Service Charges That Aren't Tips

[wesza]

There are variations in many state laws. As a example Hawaii may still require that Health Insurance be provided for all employees working in excess of 20 hours per week.

Other states may not require heath insurance, many employers often offer it, but the amount employees pay varies. I understand there are states that permit the costs being paid by a individual to be deducted from state tax, it possible that fees generated by a service charge being applied to employee benefits may not be a regular taxable item.

In most Union contracts with Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers there is a agreed division of service charges. Often 20% of total service charges are divided with Captains, Headwaiters and Matri Di's with the balance divided to servers according to number of covers served. This income is all reported to the IRS and added to the paychecks. Cash Gratuities are divided by the staff involved with hosting, organizing and running the affairs such as hosts, Captains and Matri Di in charge of each affair.

In Europe you are regularly charged a service charge, VAT (value added tax) and others that are permissible with service staff generally anticipating a additional gratuity from pleased patrons.

This 20% share of pooled tips is something agreed upon by all employees in many operations especially those family operated that goes to non-service employees such as cooks, dishwashers, bakers etc.

All over the world customs vary. For example in most of Asia suppliers are expected to tip the employees who put their merchandise away. The employees in return are expected to rotate the goods, keep them in excellent shape, being sure to exchange them with the supplier if they are not up to standards.  When they obtain the position this is what makes it work economically for buyers and sellers. It's been going on forever, but it takes quite a while for foreign operators to learn to do business this way. Especially since the workers are expected to tip the chef for allowing them the privilege of working.

Irwin

←

I understand now why San Francisco Restaurants feel they are right about adding a surcharge. It again a case of big government taking undue advantage of small business. It is unfair to employers and employees to make business pay healthcare costs to employees working more then 10 hours.

Most of this type of part timers are teens or seniors that often have their own coverage. These are the workers who will not longer be employed, losing the little extra earned the suits their needs.

Most posters seem oblivious to the fact that many countries all over the world are required to add to all sales a "VAT" (VALUE ADDED TAX) that is used for exactly the same things such a Healthcare or whatever is government mandated.

Traditionally, especially in the USA Restaurant implores and workers are singled out to be victimized by IRS because it is easy to go after these people since they are individuals more vulnerable then bigger business.

What other business are required by mandate to keep track of gratuities or miscellaneous earnings to benefit taxation without compensation for the time and effort spent doing the governments work. Often employees who many be at a location where tips average 10% are forced to argue their case with a IRS employee to little or no avail.

Gratuities or Tips are added to sales, but included in gross and charged at a percentage to employers of gross sales. These, "TIPS" are paid to workers at end of their daily shift in cash, requiring employers to absorb the credit cards charges as government forced overhead. Does this happen in any other business ?

Even when a restaurant only accepts cash, with no credit cards the IRS will sometimes request that they charge employees a percentage of gross sales against their salary that can sometimes leave the worker in a negative position.

It seems that only "GASOLINE or OIL" sellers are permitted to take advantage of buyers with impunity, maybe we need politicians connected to the restaurant business unstead of Oil?

Irwin

[duck833]

It is interesting to note that conventions, seminars and trade meetings have been shifting from SF to places like Las Vegas.

Keep adding fees, taxes and additional costs to hotel rooms and restaurant tabs and folks will just go somewhere else. Basic economics will ultimately prevail and those back of the house employees will have more benefits but be out of a job.

[paulraphael]

Seems there's an opposite trend in England: added service, large print at the top of the bill, and no charge whatsoever:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ire/7253002.stm

[melkor]

I think that living wage jobs need to be tied to a skill set. Hypothetically in San Francisco Worker X is employed by a restaurant as a dishwasher with a living wage and has to move to Omaha for some reason. In Omaha poor dude-buddy Worker X cannot find comparable work to support his family. He would then be painfully under qualified and uniquely over paid resulting in a deadly combination in the real world.

Worker X needs to be skilled in order to draw a living wage.  Which leads me to the point that there are certain jobs that should not be paid living wage. Should be held by those who are not the bread winners, like teens, single people, students, retirees, and anyone else working their way up like newcomers to America. How will these folks be able to enter the workforce without entry level jobs?

Those San Fransisco folks are going to have to change things up quite a bit to make it work in reality. For example train the dishwashers to do something with bankable skills like prep the food. Check out Detroit if you think just granting higher and higher wages and benies just because of a union or a law or because it feels good works on the bottom line.

Chicago was going to enact living wage regulations in particular on big box stores. Target said, agh well on second thought, we'll cancel building those new stores there and cancel on creating mucho jobs and cancel bringing in muy mucho revenue. Catch you later, Chi-town. Perhaps it chenged since I last heard but that's where they were at one point.

You work you ride.

←

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by suggesting that someone who works as a dishwasher doesn't deserve to be paid enough to shelter and feed themselves... Somehow I think Chicago will survive as a city without Target providing wages that require their employees to live on public assistance.

Incanto has had their 5% service charge on the menu for several years - they were taking care of their staff before the city of San Francisco mandated that they do so. Now that minimum wage has gone up and health insurance is a required benefit for employees other restaurants are doing the same thing. Personally, I have no preference between raising prices and adding the service charge. They clearly think the service charge is a better way to go - that's fine with me. I think if you can justify spending the money required to go out to eat rather than cooking at home, you should expect to spend enough money that the people cooking for you can earn enough to cover their living expenses.

[Busboy]

It is interesting to note that conventions, seminars and trade meetings have been shifting from SF to places like Las Vegas.

Keep adding fees, taxes and additional costs to hotel rooms and restaurant tabs and folks will just go somewhere else.  Basic economics will ultimately prevail and those back of the house employees will have more benefits but be out of a job.

←

Do you have any stats on this? I'm sure heavily-unionized Las Vegas isn't getting much competitive advantage over San Francisco due to the latter's health care policies.

On the off chance that San Francisco is losing ground because of this, it seems like a good opportunity to outflank gfron on the left and suggest that a decent national health care plan would eliminate the advantages gained in regions where poor treatment of low-wage workers is more commonplace, and possibly address a host of other ills. I'm just sayin'.

Finding a way to help dishwashers and busboys move up the ranks, as many already do -- a tricky proposition, and politically fraught -- would also minimize the problem by allowing 18-year-old dishwashers to move into a better-compensated positions by the time they're older and supporting families.

Finally, my inner cheapskate has to ask this question: Since California mandates that even tipped employees receive minimum wage, can I go back to tipping 15% when I go out West?

[K8memphis]

I think that living wage jobs need to be tied to a skill set. Hypothetically in San Francisco Worker X is employed by a restaurant as a dishwasher with a living wage and has to move to Omaha for some reason. In Omaha poor dude-buddy Worker X cannot find comparable work to support his family. He would then be painfully under qualified and uniquely over paid resulting in a deadly combination in the real world.

Worker X needs to be skilled in order to draw a living wage.  Which leads me to the point that there are certain jobs that should not be paid living wage. Should be held by those who are not the bread winners, like teens, single people, students, retirees, and anyone else working their way up like newcomers to America. How will these folks be able to enter the workforce without entry level jobs?

Those San Fransisco folks are going to have to change things up quite a bit to make it work in reality. For example train the dishwashers to do something with bankable skills like prep the food. Check out Detroit if you think just granting higher and higher wages and benies just because of a union or a law or because it feels good works on the bottom line.

Chicago was going to enact living wage regulations in particular on big box stores. Target said, agh well on second thought, we'll cancel building those new stores there and cancel on creating mucho jobs and cancel bringing in muy mucho revenue. Catch you later, Chi-town. Perhaps it chenged since I last heard but that's where they were at one point.

You work you ride.

←

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by suggesting that someone who works as a dishwasher doesn't deserve to be paid enough to shelter and feed themselves...

←

I suggest that you carefully re-read what I said if you want to understand the point I made. See if we are going to make it personal with the dishwasher's feelings then let's help him really feel good about himself and let's teach him a trade. Instead of condemning him to be an over paid dishwasher all his life. If we puff up/inflate the entry level jobs to support a family just because it feels good we are creating a useless class of people stuck in an over priced entry level position.

What's wrong with a good trade for a good wage? Something out of place with providing people the tools to raise their own standard of living? We have to manufacture it for them because why? They are not capable? What statement does that make about that dishwasher?

My nephew (in his 40's) is a recovering addict. He works as a dishwasher and makes too much money to qualify for his own apartment. He has to stay in a group home. Talk about irony. I am very proud of him. Public Assistance is a good thing. Ebt feeds lots of people. It's good It's not a shame. It's there to help people who need help.

My son started as a bus-boy at Automatic Slim's Tonga Club. He's a chef now.

[melkor]

I suggest that you carefully re-read what I said if you want to understand the point I made. See if we are going to make it personal with the dishwasher's feelings then let's help him really feel good about himself and let's teach him a trade. Instead of condemning him to be an over paid dishwasher all his life. If we puff up/inflate the entry level jobs to support a family just because it feels good we are creating a useless class of people stuck in an over priced entry level position.

What's wrong with a good trade for a good wage? Something out of place with providing people the tools to raise their own standard of living? We have to manufacture it for them because why? They are not capable? What statement does that make about that dishwasher?

My nephew (in his 40's) is a recovering addict. He works as a dishwasher and makes too much money to qualify for his own apartment. He has to stay in a group home. Talk about irony. I am very proud of him. Public Assistance is a good thing. Ebt feeds lots of people. It's good It's not a shame. It's there to help people who need help.

My son started as a bus-boy at Automatic Slim's Tonga Club. He's a chef now.

←

So just to clarify - only people with real skills should be able to afford food and shelter. Dishwashers, cooks, and other people who you feel are in this "useless class of people" should live on public assistance or in group homes. Sorry, at least here in San Francisco we seem to think everyone who works deserves to be paid a fair wage. Your nephew were he working here would be earning at least $9.36 per hour, he would get health insurance, and paid sick leave. That it's acceptable wherever he lives to be paid so little for the work that he does that he can't afford shelter is a problem, not something to be proud of. If taking care of the people who work in this city means adding a 5% service charge to restaurant checks then I'm happy to pay it.

[K8memphis]

I suggest that you carefully re-read what I said if you want to understand the point I made. See if we are going to make it personal with the dishwasher's feelings then let's help him really feel good about himself and let's teach him a trade. Instead of condemning him to be an over paid dishwasher all his life. If we puff up/inflate the entry level jobs to support a family just because it feels good we are creating a useless class of people stuck in an over priced entry level position.

What's wrong with a good trade for a good wage? Something out of place with providing people the tools to raise their own standard of living? We have to manufacture it for them because why? They are not capable? What statement does that make about that dishwasher?

My nephew (in his 40's) is a recovering addict. He works as a dishwasher and makes too much money to qualify for his own apartment. He has to stay in a group home. Talk about irony. I am very proud of him. Public Assistance is a good thing. Ebt feeds lots of people. It's good It's not a shame. It's there to help people who need help.

My son started as a bus-boy at Automatic Slim's Tonga Club. He's a chef now.

←

So just to clarify - only people with real skills should be able to afford food and shelter. Dishwashers, cooks, and other people who you feel are in this "useless class of people" should live on public assistance or in group homes. Sorry, at least here in San Francisco we seem to think everyone who works deserves to be paid a fair wage. Your nephew were he working here would be earning at least $9.36 per hour, he would get health insurance, and paid sick leave. That it's acceptable wherever he lives to be paid so little for the work that he does that he can't afford shelter is a problem, not something to be proud of. If taking care of the people who work in this city means adding a 5% service charge to restaurant checks then I'm happy to pay it.

←

First of all it's not up to me. It's up to each of us. There's quality and value ascribed to each job. Drug dealers for example can afford much more than I can afford but I do not choose to live that way. Dishwahers on the other hand are limited due to the value (someone else, not me) placed on this job skill. I have not been referencing cooks in this debate. Cooks are skilled laborers.

This is what I said, " For example train the dishwashers to do something with bankable skills like prep the food." Isn't this a good idea for San Fransisco? Aren't trained skilled workers an asset to a community? Gives them mobility too. They can enhance other areas. If a dishwasher gets locked into a puffed up feel good cosmetic salary they are locked into that employer too.

Melkor, some folks cannot advance up the food chain. These folks need assistance. It's a good thing. Why dis public assistance that already helps them? Why are food stamps bad? These folks deserve to eat don't they?

It's not about feelings. It's about money. Why should small businesses like restaurant owners take the burden of providing public assistance when the government does it already? Inflating peoples' salaries is no viable answer. My nephew lives in California. He has real nice benies subsidized by the government. Believe me he is in a wonderful world now by comparison to the poor choices he made earlier.

[K8memphis]

I suggest that you carefully re-read what I said if you want to understand the point I made...

If we puff up/inflate the entry level jobs to support a family just because it feels good

we are creating a useless class of people stuck in an over priced entry level position.

←

So just to clarify - only people with real skills should be able to afford food and shelter. Dishwashers, cooks, and other people who you feel are in this "useless class of people" should live on public assistance or in group homes.

←

I never said this, that anyone was in a useless class of people. Please read before responding and do not misquote me.

[melkor]

First of all it's not up to me. It's up to each of us. There's quality and value ascribed to each job. Drug dealers for example can afford much more than I can afford but I do not choose to live that way. Dishwahers on the other hand are limited due to the value (someone else, not me) placed on this job skill. I have not been referencing cooks in this debate. Cooks are skilled laborers.

This is what I said, " For example train the dishwashers to do something with bankable skills like prep the food." Isn't this a good idea for San Fransisco? Aren't trained skilled workers an asset to a community? Gives them mobility too. They can enhance other areas. If a dishwasher gets locked into a puffed up feel good cosmetic salary they are locked into that employer too.

Melkor, some folks cannot advance up the food chain. These folks need assistance. It's a good thing. Why dis public assistance that already helps them? Why are food stamps bad? These folks deserve to eat don't they?

It's not about feelings. It's about money. Why should small businesses like restaurant owners take the burden of providing public assistance when the government does it already? Inflating peoples' salaries is no viable answer. My nephew lives in California. He has real nice benies subsidized by the government. Believe me he is in a wonderful world now by comparison to the poor choices he made earlier.

←

Obviously some jobs pay better than others, that isn't the question at all. Would you like to point out that working as a surgeon pays better than working as a clerk at the grocery store? The point that you seem to be making, that I take serious issue with, is that there is an entire class of people doing work that you believe shouldn't be paid a living wage. The reason for this topic is the 4% or 5% service charge that restaurants in San Francisco have added to cover paying a living wage to all their employees and to provide health insurance. I never said public assistance was a bad thing, I think it's important to have a safety net for anyone who needs it. The issue is that people who are employed full time shouldn't need help paying their living expenses. If businesses don't pay their employees a living wage then the public is simply subsidizing that business by contributing the difference between what the employer choses to pay and what they should be paying. Much like Chicago can somehow exist without Target, San Francisco will be just fine without Walmart.

[melkor]

If we puff up/inflate the entry level jobs to support a family just because it feels good we are creating a useless class of people stuck in an over priced entry level position.

←

I never said this, that anyone was in a useless class of people. Please read before responding and do not misquote me.

←

Several cities and counties around the country require employers to pay a living wage regardless of the job they are doing. How does your statement that by doing so 'we are creating a useless class of people' not suggest that you believe those cities and counties now contain a 'useless class of people' who are 'stuck in an over priced entry level position'?

[FoodMan]

Going back to the orginial issue, I totally agree with FatGuy. I applaud any restaurant that provides benies for all employees and am happy to pay for it with a few extra points. That's how it should be. No legal job should be filled with someone who cannot go to the doctor if he or she needs to. I am not saying they should be rich and prosper from a dishawsher job and start a big family. That would be foolish. Healthcare though, that is everyone's right IMO.

Now, I would much rather pay that as part of my food cost instead of a 'surcharge'. I really hope that the dishwasher's coverage is not directly tied to how much money I spend there. I think it's not at places like Incanto. So, why not hike up the prices a bit and make a small note of it on the menu, again like Steven suggested?

Bottom line, I do not mind paying this at all, but it is not the best method to go about doing it.

[FoodMan]

K8memphis-

After all that discussion, I still do not understand where you stand on the topic's main issue. Should restaurants provide benies to their lowest paid employees and are you willing to help pay for it? Be it via a surcharge or a higher price per item?

[JMT]

It seems strange to include it as an obligatory surcharge. It seems easier to just raise prices 5 percent and then say that the charge is included in that price. I have no problem with the restaurant saying that they pay their workers a decent wage, give health benefits or whatever. I just think that putting it as a surcharge and not included in the price makes it seem more like an afterthought.

Personally I'd rather eat at a restaurant that charged a bit more but gave their workers a decent wage, such a restaurant would probably be able to get more competent workers so I would probably recieve better food and service anyhow.

One of the reasons that servicecharges are included in europe or at least Sweden is because the tax authorities came up with this "great idea" of coming up with their own numbers of what they believed a worker had recieved in tips. Even if you had not recieved a nickel you were still taxed as if you had, so they added it to the bill so that personell could be "fairly" taxed.

As for if wages are fair or not, our unions took care of that here. We don't have minimum wages but if you pay wages below a certain level ( that has been agreed upon in union employer negotiations centrally ) and the unoins get irritated they can pretty much shut down the restaurant with no deliveries, no garbage pickup, and naturally no unionised workers working for you ( they will be standing outside with leaflets informing people of your business practices ). This is even if none of your personel are unoinised ( exeption is family businesses ) and even if your personel are happy with their pays ( This has led to some quite bizarre situations ).

It does bring higher unemployment since low efficiency people are just not profitable enough to be paid these salaries. As to whether this is right or not I can't really say.

Edited February 20, 2008 by JMT (log)

[K8memphis]

K8memphis-

After all that discussion, I still do not understand where you stand on the topic's main issue. Should restaurants provide benies to their lowest paid employees and are you willing to help pay for it? Be it via a surcharge or a higher price per item?

←

Here is where I said that I think it is ill-advised to publish it on the menu. I don't choose my restaurants by what's happening in their Human Relation Departments.

I'm ok with restaurants doing whatever they will for their employees. I do not view health benefits as a right. It's real real nice to have. But skilled workers should be able to advance in their carreers and find work with pay and benefits commensurate with abilities.

Dave, the Living Wage movement which I think you are referencing is most often tied to government contracted jobs that expire when the contract does.

Yes I think there are jobs that do not warrant living wage. Shoot me.

J-o-b-s not p-e-o-p-l-e.

The good news is in America we can rise above our circumstances if we are not limited by our government's heavy hand.

For example, Worker X is a dishwasher with health benefits and nice wages and he wants to advance into food prep. Another smaller restaurant might want to hire him so he can get the training he wants there to advance himself but he's gotta take a cut in pay and no benies either. Why should they risk training him and investing in him if he's just gonna turn around and fly off for better money somewhere else. Going backwards and forwards at the same time is tricky. Being under qualified and over paid locks him in where he's at. No? Like I said, the San Fransisco places need to qualify their workers if they are to invest more in them. Train the dishwashers to prep food. These are good ideas.

[FoodMan]

K8memphis-

After all that discussion, I still do not understand where you stand on the topic's main issue. Should restaurants provide benies to their lowest paid employees and are you willing to help pay for it? Be it via a surcharge or a higher price per item?

←

Here is where I said that I think it is ill-advised to publish it on the menu. I don't choose my restaurants by what's happening in their Human Relation Departments.

I'm ok with restaurants doing whatever they will for their employees. I do not view health benefits as a right. It's real real nice to have. But skilled workers should be able to advance in their carreers and find work with pay and benefits commensurate with abilities.

Dave, the Living Wage movement which I think you are referencing is most often tied to government contracted jobs that expire when the contract does.

Yes I think there are jobs that do not warrant living wage. Shoot me.

J-o-b-s not p-e-o-p-l-e.

The good news is in America we can rise above our circumstances if we are not limited by our government's heavy hand.

For example, Worker X is a dishwasher with health benefits and nice wages and he wants to advance into food prep. Another smaller restaurant might want to hire him so he can get the training he wants there to advance himself but he's gotta take a cut in pay and no benies either. Why should they risk training him and investing in him if he's just gonna turn around and fly off for better money somewhere else. Going backwards and forwards at the same time is tricky. Being under qualified and over paid locks him in where he's at. No? Like I said, the San Fransisco places need to qualify their workers if they are to invest more in them. Train the dishwashers to prep food. These are good ideas.

←

Thanks for clarifying. I do not agree with you on so many levels, but this is not the topic (or the forum probably) to discuss them.

Edited February 20, 2008 by FoodMan (log)

[MSRadell]

It would be interesting to hear from some one that works in wait staff at one of the restaurants that has started charging the surcharge to see if their tips stayed the same or went down after the surcharge. My guess is their tips may have gone down a little. If they have I'm sure the wait staff likes a surcharge even less than the customers do.

Overall I'd certainly rather have the menu prices raised than a surcharge added. To me a surcharge is just deceptive marketing since the price you see isn't actually what you pay!

[melkor]

Dave, the Living Wage movement which I think you are referencing is most often tied to government contracted jobs that expire when the contract does.

Yes I think there are jobs that do not warrant living wage. Shoot me.

J-o-b-s not p-e-o-p-l-e.

The good news is in America we can rise above our circumstances if we are not limited by our government's heavy hand.

For example, Worker X is a dishwasher with health benefits and nice wages and he wants to advance into food prep. Another smaller restaurant might want to hire him so he can get the training he wants there to advance himself but he's gotta take a cut in pay and no benies either. Why should they risk training him and investing in him if he's just gonna turn around and fly off for better money somewhere else. Going backwards and forwards at the same time is tricky. Being under qualified and over paid locks him in where he's at. No? Like I said, the San Fransisco places need to qualify their workers if they are to invest more in them. Train the dishwashers to prep food. These are good ideas.

←

No question there are more living wage ordinances that require people working on government contracts to be paid a living wage, but several cities require it for all workers. I find it inconceivable that anyone would think it acceptable to pay people so little for their time that they cant afford basic shelter, food, and to get help when they're sick. Rather than being proud of the dishwasher that lives in a group home because he can't afford his own place, I'd be ashamed of the business owner that doesn't feel their employees deserve better. Obviously as an employee is able to take on more responsibility, their compensation increases, nobody is arguing against that. These service charges are to cover the people at the bottom of the pay scale, the ones that need help the most.

The situation you outlined earlier where retirees and teenagers do the jobs you don't feel are worth paying a living wage isn't viable. For people to do the best work they are capable of, they need to be healthy and interested in what they are doing. Having your workers self-medicated because they have no health insurance doesn't make them more reliable. Having them work three jobs to pay the rent certainly won't improve the quality of the work they do at any of their jobs. As an employer, aren't you taking advantage of someone if you hire them to do a job but don't pay them enough to live?

[slkinsey]

From a purely moral standpoint, I don't see how it is possible to defend job compensation at a rate so low that it is not possible for workers to maintain a standard of living that would be within reasonable minimums for our society. It seems wrong somehow to connect a living wage to the performance of skilled labor when one considers that unskilled workers are those most disadvantaged and therefore most in need of the protections that our society should be able to offer. Not to mention that skilled workers are in a much better position to demand higher wages and other benefits.

There is a difference between a skilled worker who chooses to work without high compensation and medical benefits (as I have done for many years as a self-employed musician) but could obtain these things with relative ease, and an unskilled worker who has no choice other than to accept what is offered. I think the very least we can do is ensure that, within our borders, unskilled workers receive compensation and medical coverage within reasonable minimums for our society. Personally, I believe that some of these things (certainly medical coverage) could and should be provided by any modern, first world government. But, of course, they have to be paid for somehow. Some kind of reasonably progressive tax system that includes corporations seems like a logical solution. But if we don't have the political or moral will for that, then there is no recourse than to pass those costs along to employers and they to customers.

I'd rather see restaurants simply raising stated prices by 5% (or a few percent more, if that's what it takes to make it through the slower periods) rather than sneaking the cost in via a surcharge. Of course, there's no reason restaurants shouldn't include the cost of tax in their posted prices either. My guess is that restaurants don't include tax and across-the-board surcharges like this in their posted prices because (a) that is the custom in the United States; and (b) it fools customers into thinking their meal is less expensive (e.g., $11 seems less expensive than $12).

[Darcie B]

Of course, there's no reason restaurants shouldn't include the cost of tax in their posted prices either. 

←

I can't think of any industry that includes the tax with the prices, even though of course any of them could. This is true of things I've ordered online from Europe as well. I don't think that will change any time soon.

I really would rather have the minimum wage apply to all employees, and do away with the whole tipping business, making tips then real tips and not substitute wages. Same for surcharges. I hate that FedEx and UPS have fuel surcharges instead of just raising the prices, and I don't want to see any surcharges for someone's health care.

My husband and I have a small business. We pay well above minimum wage even though it's not customary around here. We also supply food and (good) beer in the company fridge, offer paid vacation, pay bonuses for extra effort, and offer a subsidy for private health insurance. We believe that to do less is wrong. It's taking longer, but we are should be profitable this year (#4). We feel a moral imperative to allow our employees to make a decent living. But we don't apply any surcharges on invoices.

If people aren't paid enough to make a living (i.e. food, clothing and shelter - not everyone needs a cell phone and cable), society will be paying via food stamps, rent subsidies and whatnot. I think that shifts the burden unfairly from companies to individual taxpayers.

[prasantrin]

I can't think of any industry that includes the tax with the prices, even though of course any of them could. This is true of things I've ordered online from Europe as well. I don't think that will change any time soon.

←

The focus of this argument is what's going on in the US, but since you bring up Europe...

Since 2004 or 2005, it has been law in Japan that all posted prices must include the 5% sales tax. If you go to restaurants, every price you see will include the tax, same with grocery stores, department stores, etc. On your receipt, sometimes you'll see the tax listed separately, but on the store shelf or item tag, you'll see the price including the tax (sometimes you'll see both, but more often only the tax-added price).

I like it.

[plk]

Somewhat related this discussion, A good waiter can save your life.

According to police, Psaty was having dinner with a woman he met through a dating service at Ruby Tuesday restaurant at 1340 Garden of the Gods Road on Jan. 3.

A waiter saw Psaty drop a Diazepam pill into the woman’s drink, police said. The waiter took the drink from the table and called police.

[chuchelo]

I think it's marvelous that some restaurants provide health care for their employees. I also think it's a bit creepy to put it on the menu. The best restaurants have the best employees because they do what it takes to recruit and maintain them. Just figure out what that costs, price the food accordingly, and get on with it.

I spend too much time thinking about and dealing with health insurance companies. I really don't want to think about it when I'm dining out.

[K8memphis]

My husband and I have a small business. We pay well above minimum wage even though it's not customary around here. We also supply food and (good) beer in the company fridge, offer paid vacation, pay bonuses for extra effort, and offer a subsidy for private health insurance. We believe that to do less is wrong. It's taking longer, but we are should be profitable this year (#4). We feel a moral imperative to allow our employees to make a decent living. But we don't apply any surcharges on invoices.

←

I think this is really nice and extremely commendable. Obviously can be back breaking for small businesses. I paid better than minimum wage when I had a business and I had some cool perks.

However this is not good enough for Living Wage by Memphis standards and we do not have a high cost of living by any means either. It's $14 or $15 an hour without insurance and I think it's $12 an hour with insurance, not a subsidy either.

If people aren't paid enough to make a living (i.e. food, clothing and shelter - not everyone needs a cell phone and cable), society will be paying via food stamps, rent subsidies and whatnot. I think that shifts the burden unfairly from companies to individual taxpayers.

←

What's wrong with the safe guards we have in place ie food stamps and rent subsidies like my nephew tried to get but made too much money? He still has a nice place to live. He's not on the street. Nobody needs to feel bad for him or his employers. Feel very good.

Hey you can get primary care at (some) county health departments and some emergency rooms. Not so many heart transplants but you can get some primary care.

Methinks most living wage proponents never met a payroll in their lives. I could be wrong but I have yet to meet one.

[FoodMan]

Hey you can get primary care at (some) county health departments and some emergency rooms. Not so many heart transplants but you can get some primary care.

That might be acceptable for some third world countries, but in the US, THAT is beyond deplorable.