Thank you for continuing a lively discussion.

I think it’s impossible to talk about heated topics without getting hot. But I tried hard, while writing the above words, to insert myself into the overall picture. These are incredibly complicated issues, a ball of knotted yarn with seemingly no visible end or beginning.

I’m not saying “I know the answers.” I’m attempting to bring to light some of the factors a person not working in a professional kitchen would know about.

I had to make an answer for myself when I figured out, (or finally listened to my mother), my industry was not going to care for me– I choose to have and pay for health insurance no matter what. Because my field is dangerous, and my body is worn out from doing it for so long. (I pay over $200 per mos.)

Here here for a discussion, a debate, without answers and demonizing those who do not agree with us. I never said restaurant owners who do not give their employees health insurance are bad people. I asked whether the public was ready for seeing all of the truth, not just the “truth” that makes them most comfortable.

I continue to work for individually owned restaurants because I do not, even with all the lovely benefits, see myself in a corporate food service environment. I’ve worked in a factory before, it’s not for me, if I can help it.

The unfortunate truth is that people have to die on the page of a newspaper before we become aware that there are problems in a system.

And I work in the system I’m critiquing.

Most restaurant owners are not bad people. They would like to offer health insurance to their employees if they could afford to.

Look at Bar Crudo. The 40-yer-old twin brothers are not able to afford to insure themselves, let alone their employees. The chef you spoke of in the lines I quoted above was not hired. He is one of the owners. He had his jaw broken in the accident and now has it wired shut. He’s incredibly lucky that the restaurant community came out in force to support him (and his employees and the surviving family member of the waiter who was killed in the accident).

I feel that the restaurant owners are being demonized here in your post and in some of the comments (such as Amy Sherman’s “it always disturbs me to see restaurant owners driving luxury cars.” If a restaurant owner could afford to drive a luxury car, it is most likely not because of their restaurant, but despite the restaurant. In other words, they were already wealthy. The average profit margin of a restaurant in SF is under 3%).

Danny Meyer, who you mentioned above, offers his employees benefits. But bear these 2 bits of info in mind. He pays his waiters $4.35/hr, about half of what SF voters (who are also diners) require restaurant owners to pay waiters in SF (going up to $9+ next year). And his entree prices average just under $30.

On the one hand, my point is that if diners care about restaurant workers, they need to be willing to pay more for their food. They need to support those restaurants who are paying their employees fairly and offering benefits. In a free market system, restauranteurs who choose to take care of their employees by raising their prices are punished because customers claim that their prices are too high. So they go elsewhere.

I also firmly believe that restaurants should not be required to pay tipped employees minimum wage (esp. the higher min. wage in SF). Waiters make far more than cooks. Very often, full-time waiters make more money than the restaurant owner! Legally, restaurant owners cannot share their tips with the back of the house (although a few restaurants do illegally with great risk).

Unfortunately, there is almost no chance that the laws will be changed. Therefore, the only legal way around these tip-related laws is to add a fixed “service charge” (such as the 18% that Chez Panisse and Coi add to their checks — and most restaurants add for large parties). Restaurant owners are allowed to then allocate those funds more equitably so that a portion can be shared with the cooks and dishwashers. And those funds can be used to help cover the cost of health insurance benefits.

Again, though, diners cry that service will not be as good. And they go elsewhere. And waiters cry that they can make more at another restaurant where they get to keep all the tips.

It is a huge risk in this competetive market for a restaurant owner to charge higher prices and tack on a service charge so that they can take care of their employees. Those restaurants that are willing to take that risk should be supported, just as you support those farmers who farm organically. They are very brave.

It would lower the competetive risks if all restaurants were required to pay the same benefits. Then prices will have to rise across the board. Unfortunately, that legislation (referenced by mingerspice above) probably won’t pass. Better still would be universal health care for all paid for by the state. But that’s a whole other topic.

Thanks for raising this important topic, Shuna.

wait hold one.

*flame on*

The whole point of the original post seems to be that health care is a good thing and more restaurants should have it. Now the thing that keeps restaurants from doing this overnight is the cost. If they do it, they have to pass on the cost somehow (either to their own bottomline or to the customers). Sure, some restaurants make so much money that they can swallow the cost at the expense of a new yacht or something, but we can all assume that not every restaurant has that option.

So we all agree that health care is wonderful, but then we have to ask… why are we even raising this question? Does it make us feel better about ourselves? Is it just more humane if everyone had healthcare? Of course you get no where if you jump down a slippery slope, but the point is that why do we choose what we want to care about? You just need to feel good about the contributions you’re making to the world.

Look, if you want to live a life full of purpose, that’s fine and great. If you want to eat sour grapes and tell me to go back to school when all I’m doing is explaining your motives? Well hey, get a doctor and remove that protruding stick that’s bothering you so much.

*flame off*

My employers provide a group health plan through Kaiser. The owners of the restaurant pay for HALF of everyone’s premium. VERY generous, and as generous as many health benefits offered at “white collar” jobs. I think forcing businesses in San Francisco to pay 100% for everyone’s health insurance is a foolhardy proposition, and one that is borne out of the HAVES trying to assuage their guilty consciences about the service industry, which is mostly employed by the HAVE NOTS.

We provide jobs for about 60 people, and all make more than minimum wage. When someone is injured on the job we send them to the hospital because we pay workman’s compensation insurance. When someone needs to miss work because of health reasons, we make sure they receive disability payments. We take care of our employees because we care about them on a human level, not because we feel pressure to do so from our customers, overly PC San Francisco morals, or anyone else.

Restaurants are a business, and well, they are run like a business. Making a profit is part of a business, and is especially difficult in the restaurant industry. Making a profit is how you expand, grow, innovate, inspire and improve your community. By forcing restaurants in San Francisco to pay for health insurance, choices will be made to cut costs other ways: cutting staff, cutting hours, buying lesser-quality ingredients, raising menu prices. Those are some of the short-term impacts. What happens when it gets too expensive for an independently owned business to survive? Will Starbucks replace Ritual and Bluebottle coffee? If I want a burrito will I have to go to Chevy’s? Would people object if a Boudin Bakery replaced Tartine? But then again, the deep-pocket corporations are probably far too savvy to set up shop in a city where all their profits go to “taking care” of their employees. In ten years, there may not be ANY restaurants left in the city.

I worked my ass off to get where I am, and the bottom line is I am going to continue to do so because I believe in putting out the best food I can possibly cook & eat. I want to continue to use the best and freshest ingredients. I want to be able to make new dishes and have customers return time and time again for a unique and soulful experience. Eventually, I want to own my own restaurant. Would I do it in San Francisco? That’s questionable.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/30/BAGJNMMG3L19.DTL

One of the benefits of universal health care is that the costs are shared by all employers (at least in the scheme set up in SF), so nobody gets a competitive advantage by letting their employees go without.

Oh, and I think the pauper needs to revisit 6th grade classroom memories to recall what s/he learned about the logical fallacy of the slippery slope.

Wow, too snappy there. Anyway, the problem with the problem is that there’s a high layer of abstraction. Look, kids who want Air Jordans didn’t care where Nike made them or how they made them. And millions of women in the U.S. could care less were DeBeers got their diamonds as long as it is shiny.

If you want to take this all the way, which it sounds like you do, why don’t you make sure you stop shopping at any place that gets ANYTHING from China since they have a despicable human rights record. That means if your local organic farmer bought one thing from China, then he’s supporting the killing of democracy and you supporting him (by the associative property I learned in 6th grade) means that you are supporting horrible human rights!!!

OMG!!!! Holy cow!!!! Stop it man. Just stop it ok? if you’re not prepared to go all the way, then what are you really saying? “I want to do enough so I feel good about my own life?”

That would be pretentious and silly, but by the tone and topic of your post, you seem to strive to be anything but… so why the hypocrisy?

Being a Brit, I think health care should be free, paid for by our society through taxes as an essential “right” of all citizens (and residents). Alas, the result (in the UK at least) is long waiting lists for operations, minimal/poor care, etc. People don’t go bankrupt because they have health problems, but they don’t sue for incompetance either.

People eat at restaurants, of course, because they want to eat wonderfully prepared food that they couldn’t prepare themselves, but also because they want to indulge themselves in a treat. Celebrate this or that special occasion, impress a client, or catch up with a friend. They’re seeking smoke and mirrors, not thinking of the poor underpaid worker with no health care prepping their food. If people were forced to think of the unfair treatment of food preparers when they’re treating themselves to a nice meal, it wouldn’t be nearly as reinforcing an experience.

Your point is ultimately a societal/political question: where does an individual’s responsibility end? With themselves, their family, their immediate community, their county, state, country, world? beyond?

Should the overpaid help the underpaid? Do movie stars deserve to make more than teachers? What does that say about societal values?

Food and eating is such a communal topic and a good place to address larger equity issues in our society.

Thanks for opening the discussion and bringing a difficult topic into the light.