I suspect the practices you describe are politically motivated advertising of prices (and related to price discrimination).
To add on a living wage fee is to imply that a lower price available at other restaurants does not pay a living wage. This is a left of center virtue signal: "Eat here, where we make sure our staff earn a living wage."
To add on an ACA coverage fee is to imply that, without mandatory healthcare, the restaurant could afford to give you a better price. This is a right of center nudge toward action: "You're in favor of mandatory healthcare, and here is what it's costing you."
Both fees are crass, tone-deaf choices but, unless the receipt literally says, "we take this out of the tip," it isn't theft. You're irritated (reasonably) but are choosing to tip less, which seems like picking out the wrong party to punish for restaurant policy.
Tip well, and then tell the owner that you won't be eating there again because of the politically motivated fees.
> To add on a living wage fee is to imply that a lower price available at other restaurants does not pay a living wage. This is a left of center virtue signal: "Eat here, where we make sure our staff earn a living wage."
No, it isn't. It's a fee that started showing up in places like Seattle (and probably SF) after the minimum wage was raised, as a right-of-center jerk signal: "I would charge you less and screw my employees harder but the law won't allow me".
No, you're thinking of a different thing. In SF some restaurant will have an "SF employee mandate" line, a 2% surcharge or so, to account for a local law. That's a protest against the law: it's the same principle behind listing tax-excluded prices, basically making sure people see how much the local taxes cost them.
A smaller set of restaurant does something different. They list some prices, and then in the fine print at the bottom they say "a 6% surcharge will be added to provide a living wage in SF", or something. This is not to comply with any local tax or law, it's just paying your employees more on your own accord, but then excluding an arbitrary percentage of that from your listed prices because... I have no idea why. But all places I've seen that do this have been very left-of-center.
Well, then they're both right-of-center bird flips...
My point remains the same: anyone is right to get pissed of about these fees, but tipping less punishes the server and not the owner who instituted the fees. A better solution is to tip normally, ask to speak to the owner (or a manager), explain you will not be patronizing the business again (and why), and then leave.
Agreed, I don't care what their reasons are. It still amounts to a secret, extra charge that you did not know about until after the bill was received. If this happened to me, and it was not clearly posted on the menu that a fee would be added, I would absolutely refuse to pay it.
To add on a living wage fee is to imply that a lower price available at other restaurants does not pay a living wage. This is a left of center virtue signal: "Eat here, where we make sure our staff earn a living wage."
To add on an ACA coverage fee is to imply that, without mandatory healthcare, the restaurant could afford to give you a better price. This is a right of center nudge toward action: "You're in favor of mandatory healthcare, and here is what it's costing you."
Both fees are crass, tone-deaf choices but, unless the receipt literally says, "we take this out of the tip," it isn't theft. You're irritated (reasonably) but are choosing to tip less, which seems like picking out the wrong party to punish for restaurant policy.
Tip well, and then tell the owner that you won't be eating there again because of the politically motivated fees.