Another shitty chain restaurant seeks free advertising by being douchebags

John Metz, Denny's Franchisee And Hurricane Grill & Wings Owner, Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare

"If I leave the prices the same, but say on the menu that there is a 5 percent surcharge for Obamacare, customers have two choices. They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare," Metz told The Huffington Post. "Although it may sound terrible that I'm doing this, it's the only alternative. I've got to pass the cost on to the consumer."

Metz is the franchisor of Hurricane Grill & Wings, which has 48 locations, five of which are corporate owned, and president and owner of RREMC Restaurants, which runs approximately 40 Denny's and several Dairy Queen locations. He planned to use the 5 percent surcharge tactic in all his restaurants starting in January 2014, when Obamacare is fully implemented.

This thread should be titled "Another shitty liberal defines 'douchebag' as 'disagreeing with me'". When are you fools going to learn that 1) the world doesn't work the way you want to believe it does, no matter how hard you try to make it, and 2) NO ONE CARES WHETHER YOU LIKE THEM?
 
Pathetic, you hold someone else's money over the rights of a human being. At least I know where the conservative platform really lies.

Also, are you really sure you want to assume that those workers will never find a job again?

I hold the right to use my own money the way I choose to use it short of violating the rights of somebody else. The employer did not fire the employees. He was not willing to pay what they demanded. That is absolutely 100% his right and if it is not, then none of us own anything or are entitled to use anything we have as we choose to us it. The fact that those people are out of work is their doing, not the employers. The employer was perfectly willing to keep the plant open and try to work out of their shaky financial condition. The union was not willing to concede anything. So the plant closes. And the people are out of work. It was THEIR choice, not the employer.

And if those workers will never find a job again, then maybe there is more of a problem with this shitty economy that should be addressed than our leadership wants to admit, or maybe those people simply aren't qualified to hold a job? At any rate, I never want you or anybody else to have the right to tell me that you or that somebody else has a right to demand what I have legally, honestly, and ethically earned or acquired.

But if you are of the ilk who thinks they have the right to demand what I have, I imagine you earn more than I do. I am going to need to replace my 17-year-old Subaru one of these days. Please buy me one and have it delivered. I would like another red one.

I hold the right to use my own money the way I choose to use it short of violating the rights of somebody else.

I'll wait for what you said to sink in.

I would defend that statement until I die. I should not have the ability to use my money to harm you, defame you, or illegally diiminish your right to legally pursue life, liberty, or whatever you consider happiness. But I sure as hell should have the ability to use my money as I please for my own benefit. What quarrel do you have with that?

When should I expect delivery on that new car? I really need it, want it, and I don't want to pay for it. So I want you to pay for it.

And please answer my ongoing question. Why should employees not pay for at lease some of the cost of a benefit that they receive and that benefits only them?
 
Well....they can shove their breakfasts up their asses....Grand Slam style.

I usually eat locally when we go out anyway. We have a dozen Mom and Pops that serve better food thank Denny's ever will. Same with upper echelon restaurants.....Won't see me at Applebee's or Olive Garden anymore either.

Beer? we have one of the top ten brew pubs in the country about 25 minutes away....the only problem is that it's 25 minutes back home too. Coffee shops? same thing.

I'm so sick of corporate assholes running this country. They can't afford to absorb $.05/plate....or $.14/ pizza? Such bullshit, such ridiculous greed.

And you're right about the free advertising. They're thinking they are going to become the next Chick-fil-a and all these teabaggers are going to flood their restaurants and then not tip the people busting their asses to support their families.....the sad thing is.....they are probably right.

Well, there you go. Another plan touted as "for the poor, downtrodden employees" unmasked as REALLY being about putting those goddamned big corporations out of business, no matter HOW many employees it puts out of jobs.

1) Pass a fucking insane law - in this case, Obamacare - while sneering at everyone who tells you that it will harm businesses.

2) Sprain your arm patting yourself on the back for how much your insane law will "help" employees and other "little guys".

3) Splutter in outrage when the reaction to your insane law is EXACTLY what you were told it would be, and sneered at.

4) Denounce the business owners as evil rich guys.

5) Proudly proclaim that you hope they go out of business, and storm off to take your spending elsewhere to hopefully aid in putting them out of business.

6) Scream in horror at the plight of their former employees, who are now on unemployment.

7) Pass more insane laws in order to "help" the people your plan has put out of jobs, sneering at everyone who warns you about the negative consequences of your insane laws.

8) Go back to the top, and repeat indefinitely until the nation's economy collapses.

I swear to God, liberals are the stupidest living creatures on the planet, outstripping even the sea sponge and amoebas.
 
Last edited:
I hold the right to use my own money the way I choose to use it short of violating the rights of somebody else. The employer did not fire the employees. He was not willing to pay what they demanded. That is absolutely 100% his right and if it is not, then none of us own anything or are entitled to use anything we have as we choose to us it. The fact that those people are out of work is their doing, not the employers. The employer was perfectly willing to keep the plant open and try to work out of their shaky financial condition. The union was not willing to concede anything. So the plant closes. And the people are out of work. It was THEIR choice, not the employer.

And if those workers will never find a job again, then maybe there is more of a problem with this shitty economy that should be addressed than our leadership wants to admit, or maybe those people simply aren't qualified to hold a job? At any rate, I never want you or anybody else to have the right to tell me that you or that somebody else has a right to demand what I have legally, honestly, and ethically earned or acquired.

But if you are of the ilk who thinks they have the right to demand what I have, I imagine you earn more than I do. I am going to need to replace my 17-year-old Subaru one of these days. Please buy me one and have it delivered. I would like another red one.

I hold the right to use my own money the way I choose to use it short of violating the rights of somebody else.

I'll wait for what you said to sink in.

I would defend that statement until I die. I should not have the ability to use my money to harm you, defame you, or illegally diiminish your right to legally pursue life, liberty, or whatever you consider happiness. But I sure as hell should have the ability to use my money as I please for my own benefit. What quarrel do you have with that?

When should I expect delivery on that new car? I really need it, want it, and I don't want to pay for it. So I want you to pay for it.

And please answer my ongoing question. Why should employees not pay for at lease some of the cost of a benefit that they receive and that benefits only them?

If you stand by your statement, why do you agree with the company doing exactly what you just described?
 
How does this guy even know what the cost is going to be? Sounds vindictive and whiny to do this a few days after the election. I don't really care personally, it's the owners' choice to do whatever they want. However I won't be patronizing their business.

He has accountants, jackass. Did you think the government had the only employees in the country capable of doing a cost benefit analysis? And unlike the government, corporations don't insist that the accountants plug shit numbers in to try to produce the results they want. THEY let their accountants tell them the TRUTH.
 
riiiiiight... because these guys will close up shop and won't make anymore money.

you people must really be that gullible. :cuckoo:





are you going to boycott every chain that raises their prices b/c they all will

Yep....I don't tend to go to shitty chain restaurants anyway. We should be supporting our LOCAL businesses anyway.

Yeah, the waitresses, busboys, cooks, etc. at Denny's aren't LOCAL people; they're all shipped in from "away", so they DESERVE to lose their jobs. :cuckoo:

Were you always a fucking moron, or did you take lessons just for this message board?
 
I'll wait for what you said to sink in.

I would defend that statement until I die. I should not have the ability to use my money to harm you, defame you, or illegally diiminish your right to legally pursue life, liberty, or whatever you consider happiness. But I sure as hell should have the ability to use my money as I please for my own benefit. What quarrel do you have with that?

When should I expect delivery on that new car? I really need it, want it, and I don't want to pay for it. So I want you to pay for it.

And please answer my ongoing question. Why should employees not pay for at lease some of the cost of a benefit that they receive and that benefits only them?

If you stand by your statement, why do you agree with the company doing exactly what you just described?

Which company? Hostess who did not pay what a union demanded? Why should Hostess not have the right to close and liquidate its business if that is in its best interest? The employees received the wages they agreed to work for in their previous contract. They were willing to negotiate a new contract within their ability to pay and the union refused it. How is Hostess in the wrong about that?

Or do you mean the restaurant chain that is the subject of this thread? By what rationale do you think the owner or his shareholders or his customers absorb all the cost of a government mandate he didn't want and didn't agree to? By what criteria do you say that the employees should not absorb some of the cost of a benefit the government requires them to have?

When can I expect delivery on my new car? I want it. I need it. And I don't want to have to pay for it. I want you to pay for it. So why shouldn't you have to do that?
 
Last edited:
Denny's to charge 5% 'Obamacare surcharge' and cut employee hours to deal with cost of legislation

President Obama's election victory ensured his Affordable Care Act would remain the centerpiece of his first term in power - but that has left some business owners baulking at the extra cost Obamcare will bring.

Florida based restaurant boss John Metz, who runs approximately 40 Denny's and owns the Hurricane Grill & Wings franchise has decided to offset that by adding a five percent surcharge to customers' bills and will reduce his employees' hours.
With Obamacare due to be fully implemented in January 2014, Metz has justified his move by claiming it is 'the only alternative. I've got to pass on the cost to the customer.'
Denny's to charge 5% 'Obamacare surcharge' and cut employee hours to deal with cost of legislation | Mail Online

Who eats at Denny's?

Anyone who's hungry at 3 am or when they're driving along the Interstate, for starters.
 
funny how no one brings up that this is the same under romneycare

i wonder why that is

:lmao:

Maybe because Romneycare affected one shitty state in which most of us wouldn't live on a bet. It's already packed with liberals who are too damned stupid to know any better. Obamacare affects the entire nation, including people who ARE smart enough to know better.
 
Wait a minute...I thought all this free shit from Obiedoodlecare was going to be free.

You mean to say it's not?

Well, I'll be dipped!

i cannot speak for all progressives/liberals but in my case i expected to pay more and really a few cents more will not kill me and if people can go to the doctor when they need it..im ok with that.

if places like papa johns had not put their pizza into politics i wouldve been willing to pay them more for thier pizza to help with the costs of obamacare..as it is he wants me to think he is a 'reluctant skumbag' because of ocare when in fact he is just a skumbag :D

im willing to pay a bit higher prices..the cost of providing america with healthcare is worth it for a healthy populate. what im not willing to do is be extorted by 'reluctant skumbags' trying to make political points when they are obscenely rich and can afford to take the hit.

It's hard to decide which one takes more energy from liberals: running around judging the entire rest of the world as morally inferior, or congratulating themselves for being morally superior?
 
Denny's to charge 5% 'Obamacare surcharge' and cut employee hours to deal with cost of legislation

President Obama's election victory ensured his Affordable Care Act would remain the centerpiece of his first term in power - but that has left some business owners baulking at the extra cost Obamcare will bring.

Florida based restaurant boss John Metz, who runs approximately 40 Denny's and owns the Hurricane Grill & Wings franchise has decided to offset that by adding a five percent surcharge to customers' bills and will reduce his employees' hours.
With Obamacare due to be fully implemented in January 2014, Metz has justified his move by claiming it is 'the only alternative. I've got to pass on the cost to the customer.'
Denny's to charge 5% 'Obamacare surcharge' and cut employee hours to deal with cost of legislation | Mail Online

Who eats at Denny's?

Many low- to medium-income families and seniors who want something better than McDonald's.

Senior citizens on Social Security.
 
funny how no one brings up that this is the same under romneycare

i wonder why that is

:lmao:

Mainly because Romney care was a STATE issue. Not the entire country. If the STATE wants to backtrack on that care they can vote it out.

Once its nationwide it will be impossible to get rid of.

Not to mention that it's a shitload easier for the rest of us to avoid Massachusetts than it is for us to avoid the entire country.
 
funny how no one brings up that this is the same under romneycare

i wonder why that is

:lmao:

Maybe because Romneycare affected one shitty state in which most of us wouldn't live on a bet. It's already packed with liberals who are too damned stupid to know any better. Obamacare affects the entire nation, including people who ARE smart enough to know better.

Also if Massachusetts rules, regs, taxes, and mandates become too oppressive, a proprietor can close up shop and go elsewhere to do business. California has lost hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of businesses for that very reason and there aren't that many new businesses locating in California these days.

Under Obamacare there is nowhere to go. There is no way to escape without giving up our country. And therein is the difference. Romney at least knew that and knew that Obamacare was more destructive than constructive. There is a huge difference between any national program and something localized in one small state.

Also Romneycare was passed with a large majority of the people of Massachusetts believing it to be a good thing and with almost universal bipartisan support in the Massachusetts legislature--only 2 dissenting votes in the House and 100% support in the Senate . Obamacare was passed with the majority of the people in the USA being opposed to it, without a unanimous Democratic vote, and without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate. That's a significant difference.

And the original question remains. Why should not employees be required to pay some of the cost of a benefit that benefits them and does not benefit their employer in any way?

Edit: Other Massachusetts facts.
1. Third richest state in the country based on net worth and per capita income
2. Very low minority populations
3. Many of their reitrees and others on limited fixed incomes leave the state for more affordable climes.
4. They have just over 6 million people, not even the population of New York City
5. And they didn't have many folks who were uninsured for healthcare, and most of those weren't uninsured because they couldn't afford to be.
This is a very different scenario than what exists in the USA as a whole.
 
Last edited:
funny how no one brings up that this is the same under romneycare

i wonder why that is

:lmao:

Mainly because Romney care was a STATE issue. Not the entire country. If the STATE wants to backtrack on that care they can vote it out.

Once its nationwide it will be impossible to get rid of.

if enough people didn't want it, it wouldn't have passed in the first place.

if enough people didn't want it, romney would have handed obama his ass last week.

fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, s0n.

::blink:: Hey, did y'all know that Obamacare was passed by a ballot initiative voted on by the people of the United States?

Funny, I could have sworn it was passed by a group of asshole politicians who were betting on their ability to bullshit the voters at election time. And whattaya know? THIS time, they were right.

Fat, drunk, and stupid IS a bad way to go through life . . . but you liberals got really lucky that so many of your voting base does it, anyway.

I wouldn't brag about it, "son".
 

Forum List

Back
Top