Restaurants add charge for employee healthcare (1 Viewer)

[sbonomo]

So i am paying my bill at breakfast this morning (downtown San Francisco) and i notice a 3% surcharge for "employee healthcare". Is this going to become the new norm? Do i reduce the tip by 3% since it is going to the employee's? I was a bit confused and in a hurry so i tipped just over 20% and went on my way. Honestly, we are getting to the point where there is over 30% added on to the stated price of the meal due to tip, tax and now insurance. When is it going to end? Happy friday all.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I would not want sick people handling my food.

 

[lod01]

Wait until the big restaurants start doing this for added income. They charge you 3% but may only need 2% to cover employee insurance. The rest goes to raises for whoever's idea it was to charge 3% and the top officers in the company.

 

[Plorfu]

If they just raised a 10.00 burger by 30 cents without itemizing it, nobody would even know or care. But hey, we're talking about it.

 

[eoMMan]

I agree it's silly but they could just as well build it into the price of the meal and you wouldn't know thr difference. I think they are open to a lot of criticism by putting it as a separate line item.

 

[glvsav37]

sound like a little personal protest thing going on there by the owners.

 

[gianmarco]

Actually, they could just raise the price of the food without listing it and you'd have no idea but then we'd have nothing to talk about.

 

[ROCKET]

So is there a line item for providing paid vacations, workers comp, 401k's etc. Providing health insurance is just a price of doing business.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Wait until the big restaurants start doing this for added income. They charge you 3% but may only need 2% to cover employee insurance. The rest goes to raises for whoever's idea it was to charge 3% and the top officers in the company.

Business = bad. Big Gubment = Good

 

[JamesTheScot]

I would not want sick people handling my food.

What does the 3% surcharge have to do with that?

I know some think it might, but I'm curious as to the thought process.

 

[TheWalkmen]

They should just raise the price of the food and not call it out as a separate line item.

 

[Gr00vus]

This wouldn't be a problem if they'd just switch over to a full robot wait staff. Then again, they might start showing the itemized cost of robot repair insurance.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I agree it's silly but they could just as well build it into the price of the meal and you wouldn't know thr difference. I think they are open to a lot of criticism by putting it as a separate line item.

Why would anyone criticize a business owner for itemizing the cost that regulation is passing on to the consumer?

It's just information.

If the customer cares not, the customer can just ignore it and make no use of the information at all.

If the customer cares, the customer can make use of it and maybe get active on the issue.

Oh, but then that's the problem. Because just the like the whole passing of the ACA itself, it's all about doing it without people really knowing what's going on because then they might protest...and that might derail the agenda.

It all boils down to control of the information. The proponents of the ACA wold love to control the information that goes out about the ACA. Because the voting public can't really be trusted with it without the proponents first having had the opportunity to package and edit together what information and analysis the public needs to hear.

Yeah, that sounds fun. The people can't be trusted with knowledge or an opinion that the government hasn't first filtered, edited and "balanced". Big brother, anyone?

Nah, what could possibly go wrong.

 

[mquinnjr]

If they just raised a 10.00 burger by 30 cents without itemizing it, nobody would even know or care. But hey, we're talking about it.

Yep, whichever place this is will get the free attention from us that they crave, no matter how they feel.

 

[Gr00vus]

I agree it's silly but they could just as well build it into the price of the meal and you wouldn't know thr difference. I think they are open to a lot of criticism by putting it as a separate line item.

Why would anyone criticize a business owner for itemizing the cost that regulation is passing on to the consumer?

It's just information.

If the customer cares not, the customer can just ignore it and make no use of the information at all.

If the customer cares, the customer can make use of it and maybe get active on the issue.

Oh, but then that's the problem. Because just the like the whole passing of the ACA itself, it's all about doing it without people really knowing what's going on because then they might protest...and that might derail the agenda.

It all boils down to control of the information. The proponents of the ACA wold love to control the information that goes out about the ACA. Because the voting public can't really be trusted with it without the proponents first having had the opportunity to package and edit together what information and analysis the public needs to hear.

Yeah, that sounds fun. The people can't be trusted with knowledge or an opinion that the government hasn't first filtered, edited and "balanced". Big brother, anyone?

Nah, what could possibly go wrong.

 

[jonessed]

This is specific to San Francisco. There is a city healthcare pool/law. It's not uncommon to see the addition. It was a way to inform customers of a sudden increase in pricing not being taken as profits. Some restaurants use it as a point of pride. There was a lot of discussion about it when the laws passed recently.

 

[th3f00l]

Sounds like the classic combo, Eggs with a side of Politics. I've been in the industry for a while and owners do stuff like this sometimes. I was at a fine dining restaurant where the owner put a foot long beef dog on the bistro menu and titled it his "Stimulus Package". I tip 20% anytime I go out, even though I am fully aware of the pay inequality of cooks and servers. I've worked in places where the cooks are making 9-11 bucks an hour while servers can walk with $300 from a five hour shift. The company I just got let go from decided they would handle the ACA by making all the previous full time staff part time. A lot of places have done this. Honestly though, a smaller business hasn't even been affected by the act. The month of June was the reporting period for January 2015 for the businesses that are affected.

 

[Bucky86]

It's a political statement. Nothing more. I won't return to a restaurant if I see this on the menu.

 

[JamesTheScot]

So is there a line item for providing paid vacations, workers comp, 401k's etc. Providing health insurance is just a price of doing business.

But it wasn't prior to passage...err...delayed implementation dates of the ACA.

Clearly there is an agenda by the business owner for putting that charge on the ticket. Why that should bother anyone is beyond me. Before the ACA, the burger cost you this much: ______________. Now, after the ACA, it costs you this much: _______________.

Unless you think people need to be ignorant of the costs, so that they will sit down, shut up and pay it without complaining, there shouldn't be any #####ing about the line item.

It wouldn't bother me if they did completely line item all that goes into the ticket price. In fact, I'd almost support that the way I support accurate food labels. If the consumer is buying it, the consumer should be allowed to know what's going into it. So I don't mind stretching that a bit to say that if the consumer is paying for it, the consumer should know where the $'s are going. I'd love to have consumers see all that.

 

[jonessed]

So is there a line item for providing paid vacations, workers comp, 401k's etc. Providing health insurance is just a price of doing business.

But it wasn't prior to passage...err...delayed implementation dates of the ACA.

Clearly there is an agenda by the business owner for putting that charge on the ticket. Why that should bother anyone is beyond me. Before the ACA, the burger cost you this much: ______________. Now, after the ACA, it costs you this much: _______________.

Unless you think people need to be ignorant of the costs, so that they will sit down, shut up and pay it without complaining, there shouldn't be any #####ing about the line item.

It wouldn't bother me if they did completely line item all that goes into the ticket price. In fact, I'd almost support that the way I support accurate food labels. If the consumer is buying it, the consumer should be allowed to know what's going into it. So I don't mind stretching that a bit to say that if the consumer is paying for it, the consumer should know where the $'s are going. I'd love to have consumers see all that.

It has nothing to do with the ACA. It's a local thing.

 

[Koya]

##### move. You want to bring politics into my dinner in this way, I'll choose to go elsewhere.

Where's the line item for how much I need to pay to cover your employees who can't make it by on min wage? Or the line item for what it costs me to have prohibitive tax rate structures that force our companies to keep money overseas? Or maybe to fight a war on false pretense?

You pick out this particular issue in a manner to what, get your customer upset? It's petty at best.

 

[JamesTheScot]

So is there a line item for providing paid vacations, workers comp, 401k's etc. Providing health insurance is just a price of doing business.

But it wasn't prior to passage...err...delayed implementation dates of the ACA.

Clearly there is an agenda by the business owner for putting that charge on the ticket. Why that should bother anyone is beyond me. Before the ACA, the burger cost you this much: ______________. Now, after the ACA, it costs you this much: _______________.

Unless you think people need to be ignorant of the costs, so that they will sit down, shut up and pay it without complaining, there shouldn't be any #####ing about the line item.

It wouldn't bother me if they did completely line item all that goes into the ticket price. In fact, I'd almost support that the way I support accurate food labels. If the consumer is buying it, the consumer should be allowed to know what's going into it. So I don't mind stretching that a bit to say that if the consumer is paying for it, the consumer should know where the $'s are going. I'd love to have consumers see all that.

It has nothing to do with the ACA. It's a local thing.

Fair enough. I didn't realize that till after I posted.

But the point still remains. Whether it's federal, state or local government, I have no problem with anyone informing their customer base as to what a new regulation is costing the consumer. And if the business operator isn't going a step further to actually argue one side or the other, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it.

For all the talk about income inequality and how the rich need to pay their fair share, there's a lot of the bill that absolutely gets passed on through to the middle, low and no income earners.

So if someone gets curious enough about it to actually do something, like asking questions about what it is and how this happened, at least they will be better informed than they were previously. I fail to see a downside.

 

[Koya]

PS - I'd also suggest that without context I'll side with getting better coverage for low and very low wage employees vs this ##### of a biz owner.

 

[JamesTheScot]

##### move. You want to bring politics into my dinner in this way, I'll choose to go elsewhere.

Where's the line item for how much I need to pay to cover your employees who can't make it by on min wage? Or the line item for what it costs me to have prohibitive tax rate structures that force our companies to keep money overseas? Or maybe to fight a war on false pretense?

You pick out this particular issue in a manner to what, get your customer upset? It's petty at best.

You're building a straw man on some of those. This apparently is a line item increase clearly ear-marked for a particular use. And the argument could be made that it's defensive in nature so that customers know that the business owner didn't just come in and decide to raise prices for the hell of it.

As far as politics in your dinner, politics was there the minute the owner had to raise prices. If you are comfortable with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there? If you aren't OK with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there?

 

[JamesTheScot]

PS - I'd also suggest that without context I'll side with getting better coverage for low and very low wage employees vs this ##### of a biz owner.

Well then you are better off continuing to eat there so those low wage employees have a job, no?

 

[cstu]

##### move. You want to bring politics into my dinner in this way, I'll choose to go elsewhere.

Where's the line item for how much I need to pay to cover your employees who can't make it by on min wage? Or the line item for what it costs me to have prohibitive tax rate structures that force our companies to keep money overseas? Or maybe to fight a war on false pretense?

You pick out this particular issue in a manner to what, get your customer upset? It's petty at best.

You're building a straw man on some of those. This apparently is a line item increase clearly ear-marked for a particular use. And the argument could be made that it's defensive in nature so that customers know that the business owner didn't just come in and decide to raise prices for the hell of it.

As far as politics in your dinner, politics was there the minute the owner had to raise prices. If you are comfortable with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there? If you aren't OK with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there?

Seeing the 3% there isn't what would bother me - it's the attitude of the owner. Instead of treating health care like something people who work for him deserve he's telling customers "Hey, I hate giving these guys health care and I have to show you how terrible it is for me".

 

[Harry Manback]

Sounds like a place I would never eat at again.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Sounds like the classic combo, Eggs with a side of Politics. I've been in the industry for a while and owners do stuff like this sometimes. I was at a fine dining restaurant where the owner put a foot long beef dog on the bistro menu and titled it his "Stimulus Package". I tip 20% anytime I go out, even though I am fully aware of the pay inequality of cooks and servers. I've worked in places where the cooks are making 9-11 bucks an hour while servers can walk with $300 from a five hour shift. The company I just got let go from decided they would handle the ACA by making all the previous full time staff part time. A lot of places have done this. Honestly though, a smaller business hasn't even been affected by the act. The month of June was the reporting period for January 2015 for the businesses that are affected.

Why do you still do it? If you understand the inequality, why not tip the server less and go toss a few bucks to the guys in the back. I'm sure they would rig up a tip sharing pool real quick. It's a serious question. I'm not tying to call you out, because I am the same way. I'm just curious if your thinking is different than mine in some way because I don't come from the industry and you surely know more than I do about the economics of it behind the ticket.

Wouldn't the solution be to close the loophole for sub-minimum wage pay for servers? I understand why servers wouldn't want that to happen. But arguably the overall cost of meals would come down, which could actually stimulate that sector of the economy. There's a certain amount of the tipping convention which is completely charitable in notion while at the same time based on an inaccurate understanding of the economics involved.

 

[sbonomo]

This is specific to San Francisco. There is a city healthcare pool/law. It's not uncommon to see the addition. It was a way to inform customers of a sudden increase in pricing not being taken as profits. Some restaurants use it as a point of pride. There was a lot of discussion about it when the laws passed recently.

Interesting...i just moved to this area so it was the first time i had ever seen it.

 

[sbonomo]

Sounds like a place I would never eat at again.

The food was not that great so i will not be back (breakfast was $22 for two eggs, potatoes, hash and an english muffin).

 

[JamesTheScot]

##### move. You want to bring politics into my dinner in this way, I'll choose to go elsewhere.

Where's the line item for how much I need to pay to cover your employees who can't make it by on min wage? Or the line item for what it costs me to have prohibitive tax rate structures that force our companies to keep money overseas? Or maybe to fight a war on false pretense?

You pick out this particular issue in a manner to what, get your customer upset? It's petty at best.

You're building a straw man on some of those. This apparently is a line item increase clearly ear-marked for a particular use. And the argument could be made that it's defensive in nature so that customers know that the business owner didn't just come in and decide to raise prices for the hell of it.

As far as politics in your dinner, politics was there the minute the owner had to raise prices. If you are comfortable with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there? If you aren't OK with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there?

Seeing the 3% there isn't what would bother me - it's the attitude of the owner. Instead of treating health care like something people who work for him deserve he's telling customers "Hey, I hate giving these guys health care and I have to show you how terrible it is for me".

Dude, he isn't showing you how terrible it is for him. YOU'RE the one paying it.

So if you look on the ticket and think that it's 3% that YOU are glad to spend, there should be no issue.

And why is it that you assume he doesn't think his workers deserve healthcare? He may very well think they deserve it but disagree completely on how it should be funded. And you assume he saying "I hate giving these guys healthcare." I mean, WTF! Is it just easier to assume the other guy is a monster and could have no possible reasonable grounds for disagreement?

But what I think is the real problem is that some of us don't like the idea of someone else (as in another customer) seeing it. And that's scary. Because if that's the case, the fear is that they might do something with that information that is contrary to what I would do. So then what it really starts to come down to is that I don't want certain people to have certain information because they might disagree with me. So then, it's better to restrict certain information to certain people who might not think like I do. Isn't that what this really boils down to? It happens on a guttural level. We know we don't like it happening. But do we really know why we don't like it happening?

And don't you think it might be a good idea for low and medium income earners to know that this particular tax isn't being charged to the rich? All the Marxists should love this approach because it would be an argument in support of simply adding these costs into the general budget which can then be funded by income taxes increases on the rich. Usage taxes will inevitably be paid by the very same people that they are intended to help.

"I know you can't really afford your own health insurance. But don't worry, we've come up with someone to pay for it. Would you like cheese on that burger, buddy?"

 

[The Duff Man]

Owners should itemize this on their bill.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/01/lisa-vanderpump-villa-blanca-restaurant-lawsuit-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/

Suggestions? Tryin to Get some Fee?

 

[MaxThreshold]

##### move. You want to bring politics into my dinner in this way, I'll choose to go elsewhere.

Where's the line item for how much I need to pay to cover your employees who can't make it by on min wage? Or the line item for what it costs me to have prohibitive tax rate structures that force our companies to keep money overseas? Or maybe to fight a war on false pretense?

You pick out this particular issue in a manner to what, get your customer upset? It's petty at best.

You're building a straw man on some of those. This apparently is a line item increase clearly ear-marked for a particular use. And the argument could be made that it's defensive in nature so that customers know that the business owner didn't just come in and decide to raise prices for the hell of it.

As far as politics in your dinner, politics was there the minute the owner had to raise prices. If you are comfortable with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there? If you aren't OK with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there?

Seeing the 3% there isn't what would bother me - it's the attitude of the owner. Instead of treating health care like something people who work for him deserve he's telling customers "Hey, I hate giving these guys health care and I have to show you how terrible it is for me".

Dude, he isn't showing you how terrible it is for him. YOU'RE the one paying it.

So if you look on the ticket and think that it's 3% that YOU are glad to spend, there should be no issue.

But what I think is the real problem is that some don't like the idea of someone else seeing it and coming to a different conclusion. Because given the same information, they might have a different take...and might do something like start a protest, etc. They might not like that they are now paying 3% more.

And don't you think it might be a good idea for low and medium income earners to know that this particular tax isn't being charged to the rich? In theory, all the Marxists should love this approach because it would be an argument in support of simply adding these costs into the general budget which can then be funded by income taxes which can then be raised on the rich. Usage taxes will inevitably be paid by the very same people that they are intended to help.

"I know you can't really afford your own health insurance. But don't worry, we've come up with someone to pay for it. Would you like cheese on that burger, buddy?"

I was just going to post something along the same lines. Seems like a lot of progressives in here don't want to actually help pay for the extra cost they're foisting on everyone else. Are they ashamed?

If anything, they should be going to that restaurant in DROVES and supporting it.

 

[NCCommish]

Wait until the big restaurants start doing this for added income. They charge you 3% but may only need 2% to cover employee insurance. The rest goes to raises for whoever's idea it was to charge 3% and the top officers in the company.

Business = bad. Big Gubment = Good

You know according to some recent studies businesses in this country engage in wage theft that costs employees an estimated 50 billion a year. To put that into context in 2012 the take from robbery, car theft, larceny, and burglaries combined was 14 billion. So employers are estimated to have stolen roughly 3.5 times the amount robbers have from their employees. So yeah on an awful lot of occasions business=bad.

 

[NCCommish]

##### move. You want to bring politics into my dinner in this way, I'll choose to go elsewhere.

Where's the line item for how much I need to pay to cover your employees who can't make it by on min wage? Or the line item for what it costs me to have prohibitive tax rate structures that force our companies to keep money overseas? Or maybe to fight a war on false pretense?

You pick out this particular issue in a manner to what, get your customer upset? It's petty at best.

You're building a straw man on some of those. This apparently is a line item increase clearly ear-marked for a particular use. And the argument could be made that it's defensive in nature so that customers know that the business owner didn't just come in and decide to raise prices for the hell of it.

As far as politics in your dinner, politics was there the minute the owner had to raise prices. If you are comfortable with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there? If you aren't OK with the 3% hike, why would it bother you to see it there?

Seeing the 3% there isn't what would bother me - it's the attitude of the owner. Instead of treating health care like something people who work for him deserve he's telling customers "Hey, I hate giving these guys health care and I have to show you how terrible it is for me".

Dude, he isn't showing you how terrible it is for him. YOU'RE the one paying it.

So if you look on the ticket and think that it's 3% that YOU are glad to spend, there should be no issue.

And why is it that you assume he doesn't think his workers deserve healthcare? He may very well think they deserve it but disagree completely on how it should be funded. And you assume he saying "I hate giving these guys healthcare." I mean, WTF! Is it just easier to assume the other guy is a monster and could have no possible reasonable grounds for disagreement?

But what I think is the real problem is that some of us don't like the idea of someone else (as in another customer) seeing it. And that's scary. Because if that's the case, the fear is that they might do something with that information that is contrary to what I would do. So then what it really starts to come down to is that I don't want certain people to have certain information because they might disagree with me. So then, it's better to restrict certain information to certain people who might not think like I do. Isn't that what this really boils down to? It happens on a guttural level. We know we don't like it happening. But do we really know why we don't like it happening?

And don't you think it might be a good idea for low and medium income earners to know that this particular tax isn't being charged to the rich? All the Marxists should love this approach because it would be an argument in support of simply adding these costs into the general budget which can then be funded by income taxes increases on the rich. Usage taxes will inevitably be paid by the very same people that they are intended to help.

"I know you can't really afford your own health insurance. But don't worry, we've come up with someone to pay for it. Would you like cheese on that burger, buddy?"

Which is why we should have single payer and businesses should be out of the job of providing insurance.

 

[oso diablo]

This is specific to San Francisco. There is a city healthcare pool/law. It's not uncommon to see the addition. It was a way to inform customers of a sudden increase in pricing not being taken as profits. Some restaurants use it as a point of pride. There was a lot of discussion about it when the laws passed recently.

Interesting...i just moved to this area so it was the first time i had ever seen it.

i took a vacation to SF three years ago, and saw it then. It has nothing to do with the ACA directly, but rather a 2008 ordinance from the city of SF itself for a program called "Healthy San Francisco"

 

[MaxThreshold]

This is specific to San Francisco. There is a city healthcare pool/law. It's not uncommon to see the addition. It was a way to inform customers of a sudden increase in pricing not being taken as profits. Some restaurants use it as a point of pride. There was a lot of discussion about it when the laws passed recently.

Interesting...i just moved to this area so it was the first time i had ever seen it.

i took a vacation to SF three years ago, and saw it then. It has nothing to do with the ACA directly, but rather a 2008 ordinance from the city of SF itself for a program called "Healthy San Francisco"

So, a mini-me version of the ACA?

 

[SacramentoBob]

So what did you eat?

 

[fatness]

James the Scot has been assessed the following charges in this topic:

- 2% for overwrought emotion

- 2% for excess verbiage

- 1% for "Marxists"

 

[sbonomo]

So what did you eat?

eggs and hash....meh, won't be coming back anytime soon. Gave it a 2 on yelp.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why didnt they just raise the price 3% before? Clearly they can just raise prices whenever they want and there are no worries.

Would love to see a cross reference of people that support getting rid of tipping and increasing wages yet are very opposed to a 3% surcharge.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

It's a political statement. Nothing more. I won't return to a restaurant if I see this on the menu.

Raise the prices 5% and I won't care.

Whine about while you raise them 3%, GFY.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

So is there a line item for providing paid vacations, workers comp, 401k's etc. Providing health insurance is just a price of doing business.

But it wasn't prior to passage...err...delayed implementation dates of the ACA.

Clearly there is an agenda by the business owner for putting that charge on the ticket. Why that should bother anyone is beyond me. Before the ACA, the burger cost you this much: ______________. Now, after the ACA, it costs you this much: _______________.

Unless you think people need to be ignorant of the costs, so that they will sit down, shut up and pay it without complaining, there shouldn't be any #####ing about the line item.

It wouldn't bother me if they did completely line item all that goes into the ticket price. In fact, I'd almost support that the way I support accurate food labels. If the consumer is buying it, the consumer should be allowed to know what's going into it. So I don't mind stretching that a bit to say that if the consumer is paying for it, the consumer should know where the $'s are going. I'd love to have consumers see all that.

It has nothing to do with the ACA. It's a local thing.

let's not let any facts get in the way of people's faux outrage.