This is my insider announcement that the San Francisco Chronicle is preparing an article to attack restaurants that post a 'notice of surcharge' on their menu and put the money in an HRA.
Surcharge? HRA?
Announcing a surcharge
on the menu is one way of dealing with the new City law that requires all
businesses, including restaurants, to provide their employees $1.76 per
hour (for very small firms the amount is a little less) of medical
insurance coverage. The surcharge is usually 4% and is listed on the
menu of many popular restaurants.
The HRA (Health Reimbursement Arrangement) is a trust fund set up with the $1.76 per hour that can be drawn out every quarter for medical expenses by any employee. It is an alternative to giving the money to the City and saying goodbye to it. It is also helpful to the more than 50% of employees who don't live in San Francisco, and the majority of wait-staff that earn too much to be eligible for the City health care plan. The regular City run plan only covers a tiny 3% of employees who work in S.F.
The Chronicle seems to think the right thing to do is screw all employees who live outside the City and all who live in the City who earn too much to be covered by the City Health Plan. The Chronicle disapproves of HRAs. That is their nutty Lefty reason for calling their investigation an expose.