Everyone hates junk fees on Ticketmaster
You see a ticket for an event you want to attend. It’s $120. By the time you get to check out, it’s almost $200 with all the junk fees. I think is an experience that probably 99.99% of the population can agree sucks. Yet when you add the same junk fees to food and drinks at a restaurant, most people don’t seem to mind?
I had dinner with a friend today. Restaurant added a “employee wellness” fee and a service charge, which pissed me off, but my friend didn’t seem to mind. When I pointed out “hey weren’t you just complaining about Ticketmaster doing the same thing 15 mins ago..?”, it finally seemed to click for him.
Jobadvisor
What you noticed is a good example of context-dependent price perception. The underlying mechanism is the same—partitioned pricing (base price + extra fees added later)—but people react differently depending on the setting.
Here are the main reasons.
1. Price salience and timing
With ticketing platforms like Ticketmaster, the extra charges usually appear late in the checkout flow. That triggers a feeling of being misled because:
The advertised price anchors expectations (e.g., $120).
The final step reveals a much higher total (~$200).
The difference feels like a bait-and-switch.
In restaurants, the fees are often printed somewhere on the menu or receipt. Even if people overlook them, the environment feels less like a transactional funnel, so the psychological “gotcha moment” is weaker.
2. Mental categories: “fees” vs “tips”
In food service, many people mentally classify extra charges as:
Tips
Service charges
staff wellness / kitchen appreciation fees
Because tipping is already culturally normalized (especially in the U.S.), diners often interpret these add-ons as supporting workers, not as corporate extraction.
Concert fees, by contrast, are framed as things like:
“processing fee”
“convenience fee”
“facility charge”
Those sound bureaucratic and profit-driven, so people perceive them as pure rent-seeking.
3. Market structure and perceived fairness
Ticketing markets feel monopolistic. Many major venues have exclusive ticketing agreements with Live Nation Entertainment (which owns Ticketmaster), especially after the Live Nation–Ticketmaster merger. Consumers believe they have no alternative, which intensifies resentment.
Restaurants, on the other hand:
have many substitutes
feel local and personal
are easy to avoid next time
So people tolerate questionable pricing more because they perceive choice.
4. Social friction
Calling out restaurant fees can feel awkward:
you're with friends
a server is involved
it may seem like complaining about staff compensation
Complaining about a ticketing platform carries no social cost, because you're criticizing a distant corporation.
5. Small increments vs big jumps
Restaurant fees often look small individually:
3% “wellness”
5% service fee
A ticket jumping from $120 to $200 is a large discrete shock, which triggers stronger loss aversion.
✅ Your observation is essentially correct: both are examples of the same pricing tactic. Behavioral economics consistently finds that people dislike drip pricing, but their reactions depend heavily on framing, context, and perceived fairness.
Switched from Hourly to Salary
San Jose, [CA]
Something happened at work recently that feels a little odd and I’m curious if this is normal.
I was hired as an hourly employee and have been working that way for almost a year. My job is basically project coordination/admin work for a mid sized GC. I don’t supervise anyone, don’t manage budgets, and don’t make any decisions on my own. All I do all day is proofread project managers' proposals, route subcontracts and change orders, and do job set ups. My direct manager also looks at every single thing I do. I cannot turn anything in without her making some kind of small comment (like remove a dash here, change 2nd to second, etc.).
I often work through my lunches, breaks, and stay late and my managers have told me they will make it up to me by letting me start later the next day or take a longer lunch. So my overtime has not been captured so far.
On March 3, my manager pulled me into a meeting and told me I was being switched from hourly to salary, and that the change was effective March 1. Btw, I think this was retaliation on her part because I have not been picking up the phone for her the last two weeks after hours.
There had been:
no prior conversation
no raise
no title change
no change in duties
I asked HR for written documentation of the change so I could have it for my records. It took about a week, but they eventually sent an email saying I had been moved to salary effective March 2 and that I am an exempt employee.
change someone from hourly to salary before telling them?
make the switch without changing the role or responsibilities?
Offer no compensation?
For context, I’m in San Jose, California.
Just trying to understand if this is standard practice because I am super upset. I gave my notice to leave because this seems super sketchy even if it is legal
Jobadvisor
It makes complete sense that you're upset. Moving from hourly to salary often feels like a "promotion" in theory, but in practice—especially in California—it is frequently used (sometimes illegally) to avoid paying overtime.
Since you are in San Jose, you are protected by some of the strictest labor laws in the country. Here is a breakdown of why your situation isn't just "sketchy," but likely a violation of California labor code.
1. The "Exempt" Problem (Misclassification)
In California, your employer cannot simply decide you are salary/exempt. To be exempt from overtime, you must meet the Duties Test. Based on your description, you likely do not qualify:
Administrative Exemption: To be exempt, you must perform work that is directly related to management policies or general business operations and—this is the kicker—customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment.
The Reality: You mentioned your manager reviews every dash and comma you place. If you have no "independent discretion" and your work is primarily clerical or following strict protocols, you are likely non-exempt, regardless of whether they pay you a salary.
2. The Salary Threshold
In California, to be exempt, you must earn a minimum monthly salary of no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment.
As of 2024/2025, that threshold is $66,560 per year.
If your "salary" is lower than that, you are automatically non-exempt and owed overtime, no matter what your job title is.
3. Retroactive Changes & Notice
Backdating: An employer generally cannot retroactively change your pay status. Telling you on March 3 that your status changed on March 1 is a major red flag.
Notice: California Labor Code 2810.5 requires employers to provide written notice of changes to pay rates within seven days of the change. While they eventually emailed you, the retroactive nature is highly questionable.
4. Unpaid Overtime & "Making it Up"
The practice of "letting you start later" to compensate for staying late is known as Comp Time. In California, private employers cannot use comp time in place of overtime for non-exempt employees.
If you worked 10 hours on Monday and 6 hours on Tuesday, they still owe you 2 hours of overtime for Monday. They cannot "even it out" to 40 hours for the week.
Working through lunches and breaks without pay is a direct violation of California’s meal and rest period laws.
Summary Table: Reality Check
| Feature | Your Situation | CA Labor Law Requirement (for Exempt) |
| Discretion | Manager micromanages every detail. | Must exercise independent judgment. |
| Independence | No decision-making power. | Must perform work of substantial importance. |
| Overtime | "Made up" with flexible hours. | Must be paid at $1.5\times$ or $2\times$ rate (if non-exempt). |
| Notice | Retroactive and sudden. | Must be notified of pay changes in writing. |
Your Next Steps
Since you have already given your notice, your primary focus should be protecting your right to the wages you’ve already earned.
Gather Records: Save all emails where your manager told you to "make up" time later. Export your personal call logs showing those after-hours calls.
Document the "Micromanagement": If you have emails showing your manager correcting minor punctuation, save them. This proves you lack the "discretion" required for exempt status.
File a Wage Claim: You can file a claim with the California Labor Commissioner’s Office (DLSE) for unpaid overtime and missed meal breaks. You can go back up to three years (sometimes four).
Final Paycheck: In California, if you give at least 72 hours' notice, you must be paid all earned wages (including accrued PTO) on your last day.
Two required lunch breaks in under eight hours, if there's more than 5 hours after the first one?
I've never seen this interpretation of the laws before.
My workplace (several hundred employees, not healthcare or agriculture related) has recently said that if you work 5 or more hours after your first lunch break, you have to take a second one. Since lunch breaks can be taken as early as 2 hours into your shift, you could end up having to take 2 lunch breaks in an 8 hour shift. That doesn't seem right to me.
They said it's to comply with WAC 296-126-092. The only thing I see is the part about no employee being required to work more than 5 hours without a meal break. Is that what it means?
Jobadvisor
It sounds like your employer is being extraordinarily literal (and perhaps a bit overly cautious) in their interpretation of Washington State labor laws.
Since you cited WAC 296-126-092, you are dealing with Washington State regulations (which differ slightly from the California laws we discussed earlier).
Here is the breakdown of why they are doing this and whether it's actually required.
1. The "5-Hour Rule"
The specific text of WAC 296-126-092(2) states:
"No employee shall be required to work more than five consecutive hours without a meal period."
This creates a "rolling" clock. The 5-hour limit doesn't just apply to the start of your shift; it applies to any stretch of work time.
Scenario A (Standard): You start at 8:00 AM, take lunch at 12:00 PM (4 hours worked). You finish at 5:00 PM. Since you only worked 5 hours after lunch, you are fine.
Scenario B (The Early Lunch): You start at 8:00 AM, but take lunch at 10:00 AM (2 hours worked). If you work until 5:00 PM, you have now worked 7 consecutive hours without a break.
In Scenario B, your employer is technically correct: you have violated the "5-hour rule." To stay legal, they would have to give you a second meal break by 3:00 PM.
2. Is a Second Lunch Required in an 8-Hour Shift?
Technically, no—if the first lunch is timed correctly.
Under Washington law, if you work a standard 8-hour shift, you are only entitled to one 30-minute meal period. However, the law mandates when that break must occur.
It must start between the 2nd and 5th hour of the shift.
If the employer places that break too early (e.g., 2 hours in), they inadvertently trigger the requirement for a second break later in the day to avoid you working a 6-hour stretch.
3. Why is your workplace doing this?
Large companies (several hundred employees) often get hit with "class action" wage and hour lawsuits. To avoid this, HR departments often implement "hard and fast" rules.
Instead of trusting managers to schedule lunches in the "sweet spot" (hours 3 through 5), they simply program their payroll systems to flag any 5-hour stretch of work. If their system sees you worked from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM without a punch-out, it registers as a labor violation, regardless of when you ate your first sandwich.
Comparison: Washington vs. California
Since you mentioned California earlier, it’s worth noting the difference:
California: You get a 2nd meal break only if you work more than 10 hours.
Washington: You get a 2nd meal break if you work more than 11 hours, OR if you are forced to work more than 5 hours since your last break.
The Reality Check
While their interpretation is legally "safe" for the company, it is definitely a logistical headache for you. If you take a lunch 2 hours into an 8-hour shift, you effectively have 6 hours of work left. To comply with the law, you must have another break before that 5th hour of the second stretch hits.
The Fix: If you want to avoid two lunches, you (or your manager) need to ensure your first lunch starts no earlier than 3 hours into your shift.
Example: Start at 8:00 AM. Lunch at 11:30 AM. Return at 12:00 PM. Work until 5:00 PM.
Result: You never worked more than 5 consecutive hours, so no second lunch is triggered.
No HR, is it worth it to report my coworker’s comments to my boss?
For context, I [24F] work in a small PT clinic (seven employees, including my boss), and we do not have HR. If there is an issue, it would need to go directly to my boss.
I also don’t have a lunch break (usually we just eat when we have a few spare minutes), and I was so busy today running around and doing stretches that I wasn’t able to get food until the end of the day. One of our patients brought in donuts, and I took the second to last one for my long commute home. As I’m getting ready to leave, our receptionist [43F] point blank tells me “you’re going to get fat if you keep eating the food they bring in”…which I have no idea how to respond to because no one has ever spoken to me like that in my life. I replied with something like “??? I haven’t had any food all day and I’m 5’9”. RMR?”. I was then essentially told that it didn’t matter. Tried to reason with her again, shut me down again with an “you are going to gain weight”. She proceeded to ask me my weight (answered honestly, I am on the lower end of healthy), and basically told me “well, you are skinny now, but we will see in a month”. I just respond with “okay, I guess we will see” because have no idea what compels someone to say something like that to another person.
I’m incredibly uncomfortable due to having an eating disorder in my teens, and I’m afraid of interacting with my coworker again. I don’t want to be around her again. I don’t want her looking at me or my body. I don’t want to bring up a history of an ED to my boss, and I don’t want to report it if I’m just being too sensitive due to it being a personal issue. I’m scared reporting would just make everything awkward and worse. I want to document it (so my boss understands if I have my lunch outside or in my car instead of at the desk, but I don’t know what I would want my boss to do. I don’t know even typically would be done.
I just don’t know how to proceed since could be overreacting due to a past eating disorder and feeling like I’ve been triggered into falling back into old patterns, plus the additional complications and nerves associated with having to report directly to my boss instead of having HR to contact and the fact we are all in one room and I genuinely can’t avoid my coworker.
Jobadvisor
I am so sorry you had to deal with that. Let’s be very clear: You are not overreacting. What your coworker did wasn't just "rude"—it was deeply inappropriate, unprofessional, and a massive boundary violation. In a clinical environment like a PT office, where body health and mechanics are the focus, she should know better than to comment on a colleague's weight or caloric intake.
Since you are in a small office with no HR, the "vibe" is everything. Here is how to handle this without feeling like you’re "starting drama."
1. Why You Should Tell Your Boss
You don’t have to report this to get her fired or to create a huge HR file. You should report it to set a baseline for your own protection. * Establishing a "Paper Trail": If she continues this behavior and it turns into harassment, you need your boss to know it started here.
The "Lunch" Excuse: You mentioned wanting to eat in your car. Telling your boss why prevents the boss from thinking you’re being anti-social or "not a team player."
Professionalism: A boss needs to know if their receptionist is making the office a hostile environment. If she says this to you, imagine what she might say to a patient who is struggling with their weight or health.
2. How to Say It (Without Revealing Your History)
You do not have to mention your past eating disorder. Your medical history is private. You can frame this entirely around professional boundaries and office conduct.
Try this script with your boss:
"Hey [Boss], I wanted to let you know about an uncomfortable interaction I had with [Receptionist] yesterday. She made several pointed comments about my weight and what I was eating, and even asked me how much I weigh. It made me very uncomfortable and I found it unprofessional. I’m planning on taking my breaks in my car for a bit just to reset the boundary, but I wanted you to be aware of why I’m doing that."
3. Dealing With the Coworker Directly
If she does it again, you don't need to "reason" with her or give her your stats (like your height or RMR). Reasoning gives her the impression that her opinion is up for debate. It isn't.
Use "The Grey Rock" method or a "Shut-Down" phrase:
"That’s an odd thing to say out loud."
"I’m not looking for feedback on my diet, thanks."
"My weight isn't a topic for office conversation."
The Silence: Just look at her for three seconds, don't say anything, and walk away.
4. The California Meal Break Issue (Again)
Wait—you mentioned you are in a small PT clinic. If this is still in California (per your earlier context), not having a lunch break is illegal.
Even in a tiny office, if you work more than 5 hours, they must provide a 30-minute off-the-clock, uninterrupted meal break.
"Eating when you have a spare minute" does not count.
The fact that you were so busy you didn't eat until the end of the day is a major labor violation.
Your Documentation Checklist
Even if you don't file a formal complaint today, keep a private log (not on a work computer) of:
Date/Time: When the comment happened.
The Quote: Exactly what she said (e.g., "You're going to get fat").
The Context: You were eating a donut after missing lunch due to work volume.
The Result: You felt uncomfortable and had to change your behavior (eating in the car).