| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| SF Restaurant Tab - Food, Drinks & Health Care |
| 2010-03-24 |
| One of the provisions in the new health care law requires small businesses to provide coverage for workers. Such an "employer mandate" has been in place in San Francisco, Calif., for over a year. The mandate has earned mixed reviews at best. Under the law, businesses with 20 or more employees are required to provide medical coverage, either on their own or by paying into a city-run program. That's what most restaurants are doing -- albeit grudgingly. To cover the cost, owners are either having to raise their menu prices or tack on a so-called "Healthy Surcharge" onto the tab. At some places, it's around 4 percent of the check. Others charge a flat fee of a dollar or two. Simple solution I will use, subtract charge from tip. Either way, customers are footing the bill for the health care of their waitstaff, busboys, and cooks, regardless of whether the workers work part time, live in San Francisco, or are in the U.S. legally. How well the plan is going over seems to depend on where the restaurant is located. Management at many neighborhood bistros and cafes say customers don't seem to mind paying the extra surcharge. But folks running downtown restaurants -- many of which depend on visitors -- say the mandate is hurting their bottom line. At the venerable Fior D'Italia in North Beach, Calif., owner Bob Larive says he's having to tax his customers to fund a political mandate. "It makes doing business here much more expensive, which makes the city less attractive in the long run to the visitors and the locals," he says. Some eateries worry they'll have to let people go, or cut shifts. But Mayor Gavin Newsom gives a different view. A former restaurant owner himself, who lobbied hard for this universal health care program, Newsom argues it's saving restaurants and taxpayers money, by offering workers preventative care. Newsom argues that this in turn keeps them out out emergency rooms, and on the clock. "Businesses get the benefit in the back end," Newsom says. "We have a more robust work force, greater productivity and output because employees have health care." He adds the program is providing healthcare to 50,000 people who don't have insurance. But in a city that lost more than 200 restaurants in the past 4 years, critics say the extra expense is costing jobs and revenue San Francisco can't afford. What's more, the local restaurant lobby, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, has filed suit, claiming the "employer mandate" violates federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court is now deciding whether to hear the case. |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
#4 He who has assets pays, one way or the other. Eventually in a downward-spiraling, self-consuming economy, no one has any more assets - then what? Ugliness. Generally the people revolt and *cough* remove the Elites by any manner of unpleasant means. We really need to alter the sequence and save ourselves the journey. It has its benefits, but admittedly some of the lesson is lost. |
| Posted by: Secret Asian Man 2010-03-24 18:19 |
| #3 "Businesses get the benefit in the back end," The San Fran way I guess. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2010-03-24 15:32 |
| #2 Maybe the city of San Francisco will simply mandate free lunches. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-03-24 14:52 |
| #1 customers are footing the bill for the health care of their waitstaff The customer always foots the bill, whether as a surcharge, a tax, or just increased prices. The alternative is to not buy the product (meal), in which case the employees lose their jobs - and end up supported by the taxpayer - who tends to be the same person as the customer was. He who has assets pays, one way or the other. Eventually in a downward-spiraling, self-consuming economy, no one has any more assets - then what? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-03-24 12:46 |