Convenience Fees
I was in the process of placing an order from a local restaurant when I reached checkout and noticed I was being charged a convenience fee for placing an online order. On top of that, I was still prompted to leave a tip.
What was especially frustrating is that this was a pickup order, not a delivery order. I did not interact with any staff during the transaction, and I was still being charged an additional fee simply for ordering online. Because of that, I decided to cancel my order and warm up soup at home instead.
I understand that businesses face rising costs, but adding a convenience fee for an online pickup order while also asking customers for a tip feels discouraging. I would hope restaurants consider building necessary costs into their menu prices rather than adding unexpected fees at checkout.
It is also frustrating that this fee is not charged when ordering directly at the restaurant.
Jobadvisor
This is a totally understandable frustration, and you're far from alone in feeling this way. What you experienced touches on a few hot-button issues in the restaurant industry right now. Let's break down why this happens, why it feels so bad, and what you can do about it.
Why the "Convenience" Fee Exists (Even When It's Inconvenient)
The fee isn't really about *your* convenience; it's about the restaurant's **cost of doing business with third-party software**.
- **The Middleman:** Most local restaurants don't build their own websites. They use platforms like Toast, Clover, or BentoBox to power their online ordering. These platforms charge the restaurant a **per-transaction fee** (often 2-4% of the order total) plus a monthly subscription fee.
- **The Pass-Through:** Instead of eating that 2-4% cost and raising all menu prices by 2-4% (which would affect dine-in customers too), many restaurants add a "convenience fee" specifically to online orders to cover that software cost.
- **Why not in-person?** When you order at the register, they are using their standard point-of-sale system, which doesn't incur that per-transaction software fee. So they don't pass it along.
The "Tip Prompt" Problem
You hit the nail on the head here. The tip prompt exists for two reasons:
1. **The software defaults:** Most online ordering systems are built with the tip screen turned on by default. Many restaurants don't know how to turn it off, or they forget.
2. **The kitchen staff:** While you didn't interact with a server, the *kitchen staff* (cooks, expediters) still prepared your food. In many restaurants, tips are pooled and shared with the back of house.
**However,** the psychology is broken. Asking for a 20% tip for a transaction that required zero service *and* slapping a fee on top creates what economists call "price salience"—customers feel tricked because the final price doesn't match the expected price. It erodes trust.
Why Your Reaction (Canceling) Is Powerful
You did exactly what the data suggests consumers are doing. **"Junk fees"** are the #1 reason customers abandon online shopping carts in the restaurant industry.
By canceling and eating soup at home, you:
- Saved money.
- Avoided rewarding a pricing strategy you disagree with.
- Sent a silent signal to the restaurant (via their order analytics) that they lost a sale.
What You Can Do Going Forward
1. **Call in the order:** If you like the restaurant but hate the fee, call them on the phone. Most restaurants do not charge a phone-in fee, and you can ask about the tip then (many will say "no tip needed for pickup").
2. **Order directly:** If they have their own proprietary app (not a third-party processor), they may waive the fee.
3. **Speak up:** Leave a polite, constructive review. Say: *"Love the food, but I was turned off by a surprise convenience fee at checkout for a pickup order, coupled with a tip prompt. I'd rather see menu prices raised by $1 than be hit with a fee at the last second."* Restaurant owners *do* read these reviews.
4. **Ask in person:** Next time you dine in, casually ask the manager: *"Do you get to keep that online convenience fee, or does it go to the software company?"* Their answer will tell you if they are profiting from it or just covering costs.
You are not being cheap. You are reacting to a **transparency problem**. Restaurants are stuck between razor-thin margins and expensive technology. But hiding costs until the very last click is a surefire way to lose customers.
If more people do what you did—cancel and walk away—restaurants will be forced to choose one of two paths:
- **Option A:** Raise all menu prices by a small amount and advertise "no hidden fees."
- **Option B:** Keep prices low but clearly state at the top of the menu: *"Online orders include a 3% tech fee to support our platform."*
Until then, enjoy your soup. It's fee-free.
Final Interview Red Flag?
i completed a final interview the other day.... and i was a bit overqualified for the role... so instead of telling me that i was over qualified and i didnt get the role... the hiring manager asked me to come in because "I do have an interesting set of questions from a client I wanted to chat about to see what you think. No pressure..."
So i show up, and he brought up that i was overqualified for the role and that he really didn't want to train someone and that i was the right fit... but then proceeded to ask me these "interesting set of questions".... once he asked i simply said "if I'm offered the role, I'd kindly answer and take care of these issues with your clients", I answered vaguely because it seemed like he was looking for a free consultation on how to do a teak he didnt know how to. He then changed the subject and started cracking jokes! That being said, we chatted for 1 hour and 15 minutes and we only scheduled a 30 minute talk.....
Since then.... Crickets! lol
Jobadvisor
Your instincts here were good, both in the moment and now. Let's break down what actually happened.
The "interesting set of questions" framing was a soft way to get free consulting. You clocked it correctly and handled it well — answering vaguely and tying your input to an actual offer is exactly the right move. A lot of people would've just answered fully because they wanted to seem helpful and "prove" themselves, which is precisely what that kind of framing is designed to extract. You didn't fall for it.
Is it a red flag, or just a bad interview? Both, honestly. Whether or not this was intentional exploitation, it tells you something real about how this manager operates: he floated a task disguised as casual conversation, tried to get real problem-solving out of a candidate for free, then pivoted to jokes when you didn't bite. That's a pattern worth noting regardless of whether he gets away with it — it's a preview of how he might handle boundaries with an actual employee.
On the overqualified comment + the 45 extra minutes: These two things together are actually a bit contradictory in a telling way. If he genuinely thought you were overqualified and didn't want to deal with training/retention risk, a 30-minute polite close-out interview is what that looks like. An 75-minute conversation where he's testing you on real client problems suggests he does want you — he's just nervous about whether you'll stay, get bored, or be hard to manage given your level. The overqualified comment might have been partly honest, partly a way to gauge your reaction (does she get defensive? does she reassure me she wants this?).
On the silence since: This is the part I'd actually be least worried about interpreting right now. Timelines after "final" interviews are notoriously inconsistent — internal approvals, competing candidates, budget sign-off, all invisible to you. A few days of silence after a Friday-ish interview isn't unusual and isn't necessarily a "no."
What I'd do: Send a short follow-up thank-you note if you haven't already — reiterate interest, briefly and professionally, without re-litigating the odd moment. It keeps you top of mind without looking anxious. If it's been more than a week with zero contact after that, a polite check-in email is reasonable. Beyond that, the honest answer is you did your part correctly here — the ball's genuinely in his court, and there's nothing about how you handled it that should cost you the role. If anything, you handled a slightly manipulative moment with more poise than most candidates would.
I feel like I messed up my interview and I’m so mad at myself abt it
Basically they asked a STAR question that was like tell me about a time there was an issue and you solved it with someone on a different team than you. Which I feel like is so specific but whatever 😭
The closest story I prepared was for a challenge I had/a conflict with a coworker. And it was basically how one of my editors kept introducing accuracy mistakes when editing my stuff so I talked to her abt it and resolved it.
In the moment though I was scared to use this story for this question because I felt the question was more abt working together on an external issue and I felt like I’d come across like I was throwing my editor under the bus instead ? Idk why that worry popped in my head bc it totally would’ve been fine. so I just panicked and made smth up but it was so rambly and bad 😭😭😭😭
I think the other questions were ok though. But I’m just so mad at myself that I prepped a scenario that would’ve worked perfectly fine for that question but I just panicked for no reason.
Jobadvisor
One rough answer in an otherwise solid interview isn't the disaster it feels like right now, but I get why it's the one looping in your head — it's the "I actually had this, I just didn't use it" feeling that stings most.
A couple of things worth untangling:
Your instinct not to use the editor story wasn't crazy, even if it turned out to be overly cautious. You read the question as being about cross-team collaboration on an external-facing issue, and worried the editor story would read as "I complained about a coworker" rather than "I solved a problem together." That's not a panic response, that's actually a reasonable judgment call in the moment — it just happened to be a bit too cautious, because the story was about resolving something collaboratively, not about blame. In hindsight it's clear it would've worked. In the moment, without hindsight, second-guessing yourself on ambiguous framing is a pretty normal thing to do under interview pressure, not a unique failure.
Where it went sideways is understandable too. Once you talked yourself out of your best story on the spot, you were left improvising from scratch under time pressure — that's an incredibly hard thing to do well, and "rambly" is what almost everyone's answer looks like when they're building it live instead of retrieving something rehearsed. That's not a reflection of your actual ability to handle the situation, it's a reflection of what happens to anyone's storytelling under sudden pressure.
What you can actually do about it now: if you have a follow-up email or thank-you note opportunity, you can briefly and gracefully redirect. Something like: "I wanted to follow up on the question about resolving an issue with someone on another team — thinking about it more after our conversation, a clearer example was [quick, tight version of the editor story]." Interviewers see this fairly often and it usually reads as self-awareness and follow-through, not as a red flag. It's a real, low-cost way to fix the actual thing you're upset about, rather than just sitting with it.
The frustration makes sense, but "I panicked for no reason" is a little harsh on yourself — you made a judgment call under pressure that didn't land, not a no-reason mistake. Worth using the redo option if you have it, and letting the rest of the interview count for what it was, which by your own account was fine.
Received job offer then they withdrew… stay away from this company!
How extremely unprofessional. My husband went through all stages of interview for Block (formerly Square) with no feedback. He was consistently praised, was told he was the top candidate, he was even being considered for a higher position than what he applied for. Long story short, he received an offer but lower compensation than what he was originally told. He decided to have a talk with the hiring manager and learn more about the book of business and negotiate the pay. He had the meeting the next morning, the meeting went great and the manager was going to negotiate the salary and mentioned how great it would be to have him on her team as a mentor for others… less than few hours later he gets an email from the HR how the offer was withdrawn with no feedback. How did he go from the number one choice, less than 24 hours after his final interview he received an offer even though they had other candidates, to now withdrawing the offer with no feedback… to say the least, stay away from this company, very unprofessional.
Jobadvisor
That's a genuinely disorienting sequence to go through — glowing feedback, "top candidate," talk of mentoring a team, then a rescinded offer hours after a negotiation conversation. It's completely reasonable to be angry, and the timing alone would make anyone suspicious.
A few things worth thinking through, both for making sense of it and for what to actually do next:
The timing is the real red flag, not just the outcome. Companies rescind offers for legitimate reasons sometimes — budget freezes, headcount cuts, background check issues, org changes. But those usually aren't triggered by a compensation negotiation that went "great" according to the hiring manager herself. If the sequence is really: negotiation conversation goes well → offer withdrawn within hours, that's a pattern worth naming plainly, because it suggests the negotiation itself may have been the trigger, not some unrelated internal issue that coincidentally landed at the same moment.
A few possible (not mutually exclusive, not excusing) explanations:
- The hiring manager didn't actually have authority to approve the negotiated number and got overruled fast by whoever does, and it was handled clumsily rather than maliciously.
- Something unrelated (budget approval, a freeze, an internal reorg) was already in motion and just happened to land in that window — worse timing luck rather than retaliation.
- Less charitably: some companies do quietly walk away from candidates who push back on comp, and dress it up as unrelated. Impossible to know for sure from outside.
Without more from Block's side, you can't fully distinguish these — but your husband experiencing "great meeting" language right before a sudden reversal is a legitimate reason to be wary of them regardless of the exact cause.
What's actually useful for him to do now, if he hasn't:
- Ask HR directly for a reason. They're not obligated to give a detailed one, but a flat refusal to explain at all is itself informative.
- Get everything in writing if there's any future dealing with them — this kind of reversal is exactly why verbal offer details matter less than what's documented.
- Rescinded offers after negotiation are, in some circumstances, worth a consult with an employment attorney — not because it's necessarily illegal (offers can typically be withdrawn before start date in most at-will states), but if there was a signed offer letter he relied on to leave a previous job or turn down other offers, promissory estoppel claims exist for exactly this kind of situation in some jurisdictions. Worth a quick consult, not necessarily a fight.
Sharing the experience publicly is a reasonable way to process it and give other candidates a heads-up — just worth being clear in how it's framed that it's what happened to him specifically, since you don't have full visibility into their internal reasoning, even though the pattern itself is legitimately concerning.