Bob wrote:
> Doug replied to pennyaline:
> > I wrote:
> >> Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
> >> court case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise
of
> >> or in lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services,
was
> >> found to be bogus and therefore unenforceable.
> >>
> >
> > That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the
> > menu "A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or
> > something in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this
is
> > not unusual.
>
>
> First, I have to chuckle at pennyaline's use of precise legal terminology.
> I don't know how many times Daniel Webster won in court by pointing at his
> opposition and thundering out a scathing "BOGUS!" :-)

Ahem!! Scoff if you will. But would you ever have suspected that Daniel
Webster was in fact one of my forebears??

So, watch yourself


> Doug, I think I know what she's talking about:
>
> http://www.gothamist.com/archives/20...ping_point.php
>
> "In a blow to restaurant owners and servers in particular, prosecutors
> upstate ruled that a diner could not be forced to pay a tip - even if the
> restaurant says it's mandatory."
>
> Of course, that's just ONE case in ONE municipal court. There's no
> requirement for rigid consistency between judicial venues in cases like
> that; a similar case could easily go the other way in some other city.
>
> Moreover, Thomas Keller may be well aware of that case, but he might have
> some reason to believe his service charge *will* be enforceable. The
quoted
> portion doesn't say how the service charge is applied: It might differ
> significantly enough from customary tipping practices that the court would
> reasonably view it as an entirely different animal altogether. For
example,
> if the service charge doesn't depend on the cost of the meal, but is a
flat
> fee applied to each diner, then I can see some legitimacy to the claim
that
> the service fee differs significantly from a tip. Maybe even if the flat
fee
> were upped for parties requiring the services of a sommelier -- the
> restaurant is providing an additional service, so it applies an additional
> fee. But since I don't know what it meant by a "European-style service
> charge," that's conjecture on my part. Any of you Europeans want to chime
in
> here and explain how service charges are applied in your part of the
world?

Here's what I think: the "European-style service charge" is a load of shit,
something European restaurants charge American tourists because they know
Americans will pay it as they pat themselves on the back in congratulations
for having dined in a European restaurant... they'll even hold on to the
credit card receipt to show to their friends at home: "And this down here at
the bottom is the extra European restaurant charge!"

If the restaurant employs a sommelier, it employs a sommelier to provide
services to restaurant customers. If the person providing the service is
already there to provide a service, then customers should not be charged
extra for that service.

It would be different if the restaurant had to go and seek out a sommelier
for customers who are demanding one, to provide an extraordinary service.
(In a case such as that, would it be inappropriate for the sommelier to bill
the customers separately? )

<oh please, don't start!>