May 22nd Uber Eats, Doordash, Etc. have to Show Customers Restaurant Commission Fee

PeAceMaKer769

Well-Known Member

Instead of mandating a 15% fee as other cities (like Evanston) have done, Chicago will require delivery services to show their fee. Let consumers then choose what services to use.

My first thought is this is clever. Within a few weeks, the services will find an equilibrium with what customers are willing to see restaurants charged before switching to order direct through the restaurant. Of course, many restaurants won't even let people order direct (the high volume ones) because the commission costs less than employing a person to handle phone calls.
Post automatically merged:

It will also be interesting to see if any of the companies reduce their fee in Chicago before the 22nd.

And will GrubHub and Uber coordinate to have the same fee now that they are in bed?
 

New guy65

Well-Known Member
I get what the city is trying to do and at the same time I don’t really get it.
There are 2 sides to the equation maybe 3
1 what the diner pays for the food with fees etc and that has always had a breakdown of everything personally that’s all I need if the fees are too high then I just don’t order the food.
2 what the restaurants net from the order after paying a commission. This is something between the restaurants and the delivery companies. As a consumer It shouldn’t matter If it did then I would also want to know how much the owner gets paid on Airbnb, Stubhub, Amazon 3rd party stuff etc.

3 If someone orders food and you get paid 10 bucks because there is a surge the delivery services may still lose money. Are they going to also show how much the driver is really getting paid?
 

karachi

Well-Known Member
I like this regulation as more information always benefits the little guy. It's similar to companies discouraging employees from discussing their salaries amongst each other. They don't want "Susy" to realize she should ask for a raise to match what "Joe" is getting paid for the exact same work.

So with time, people need to see how these delivery companies are raping the local restaurants and ordering through them hardly helps support them.
 

WindyCityAnt

Well-Known Member
I like this regulation as more information always benefits the little guy. It's similar to companies discouraging employees from discussing their salaries amongst each other. They don't want "Susy" to realize she should ask for a raise to match what "Joe" is getting paid for the exact same work.

So with time, people need to see how these delivery companies are raping the local restaurants and ordering through them hardly helps support them.
I agree, but it also clarifies to the consumer how much they screw each of the consumers,restaurants and drivers overall. Should be interesting in my mind.

Reminds me of trying to force feed a hungry child that is picky.
 

UberBeemer

Well-Known Member
My thoughts on this are that this type of ordinance is much ado about nothing. It seems like the mayor wants to appear that she is looking out for the citizenship. But, it doesn't require her to find funding to enforce, or collect any fees. It's more symbolic than anything.

Seems the only good thig she did was stop pool rides.
 

New guy65

Well-Known Member
I agree, but it also clarifies to the consumer how much they screw each of the consumers,restaurants and drivers overall. Should be interesting in my mind.

Reminds me of trying to force feed a hungry child that is picky.
Are they screwing everyone. The consumer gets what they want and they know how much they pay gross. They driver knows what he is going to get paid and he can take the trip or not. I would guess some restaurants are taking some hit but who really what it is.
It’s not the full percentage of what the delivery services take as if someone were eating in the restaurant the restaurant would be paying the servers busses bartenders dishwashers hosts/hostesses etc. Some portion of these people are still needed with takeout but not to the full extent. The cost structure for the restaurant in most cases is just different. This won’t hold true for some places like walk up restaurants but if they had their own people doing carry out they have the costs of paying them and if business is incrementally increased they do save by not having to bring in more delivery people

I’m not saying the restaurants are paying to much or too little to the delivery companies only that the cost structure is different. It’s just not transparent maybe the associated cost of having someone dine in is 15-20% of the cost of the meal When you exclude the people that are cooking the actual food. Who really knows
 

PeAceMaKer769

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
The only real winners in the delivery model, at the moment, are the delivery drivers. Customers are paying double to get their food, so they are screwed. Restaurants run paper-thin margins and most are losing money, so they are screwed. Delivery companies are trying to grow and willing to take loses to get new customers and drivers and dealing with regulations, so they are screwed.
Post automatically merged:

I get what the city is trying to do and at the same time I don’t really get it.
There are 2 sides to the equation maybe 3
1 what the diner pays for the food with fees etc and that has always had a breakdown of everything personally that’s all I need if the fees are too high then I just don’t order the food.
2 what the restaurants net from the order after paying a commission. This is something between the restaurants and the delivery companies. As a consumer It shouldn’t matter If it did then I would also want to know how much the owner gets paid on Airbnb, Stubhub, Amazon 3rd party stuff etc.

3 If someone orders food and you get paid 10 bucks because there is a surge the delivery services may still lose money. Are they going to also show how much the driver is really getting paid?
I would be fine with everyone showing all these breakdowns. However, it is too much clutter for a receipt. It should be a separate link or just a small disclosure somewhere that if you take a minute to look for you can find. Most people won't bother and those that do can find it.

I am all for privacy, but right now people's expectation of privacy is crazy. For example, the president is the most public official in the land and works in the government of the people and for the people, and yet he won't disclose tax returns. Just crazy. Public companies that are owned by the public won't show financial details. If you want privacy, run your own private business and don't go to public offices and public companies. Doordash, for example, I would welcome to be excluded from this rule (private company).
 

New guy65

Well-Known Member
The only real winners in the delivery model, at the moment, are the delivery drivers. Customers are paying double to get their food, so they are screwed. Restaurants run paper-thin margins and most are losing money, so they are screwed. Delivery companies are trying to grow and willing to take loses to get new customers and drivers and dealing with regulations, so they are screwed.
Post automatically merged:



I would be fine with everyone showing all these breakdowns. However, it is too much clutter for a receipt. It should be a separate link or just a small disclosure somewhere that if you take a minute to look for you can find. Most people won't bother and those that do can find it.

I am all for privacy, but right now people's expectation of privacy is crazy. For example, the president is the most public official in the land and works in the government of the people and for the people, and yet he won't disclose tax returns. Just crazy. Public companies that are owned by the public won't show financial details. If you want privacy, run your own private business and don't go to public offices and public companies. Doordash, for example, I would welcome to be excluded from this rule (private company).
One broken down receipt for a dinner doesn’t give a full picture of what the delivery company actually made, whereas a financial statement will show a net of everything both winners and losers. A tax return may give a similar picture but it’s not transparent. As far as the current or any president releasing tax returns I don’t think they have to under any law but past presidents have done it for a long time just to be transparent. I don’t really need to see trumps tax returns as I’m pretty sure he’s broke
 

PeAceMaKer769

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
One broken down receipt for a dinner doesn’t give a full picture of what the delivery company actually made, whereas a financial statement will show a net of everything both winners and losers. A tax return may give a similar picture but it’s not transparent. As far as the current or any president releasing tax returns I don’t think they have to under any law but past presidents have done it for a long time just to be transparent. I don’t really need to see trumps tax returns as I’m pretty sure he’s broke
he is part of a money laundering investigation. the supreme court will decide soon as they have already heard the case.
 

PeAceMaKer769

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Nothing is related. Everything is related. Most things fall somewhere in between.

Both are matters of privacy. How much privacy you are entitled to. Uber could sue and say the law is unconstitutional because it is asking for private information without a warrant.
 

New guy65

Well-Known Member
I’m trying to avoid anything to do with the president on this thread as it will go ugly quick into unrelated stuff.

Public companies do release their information on sales, cost of goods, margin etc. they don’t do it on a product by product basis or on every individual sale.

It’s a freedom of choice for the consumer to buy and for the restaurants to use certain delivery services. How much the restaurant makes at the end of the day the consumer couldn’t or shouldn’t give a shit about. As long as they get what they want at a price they deem reasonable

The next step would be forcing Best Buy to list on the receipt how much they made on selling me a computer without including their actual expenses to have staffing and the locations.

Just showing something in isolation give a very inaccurate picture

Uber could also say we aren’t going to charge the restaurant any portion of the food cost then increase the cost by 50%
 

Umax

Active Member
Why is the city of Chicago charging $100 per ticket when it cost them nothing when you make a right turn on a no turn on red sign !!!WTF
 

PeAceMaKer769

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
i wonder if the contract prohibits restaurants from disclosing this info anyway.

and even if they were allowed to disclose, do they want their customers to know how little of the money goes into the food costs?
Post automatically merged:

Why is the city of Chicago charging $100 per ticket when it cost them nothing when you make a right turn on a no turn on red sign !!!WTF
It would be better if it were less, I agree. I'd be happy to pay $50 every time I'm caught and I would look for police / cameras more carefully next time! (I suppose that is the competitive driver in me wanting to play)

The rule is usually there because the intersection has a lot of pedestrians, has buildings blocking visibility, or has a bike lane. I usually treat those signs as stop signs. Stop completely and look carefully and then go.
 

New guy65

Well-Known Member
I was reading that 60% of restaurants fail in the first year and 80% within 5 years. It seems high to me but it would imply bad business models and probably a lot of other issues. Delivery fees may push some out of business sooner but in many cases it’s like they are already on respirators. The flip side is some places that would go out of business are able to stay around a bit longer. I have made deliveries from tons of restaurants that I probably never would go to that now I’d go out of my way to do it
 

ChrisFZ

Well-Known Member
Why is the city of Chicago charging $100 per ticket when it cost them nothing when you make a right turn on a no turn on red sign !!!WTF
It's to catch idiots and teach them a lesson.

Duh

An idiot will never think beyond their own self-importance that there are consequences to their actions that affect others....mortally.
 

UberBeemer

Well-Known Member
As far as the current or any president releasing tax returns I don’t think they have to under any law but past presidents have done it for a long time just to be transparent.
The constitution gives congress oversight powers, which includes the right to subpoena records. The ways and means committee is empowered to demand anyone's tax returns. Even Trump's. His lawsuit is just a delay tactic. Unfortunately, the current court seems inclined to play along with PosOTUS. We'll know for sure when they render an opinion.
Post automatically merged:

Nothing is related. Everything is related. Most things fall somewhere in between.

Both are matters of privacy. How much privacy you are entitled to. Uber could sue and say the law is unconstitutional because it is asking for private information without a warrant.
I don't think that quite fits. The transaction is subject to laws of commerce, and that gives the city some leverage. It might be a precursor to a new city tax. Once they see money changing hands, they will want their perceived cut.
 
Last edited:

New guy65

Well-Known Member
The constitution gives congress oversight powers, which includes the right to subpoena records. The ways and means committee is empowered to demand anyone's tax returns. Even Trump's. His lawsuit is just a delay tactic. Unfortunately, the current court seems inclined to play along with PosOTUS. We'll know for sure when they render an opinion.
Post automatically merged:


I don't think that quite fits. The transaction is subject to laws of commerce, and that gives the city some leverage. It might be a precursor to a new city tax. Once they see money changing hands, they will want their perceived cut.
Sure congress can subpoena them if it’s part of an investigation, they can subpoena any that is relevant to any investigation They can’t do it just for shits and giggles or because other presidents have released their tax stuff because they wanted to be transparent. Realistically the guy may only have 6 months left. If it’s determined trump wins for now it’s because of some executive privilege thing which probably doesn’t exist for time prior to being in office. If he loses the election they will be all over him as he is once again a private citizen and anything is fair game.
 

UberBeemer

Well-Known Member
Sure congress can subpoena them if it’s part of an investigation, they can subpoena any that is relevant to any investigation They can’t do it just for shits and giggles or because other presidents have released their tax stuff because they wanted to be transparent. Realistically the guy may only have 6 months left. If it’s determined trump wins for now it’s because of some executive privilege thing which probably doesn’t exist for time prior to being in office. If he loses the election they will be all over him as he is once again a private citizen and anything is fair game.
There are no such restrictions on what the ways and means can ask for. The language is clear.

"(see Code sec. 6103(f)): Upon written request by either the Chairman of either the Ways and Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee, the Treasury Secretary “shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request.”

If they had to provide a legislative purpose, that would be outlined in the law. Bus just for the sake of argument, they do have a good reason, which is to determine the effect of the IRS's effort to audit the president's returns. It doesn't appear they made any, so the committee is justified in investigating.
 

New guy65

Well-Known Member
There are no such restrictions on what the ways and means can ask for. The language is clear.

"(see Code sec. 6103(f)): Upon written request by either the Chairman of either the Ways and Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee, the Treasury Secretary “shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request.”

If they had to provide a legislative purpose, that would be outlined in the law. Bus just for the sake of argument, they do have a good reason, which is to determine the effect of the IRS's effort to audit the president's returns. It doesn't appear they made any, so the committee is justified in investigating.
Yea so it’s part of an investigation therefore justified. I don’t think it necessarily means it becomes public knowledge unless there is a necessary reason for it. This subject came up as a privacy issue and if the documents don’t leave the committee that is investigating then there is no privacy issue

It would be similar to a committee that could subpoena KFC for the colonels secret recipe and make it public also
 
Top