February 13, 2007
Mangia, Mangia
The Chron today has an interesting story about all the effects of recent laws being thrown on small business, mainly restaurants. The recent laws in question are the rise in the minimum wage, sick paid leave, and the new health care initiative. All these laws sound great, but restaurateurs are not quite thrilled about them and so they've been particularly aggressive in fighting the resolutions, even getting in Chris Daly's grill about it. Ha! We made a pun. Anyways, they've sued over the health care bill to keep it from taking effect.
The Chron went around and asked a bunch of restaurants about how all of these fees are going to affect them. A lot of restaurants have said that the measures passed has already affected them and that the latest on, the health care one, is only going to make things worse. Restaurant owners have said that in order to pay for everything, they've had to do things like increase prices, add charges or change pay structure. Once they add the fees for health care, they'll have to find other ways of making up for the costs. The people who own Tres Agave (including Sammy Hagar!) have said they want to open a new restaurant, but probably won't in SF because there are too many things they have to pay for. As it is, they're already talking about raising prices and having been there once for dinner, that place is pretty expensive as it is. In the end, they all say we could lose our rep as a great restaurant town because to cover all the costs, either things will get too pricey or service will suffer or those little out of the way restaurants will have to give way to chain restaurants as they're the only ones who could afford all the extra costs.
On the other side is Tom Ammiano who was the sponsor of the health care initiative. Ammiano, who said he was chased out of a restaurant on Valencia for doing what he's done, who said that it's in the best interests of everyone to take care of all the workers. He also said polls in the city overwhelmingly support all of the measures. He then added, in a statement we honestly can't make sense of: "you cannot exploit workers as was done in the past. But remember, restaurants are in this for profit. This is not a Peace Corps exercise for them" and yeah, damn those restaurant owners for wanting to make a profit.
So what does this mean? Dunno. The restaurants could be playing Chicken Little but you also can't imagine these things not changeing. After all, it's easy in theory to support a lot of measures, but not so easy when it actually comes into practice. Us, just as long as the prices of tacos at El Toro stay the same, we're fine.
|
I'm dying to know what restaurant asked Ammiano to leave. Anyone who knows, spill it! Or, any guesses?
Do you guys ever do anything besides regurgitate Chron coverage? It's getting pretty old.
saw this and wondered about the role changing demographics has on the restaurant market. at least half of all meals are procured outside the home, and it's hard to imagine people in San Francisco balking at slightly higher prices and doing more of their cooking.
there's also the skewed economic diversity of the city, with plenty of high-wage earners and not so many middle-income earners as before. (This is due to the lack of affordable housing, decline in manufacturing, globalization, Gavin Newsom, etc. Just kidding on that last one.)
the restaurants have been pushing the chicken little argument whenever given the chance. they did so with the minimum wage and they are doing so again with health care and sick pay. the fact of the matter is that the minimum wage had no effect on restaurant employment or the industry's health. and neither will either of these laws. despite all of the kvetching, when i worked out the numbers on the costs of the minimum wage, they total expense increase was somewhere on the order of 1or2% - something that can easily be passed through to end users. i haven't had the opportunity to do something similar for either of these new regs, but my sense is that the impact will be minimal as well.
When people cast their ballots, feel good measures like health care and paid sick leave are hard to vote against. Most people view ballot measures like these from the individual perspective. They think about themselves working the line at a restaurant, the long hours and the stress. When you think about it in this context, these measures sound like a pretty good idea.
What people don't consider are the ramifications of such measures. When small businesses start packing up for Daly City, San Franciscans will start scratching their heads in wonder why that cute little bistro down the street closed up after a great 25 year run. Only the corporate chains will be left, something the Board of Supervisors is also trying to legislate out of our lives (Prop G, Nov-06)
Anyone who has been here for more than a few years can testify to the fact that prices went up in most restaurants by 1-2 bucks after Gonzo's min wage legislation passed. Maybe that is cool for some of you, but it wasnt for me.
Ammiano - as well as most of our current board of supes - has no idea how to run a successful business.
Someone please post which restaurant threw Ammiano out - I want to patronize them.
Notice that the story didn't bother talking to anyone who works for these restaurants. Just politicians representing the other side, because of course, this is all about Daly and Ammiano. The Chron doesn't know to interview real people on policy issues.
Plus, notice that the story only focused on what the restaurant owners THINK they will have to pay. No real numbers. No questions about how much of these owners spent to oppose the legislation or to file suit.
The story also said that Foreign Cinema was moderately priced. I've seen the menu and I have to assume that Chron reporters are lavishly paid if one of them thinks those prices are moderate.
Maybe if the Golden Gate Restaurant Association didn't spend all its money on candidates like Rob Black they'd have money left over to pay their employees.
"Maybe that is cool for some of you, but it wasnt for me."
Y'know, I don't mind paying $1-2 more per a meal if it means the restaurant employees get paid a slightly-more equitable wage. So it is cool with me.
The spin is that the GGRA represents small, Mom-and-Pop businesses, but the truth is that they don't. In fact, a good profile of the typical GGRA member is the one the Chron interviewed. I'm sorry: how many partners were involved in this 2M restaurant? Including the ex-lead singer for Van Halen?
These aren't small independent restaurants. That's a carefully staged lie. The GGRA actually represents a small percentage of SF restaurants - just look at their membership roster.
Many of the restaurants are located outside of SF, and the ones that are here have large staffs made up mostly by women and immigrants.
The owner of Incanto may make his living selling gussied up guts to rich white folks, but he's feeding the rest of us BS.
Yeah, operating a restaurant in SF is just far too costly. This is why all of us city folk have to drive to Walnut Creek in order to eat out at a decent restaurant.
"Y'know, I don't mind paying $1-2 more per a meal if it means the restaurant employees get paid a slightly-more equitable wage. So it is cool with me."
I think that's what tips are for.
"Notice that the story didn't bother talking to anyone who works for these restaurants. Just politicians representing the other side"
I guess the people who own the restaurants are politicians?
Ahh ideology... it wins every time in San Francisco.
So, what restaurant do you own, Joe?
Erika, I think you were being sarcastic but Tulio's in Walnut Creek has better pizza than anything I've tasted in the City.
See cedichou.blogspot.com for my take on the article and why the article was so one sided in favor of the multi-million dollar restaurants and stuck it to the little guys.
This should not be one bit surprising with the likes of Ammiano, Mirkarimi and Newsom posing as so called "leaders" in this city. I recognize that they may not all be the same, but all are clowns who are in over their respective heads. This city has become so hostile to business interests that its no wonder that so many successful restauranteurs have opted to move to the 'burbs where they will not be relentlessly harassed by a board of supervisors. The restaurant that asked Ammiano to leave? I understand it was on Valencia Street.
Unfortunately, with "leaders" like Ammiano, Mirkarimi and Newsom, we should only expect more of the same legislation that is essentially hostile towards business interests. I know these three posers are not the same, but they are all in over their respective heads. Ever notice how many successful restauranteurs have expanded their enterprises out of the city into the 'burbs? The restaurant that denied Ammiano??I understand it was on Valencia Street.
Jon: this article is a piece of crap. I emailed the author (it's on my blog, cedichou dot blogspot dot com, this comment thing won't let me link to it) and he tersely replied that he wanted to include the worker's point of view but that had been edited out.
The other point is that: why do we cry when walmart refuses to provide healthcare to its worker, but why does the chron take the side of the multi-million dollar, hundred employees business like tres agaves or foreign cinema when they refuse to provide health insurance. Subsidizing walmart so that we taxpayer pay for the healthcare of their employees: nasty. Subsidizing mamacita so that marina yuppies get one buck off their margaritas: it's all fine!
If a few percent of your revenue is $200,000, then you are not a small restaurant that is hurting for business (Foreign cinema is described as a low priced mediterranean bistro, which, unless it has changed dramatically, is not the place I've visited).
"Notice that the story didn't bother talking to anyone who works for these restaurants. Just politicians representing the other side"
I guess the people who own the restaurants are politicians?
Ahh ideology... it wins every time in San Francisco.
To clarify: By the other side, I meant the pro-health care/sick pay viewpoint. (The central position of the story belongs to the restaurant owners.) The Chron didn't bother to talk to people who actually work at these places.
Who kmows what these employees would say if asked? The owners said they would have to cut hours. Employees might verify that and say that they fear such consequences of the legislation.
The point is, the writer went to all the usual suspects - I mean, sources -- and failed to do anything but repeat the same claims the restaurant owners were making when these laws were on the table.
The only interesting part was the owner who put the 5 percent surcharge on checks, because it was a real effect, not an imagined one.
I don't think it's ideological to want news reports that offers actual news and real information rather than just the warmed-over rhetoric from a past campaign.
"Notice that the story didn't bother talking to anyone who works for these restaurants. Just politicians representing the other side"
I guess the people who own the restaurants are politicians?
Ahh ideology... it wins every time in San Francisco.
To clarify: By the other side, I meant the pro-health care/sick pay viewpoint. (The central position of the story belongs to the restaurant owners.) The Chron didn't bother to talk to people who actually work at these places.
Who kmows what these employees would say if asked? The owners said they would have to cut hours. Employees might verify that and say that they fear such consequences of the legislation.
The point is, the writer went to all the usual suspects - I mean, sources -- and failed to do anything but repeat the same claims the restaurant owners were making when these laws were on the table.
The only interesting part was the owner who put the 5 percent surcharge on checks, because it was a real effect, not an imagined one.
I don't think it's ideological to want news reports that offers actual news and real information rather than just the warmed-over rhetoric from a past campaign.
I think that's what tips are for.
You realize that a large portion of a restaurant's staff do not receive tips, right?
I wouldn't mind to pay a little more for a taco if it will help the taco maker.
Funny thing - yesterday I was at the Whole Foods on 4th and Harrison and witnessed our supervisor Ammiano purchasing caviar. Glad to see that these pigs feeding at the government trough can afford such extravagent living. Furthermore, kind of surprising that he would patronize such a big "national" chain rather than some of the finer local establishments.
Funny thing - yesterday I was at the Whole Foods on 4th and Harrison and witnessed our supervisor Ammiano purchasing caviar. Glad to see that these pigs feeding at the government trough can afford such extravagent living. Furthermore, kind of surprising that he would patronize such a big "national" chain rather than some of the finer local establishments.