SFist: No Soup For You

Kevin

Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:35:20 -0800

I just did a count of GGRA SF members from their website. If you leave out the restaurants that have closed but still remain on the GGRA website, plus assume multiple places like Lee's Deli count really as one member, and neglect the restaurants at SFO, the total San Francisco membership roster of the GGRA is a mere 300 or so. Not 800. The San Francisco Chronicle apparently hasn't fact-checked the GGRA's numbers. If the GGRA brazenly inflates their actual membership numbers to make a point, that pretty much shoots their credibility out of the water. It should also be stressed that a MINORITY of those businesses are actually what one would think of as "Mom and Pop". Fifth Floor, Aqua, Boulevard, the restaurants at the Marriott, Hyatt Regency, etc., Pasta Pomodoro, Scomas...do these sound like Mom and Pop places to you? I want to know who's speaking for the REAL small business owners in San Francisco, because it's obviously not the GGRA.

heatherr

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:05:22 -0800

missing miss millie's already? oh boo hoo. there are numerous alternatives, all of which I'm sure won't be 'striking.'

RJ

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:08:22 -0800

All they care about is once again having a handout available. Handout? These people work for a living. Nice to see that the GGRA shills think of a (barely-)living wage and health care for their employees as "handouts."

marc

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:03:38 -0800

The GGRA never ceases to amaze. They "emptied their coffers" to quote Westlye and/or Scroetter in their failed bid to unseat Daly, magnetizing both residents and progressives against them. Now they are going to show their disgust with the will of the people, that health care and sick time be provided to all workers, by--get this--taking action against their employees, customers and tourists. We can handle it if they make it so that we can't eat out for one day, maybe we should collect a strike fund for the tip compensated workers. But the GGRA could not handle it if there were a sustained campaign to draw down the most greedy of the restaurateurs bottom lines, a campaign that made sure that the workers did not suffer for their bosses piggishness. My read is that these owners are such challenged tacticians that they expect the government to lay off holding them to their responsibilities to our community, as their bottom lines reflect their poor judgement elsewhere.

Tom

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:50:41 -0800

I hope that the GGRA follows through with their threat and does it right smack in the middle of the All-Star Game Day. These drug-infused idiots that voted for this measure have no clue what it takes to run a business, etc. - especially restaurants that have such a slim margin to start with. All they care about is once again having a handout available. So you go GGRA!

murphstahoe

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:11:36 -0800

> Do the restaurant owners really think that the > populace will mind if they close? No we don't. If > you were our favorite we will just find another > one. Yes - and now I get up Saturday AM and instead of riding down to Miss Millie's on 24th, I ride to BART, get off at Rockridge, go for a ride in the hills, and eat at Miss Millie's in Rockridge. Yes Miss Millie's has been replaced - by the far inferior Kookez - owned by someone with money who wants to play restaurant, instead of a chef.

City Dweller

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:58:17 -0800

You can go to the GGRA website and look for the Dining Guide. That'll show you the 557 restaurant members. Guess the rest of the 800 are suppliers.

Kevin

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:31:39 -0800

It's funny that they preach the end times coming in the form of chains if the evil workers and people of San Francisco have their way. Especially when some of these GGRA members, like Lee's Deli, Pasta Pomodoro, and SF Soup Co., are chains. Doh!

Treyman

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:56:21 -0800

To paraphase Sandy Alderson the threat of a restaurant strike is "either a threat to be ignored or a offer to be accepted." How do they think jumping up and down and whining will help? Please. Nobody cares. Oh and as to operating a business I know that either you make it or you don't. If many of these restaurants had any foresight whatsoever they would have known that "a living wage" is a constantly relevent topic in a city as left as SF and as expensive as SF. Do the restaurant owners really think that the populace will mind if they close? No we don't. If you were our favorite we will just find another one.

SF94118

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:16:37 -0800

Well said NickH. The wacko's at city hall have no understanding of meeting a payroll or running a business. Ever notice how the chain restaurants in the suburbs are more expensive with inferior food? Well get used to it. If you don't like the restaurants treatment of their employees, register your complaint by not patronizing the establishment rather than forcing some bad legislation down the throats of actual job creating businesses. Frankly, I rarely hear the restaurant employees complaining but the supervisors making all the noise. Meanwhile, I bump into Ammiano at Whole Foods purchasing caviar two weeks ago - good to know he is earning a livable wage on the board of stupes.

Hank Essay

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:42:10 -0800

nickh, I am with you, none of the numbskulls above have ever operated a business, so they don't understand basic things related to cash flow, income, and costs.... -

nickh

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:15:34 -0800

I hope the poster and everyone who commented likes chain restaurants and high prices, because that is exactly what these laws are going to get. People probably don't know this, but restaurants operate on razor thin margins. Every cost increase, be it health care or the cost of food impact that margin. Even if a restaurant is doing well after fixed costs and employee costs they are maybe making 5% - 10% profits. Health care, minimum wage increases, mandatory paid sick day leave all comes out of this profit. Add it up, and it creates a disincentive for an entrepreneur (local presence) to open a restaurant. Unless you are a chain and can afford to spread your risk across multiple franchises why would you open a restaurant? At the end of the day a restaurant is business not a charity. Frankly, if supervisors gave a shit about the working conditions and health care of people in the food service business we would have universal health care in the city plus an adequate training and school system. Since they are too busy to tackle real issues they seem content in passing the buck to small business owners in these so called feel good measures. I hope everyone feels good because there are going to be a lot of people looking for jobs when restaurants are priced out of the market and SF loses it status as a great food city. Take a look at the food court at the mall because that is what we are going to get here if employers are forced to subsidize laziness by our elected officials.

SF Dude

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:45:52 -0800

This is why I don't eat at: - Rose Pistola - Incanto Those 2 owners are always at the forefront, moaning to the papers about how awful it would be to provide benefits to their workers, blah blah blah. Let me paraphrase a current supe: "If you won't do business in our city unless you can treat your workers as semi-slave labor, don't let the door hit you on the way out". I don't know about A16-- does anyone else?

Jerry Jarvis

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:09:03 -0800

All I can say is,DO IT!!!On a Saturday.I just love this city.DO IT DAMMIT!DO IT.

Kevin

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:06:39 -0800

"What can you do? If you are a restaurant owner, I’d considering joining and supporting the GGRA. I’d also make sure to show up at the next meeting of restaurant owners, which will be at Salt House (545 Mission) on Wednesday, April 11, at 3pm to talk about next steps. And if you happen to have some creative ideas about what the local government needs to do to help the restaurant community, I am sure Kevin Westlye of the GGRA would like to hear them." -From Tablehopper.com

SF94118

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:31:00 -0800

I'm not sure this is the right move by the GGRA but I absolutely do support their position. The board of supervisors and rest of city hall makes it awfully difficult on business in this city. Incanto? financed by a wealthy tech guy but operated by a genuine chef - whats the problem with that? A16? I don't know who is behind it but I do know its an excellent and highly successful restaurant.

Kevin

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:12:46 -0800

It should be stressed that the GGRA doesn't represent the small, Mom and Pop restaurants and cafes which make up the bulk of the restaurant industry in the City. Rather, they represent the big money multi-million dollar business ventures - like the one in which Sammy Hagar was but one of 32 different owners (Tres Agaves). These are corporations fighting tooth and nail a law which will benefit not only restaurant workers, but all low-wage City workers. It is a FACT that the better you treat the folks on the bottom, the better everyone is - especially when you're talking about true quality of life issues. Don't forget: that's the real issue here, despite the bellyaching of the GGRA. The truth is that they don't like ANY law which requires them to pay and treat workers fairly. Maybe it's time to start putting faces and names to the policies of the GGRA. Anyone want to name a few restaurants and restaurant owners? A16? Incanto? Go ahead.

Austin

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:10:56 -0800

That's funny. I want to see them close, and watch as things go on as normal, with perhaps a few more crowds at other restaurants. The restaurants that close will be losing money, not the would-be diners. I doubt most people will care at all about the plight of the poor restaurant owners.

Joe

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:36:28 -0800

Won't this make it painfully obvious who the members are and stoke the fires of past attempts at a boycott? Drawing the line between "us" and "them" isn't so smart when the "them" is paying your rent.

Kevin

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:30:25 -0800

Somehow I doubt the GGRA represents 800 businesses in SF - and if so, a "business" could be a non-restaurant and still a member of the GGRA. Someone should check their numbers to make sure that there are actually 800 restaurants in SF who belong to the GGRA because I don't think there are. If that's the case, then their absurd "threat" is all smoke and no fire. But, hey! Let them! Closing their restaurants won't put the consumer out of business! There are plenty of places to eat that aren't part of the GGRA conspiracy to treat workers like expendable chattel. In fact, I hope any restaurant that participates in the so-called strike goes down in flames (figuratively... and non). Fcuk Them. Seriously. Someone else will open up shop and play by our rules...the rules the people of SF make - not the greedy business elite (most of whom don't even live here).