You are the first to cite and link to the WSJ article. Thank you. This article is from 2011, so I'm not sure if anything has changed since then.

It seems to me, as I read the article, not enough people have a clear understanding.

The HRA's seem like a good idea, even though they are "use it or lose it." At the very least, the employee can use the funds in their HRA to request reimbursement for employee paid health insurance premiums, even if the employee has purchased their own health policy. That most of these HRA funds go unused, according to the WSJ reporting, and are returned to the employer, at least to me implies the employees don't fully understand how to tap into their accounts. "No one got sick," claims one restaurant owner who recaptured all of the HRA funds he had to set aside. Really? Come on.

Applying what I stated earlier, and if I were to visit one of the restaurants named, I'd take a minute for a conversation with the server as I was handing back the signed charge slip with the tip adjusted down for the surcharge: "Are you aware that your employer has an HRA account set up for you?" "No? Well then you should find out, because this surcharge is collected to provide this monetary benefit to you, and that's why I reduced your tip by that amount that you should be paid indirectly...." -or- "Yes? Then you understand why I reduced..."etc.

The advanced conversation down the road...

Hey boss... last year working full time, my sales were $200,000 for you and that means the 3% surcharge imposed on those sales worked out to $6,000. And most of my customers told me they were reducing my tip by the 3%. So my tips were off $6,000 but yet you only provided me with an HRA with $2,600. What gives? Isn't that surcharge too high?

The disparity between surcharges collected and used to fund intended expenses is staggering, as outlined in the article. IF THEY DID NOT...it's a shame that local media didn't pick up on the WSJ's article and further shame the restaurateurs, ensuring a wider audience than the WSJ.

The article also pointed out one restaurant Cafe Flore that was tacking on THIRTY FIVE CENTS, according to the 2011 article. I looked up their online menu which now states 4% will be added for a shopping list of items all of which directly or indirectly benefit the waitstaff, so I'd have no qualms in reducing a tip by the 4%; I'm just paying the wait staff in another indirect way.

Now had it been simply 35 cents, I'd in no way alter the tip. Anyone remember back to that despicable John Schnatter's remarks intended to sway voters against re-electing President Obama? He stated that if he were required to offer health insurance to his workers, that he would be FORCED to raise the price of all of his pizzas by TWENTY FIVE CENTS. (Or at least this is how I remembered it. Found this which stated cost to be $0.11 to $0.14 per pizza https://www.huffpost.com/entry/papa-...izza_n_1752126) But at the time, when I heard the 25 cents figure, I firmly stated that: if me paying just a Quarter more per pizza is all that's standing in the way of all of his employees being offered health insurance, I will gladly pay 25 cents more! Then a day after re-election he stirred up great controversy as he discussed cutting employee hours to avoid providing health care. More than six years later, I still haven't taken a bite of a Papa John's pizza.

And for those restaurants exposed as imposing a surcharge that simply flows to the bottom line because they don't use the surcharge as intended, they should be avoided.