Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Another point is that by being *somewhat* accepting of these policies, it causes the issue in the first place. If nobody wants this, don't tolerate it, especially when there are other places you can go that don't have those same issues. If there's two places, one that sells something for $10 no surcharge, and another that it comes out to a bit less than $10 after adding a surcharge, I will choose to visit the more expensive first location, because I value the transparency and percieved respect I am recieving as a customer, as well as the fact that by not supporting the second location's business, it will make that choice less attractive to other businesses considering the option.

It's kinda self defeating to say "everywhere else is doing it" when there are plenty of places you can go, without even trying hard, that aren't doing this. It's self defeating to say "I don't like it but it's just the way it is" and then go on purchasing things. I understand that in some cases you can't feasibly stop a purchase or there aren't good alternatives. In my case, I have had no issue visiting the FL parks for a few hours and skipping the food, or getting a pretzel or something to go along with the free beer with the $10 coupons and refusing to actually buy anything in the park(not to get into the abysmal food quality esp at BGT recently).

All I'm trying to get across is: It's ok to say no. You aren't being a Karen for refusing to pay a 5% surcharge and spending money elsewhere. It's OK to draw the line and it CAN have an impact on how those policies go over. If everyone who thinks it's a terrible business practice stopped engaging in it, it would disappear super fast, esp at a pass heavy park like BGW. The opinion that you can't do anything to change it and you might as well accept it for what it is is self deterministic, and I just really don't understand that view for purchases that are almost always entirely discretionary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoasterTalkBob
Ok, but you see, I'm inclined to push back on that because, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're essentially allowing shitty businesses to shift the Overton window in their favor. It seems like we should just be able to call SEAS and Sherman Williams shitty, scammy companies and move on without having to dissect the exact ranking of their dishonesty.

I get where you are coming from—I'm just trying to highlight that the gap between where we are is basically entirely rhetorical and we both agree that SEAS (and, by extension, every other company engaging in this scam) fucking sucks.
I’m not allowing it or saying I’m ok with it. From my own post at 10:30 this morning:
So for the record: I HATE SURCHARGES. I think they are a backhanded way for companies to pass along supply chain or labor costs.

However, I do understand that in the end prices are going up. It happens to everything. I complain when prices go up or a surcharge is applied. Problem is the likelihood of enough people hurting a companies profits through avoiding these shady (but legal) business practices are low. Can that be a little defeatist? Sure. But I guess my take is, I budget, if I cut something (like an extra snack) I cut something. But I don’t really feel like going out of my way to avoid places. I just comparatively buy less from them than before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
Honest question:
So when someone makes that point and the counter is “But SEAS is hiding it”; aren’t we being forced to take that position? I’m not picking that position. I (and others) are being forced into that as “hey, they at least post something” without any consideration to the “hey many places are doing that.”

I don’t like it at all, but hell this is the country we are in. We’re in one where profits mean more than anything and a majority of companies will do anything to squeeze every dime out of what they can.

You keep dancing around the fact that the entire point of this surcharge is to hide the fact that they raised prices. It’s actually amazing the number of hoops you’ll jump through to avoid acknowledging that. I really want to know why you think BGW added a surcharge instead of just raising prices if they don’t want to obscure the true cost of what they’re selling.

By the way: nobody is forcing you to take that position. You seem determined to defend BGW for doing something you yourself don’t even like.
 
  • Eye-Roll
Reactions: BGWnut and warfelg
I am at the point that I don't understand what warfelg's stance is. Are you defending SEAS utilization of surcharges despite your own view that they are a backhanded way for companies to pass along cost just for sport?

I know from a strictly business perspective, surcharges are the better method to raise costs with less backlash. You take all morality out of me and sit me down in a SEAS boardroom, I'd recommend a chain wide surcharge implementation til I die since it is guaranteed revenue with little consequence. But it is scummy, so put the morality back in, I'd say raise prices to maintain a trusting relationship with loyal guests. I guess I am just really struggling to understand what exactly you are trying to say @warfelg since it seems to be a bit all over the place as to what point you are trying to get across in the context of debating people who criticize the surcharge.
 
But in the world of rising costs, companies are in a no win situation. It’s raise costs or put on a surcharge.

A surcharge is a price increase. It’s just a more obscured one. Where am I losing you here?
 
  • Eye-Roll
Reactions: warfelg
I am. While I don’t like it I will defend their legal right to do this.

I’m sorry, this is just nonsensical. Very few people are claiming BGW doesn’t have the right to do it — in fact, just yesterday I corrected someone for saying it was illegal.

The people you are arguing with are saying BGW shouldn’t do it, not that they can’t.
 
I don't think anyone here is defending SEAS using a surcharge. I think it's pretty universally disliked in the forum. The issue is that people are failing to see the difference between some companies that only post them on the check under taxes and fees with no other mentions anywhere on the check about them.

My point was that while we dislike the surcharges, at the very least SEAS is being very forthcoming about them compared to pretty much every other place I've encountered them. I get a receipt from a place multiple times a week from somewhere it simply says taxes and fees and after doing the math to see that it's more than the tax rate, I have to ask a cashier who 9/10 times just says they have no idea so I end up searching their website.

While I am not a fan of the practice, I still think that we should understand that BGW has opted to disclose this and be more open about that pretty much every other company that does this. We can quibble all we want about it, but that's the case here. SEAS is being providing quite a bit of notice, while most companies I see them at simply lump then together as taxes and fees. Which way would you prefer it? Signage at every register and menu and specifically calling it out on the receipt while including a reasoning, or a company just lumping them together as taxes and fees?
 
  • Eye-Roll
Reactions: Icer
Look a turd is a turd. If you wanna argue about why this guy's turd is better than another guys, and why you don't think this turd should get as much hate as another one go right ahead. I'm gonna continue complaining that I hate all turds and don't want them on my dinner plate.
 
All I take at this point is it’s wrong to think:
I don’t like surcharges.
I defend SEAS rights to use it.
I appreciate they are least put it somewhere before I get to the POS.

That’s my opinion on it. I’m not expanding anymore. I’m sorry if you don’t understand.
 
Which way would you prefer it? Signage at every register and menu and specifically calling it out on the receipt while including a reasoning, or a company just lumping them together as taxes and fees?

I mean, if someone is gonna mug me on the street, yeah, sure, I'd prefer a little forewarning. That said, I'm not gonna be less pissed because someone told me a few minutes beforehand that they are going to rob me instead of just robbing me without that notice. I'm still getting fucked in either scenario and I'm still gonna be angry about it either way. Sure, there's a difference—I'd rather know—but the outcome is largely the same regardless.

So yeah, my answer: I'm opposed to getting robbed in the first place, regardless of the mechanics.
 
I mean, if someone is gonna mug me on the street, yeah, sure, I'd prefer some forewarning about the impending mugging. That said, I'm not gonna be less pissed because someone told me they are going to rob me vs robbing me without notice. I'm still getting fucked in either scenario.

So yeah, my answer would be that my preference would be to not be robbed.
And this is basically what I’m saying (and I feel @BGWnut is as well).

Edit:
(Sorry @Zachary I know you already reacted) But if I know I have $30 to spend, seeing that and being smarter about the mental math of “hey buy something that’s $20” is less hurtful than getting to the POS and having it ring up at $35 and now being pissed about going over what I had. Either way sucks and hurts but at least one is less hurt because I could (potentially) be less embarrassed. (I can give the full story as to why I’m so tight when I’m park if you would like it.)
 
Last edited:
Yeah so I am not a big fan of the surcharge but I am also not a bug fan the supply charge the appears on my car repair bills after the work is done and that has become pretty much an industry standard.
 
Last edited:
Look a turd is a turd. If you wanna argue about why this guy's turd is better than another guys, and why you don't think this turd should get as much hate as another one go right ahead. I'm gonna continue complaining that I hate all turds and don't want them on my dinner plate.
I think some turds are much worse than others. And if I was given the option to pick a turd vs be given a turd at random, I’d definitely want to choose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warfelg
It will be nice to not have people like you that seem to hate and bitch about everything no longer in the partk
Maybe now the resat of us can continue to enjoy it with out this crybaby bs

This post is veering dangerously lose to a personal attack. Please keep the debate civil. There is no reason to be rude to anyone here for any reason.
 
When I usually purchase food at BGW the 5% surcharge is usually like $.50 added to my check. And if you’re a platinum membership holder like I am then the surcharge wouldn’t be that big of a deal. What’s even worse than a 5% surcharge is the fees that GrubHub DoorDash and Uber eats charge you in addition to your food just to have it be delivered to you. Now that’s worse since they will be charging you up to $20 more for like a $3 item at McDonald’s and then you have to tip the driver in addition to that. At BGW you just get your food and don’t have to tip.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: GoHokies87
I kinda disagree.

The extra 50 cents isn’t the issue. The problem is that the process is deceptive. Rather than simply raising the prices, they are adding a surcharge and pretending to keep the prices the same. In the case of food, the warning that there is a surcharge appears to be hidden presumably to make it less noticeable. Moreover, even if you do know about it, you have to figure out the price in your head, rather than just reading it on the menu board.

The comparison to delivery services doesn’t seem relevant either. When I order food, I am getting a service in exchange for the fees. Someone is bringing me my food. I get absolutely nothing for the BGW surcharge other than a feeling of irritation. And, no, I am not defending their hidden fees either. But bad behavior by one company doesn’t excuse bad behavior by another.
 
Ok, but you see, I'm inclined to push back on that because, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're essentially allowing shitty businesses to shift the Overton window in their favor. It seems like we should just be able to call SEAS and Sherman Williams shitty, scammy companies and move on without having to dissect the exact ranking of their dishonesty.

I get where you are coming from—I'm just trying to highlight that the gap between where we are is basically entirely rhetorical and we both agree that SEAS (and, by extension, every other company engaging in this scam) fucking sucks.
More than sucks I think the company’s should be able to be charged with fraud. It’s not a tax so they can’t legally have a posted price and say oh by the way we are just adding this 5% surcharge on the end of every bill
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mwe BGW
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad