[mr. mean gene]

New Driver Here

Uber should consider gratuity for pax if their destination is at certain amount of miles, at least. Better than no tips after driving 20 to 30miles in Los Angeles during traffic hours.

 

[Kerplunkenstein]

interesting, because they do that at restaurants for 8 or more people or if the bill is over a certain amount

 

[Uberfunitis]

At those restaurants you can still tell the manager that you will not pay it. There has never been a successful prosecution for someone who paid their bill but did not pay the added gratuity.

 

[Kerplunkenstein]

At those restaurants you can still tell the manager that you will not pay it. There has never been a successful prosecution for someone who paid their bill but did not pay the added gratuity.

I was under the impression that the restaurant reserves the right to add that onto the bill. Btw you could tell the staff that you will not be paying the gratuity ahead of time, but I hope you enjoy spit in your food

 

[Uberfunitis]

I was under the impression that the restaurant reserves the right to add that onto the bill. Btw you could tell the staff that you will not be paying the gratuity ahead of time, but I hope you enjoy spit in your food

There is no requirement for you to notify the establishment ahead of time as gratuity is always considered voluntary.

 

[Kerplunkenstein]

There is no requirement for you to notify the establishment ahead of time as gratuity is always considered voluntary.

not sure about that, I think restaurants are allowed to adjust their menu price for 8 or more people or big bills

 

[Uberfunitis]

not sure about that, I think restaurants are allowed to adjust their menu price for 8 or more people or big bills

There has never been a successful prosecution, or even gotten to the stage of going to court for someone who has paid his or her bill but refused to pay the gratuity, not one in the U.S. Restaurants would like to make you think that it is mandatory but in fact, it seems far from it.

 

[KenLV]

There has never been a successful prosecution, or even gotten to the stage of going to court for someone who has paid his or her bill but refused to pay the gratuity, not one in the U.S. Restaurants would like to make you think that it is mandatory but in fact, it seems far from it.

The implication being that it would somehow be worth it for the restaurateur to go to court to get 20% of a guest check. Seriously?

 

[Uberfunitis]

The implication being that it would somehow be worth it for the restaurateur to go to court to get 20% of a guest check. Seriously?

They have tried. Police have been called and customers arrested for refusing but prosecutors have never went forward with the charge, it was dropped .

 

[brianboru]

There has never been a successful prosecution, or even gotten to the stage of going to court for someone who has paid his or her bill but refused to pay the gratuity, not one in the U.S. Restaurants would like to make you think that it is mandatory but in fact, it seems far from it.

You will say anything. True or otherwise. There have been numerous arrests, a few jailings, and it HAS gone to court but in the cases I saw charges were either dismissed or dropped. Although I only conducted a cursory search. I hate the idea of you wasting my time. Also, attempts by lowlifes like you to sue restaurants have always failed. Here is a summary typical of those cases:

"With respect to the automatic gratuity, Mr. Diamond alleged that the charge violated New York City Administrative Code §20-700, which prohibits businesses from engaging in unfair trade practices, and New York City Rule §5-59, which prohibits restaurants from "adding a surcharge to listed prices." Mr. Diamond claimed that the automatic gratuity was such a surcharge and therefore was impermissible under New York City law. He also alleged that by violating §20-700 and §5-59, Darden violated New York General Business Law (GBL) §349, which prohibits businesses from engaging in deceptive acts or practices.

The court easily dismissed the automatic gratuity claim for four reasons. First, it noted that there was no private right of action for violations of §20-700 or §5-59 (that is, an individual could not bring a lawsuit for their violation although the government can still do so), a fact conceded by Mr. Diamond. Second, Mr. Diamond could not circumvent the lack of a private right of action by asserting a claim under GBL §349. Third, Mr. Diamond did not allege that Darden had engaged in a "materially misleading act or practice," a prerequisite for prevailing on a GBL §349 claim, as it was clear from the face of the complaint that Darden had specifically informed Mr. Diamond (and presumably other customers) about the automatic gratuity. Fourth, the court found that Mr. Diamond had not alleged an injury that was separate and distinct from the purported deceptive act. In order to assert a claim under GBL §349, the deceptive act must cause the injury but it cannot be the injury. Therefore, in most cases under GBL §349, the deceptive act is the false or misleading label and the injury is the purchase price. Mr. Diamond claimed that the false act was requiring patrons to pay the automatic gratuity and the injury was the amount of the gratuity. Thus, Mr. Diamond had alleged that the deceptive act and injury were one and the same and this was insufficient under GBL §349."

You are nothing more than a self-centered cheap blowhard who will say anything that you think sounds good whether it is true or not.

 

[Uberfunitis]

You will say anything. True or otherwise. There have been numerous arrests, a few jailings, and it HAS gone to court but in the cases I saw charges were either dismissed or dropped. Although I only conducted a cursory search. I hate the idea of you wasting my time. Also, attempts by lowlifes like you to sue restaurants have always failed. Here is a summary typical off those cases:

"With respect to the automatic gratuity, Mr. Diamond alleged that the charge violated New York City Administrative Code §20-700, which prohibits businesses from engaging in unfair trade practices, and New York City Rule §5-59, which prohibits restaurants from "adding a surcharge to listed prices." Mr. Diamond claimed that the automatic gratuity was such a surcharge and therefore was impermissible under New York City law. He also alleged that by violating §20-700 and §5-59, Darden violated New York General Business Law (GBL) §349, which prohibits businesses from engaging in deceptive acts or practices.

The court easily dismissed the automatic gratuity claim for four reasons. First, it noted that there was no private right of action for violations of §20-700 or §5-59 (that is, an individual could not bring a lawsuit for their violation although the government can still do so), a fact conceded by Mr. Diamond. Second, Mr. Diamond could not circumvent the lack of a private right of action by asserting a claim under GBL §349. Third, Mr. Diamond did not allege that Darden had engaged in a "materially misleading act or practice," a prerequisite for prevailing on a GBL §349 claim, as it was clear from the face of the complaint that Darden had specifically informed Mr. Diamond (and presumably other customers) about the automatic gratuity. Fourth, the court found that Mr. Diamond had not alleged an injury that was separate and distinct from the purported deceptive act. In order to assert a claim under GBL §349, the deceptive act must cause the injury but it cannot be the injury. Therefore, in most cases under GBL §349, the deceptive act is the false or misleading label and the injury is the purchase price. Mr. Diamond claimed that the false act was requiring patrons to pay the automatic gratuity and the injury was the amount of the gratuity. Thus, Mr. Diamond had alleged that the deceptive act and injury were one and the same and this was insufficient under GBL §349."

You are nothing more than a self-centered cheap blowhard who will say anything that you think sounds good whether it is true or not.

So I was essentially correct by your own findings. Nobody has ever been convicted of not paying a gratuity. Perhaps it has gotten further than I had read but have still seen nothing of a successful conviction.

 

[brianboru]

So I was essentially correct by your own findings.

Hardly. Getting information on obscure, probably very infrequent, misdemeanor crime above the municipal level is quite difficult. It is enough for everyone to see that you routinely misrepresent facts and, therefore, are an unreliable contributor. That satisfies me.

 

[Uberfunitis]

Hardly.

Has there ever been a convection in the U.S. for not paying a gratuity? If no, than I will continue not paying it.

 

[Veju]

Thanks for derailing yet another thread ya goober.