Taking a Stand on Service Charges

[scottiddled]

7 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

In US I'd expect tax not to be included. Here I'd expect it not to be included in restaurant food as well. But here's something I'd not considered until I read your post.

 

Everything, I mean everything in Thailand is quoted or priced vat included. Except restaurant meals. So...imo this is shifty and sketchy as well. The meal should have vat included. Pure and simple

Not sure everything is quoted or priced that way, but you still convinced me. I guess it's a U.S. thing--expecting tax to be added. You're right that VAT is supposed to be an embedded tax.

[DannyCarlton]

25 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

Is VAT part of the price? I'd argue it isn't. Semantics, I know.

The only places that I know of where the price is ex VAT are wholesalers where the customer is a business and may want to claim the VAT back. Makro is an example. Restaurants not.

[gearbox]

51 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

The only places that I know of where the price is ex VAT are wholesalers where the customer is a business and may want to claim the VAT back. Makro is an example. Restaurants not.

Makro prices are VAT inclusive. The VAT amount is stated on the invoice and then the business can claim it back.

[gearbox]

1 hour ago, Number 6 said:

In US I'd expect tax not to be included. Here I'd expect it not to be included in restaurant food as well. But here's something I'd not considered until I read your post.

 

Everything, I mean everything in Thailand is quoted or priced vat included. Except restaurant meals. So...imo this is shifty and sketchy as well. The meal should have vat included. Pure and simple

That not always the case. There are restaurants which use net prices inclusive of VAT, and service charge if any. That way you know exactly what you'll be paying without applying percentage calculations.

 

In Australia for example is illegal to display prices ex GST(VAT) when the tax is applicable. Displaying some fictitious price which is not the final price it is not allowed.

 

Here in Samui I think is pretty common to add extra service charges and VAT in restaurants owned by farangs.

 

I don't eat normally in restaurants which don't display all inclusive prices. Not that I can't calculate the extra percentages, I think if they try to mislead me about the prices, they'll do the same for other things. Like "using the highest quality imported fresh ingredients", which are purchased from Makro's frozen food section on discount 5 days before expiry date.

 

[meand]

3 hours ago, scottiddled said:

Let's recap. Service charges are inherently deceptive, as they mean that the price listed is not the actual price. In Thailand, to legitimately engage in this already dubious practice, the government requires that "the service charge, and the rate, should be clearly stated on the menu or announced by a sign at the counter or out in front of the restaurant, so that customers are aware of this additional cost." Restaurant in question avoids clear statement disclosing the charge, putting only one reference on the back page of the menu, where a more-meticulous-than-usual consumer who is actually keeping an eye open for a service charge disclosure doesn't see it. Restaurant admits that it's not clear, apologizes, and says that it's transitioning to a new menu that will make the charge clear.

 

...And you side with the restaurant.

 

Remind me never to hire you as my attorney.

 

This has gone from bad argumentation into the realm of the absurd. I'm not going to defend deceptive corporate disclosures, etc. If you want to, feel free to do so. It's where you've positioned yourself: on the side of obfuscation based on the rationale that it's part of "everyday life." And then you play the role of critic of argument? Please. You're out of your depth.

 

For starters, it's not "everyday life." Insufficient/deceptive disclosures are pushed back on all the time. If a corporation tacked on an undisclosed surcharge not authorized by law, a consumer could refuse to pay it. In other industries, governments have intervened to regulate and even ban such nonsense. If an airline or travel company tried to engage in "drip pricing"--quoting you one price then tacking on additional charges at the end, they'd be fined in the U.S. And that's not half as bad as a restaurant, where you've already ordered and consumed the product.

 

I'll agree with you on one point: I think you understand just fine. You just choose to troll.

 

 

You are in la la land. I am not inferring it is everyday life, I am inferring it is good business. Make sure you understand, good business means making more money. 

 

The smart money of the world does not call up their clients and say "we are raising your rates". What power companies, internet providers etc all do is "announce" it on the invoice. That way, they have preemptively tempered the responses of any customers who feel like calling in about the supposed "injustice", and just refer the complainers to the invoice. Important note: pretty much exactly what happened to you, meaning this is just good business 101. If they lost money they'd lose the policy. 

 

It has simply been proven by the results we see all around us that good business means keeping negative information to a minimum. If you do not understand that yet, the phrase grow up is the only one that will fit.

 

It is so clear with your wording how warped you see the world. The restaurant "admitted" they screwed up. No, that is not how that works. Admitting anything would mean a refund. What you experienced is simply an employee trying to temper the complaint of a whiny customer. That is it, no need to examine that any further and infer "I got em",  because that is simply not true.  Just because I scream "this laptop is a pile of <deleted>" to an amazon employee, does not make it so when they reply with "yes". You do not seem to have any sort of grasp on how things actually work in the real world with customer client relations. 

 

You were informed the same way much of the rest of the corporate world informs clients. This is not complicated. 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by meand

[Jane Dough]

I respect and admire Jamie Oliver and have learned so much from him.

 

So much so I would never need to go out to a restaurant. 

 

Rooster

[fhickson]

i had a service charge the other night (10%). strangely i found it appealing for these reasons:

 

1. the beer was not flat

2. the beer was ice cold in a frosty mug, even has ice crystals in it

3. i did not need to worry about a tip (yep)

4. beer was refilled promptly (i never had to get up out of my seat!)

 

this never happens at places without the charge.

 

[Traubert]

5 hours ago, scottiddled said:

Yeah, as Charlie notes, it probably goes against the forum rules. I'm not really sure a list of restaurants with service charges is even feasible, as it would easily get into the tens of thousands. I've thought about maybe doing something with a blog I have in the developmental stages, but that would have more to do with farang-hostile businesses/policies.

 

If anything, I might consider some kind of list of businesses with excessive charges or particularly deceptive (i.e. concealed) charges. But it couldn't go on these forums. 

 

This thread was more about the general concept.

Oh no, he's got a blog. ????

 

Its always the bloody Americans innit?

 

They always want to mess with the menu 'can I have the salad off the rib eye meal with my fish?'

 

And they always want to skimp on the bill. "Who had the marguerita?'

 

Look, your argument is that it wasn't on the menu. Yes it was, it was on the back. Available for your perusal as was everything on the menu,

 

Pay up and don't be cheap Mr Cohen.

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Traubert said:

Oh no, he's got a blog. ????

 

Its always the bloody Americans innit?

 

They always want to mess with the menu 'can I have the salad off the rib eye meal with my fish?'

 

And they always want to skimp on the bill. "Who had the marguerita?'

 

Look, your argument is that it wasn't on the menu. Yes it was, it was on the back. Available for your perusal as was everything on the menu,

 

Pay up and don't be cheap Mr Cohen.

 

Yes mister Cohen... pay up... Don’t protest something you disagree with it. Just accept it, even if an establishment increases the service charges to 20% and adds other daft increases to the costs... Just roll with it accept it all... then we can all eat in peace safe from the worry that the person on the table next to us might make a stand against an establishment turning the screws on price... before long we’ll all be happy sitting in restaurants paying 20% service charges, a 10% Air-Con charge and an expected 25% tip !!!!

 

 

More realistically - the Service Charge is just ridiculous - its something we’ve come to accept, its become the norm now accepted by generations though legacy. 

 

If everyone objected to these ‘additional’ charges they’d go away quite quickly. Sure they’d be factored into the cost of a meal but that’s just easier for the customer.

.....so, what is wrong with the price just being the price and that’s it?????  Surely the establishment can work out how much to pay their staff etc and how much is tax etc... 

 

Its not as if when a restaurant has a busier night then there is more 10% service charge for the staff... that the service charges are used to pay the staff is just rubbish. Staff are paid their wage and a division of tips if any.

 

What is wrong with stating ‘All prices include service charges and tax’....  its not a show stopper, but its still a pish take when places add their ++ they’re all at it, but that doesn’t make it right. 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by richard_smith237

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Traubert said:

Oh no, he's got a blog. 

 

Its always the bloody Americans innit?

 

They always want to mess with the menu 'can I have the salad off the rib eye meal with my fish?'

 

And they always want to skimp on the bill. "Who had the marguerita?'

 

Look, your argument is that it wasn't on the menu. Yes it was, it was on the back. Available for your perusal as was everything on the menu,

 

Pay up and don't be cheap Mr Cohen.

 

Wow.  That's refreshing.  Usually we're accused of ruining it for everyone because we tip so generously.

 

[Captain Monday]

Service charges or VAT++, etc. should always be clearly displayed on menus.

In US it is basically required unfortunately, but the TIP disease spread here.

HiSo, trendy, or international tourist oriented  restaurants in Thailand almost all charge for service and VAT now. Whatever Chef Jamie Oliver is (man or a woman don't remember) as  "celebrity chef" I would have been shocked if they did NOT charge for service at their BKK establishment. Now well known BKK dining costs more than similar venues in EU or USA, not even including the outrageous taxes on imported alcohol another reason more tourists are giving Thailand a pass.

 

Simple answer for me, service charge = no tip. So the restaurant ends up actually getting less.

 

 

 

[digbeth]

I find that in place that is high end enough and not a chain or part of big establishment like a hotl, you can usually tell them to waive the service charge and they'll usually comply, I always make a point to then tip cash equivalent or more than what was charged.

[4MyEgo]

12 hours ago, scottiddled said:

I still think it's a good idea to more fairly distribute those costs, but I get that (most) merchants have moved on. I eventually did, too, and started taking advantage of credit/debit card reward programs, churning, etc. At least that way I feel like I'm getting something back for the higher prices I pay.

Totally get what your saying, BUT, as I have said before, I will NEVER give any business 1 baht that wants to charge me a fee for using my own money, i.e. when I am using my debit card.

 

What everyone has to understand, but fails (respectfully) to understand is that when banks first pushed us all to get the debit cards, not talking credit cards, as I don't use one, (my choice and will cover that later), it was because (their reasoning at the time) it would reduce queue times at the teller, i.e. you get a debit card for free, no charge, so use the machine, its for your convenience, and you can use any other banks banks machines all over the country, remember that, they were rounding up the sheep, only later to stick it to the humble tellers and cull them like there was no tomorrow, then they started charging you for using the debit card on other bank machines, plus an annual fee as it was associated to your account, however there are some banks that don't charge the fee although I am sure its absorbed somewhere along the line.

 

In Australia up until recently there were no charges on debit card transactions until legislation was made to offset the banks losses from forceabley being made to reduce the high interest rates on credit cards which trapped so many unsuspecting customers, (total debt on cars around 6 billion $), so when you purchase something on a debit card you are advised beforehand, e.g. sir there is a 000.44% charge for this item using your debit card, would you like to proceed ? So this has become the norm, but it's legislation (law), but at the same time we are provided with a choice to proceed or not, as opposed to being eye gouged in my opinion.

 

Till my last breathe I will always see a debit card (my money) as one. If the a business owner wishes to slug me a % for using my card because they are charged a fee by the merchant, then they lose my business, it's a simple choice I make on a daily basis, why do you think you see some places that say cash only, because they know customers don't want to be slugged a fee for using their debit card, (their money), and that's a fair call in my opinion, as much as they might not get the business of some customers who want to use their cards, the other alternative is to carry cash with you of which I do depending for what the purpose is, e.g. cash has a stronger bargaining power when negotiating, but if I openly know that a business is going to charge me for using my money via my debit card, not credit card, i.e. unless the fee is part of legislation in that country, like in Australia, that business just missed the opportunity to have my business, and that business can absorb that potential profit into their mathematical equation of 5% break even from merchant charge vs 100% loss.

 

As you can see, I don't follow the norm, as for credit cards, as I mentioned earlier, I don't need them, or their point systems, and if people like the convenience of them to obtain "reward" points, pay annual fees and high interest rates and they can "actually" benefit from using them, which would be a very concentrated skill, then sel-a-vee, but ask yourself this, how many people are actually in debt on credit cards as opposed to using their own money via a debit card which has the same convenience albeit they don't provide you with "reward" points, it's one of the biggest scams this century in my opinion.

[4MyEgo]

12 hours ago, jackdd said:

Percentage wise these big department stores pay way less fees than a small shop for processing credit card payments.

The big shops also have to factor in cash handling fees. They have to invest in safety measures for the hundred thousands or millions of baht they collect each day, need security, pay for security to transport the cash to the bank, and so on. A small shop doesn't need this, he just puts the money in his pocket, and once in a while takes it to the bank himself.

So for the big stores, credit card and cash probably cost about the same, which is the main reason they don't charge extra.

For small shops credit card payments cost more, so they charge extra.

 

Making it the same price for everybody is of course easier, and makes perfect sense for a charge which is charged for everybody, like the service charge in restaurants. But a card processing fee isn't incurred by everybody, so it's fair that it's only paid by the person incurring it.

See #103

[LukKrueng]

17 hours ago, scottiddled said:

Thanks for the comment. I agree with most of your analysis.

 

As for the "don't pay it," I'm not sure I follow you. My understanding is that it's not an option. Not using the establishment is, to be sure. Maybe I'm just misreading your syntax here (with the "or") in the sentence. If so, apologies.

 

In the example I cited, I actually objected to the stealth service charge and pressed the issue. A manager-type woman came over and tried to muddle through the situation by explaining that they were rebranding and getting new menus, promising it would be "clearer" in the future, etc. I found her position very "Thai" in its contradiction: the polite apology and admitting that they need to do better combined with not resolving the matter in your favor. I've dealt with that again and again. Sometimes I won't let it go; it's not my fault they messed up, and I'm not going to accept the negative outcome. But when you're out with friends, you can either make a huge deal out of it, or you can make your point and move on. 

 

The Thai way in this regard is so short-sighted, at least when it comes to dealing with farang. Resolve this matter in the customers' favor and they'll probably come back. They'll probably also tip, so your servers aren't really losing out on that 10% anyway. Make a big stink over 10% and they won't ever return, and they'll take every last satang in change. It's a very strange take on face. Admitting that you're wrong but then not fixing the situation, in my view, is an even bigger slap in the face to the other party then standing your ground. You're basically saying "we know we screwed you, and we don't value you enough to make things right."

 

The whole thing comes down to principles far more than money. Even if I don't care about a few hundred baht, or even if I'd ultimately tip that much (or more) anyway, I care about the principles. I wish others would, too. It'd cut down on the scams, exploitation, etc. I guess in some ways, farangs are more Thai than Thais when it comes to just letting it go.

If she's just a supervisor it's probably not up to her to wave the fees. As you mentioned - the service fee IS shown on the menu so there was no misleading there. Now, she could have argued with you and make a scene, or she could have go the Thai way of avoiding confrontation yet still have the end result intended - you paying the service fee. Seems she did the right thing

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, scottiddled said:

For consumers, I'm not willing to go so far as to scream "boycott everyone with a service charge!" Life's complicated enough. But I do avoid establishments with service charges when I can reasonably do so. And I think others should, as well. 

While I tried to avoid any place with a service charge ( usually places where the owners indicate it is a place for the "elites" ), if there is a "service charge" one should merely point out very loudly that there will be no additional tip forthcoming when paying the bill, or where there is a tip box, one could make a show out of inserting one of those small coins that are basically valueless that 7 11 insisted on giving me.

[spidermike007]

17 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

In good places the 10% service charge goes 100% to the staff. I have absolutely not problem with that.

And in Thailand it is well known that 10% service charge is charged in almost all places.

You can ask before you order and if you don't like it then walk away.

Enjoy the weekend.

 

On Samui, it was well known that the Four Seasons Hotel was one of the few places that gave all of the 10% service charge to the employees. Nearly every other place kept the money, or shared it amongst only managers. Including most five star hotels. There was an extensive waiting list of people wanting to work there. Good management, and fair policy. If I know the money is going to the waiters and support staff, I have no problem paying it. But, there is little way to know what. It can never be assumed. I would rather leave a direct tip. 

[LukKrueng]

18 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Totally get what your saying, BUT, as I have said before, I will NEVER give any business 1 baht that wants to charge me a fee for using my own money, i.e. when I am using my debit card.

 

What everyone has to understand, but fails (respectfully) to understand is that when banks first pushed us all to get the debit cards, not talking credit cards, as I don't use one, (my choice and will cover that later), it was because (their reasoning at the time) it would reduce queue times at the teller, i.e. you get a debit card for free, no charge, so use the machine, its for your convenience, and you can use any other banks banks machines all over the country, remember that, they were rounding up the sheep, only later to stick it to the humble tellers and cull them like there was no tomorrow, then they started charging you for using the debit card on other bank machines, plus an annual fee as it was associated to your account, however there are some banks that don't charge the fee although I am sure its absorbed somewhere along the line.

 

In Australia up until recently there were no charges on debit card transactions until legislation was made to offset the banks losses from forceabley being made to reduce the high interest rates on credit cards which trapped so many unsuspecting customers, (total debt on cars around 6 billion $), so when you purchase something on a debit card you are advised beforehand, e.g. sir there is a 000.44% charge for this item using your debit card, would you like to proceed ? So this has become the norm, but it's legislation (law), but at the same time we are provided with a choice to proceed or not, as opposed to being eye gouged in my opinion.

 

Till my last breathe I will always see a debit card (my money) as one. If the a business owner wishes to slug me a % for using my card because they are charged a fee by the merchant, then they lose my business, it's a simple choice I make on a daily basis, why do you think you see some places that say cash only, because they know customers don't want to be slugged a fee for using their debit card, (their money), and that's a fair call in my opinion, as much as they might not get the business of some customers who want to use their cards, the other alternative is to carry cash with you of which I do depending for what the purpose is, e.g. cash has a stronger bargaining power when negotiating, but if I openly know that a business is going to charge me for using my money via my debit card, not credit card, i.e. unless the fee is part of legislation in that country, like in Australia, that business just missed the opportunity to have my business, and that business can absorb that potential profit into their mathematical equation of 5% break even from merchant charge vs 100% loss.

 

As you can see, I don't follow the norm, as for credit cards, as I mentioned earlier, I don't need them, or their point systems, and if people like the convenience of them to obtain "reward" points, pay annual fees and high interest rates and they can "actually" benefit from using them, which would be a very concentrated skill, then sel-a-vee, but ask yourself this, how many people are actually in debt on credit cards as opposed to using their own money via a debit card which has the same convenience albeit they don't provide you with "reward" points, it's one of the biggest scams this century in my opinion.

I get your point of not wanting to pay extra for using a card over cash. But you keep distinguishing between your debit card (your money) and credit cards. However, for the merchants it's the same - they are being charged a% regardless

[4MyEgo]

8 minutes ago, LukKrueng said:

I get your point of not wanting to pay extra for using a card over cash. But you keep distinguishing between your debit card (your money) and credit cards. However, for the merchants it's the same - they are being charged a% regardless

As I have a choice, so do they, I am not in business, they are, and if they cannot see that it may cost them customers, well what can I say, we both have choices and I am happy with mine as I have nothing to lose, this is the way I do business.

 

If the business wants the machine for the card, then they have to absorb it, pass it on to the customer, some accept it, others don't, and the only way to get 100% of the customers is to absorb the cost, that's the price of being in business, no one said it would be easy.

[ajarnmarc]

18 hours ago, stevenl said:

Don't forget that if the service charge is extra also the VAT will be added. All in all almost 20% extra.

Good point. 

Another reason why service charge is annoying, 

and a perfect way to cheat the customer. 

Thai's normally refuse to pay it, 

they even complain about VAT, though not when eating, 

but when purchasing commercial goods. 

They like to demand that the VAT be left off the invoice, 

where we have to continue to remind them that it is for the government not for us.

In which case they normally cancel the order.

Apparently we caused them to lose face, 

since they didn't get what they demanded.

I seriously doubt that most restaurants provide the service charge to the staff.

I do know from my years working in the hotel enterprise,

that the service charge goes to the associates,

but would not count on it be 100% of the service charge.

Though that debate could be argued for days on end.

For a country that likes to show off their gratitude when it's made.

Service charge defeats that,

while hiding the greed the business seeks as a some sort of reward for being in business.

While others like to show off how much they are giving in tips, 

or express how happy they are that things appear to be so cheap, 

when that is a small advantage to dealing with all the other frustrating issues that arise or can arise in any given day.

 

[Acharn]

18 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I<snip>

And in Thailand it is well known that 10% service charge is charged in almost all places.

<snip>

 

The restaurants I go to do not have service charges. What they charge is the price shown on the menu. Thais do not tip.

[ajarnmarc]

11 hours ago, meand said:

You are in la la land. I am not inferring it is everyday life, I am inferring it is good business. Make sure you understand, good business means making more money. 

 

The smart money of the world does not call up their clients and say "we are raising your rates". What power companies, internet providers etc all do is "announce" it on the invoice. That way, they have preemptively tempered the responses of any customers who feel like calling in about the supposed "injustice", and just refer the complainers to the invoice. Important note: pretty much exactly what happened to you, meaning this is just good business 101. If they lost money they'd lose the policy. 

 

It has simply been proven by the results we see all around us that good business means keeping negative information to a minimum. If you do not understand that yet, the phrase grow up is the only one that will fit.

 

It is so clear with your wording how warped you see the world. The restaurant "admitted" they screwed up. No, that is not how that works. Admitting anything would mean a refund. What you experienced is simply an employee trying to temper the complaint of a whiny customer. That is it, no need to examine that any further and infer "I got em",  because that is simply not true.  Just because I scream "this laptop is a pile of <deleted>" to an amazon employee, does not make it so when they reply with "yes". You do not seem to have any sort of grasp on how things actually work in the real world with customer client relations. 

 

You were informed the same way much of the rest of the corporate world informs clients. This is not complicated. 

 

 

Where in the world do you see "good business means making more money."

Good business means good service, great products while turning a profit.

The consumer only cares about the first two issues, 

as it should be. The business owner is interested in turning a profit, 

for the services they provide.

It is you that appears to be in some other land, 

not of one which I have or would care to visit.

[Mac98]

I'm guessing, but restaurant tipping in Thailand has always been described as "leaving behind a few spare baht". I imagine the nicer places want to ensure their experienced wait staff makes a decent amount by adding the service charge. If the owner keeps the service charge for him/her self they will soon be without desirable wait staff. But 100% to the waiter/waitress? Unlikely. Probably shared with hostess and some kitchen staff.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Mac98
spelling

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, Mac98 said:

I imagine the nicer places want to ensure their experienced wait staff makes a decent amount by adding the service charge.

If that were so they'd pay the staff properly.

[reargunnerph3]

As far as I'm concerned a service charge is the tip. 

[scottiddled]

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Totally get what your saying, BUT, as I have said before, I will NEVER give any business 1 baht that wants to charge me a fee for using my own money, i.e. when I am using my debit card.

 

What everyone has to understand, but fails (respectfully) to understand is that when banks first pushed us all to get the debit cards, not talking credit cards, as I don't use one, (my choice and will cover that later), it was because (their reasoning at the time) it would reduce queue times at the teller, i.e. you get a debit card for free, no charge, so use the machine, its for your convenience, and you can use any other banks banks machines all over the country, remember that, they were rounding up the sheep, only later to stick it to the humble tellers and cull them like there was no tomorrow, then they started charging you for using the debit card on other bank machines, plus an annual fee as it was associated to your account, however there are some banks that don't charge the fee although I am sure its absorbed somewhere along the line.

 

In Australia up until recently there were no charges on debit card transactions until legislation was made to offset the banks losses from forceabley being made to reduce the high interest rates on credit cards which trapped so many unsuspecting customers, (total debt on cars around 6 billion $), so when you purchase something on a debit card you are advised beforehand, e.g. sir there is a 000.44% charge for this item using your debit card, would you like to proceed ? So this has become the norm, but it's legislation (law), but at the same time we are provided with a choice to proceed or not, as opposed to being eye gouged in my opinion.

 

Till my last breathe I will always see a debit card (my money) as one. If the a business owner wishes to slug me a % for using my card because they are charged a fee by the merchant, then they lose my business, it's a simple choice I make on a daily basis, why do you think you see some places that say cash only, because they know customers don't want to be slugged a fee for using their debit card, (their money), and that's a fair call in my opinion, as much as they might not get the business of some customers who want to use their cards, the other alternative is to carry cash with you of which I do depending for what the purpose is, e.g. cash has a stronger bargaining power when negotiating, but if I openly know that a business is going to charge me for using my money via my debit card, not credit card, i.e. unless the fee is part of legislation in that country, like in Australia, that business just missed the opportunity to have my business, and that business can absorb that potential profit into their mathematical equation of 5% break even from merchant charge vs 100% loss.

 

As you can see, I don't follow the norm, as for credit cards, as I mentioned earlier, I don't need them, or their point systems, and if people like the convenience of them to obtain "reward" points, pay annual fees and high interest rates and they can "actually" benefit from using them, which would be a very concentrated skill, then sel-a-vee, but ask yourself this, how many people are actually in debt on credit cards as opposed to using their own money via a debit card which has the same convenience albeit they don't provide you with "reward" points, it's one of the biggest scams this century in my opinion.

Again (and as you've said in turn), I appreciate this perspective. I don't share it, but it's not unreasonable.

 

For me, there's a distinction between a service charge and surcharges like credit/debit card fees (or their counterparts, credit card minimums and cash discounts). Both hit consumers in the wallet, so you're justified in protecting your bottom line.

 

For me, the difference is in the rationale for the charge and the ethical implications of how it is presented/justified/used.

 

The service charge is unavoidable, not linked to a specific expense, and deceptive because it obscures the actual price of the product/service. Beyond all that, it's deliberate. The business knows what it's doing. It's not selling its widget for 100. It's advertising for 100 and charging 110. 

 

The surcharge is optional. You can choose to give the merchant your money in a less-expensive method of payment (e.g., cash) and enjoy the lower (or advertised) price. That may be less convenient for you, more dangerous, or deprive you of some other benefit (e.g., credit cards miles/points), but it holds closest to the principles of exchange: I'll provide X good or service for X amount of currency. 

 

I totally get your perspective that it's all "your money" and you don't want to pay a fee for utilizing it, but the retailer has to pay an added, variable expense when you choose to use a card because your method of payment requires a middleman. If you provide your money in cash, no such variable expense exists. If you choose not to pay in cash, you're not actually giving the merchant X amount of currency. You're giving them X minus the expense they pay in exchange for your convenience. If the price is consistent, cash-paying customers are actually (in part) subsidizing that convenience. The merchant realizes it needs to net 100 for each widget, and that requires 110 from credit card users, so it sets the price around 105 or so. Good for card users, bad for cash payers. The real winners there are Big Finance.

 

Not to get too tangential, I'd find your position a bit more persuasive if the cost of accepting cards were a fixed cost (e.g., the retailer has to pay a monthly fee to accept cards). In that case, the retailer has a decision: does the added business we'll receive cover the cost? There is no additional cost for the fifth customer that month or the 1,005th customer. It's a flat business expense, just like a cash register or a daily trip to the bank. But, as we all know, the financial institutions are vampiric. They want a taste of every transaction. That comes from either the merchants or the consumers...so it's ultimately coming from the consumers.

 

Anyway, it's a minor quibble. I get that you're voting with your wallet in terms of what gets you the best price. I respect that. But I do think there's a fundmental difference between deceptive blanket charges and something imposed to reflect the real cost of different types of payments.

[scottiddled]

4MyEgo:

 

As an aside, it's often funny when governments rein in financial institutions. Years ago I had a Chase debit card which had decent (but not spectacular) rewards. Then they sent all customers a letter that they were "transitioning" their rewards program (for all intents and purposes, eliminating it). They explicitly blamed the government as if they were forced to get rid of the rewards, and I almost admired the sneaky wording in their notice. I don't have the notice anymore, obviously, but a web search yielded similar wording from their spin doctors:

 

Quote

"Chase discontinued offering debit card rewards programs in 2011 as a result of the changes to debit card economics resulting from the Durbin Amendment," said Lauren Francis, a spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase, in an email.

 

So, they actually named and shamed an amendment (and the U.S. senator who sponsored it) and spun it as "this is who is responsible for your rewards going away," when the reality is the amendment lowered the interchange fee Chase was allowed to charge the merchant (from $0.51 to $0.23), so they could no longer afford to grease customers into using the card with rewards, since the margins were dropping. The wording I recall in the notice walked much closer to the line of "we are forced to drop rewards because of Durbin" instead of acknowledging it was an issue of profitability .

 

Clever sophistry. We aren't allowed to screw over merchants as much thanks to THIS GUY so we are "forced" to kill your benefits. Riiiight. 

 

 

[Tony125]

20 hours ago, scottiddled said:

Thanks for the comment. I agree with most of your analysis.

 

As for the "don't pay it," I'm not sure I follow you. My understanding is that it's not an option. Not using the establishment is, to be sure. Maybe I'm just misreading your syntax here (with the "or") in the sentence. If so, apologies.

 

In the example I cited, I actually objected to the stealth service charge and pressed the issue. A manager-type woman came over and tried to muddle through the situation by explaining that they were rebranding and getting new menus, promising it would be "clearer" in the future, etc. I found her position very "Thai" in its contradiction: the polite apology and admitting that they need to do better combined with not resolving the matter in your favor. I've dealt with that again and again. Sometimes I won't let it go; it's not my fault they messed up, and I'm not going to accept the negative outcome. But when you're out with friends, you can either make a huge deal out of it, or you can make your point and move on. 

 

The Thai way in this regard is so short-sighted, at least when it comes to dealing with farang. Resolve this matter in the customers' favor and they'll probably come back. They'll probably also tip, so your servers aren't really losing out on that 10% anyway. Make a big stink over 10% and they won't ever return, and they'll take every last satang in change. It's a very strange take on face. Admitting that you're wrong but then not fixing the situation, in my view, is an even bigger slap in the face to the other party then standing your ground. You're basically saying "we know we screwed you, and we don't value you enough to make things right."

 

The whole thing comes down to principles far more than money. Even if I don't care about a few hundred baht, or even if I'd ultimately tip that much (or more) anyway, I care about the principles. I wish others would, too. It'd cut down on the scams, exploitation, etc. I guess in some ways, farangs are more Thai than Thais when it comes to just letting it go.

Similar topic about tipping has been raised before. You must be American(USA)  as we are brought up to tip. In EU and other countries they don't tip which is why some places here add a service charge. If you don't like it then simply don't go there again but if I am with friends that wish to go anyway I am not going to make a big fuss about it or not go with them.

[kingstonkid]

The service charge is "supposed to be" for the staff.  It have become a common thing to see added to a bill in a restaurant and hotel.  The idea is to replace teh cheap charlies that do not tip.  That being said is it abused ? Sure! Nothing we can do about it.

My policy is that I pay extra only once.  

If I pay a service fee then I thank the waitress for great service and tell her that her tip is in the service charge.

The problem I have with service charges is it removes my ability to leave a nickel tip when the service sucks.

[justin case]

service charge + vat = 17 percent more on the bill ...