As part of the Healthy SF plan, which requires restaurants and other small businesses to provide some form of health insurance coverage to their employees, there was a provision to allow restaurants to pass the cost along to their customers as a surcharge. This is pretty disingenuous as restaurants could include these costs as part of their business model and the cost of doing business rather than adding a line item to every bill. Basically, it is a political statement on the part of the business owner to do so. Some have expressed their opinion to me that the surcharge may read "Healthy SF" on the bill, but it is really saying "Fuck you" to the customer/SF citizenry for voting for it, and shows an open disdain for their employees.
While I do not whole heartedly agree with that assessment, I take their point. (The charges I've seen have usually been $1-$3 per check. I have a hard time believing that couldn't be spread out in pennies across the price of various items, or absorbed in business costs.) However, I have also noticed some liberal superiority in the happiness to pay the surcharge as it supports the service industry which needs all the respect it can get for their hard work. If I have been so satisfied to pay the Healthy SF charge for the good it creates, should I be so bothered about it appearing as a charge and not an increased price?
Unfortunately for everyone, the potentially unscrupulous and arrogant nature of the surcharge was made outright nefarious when the City's Office of Labor Standards Enforcement audit found that restaurants had collected over $5 million dollars in Healthy SF fees, without providing the insurance or coverage for which they were purporting to be passing thought the cost. After public outcry, the City had released their list of offenders.
 |
| photo from SFGate |
At the top of the list of the most egregious offenders was one of my favorite brunch spots: Squat & Gobble in the Castro at Market and Noe/16th.
When I needed a convenient and amusing place to take a visiting friend staying at a B&B on Henry Street, I told him to meet me at Squat & Gobble around his corner. I had been actively boycotting this place since I learned that the owner tacked on extra charges to his customers (i.e. me and my friends) to the tune of $160,498, and payed employee health expenses totaling... wait for it... $0.
For some reason, I thought all of this had been worked out. Either I thought the grace period had expired or I had a half-remembered conversation in the neighborhood that the owner had done the right thing and taken care of everything.
Apparently, such is not the case.
When I arrived Saturday morning, the owner recognized me and greeting me warmly, and was kind enough to let me "reserve" an outside table as I waited for Andrew to walk the two blocks to the restaurant. This turned out to be an even bigger favor as while I was waiting the crowd grew large and outside tables became a premium. Meanwhile, Apple Maps sent Andrew to the Squat & Gobble at Haight and Fillmore, who directed him to the one in the Upper Haight (at which point he called to clarify), and the confusion and long walk back left me camped at a premium table with a coffee for longer than expected.
While I was waiting for Andrew, a handsome gay couple in their 40s walked up to the patio, and greeted the owner. The conversation went along these lines:
Paraphrasing: "Hi. It's nice to see you. We came by just to see you and to let you know that we miss you, and we miss coming here, but we won't come back until you clean up that Healthy SF business. That's why we haven't been coming here, and we thought it was important that you knew that."
At the point the owner bunched his shoulders and avoided their eye contact and displayed every aspect body language I would associate with shame. He hemmed and hawed but didn't really say anything. The couple was kind and calm, and also unwavering. "You know this is important. And that is a lot of money. It's not okay."
At this point I was thinking, "Well, shit. I have been avoiding everyone on that list on principle and now I feel like a hypocrite. But I also can't leave at this point, and I certainly can't leave without telling him why or else what would be the point of leaving, and after his kindness this morning that would turn the friendly relationship bitter. Also, I don't want spit in my coffee."
So I sat, slightly ashamed of myself, and eavesdropped intently to hear if the owner did in fact have an explanation, justification, or confession. I did not or could not hear one. Ultimately, they hugged it out and parted ways.
I did try to catch the eye of either one of the men, to share my concern and ask them where things stood now as far as they knew and what came of their conversation. I failed at that, and could not easily cross the front line of tables and bars to casually approach them.
So I don't know what's up with the apparent fraud at Squat & Gobble, or if ownership is treating the staff with respect or providing basic health coverage as required by law.
Anyone out there have any news? I'm thinking of passing this question on to the SF Appeal, the finest source for local news-news. Or better yet, I'll ask the Castro Biscuit, the best source for local-local news in the Castro.
Update: Yes, the whole accounting thing is terribly complicated and companies are required to have a set aside funds account for health care for their workers, but the legislation/regulations are a bit unclear on how they are to be spent or how overages are to be accounted. Which is why the grace period was offered for people to get their reporting and relevant accounting act together. However, at $160k reported collected and a zero reported spent, and the body-shrug/head-hung-in-shame act I witnessed on Saturday, I don't think the S&G case is a clerical one.
No comments:
Post a Comment