurting for cash and by going after a small privately owned restaurant, probably thought she would get away with it. Sorry I have no room in my patience-pouch for that. Perhaps she is illiterate, or blind? Perhaps she should just accidentally eat a fork and see how well she digests that….
Closing argument? Know where your food comes from, pay a small premium to eat something that you know lived a fabulous, normal life, had free ranges to run on and hand grown, picked and sorted food from your neighbors. Pay a premium for the ease of eating with a group of 30 people, to know that you ate well and it was “Worth-it”. Pay a premium for the health of the small child to young to know what is best for them.
Pay a premium for literacy.
Thank you
and good night-
First of all, if you had a bad experience, then don’t go back. I think in all honesty, if you are upset about your service at The Linkery, then complain about it. Quit pussy-footing around just because you’re intimidated by the lively staff. Isn’t that what you do EVERYWHERE else? Why change that method?
I’ve never had an issue with the service at this restaurant. Living right down the street, I’m a regular. Maybe I get different treatment because of this, but regardless you should be able to stand up for yourself and stop whining like a bunch of toddlers about 18% gratuity. If you think it wasn’t deserved, explain it to your server. I can guarantee they will be nothing but understanding about the situation IF you truly did not enjoy your food and have a great experience.
Again, it is a waste of time AND tax payer’s money to continue this. Head on over to Yelp if you’d like, bitch all you want to the public. But don’t do it at The Linkery, because they have a restaurant to run that they actually care about. And if you don’t want to support that, then go frequent some dive bar. I’ll happily enjoy my sausage and beer bread without your obnoxious complaints.
I am a waiter and sorry it just sounds like another scam for a restaurant to take a cut of the waiters tips. I am very curious as to who receives the money from the table service charge. Even if you do give 100% of the money to the waiter IN CASH at the end of the night, who’s to say that another business who takes your lead will. Being a waiter is one of the last entry level jobs where a person can still make a decent living and that is solely due to the fact that we receive direct compensation for our labour and this could take that away once again decreasing the power of labour in favor of business and the government.
I’m amazed at how lathered up people get over this mandatory service fee thing. How could it possibly trigger such vitriol? Get a hobby for crying out loud.
I’ve been to the linkery dozens of times and I find the wait staff friendly, inviting, helpful and genuinely concerned that I enjoy my meal.
It seems to me that some of the commenters here are laboring under the delusion that the wait staff must act the part of obsequious slaves. These diners are always prepared to withhold their payment should there be one mistake too many. Honestly, going through life making others suffer for their mistakes just makes you an unpleasant hypocrite.
Jay, I think your pricing is a great idea! You know what would be even better? If you just listed all the prices for each individual food item as $1.00, but then charged a varying percentage for the items based on a preparation charge, cooking charge, and cleanup charge, in addition to your customary service charge. The percentages could vary based on the fuel used to store, prepare, and clean, man-hours, and space taken up in the kitchen. Talk about a new way of doing business! The only way anybody could possibly think that idea’s bad is if they’re just scared of things that are different, right? You know what else would be different? An honest businessman.
If it works, then what’s the problem? It really gets under my skin when people waste our money trying to change something that works, instead of finding ways to incorporate that good change in other areas. Imagine if the City rans itself like the Linkery? Would anyone try to sue them for operating BETTER?