As mentioned in my post, some states in the USA don't allow payment of less than the minimum wage, but most do.

Here's an example from the state of Maine (link):

What is the minimum wage?
Beginning October 1, 2008 the minimum wage in Maine is $7.25 per hour. Maine does not have a training wage or subminimum wage for students. Tipped service employees can be paid one-half the minimum hourly wage. However, if this rate plus tips does not average at least the minimum wage, the employer must pay the difference.

Another example (link):
What is the minimum wage in Massachusetts?

The minimum wage in Massachusetts is currently $8.00 an hour for most employees. For service employees, like waitstaff, who receive tips of more than $20.00 per month as part of their compensation, the minimum wage is $2.63 an hour.

So what's the difference between requiring health care payment for workers, or social security tax? Should there now be a visible 6.25% (?) SS tax added to all checks because employers need to pay that for all employees? Every bill I've every seen lists city & state (were applicable) sales tax, but I've never seen a listing for business tax, real estate tax, insurance (also required by law, but still the business's obligation). There are also probably annual licenses that need to be renewed, 'mandated' by a gov't agency (local, state, federal) but almost certainly unfunded by the gov't.

It's an actual ordinance that diners have to pay $1 toward the waiter's health care? Since when is promoting tip inflation any government's business?

If this is true, I'd simply calculate the tip on the bill and take a credit for the health care charge.

Just to clarify, there is a federal minimum wage, with a reduced level of $2.13 an hour for tipped employees, with the previously mentioned caveat that with tips, the income has to be at least the standard min wage. Although in theory, employers could pay the reduced wage to other tipped employees, it is mainly restaurant wait staff who get paid at that level.

In addition, many, but not all, states have additional minimum wage laws. See here for more details.

It's usually written into the applicable tax code whether the tax must be listed separately. For example, the state rental car tax as well as the $4.81-per-day Consolidated Facility Charge are actually codified in Alaska state statutes that they must be itemized separately on customer's bills (the state put the money up for the new rental car facility in ANC). On the other hand, the 11.11% concession recovery fee that covers the 10% airport concession fee the airport imposes on its concessionaires (including rental car companies) is not required to be itemized separately, though it is universally imposed by all airport rental agencies in ANC (whoever didn't list it would be at a disadvantage when customers check rates, because they'd have to charge a higher daily rate to get the same income and customers would be turned off by such). But be careful when arguing that fees shouldn't be listed separately, as in many cases, laws, statutes, codes, and even lease agreements can stipulate they must be.

To the OP: I'd definitely complain and be surprised if that didn't result at least in a round of drinks on the house.

I also hate subsidizing the salary and supporting the slave industry. I much prefer an approach where waitstaff has an ordinary contract with a regular salary (at or above minimum wage), good benefits (most of all health insurance as accidents are frequent in that industry) and generally fair conditions. This cost must be factored into the cost of the actual product. An extra service charge is not permissible in my eyes.

I think tax should be figured into the final price, too. It makes calculation much easier. It is also fairer to the customer because he/she will see what is to pay, instead of being duped into a scheme where a meal looks like it costs $30 but in reality will cost $38 when all is figured in.

Based on that, I will gladly give a tip or at least round up the bill, if I found the service satisfactory or even excellent.

Till

wouldn't it just be easier if employers actually paid their staff a decent salary, then this ridiculous tips farce could stop. We should tip if we want, not because we have to.

Interestingly, most people in the back have no benefits, either. And they get scant attention from the OSHA-types for the hazards they are always (...standing up) near. A friend's son is a sous chef, wrists perpetually burned and scarred. He's been doing it for about five years. $40,000, and no bennies. In one of the big-name Boston restos, the second that he's worked in where it's the same. Because they can. Because - even good - restaurant talent in all positions is easy to come by.

Back to regular programming, I usually tip 15% and round up to the next dollar. Or 20% and rounded if the service has been stellar, including wrapping doggie bags for several people. Actually, it's win-win. I don't begrudge the extra few cents, and later I can quickly scan my cc statement and know if there's been any funny business.

Those accidents would already be covered by state-mandated workers' comp insurance.

A while ago, a friend hosted a business dinner at a restaurant that included an automatic tip/service charge, since the group was more than 6 people. My friend said the service was terrible, and rude.

Not wanting to cause a scene, he paid the bill as presented, and later on simply disputed the charge with his credit card company. Amazingly, the tip/service charge was removed, based on his account of bad service.

Whenever I don't think the service deserves the auto.tip amount I let know the manager before paying. Sometimes they remove it from the bill and sometimes they argue that it's mandatory.

When the tip can "not" be removed, I simply pay it and mark the place with an X.

No, it isn't $1/check, it's a percentage of the total most places. We paid a mandatory 3.5% surcharge at one upper end place recently. Personally, I find tacking it on separately both deceitful and annoying; it is a part of the cost of doing business for a restaurant in SF under the new law, and should be included in the price listed on the menu.

Why should it be included in the price? Taxes aren't. Either way, you're going to get a higher bill than simply the menu item prices. I suppose you could try and estimate it into menu prices, but you're gonna have to guess and it might make the prices look funny. Why do all that when listing it out separately makes it so much simpler?

It's an extra, San Francisco specific expense. While many businesses were for it, many more were not. Even if it's not required by law to be listed out separately, I have no problems with restaurants who do. Like a PP said, it's transparency.

Customers are gonna pay it anyways. What difference does it make to you whether it's built into menu prices or listed separately? It's basic economics that as you raise prices, demand goes down. Why make it any harder on the restaurants than it is? Let's not ignore the common knowledge that most people are affected by price and react when prices get raised. Higher prices don't hurt as bad when it comes out as fees/taxes out the back end. As consumers, it is annoying, but this isn't nearly to the degree that hotels/car rental agencies do it.

By listing it separately, the restaurant puts it out there. If you're all for it, you'll gladly pay it. If you're against it, it's a reminder that it's there and maybe you'll help small businesses try and get it repealed.

And for the person who asked about social security, it's totally different. SS is a federal thing. Every employer/employee pays it. This is a special SF thing. Like hotel are car rental fees, it's specific to this particular locale.

Can you name another type of business that bills customers directly for employee benefits? Is it on the itemized sticker on your car window? Maybe on the invoice for your new computer?

Taxes are also predictable within a civic entity, this health benefits charge is not. Apparently how much the customer directly pays is set by the individual restaurants and can range from $0 up to 4% of the bill.

Americans are getting hit with deceptive pricing in many ways these days, be it airline ads, rental car rates or SF menus. I think the price we are shown should be as close to the total as possible, with the exception of fees or taxes mandated by law to be shown separately.

That's cuz it's not mandated anywhere but San Francisco. It's a pretty hot button topic.

If we all get universal health care, I'm pretty sure they'll stop line iteming it. As it is, I see it as a their way of protesting/highlighting the issue.

It goes back to the transparency thing. This is a pretty unique issue IMO. It's similar to various fees and stuff, but not exactly. I'm sure everyone's premiums are different, unlike some hotel tax.