An extra charge is an entrance fee that is sometimes charged in bars, nightclubs, or restaurants. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "a fixed amount added to the bill at a nightclub or restaurant for entertainment or service." In restaurants, the costs of liability (or "couvert" fees) generally do not include the cost of specially ordered food, but in some places they include the cost of bread, butter, olives, and other accompaniments provided as a problem. Of course.
Video Cover charge
Etimologi
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "additional fees" as "fees for services added to basic costs in restaurants". Such allegations are made in many countries, usually described in words equivalent to "cover" ( couvert , coperto , cubierto , etc.). Place settings in restaurants, in English and in other languages, are often referred to as "closing" or equivalent terms in other languages. The term sometimes used in the US is "table fee". The fee is usually a few US dollars or equivalent. Although the allegations are often said to be bread, butter, olives, etc. brought to the table, it is paid whether they are eaten or not.
Restaurants in English-speaking countries sometimes have menus in French; in this restaurant and other restaurants, the additional cost is sometimes described with the French word "couvert". This term and related content, originating from France, have been used with this meaning in English at least since 1899. The French word both means the arrangement of tables and is a past participle of couvrir , "to cover"; couvert or "cover" in the sense of place arrangement that comes from the French pastle paste according to OED: "Cover (7): After French couvert, (1) 'cover or furnishings from table to meale a prince' Cotgrave), cloth, plate, knife, fork, etc. With a table covered or laid, (2) part of this is customized for each guest ".
The couvert or cover fees have been picked up for years, certainly in English-speaking countries in 1899. Concepts, and terms, were then used in the US in 1920 by an illegal bar called speakeasies, during which Prohibition of Prohibition of Prohibition of alcohol. Manhattan saloonkeeper Tex Guinan, is a preliminary example of a bar that costs extra from customers.
In the US an additional charge then becomes an entry fee where entertainment and food and beverages are provided, and carry the entertainment expectations. The first such cover costs were introduced in 1913 by Louis Fischer at the Reisenweber restaurant in Manhattan, to cover the production costs of the Ned Wayburn revues held there.
In most countries where restaurant cover costs are made, the practice is far from universal; many restaurants are free of charge. Destinations may be more likely to create these bills, which unwanted visitors might not expect. Tip is usually much lower internationally than typical 15-20% in restaurants in the US at no additional cost; total expenditure on food including tip is not necessarily higher.
The term "surcharges" is used in other cases, and can be confusing. A practice, sometimes called an additional cost in the US is to make fixed costs for unlimited food. Restaurant may be charged for booked visitors but fails to show up; this is sometimes called additional cost.
Maps Cover charge
Legal restrictions
Under Massachusetts law, a penalty of up to $ 50, no cafe, restaurant, or bar can request payment of minimum fees or surcharges unless the sign is prominently posted with a letter of at least an inch-high, stating that the minimum charge or surcharges will be charged and indicates the amount. Children under the age of thirteen will not be charged. This law is in place to resolve the issue of "secret" cover charges, which are indicated only in the small text of the menu. Clubgoers will then find these additional charges added to their first drink order. In Illinois, the bar can not charge an additional fee unless the fee is charged for unregulated entertainment fee fees such as a live band. In 1995, the Italian local government in Lazio (which included Rome) began requiring restaurants in the region to remove additional costs for "Pane e coperto" (bread and cover) from their bills. In 1998, the EU ruled that regional legislation was illegal, but the region continued to try to abolish the practice
Business model
Additional charges
Bars and clubs that use extra charges use it for several reasons. In some cases, popular bars and clubs have substantial demand surplus; customers lined up outside the club waiting to enter. In this case, the club can earn additional revenue from customers by asking for entry fees. Bars and other clubs charge extra only on nights when there is live entertainment or DJs, to cover the cost of hiring the players.
The cover fee is usually much lower for a band or semi-professional local entertainment than the more well-known tour band from other areas. In North America, additional costs for performances by local teen bands may be as low as a few dollars; a show by a nationally known band with a recording contract may have a cover of $ 10 to $ 15. Some expensive jazz clubs and comedy clubs have both both additional fees and minimum beverage needs. Many sports bars have an additional cost when they show boxing or pay-per-view UFC shows, to help finance pay-per-view ordering fees.
Price discrimination
In economics, the term "price discrimination" refers to charging different prices for different customers, based on the anticipated elasticity of different customer demands. Bars often offer discounts for students because universities or students have different wishes to pay than the average consumer, due to their budget constraints. Thus, the bar sets a lower price for admission to universities and students because students have elastic demand.
In some bars there are different protection fees for customers who consume legal age liquor and for minors who are not allowed to buy or drink alcohol (for example, a $ 5 surcharge for those over 21 and $ 8 for children under age). Some bars have lower additional costs for some categories, such as students or students with student identification; some have lower additional costs for club members or night club organizations or associations. Additional fees are waived at some clubs for early arrivals (before 11pm or midnight), for the person ordering the food, or, if the club is in the hotel, for hotel guests. Some bars are prevalent or sometimes exclude additional costs for women in the hope that it will increase the number of their female customers and thus attract male customers as well.
The bar usually allows the band or player to provide a list of guests to be received without paying any additional fees ("guest list"). Bouncers can remove additional costs for some customers, such as regular customers who usually buy large quantities of beverages. In addition, carers sometimes set aside additional costs for their friends, in what can be described as nepotism or even as illegal acts similar to the theft or embezzlement that robs the employer of the employer of the income he deserves.
Revenue sharing with players
Bars and clubs have different policies on how cover costs are shared, if any, with players. Different revenue-sharing agreements are often negotiated by different players. The range of revenue-sharing arrangements ranges from bands or players that retain all the money collected for an additional fee, to split between bar and band, to the settings where the bar holds all additional charges. Variants of this revenue-sharing arrangement occur in cases where the bar also gives the band a share of alcohol sales revenue bar. Some bars may also agree with bail, where the bar promises to pay a certain amount of band even if this is less than the amount collected at the door.
Luxury cover charges
Luxury clubs with unusual architecture and interior design and a unique atmosphere sometimes have extra costs even when there is no live entertainment or DJs. In this case, cover fees only contribute to club profits. For example, Mike Viscuso's On Broadway, a glam-disco dining palace, has an additional cost of $ 15. James Brennan
Some of the upscale and sumptuous bars and nightclubs have an annual membership fee which can be interpreted as an annual fee. For example, Frederick has a membership of $ 1,200 per year, Keating Lounge has an annual membership fee of $ 2,500, and The Core Club has a $ 60,000 membership fee. The variant of this annual fee is the "desk fee" at some elite nightclubs, where customers agree to spend the minimum amount to reserve a table at the club (for example, $ 1000 at night).
No additional charges
Some bars and clubs do not charge entry fees, which are indicated by signs that "there is no cover" or "no extra charge". These bars use live entertainers to attract and retain customers at the establishment, so customers will buy drinks. To attract more female customers, bars often have a "no protection for women" policy, sometimes on women's evenings. In some cases, these policies have been challenged in lawsuits as discrimination, and are illegal in some jurisdictions in the United States.
A woman's night is a promotional event, often in a bar or nightclub, where female customers pay less than male customers for extra fees or drinks. State courts in California, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have decided that women's nightly discounts are gender discriminations that violate the law under state or local laws. However, courts in Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington have rejected challenges against such discounts.
Claims against the women's night under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution have failed under the doctrine of state action. Similar acts have failed under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 AS, 1983). Ladies nights' may have federal tax implications. Federal claims are also involved in unsuccessful challenges in Washington ( see below ).
California
The California Supreme Court has ruled that women's days at car-washers and women's nightclubs in nightclubs violate California's Civil Rights Act at Koire v Metro Car Wash (1985) and Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007). UU Unruh states: "All persons in the jurisdiction of this country are free and equal, and regardless of their sex [...] are entitled to full and equal accommodation, benefits, facilities, privileges or services in all business of establishment of any type [...]. "The court considers the legal defense that promotion serves" substantial business and social goals ", but concludes that only profitable is not sufficient defense. The Court accused the Wisconsin Supreme Court of "sexual stereotypes" for upholding similar practices.
Koire states that: "Public policy in California strongly supports the eradication of discrimination on the basis of sex Unruh law expressly prohibits sex discrimination by business firms." Koire concluded:
- "The legality of sex-based price discounts can not rely on subjective value judgments about types of differences based on important or dangerous sexes The express language of the Unruh Act provides a clear and objective standard to determine the legality of Existing practices, the Legislature has clearly stated that business firms must provide "equality... profit... [and] privileges "to all customers" no matter what their gender. "(Ã, § 51.) Strong public policy supports the enforcement of the Act in this case The defendants have not put forward a convincing argument that this court should make a judicial exemption for their sex-based price discounts Direct prohibition of the Act must be respected. "
Following the decision, California passed the 1995 Gender Tax Revocation Law, which specifically prohibited differential pricing based solely on the gender of the customer. At Angelucci, the California Supreme Court ruled that victims of discrimination should not require infringing attempts to be treated equally in order to file a lawsuit against the Unruh Law or Gender Tax Claims.
The court found no violation of the Unruh Law at a price discount that could qualify theoretically. The Supreme Court of California argues:
- "There are many thought-provoking promotional discounts that are clearly allowed under the Unruh Act, for example, the company may offer tariff reductions to all customers on a daily basis each week, or the business may offer a discount for each customer which meets the requirements that can be met by patrons (for example, providing coupons, or wearing certain colored shirts or bumper stickers.) In addition, nothing prevents the business from offering discounts to buy large quantities of commodities, or to make reservations in advance. The key is that the discount should "apply to people of every sex, color, race, [etc]]" (Ã, §§ 51), rather than relying on some arbitrary class-based generalizations. "
The presidency Koire has not been renewed for dropping Mother's Day promotions. Koire is one of the precedents cited in the lower court (but not the state Supreme Court) in the In Case of Marriage canceled by California Proposition 8 (2008).
Illinois
The women's night in Illinois has been enforced under the anti-discrimination provisions of the Dram Shop Act. The court ruled that the discount was meant to encourage women to attend the bar in greater numbers, than to prevent the presence of men.
Maryland
The Montgomery County human relations law has been interpreted to not only ban women's night but also "Skirts and Gown Night" where customers are given a 50% discount for wearing skirts or dresses. The Court noted that: "Against this very amusing backdrop, we have to decide whether this seemingly innocent business practice is unlawful discrimination in the sense of local law." Montgomery County Code, Law of Human Relations, Ã,§ 27-9, is prohibited:
- "[...] any discrepancies related to a person by race, color, sex, marital status, religious belief, ancestry, national origin, disability or sexual orientation with respect to admission to, service or sale at, or the price, quality or use of any facilities or services of any public, resort, or entertainment accommodation in the area. "
The review of the appeals court of Maryland is far from de novo and the court emphasizes that:
- "Although we believe that the judge's findings contradict the American cultural reality, we do not need to focus on court decisions, our review is agency conclusions based on the facts presented at the hearing.The record is full of evidence that Rok and Gown Night is meant for-and performs-has the same effect and serves the same function as Ladies 'Night, which provides discounted prices for women and is, in fact, operated as an extension of Ladies' Night. "
The Court also emphasized the uniqueness and firmness of the city rules it interpreted:
- "We believe that the rules are not ambiguous, so even though it is permissible to do so under the Protective Clause Similar to the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, we are not allowed under the Ordinance of County Montgomery or Maryland Constitution to engage in a balance test. "
Minnesota
Attempts by city authorities to prevent women's nights have been hit as ultra vires . In June 2010, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights said bars forbid men by promoting "ladies of the night", but said they would not look for bars that had "ladies night."
Nevada
While this question has not yet been filed in Nevada, two Nevada lawyers advise: "For now, businesses should be cautious in utilizing the promotion of gender-based pricing schemes, while the plaintiff's ability to succeed on such claims in district courts remains unknown, NERC have the ability to pursue such claims at an administrative level.Therefore, businesses should be involved in a cost-benefit analysis, keeping in mind that they may have to spend time and resources to maintain the sexual discrimination content in front of NERC or elsewhere.
New York
The New York State Board of Human Rights Application did not approve of the New York Yankees "Women's Day" campaign, dating from 1876 as "in a modern technological society where women and men should be equal as a matter of public policy."
Pennsylvania
Such promotions violate the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act as an unlawful gender discrimination in which male customers are charged an entrance fee or a higher fee for beverages and female customers are not charged identical fees or fees for beverages as male customers. On the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Dobrinoff , the Commonwealth Court specifically found that where female patrons are exempt from protection fees, a go-go bar is involved in gender discrimination in violation of the law. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has stated recently that 2009 it will issue a quote against companies that charge customers a different amount by sex.
Washington
The women's night has been found not to violate state anti-discrimination laws, or the federal constitution, by the Washington Supreme Court, even if held at a stadium owned by the city. The Supreme Court of Washington concluded that "the respondent has shown no discrimination against men as a class and no damage to himself and consequently he has no right to act under the State Law Against Discrimination." In part, the court emphasized in its verdict. evidence presented in court that "women do not show the same interest in male basketball," and that the discount is just one of many discounts and promotions, others are available regardless of gender. Finally, the majority noted that "to decide important constitutional questions over complaints as sterile as this would tend to erode public respect for the Equal Rights Amendment and prevent rather than promote the seriously adopted goals."
Different judges emphasize a wider interpretation of the prevailing ban and the potential for such promotions to reinforce stereotypes. A disagreed party proposes that the complainant is not allowed to do damage, but only the practice is ordered. The disagreement concludes:
- "Perhaps the application of the Equal Rights Amendment to the defendant's" promotion "activities is not the kind of voter's mind when they adopt HJR 61. Then again, the same persuasive argument can be made that the difference in ticket price by sex is one a number of activities that they hope will end.This is useless to speculate.There is no evidence whatsoever I see there is no way out of finding in this that the simple language of Const. Art 31 requires activities where the defendants are involved. Further clarification of popular intentions must come through a process of constitutional amendment, not by the shadow of this court Const. Art 23. "
Wisconsin
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has stated that such promotions violate state public accommodation law. The Court noted that the text and history of legislation of the law does not allow the distinction between sex, race, and other forms of discrimination.
Some comedy clubs and strip bars allow customers to enter without paying fees, with implicit or explicit expectations that customers will buy alcoholic beverages while inside. Some bars with a "no extra charge" policy may have a higher price for their snacks and beers to cover the additional cost deficiencies. Many nightclubs oriented to electronic dance music have additional costs, in some cases because many of their customers do not drink alcohol because of the use of other drugs such as MDMA. Bottled water is also often priced up to $ 10 to offset the loss of income from reduced alcohol sales.
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments