Excellent bit of reporting. Yes, it is clearly a political statement when the restaurateur puts such messages on their receipts, and it's a message which I recieve as "you business is not welcome here." That some of these restaurants are inflating the cost of this good government policy and pocketing the difference is truly reprehensible.

Amici's? D'ya know? That burnt crust thing is way overplayed anyhow.

What also needs to be considered is that many restaurant employees are students and even though they have school coverage, are also required to be covered by the employer. Many of them would rather get their health services from the school and don't need to be reimbursed for anything. The restaurants have to play out a worst-case scenario and have the liquid assets available to take care of any liabilities that come up. For many it may be a political statement, for others it was a way to pass through the cost of doing business without raising prices in a bad economy. It's less noticeable to add a surcharge than to raise item prices (it's also beneficial to the customer). It was a huge expense for restaurants with already low profit margins and could have meant the end of many of our favorite places.

I'm curious about the data analysis that was done.
When I downloaded the spreadsheet
- Isolated just the restaurants that had the surcharge
- Calculated the difference between the Total Allocated and the Total Reimbursed Amounts
- Sorted by that difference, (which rightfully seems to be the point of contention from the article above)

I came up with a different set of restaurants altogether. I'm sure there are variables I have not taken into account and as a patron I'd be curious to know what those are and why my outcome was so different from yours.

Thanks!

My totals looked something like this:

Restaurant: Epic Roasthouse & Waterbar
Surcharge: 4%
Allocated: $274,888.00
Reimbursed: $18,675.00
DIFFERENCE: $256,213.00

Restaurant: Pomodoro
Surcharge: 4%
Allocated: $223,602.00
Reimbursed: $-
DIFFERENCE: $223,602.00

Restaurant: Daily Grill
Surcharge: 3%
Allocated: $217,278.00
Reimbursed: $30,761.00
DIFFERENCE: $186,517.00

Restaurant: BurgerMeister
Surcharge: Yes (amount unknown)
Allocated: $175,560.00
Reimbursed: $7,404.00
DIFFERENCE: $168,156.00

Restaurant: Michael Mina
Surcharge: 4%
Allocated: $184,599.00
Reimbursed: $34,773.00
DIFFERENCE: $149,826.00

Restaurant: Ozumo Japanese Restaurant
Surcharge: 4%
Allocated: $152,754.00
Reimbursed: $8,881.00
DIFFERENCE: $143,873.00

Restaurant: Alioto Fish Company
Surcharge: 4%
Allocated: $203,189.00
Reimbursed: $69,080.00
DIFFERENCE: $134,109.00

Restaurant: Salt House
Surcharge: 4%
Allocated: $148,608.00
Reimbursed: $16,451.00
DIFFERENCE: $132,157.00

Restaurant: AMICI'S EAST COAST pizzeria
Surcharge: 4.85%
Allocated: $125,763.00
Reimbursed: $1,995.00
DIFFERENCE: $123,768.00

Restaurant: Andalu
Surcharge: 3%
Allocated: $122,742.00
Reimbursed: $3,762.00
DIFFERENCE: $118,980.00

I agree the fee is annoying. However, I personally voted against this tax. I agree with the idea, and Obamacare, however, it should have been that ALL employers were forced to participate. I am a bookkeeper in a law office with revenues approaching a million dollars per year, 65% of which goes to the principal attorney, with margins of 50-75%!!…and guess what? 9 of us do not have healthcare. I know half a dozen other people in the same situation. Now, why would my boss not have to pay, and a restaurant owner recapturing with a salary of MAYBE 10% of all earnings on a 1-3% margin have to pay??!! I went on the city plan for a bit, and the city was simply not prepared--3mos waitlist for swollen lymph nodes. Several of my co-workers had the same issue. Perhaps the article should have addressed this. Because the monies collected by the businesses are available for a certain amount of time (not sure how long), and applied to all employee health care. Most likely the reason the money is still there is because emergency appointments were not being accepted, thusly monies not applied. I called one of the restaurants on the list and have a phone appointment with the owner this afternoon, so maybe I will ‘report’ back.

I don’t appreciate the addition of the fee, but I also felt ok knowing services would be available to those generally not covered. However, that is not what happened, the plan is failing. I feel the article lacks critical thinking and falls short of investigation. But I often feel people lack the curiosity for the truth.

By the way…I hear DeLessio is trying to move operations out of San Francisco to avoid all the taxes small businesses pay in SF, there would be a lot of people out of work.

The city should be commended for attempting to provide health care to its' citizens!

Whats needed is single payer health care for all Americans!!!

eliminate the middle man, the corporate health insurers, and their corporate death panels!!

I've worked at many San Francisco restaurants where I've seen this in action (or inaction, as it is.) I often wonder what is to be done about it. As a server, many people tip less because of the surcharge. Also, it is frustrating to work for a company that doesn't accrue sick pay and vacation pay, pay any overtime, give any breaks, and charges a fake HSF charge when in fact the employees never get to see it. Frustrating. I'd love to know where to report these businesses and to see some consequences. As a side note, I do use Healthy SF and I love it, but my employers have never been apart of it.

Link above, 'exclusive chart', does not seem to work??

Wonderful blog! Do you have any tips for aspiring writers? I'm hoping to start my own website soon but I'm a little lost on everything. Would you propose starting with a free platform like Wordpress or go for a paid option? There are so many options out there that I'm completely confused .. Any ideas? Bless you!