Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"also if you are willing to pay the equivalent of $22/hr for wait service" I probably already pay that. As I said, Rose Pistola is a very pricey place. They don't have to pay 22 an hour, you know. The minimum is seven something. If something is too expensive, then you don't go there. < the discussion is not about one place - it is about how it works across the board so for the life of me i can;t figure out your point here. they are not paying $22 hour - they are paying 7 something and tips -and if they want a good wait staff that will meet customer demands at a pricier/trendier place- they have to pay more. I could care less if they raised prices to include $22 /hour - if i want to go to a place I will..but unfortuntely that doesn;t work for the entire restaurant industry..and all clientele so why not propose an actual solution
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm responding to what you said: "if you are willing to pay the equivalent of $22/hr for wait service as covered there, I am fine with that, but then expect large increases in food costs" Maybe I misread it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "so why not propose an actual solution" Well, for a start, how about letting local municipalities have their own minimum wages that are appropriate for the community? The federal standard could be a minimum, but it doesn't need to be flat for everyplace in the country. SF costs more to live in than Trona, and the people of SF want a higher minimum wage. The federal government should not be forcing it to be otherwise.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I'm responding to what you said: "if you are willing to pay the equivalent of $22/hr for wait service as covered there, I am fine with that, but then expect large increases in food costs" Maybe I misread it.< no but maybe misunderstood, or maybe I wasn;t clear..I have no issue with the wage there. but to think that costs of food and wages are separate entities is incorrect - there is a correlation
Originally Posted By wahooskipper A minimum wage is just that...minimum. Those restaurants in San Francisco can choose NOT to fall back to the minimum wage.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Those restaurants in San Francisco can choose NOT to fall back to the minimum wage.<< That's the point though. Right now, San Francisco has a 'living wage' law that forces the restaurants to pay their staff what they do now. They can afford to do that because San Francisco is a tourist destination, and the voters decided it is fair that the restaurant owners pay their workers a living wage so te burdon isn't so much on the tax payers through social services. Agree with that idea or not, my point is, as a consumer, Rose Pistola and other restaurants will simply pocket the difference once they cut back the wages. They won't lower the menu prices, that's for sure. And I agree with you that people, in general, don't know how to tip. In fact, many people don't bother to tip at all regardless of the quality of the service.
Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/02/MNGLLK9N0K1.DTL" target="_blank">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti cle.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/02/MNGLLK9N0K1.DTL</a> At it's heart, this is a GOP bill that makes dramatic cuts in the estate tax. Someone earlier mentioned that the bill includes a RAISE of the minimum wage. As another poster correctly responded, that's just a 'proposal' and one that is to be phased in over three years. >> The proposal is part of a voluminous House-passed bill that would cut estate taxes on the wealthiest Americans and offer a long list of other tax cuts, in addition to raising the minimum wage. << So let's not kid ourselves that this is GOP politic looking out for the little guy - when have they ever done that? No - this is largesse to the wealthiest americans. >> Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate minority leader ... said the Republicans aren't really interested in passing the minimum wage increase, which polls show has overwhelming public support, but are concerned only with paring the estate tax for the wealthy. "We've spent more time on the estate tax than anything else. It shows the difference between the two parties. ... We're concerned about the very poor, and they're concerned about the very rich,'' Reid said. << Is that "unfair"? Not really, though conservatives will tell you so. It's just a hard reading of the actual facts. The reason that SF and other municipalities have enacted their own minimum wage is that the federal government hasn't done so in nine years. It comes as no surprise to anyone that it's much more expensive living in SF than in most other locales. We can't be waiting around for the federal government to act in our interest - we have to do it ourselves. That wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the feds coming in years later and seeking to undo what's already been done during their inattention. It's almost malicious. But again, who's surprised by that? >> Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, contends that in this state, which has its own, higher minimum wage of $6.75 an hour, the pay of some 650,000 people who rely on tips would be hacked from the state minimum wage of $6.75 plus tips to $2.13 an hour plus tips. In San Francisco, the cut would be even steeper, from the city minimum wage of $8.82 an hour plus tips to $2.13 an hour plus tips. "This is unacceptable," Feinstein said in announcing her opposition to the package that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee wants to bring to a vote by Friday. To me, this is indefensible. But I'd sure like to see some people try.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper No vbdad...only Republicans are responsible for pork. Can't you get anything right today?
Originally Posted By gadzuux "Pork" is typically something inserted into a bill designed to bring money to individual congressional districts. Massive reduction in the estate tax wouldn't qualify as pork because A) it's the chief purpose of the bill, and B) it's aimed at a demographic, not a geographic. But nice try at side-stepping the issue.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>Those restaurants in San Francisco can choose NOT to fall back to the minimum wage.<< And I want a pony.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Pork," (which both parties indulge in) is federal money distributed to a congressman's district - typically for dubious projects, or at least dubious to everyone not living in that district. 30 million dollars to Nebraska for a corn cob museum - that's pork. This is something else - the cobbling together of various pieces of legislation to be voted on at once, typically including things that the minority party would both like to vote for and would not like to vote for (i.e. a raise in the minimum wage, but also cutting the estate tax and rolling back these higher local minimum wages). There's another term for that (which escapes me), but it's not "pork."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Well with no line item veto - thanks to Senators Byrd (D) , Moynihan (D) , Levin (D), and Hatfield (R) who opposed the line item veto through Amicus curiæ briefs. United States District Court Judge Thomas Hogan combined the cases and declared the law unconstitutional on February 12, 1998 -- looks like it is what it is huh ?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer From today's WSJ Political Diary..... >>In June, Sen. Robert Byrd was part of a Democratic filibuster against repeal of the estate tax, but this week the West Virginia pork barreler is expected to vote to cut the reviled "death" tax. A philosophical awakening? Nope. Along with a $2.10 hike in the minimum wage, Republicans added another sweetener specifically for coal-state senators: renewal of a federal program to clean up abandoned coalmines. If the estate tax cut goes through, Sen. Byrd will cart off nearly $1 billion in coal-cleanup funds for his state. No one ever said that mining the federal Treasury was backbreaking work. The hard part here was working out a compromise with Wyoming Sen. Michael B. Enzi, a Republican. Wyoming is the nation's biggest coal producer and the program is funded by a tax on coal production. Most of the money flows east, however, where the majority of derelict mines are located. Because of this, "the federal government owes the state of Wyoming more than half a billion dollars. That doesn't sit well with me," Mr. Enzi reasoned. Coalmine clean-up was originally part of a pension bill, but House Republicans saw a chance to gain a few votes for estate-tax repeal so grafted it onto the estate tax bill. Behold, the sausage factory at work: Wyoming will be the biggest winner, getting $1.6 billion, including "repayment" of funds spent to clean up out-of-state mines. Another political beneficiary is Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, locked in a tough re-election fight. He battled for two years to renew the coalmine program, which will now bring $1.3 billion to the state. Because some 1.4 million Pennsylvanians are said to live within a mile of one of the state's numerous abandoned coalmines, Mr. Santorum, who trails Democrat Bob Casey Jr. by double digits in the polls, will no doubt be flagging this datapoint as he campaigns around the Keystone State. -- Brendan Miniter << And here are some interesting facts about the tip credit from ADP.... >>The notion of "tip credit" applies only to tipped employees. As defined by Federal law and in most states, any employee who "customarily and regularly" receives more than $30 per month in tips is a "tipped employee." And, what is a "tip"? It is a voluntary payment received byan employee from a customer, the amount of which is determined by the customer. The amountof the tip must not be dictated by employer policy, nor subject to negotiation with the employer. Therefore, for example, the 15% gratuity a hotel may require for service at a banquet is not a "tip." If a worker qualifies as a "tipped employee," the employer may credit toward the required minimum wage rate some of the tips received by the worker and reported to the employer. By allowing a portion of tips received to qualify as wages for purposes of minimum wagerequirements, the employer lawfully can pay at a lower cash wage rate. However, the tip credit per hour normally is limited to a certain maximum dollar amount (the "maximum tip credit"). Thislimit is $3.02 per hour under Federal law, but varies from state to state. When Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to increase the Federal minimumwage rate on October 1, 1996, a significant change was made in terminology. Reference to "tipcredit" was dropped, and a more easily understood term was substituted-----the "minimum cash wage for tipped employees." Instead of attending to the maximum wage amount an employer can hold back from the tipped employee, the focus became a limit on how small an hourly "cash" wage the employee can lawfully receive. At all times, the applicable minimum wage rate must equal the sum of the maximum tip credit and minimum cash wage<< So if the new Minimum wage is $7, then an employer has to show that the employee earned at least $3 in tips per hour to be allowed to claim the credit and lower the paid wage to $4 an hour, and that mandatory tips do not count towards the credit.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>also if you are willing to pay the equivalent of $22/hr for wait service as covered there, I am fine with that, but then expect large increases in food costs<< But then you wouldn't have to leave a tip anymore, right? This is pretty standard in most of Europe.
Originally Posted By jonvn Japan I think it is actually illegal to give a tip. Or offensive. Or both.
