28844 Thu Apr 15 22:48:47 -0700 2004 36 1 San Francisco Bay Area 0 121314 Had a night on my own last night, so I dined solo at Incanto (aside for the other poster who asked for a comparison with Antica: never eaten at the later so I can't comment on that.) This was my first time there in quite some time. Hubby and I went there once before, shortly after they opened. I was in the mood to treat myself, and I wanted to check them out again since I had heard such positive reviews under the current (new since I was last there) chef. If I have time I will try and post more about the meal later (executive summary: food was ok (my entree) to very good (everything else), place has obviously gotten quite a bit more popular and had just a touch of a 'scene' vibe, which certainly wasn't true the last time I ate there. However, there were some inconsistencies in both food and service, so overall I was slightly disappointed given my expectations.), but I did think their new tip policy is interesting and merits a seperate post. As announced on the menu, they have started adding 5% to every bill as a way to address the requirements of SF's living wage law, 'without having to raise prices'. Fine, but this raises some questions in my mind: does that mean that servers will automatically get the additional 5% even if it isn't needed to raise their income to the required levels for the living wage law? Is there an advantage to the server of this approach over just raising prices? If one is going to add 5%, why not just go all the way and follow the lead of Chez Pannise and add a full tip amount (I think CP adds 18%?) And finally of course, in a restuarant that follows such a policy, what is an appropriate (additional) tip to leave? Should I have left my normal 18 to 20%? or should I have reduced my tip by 5% (I left 15%, so does that mean the server in essence got 20%? Service was decent, but as I said, there were some inconsistencies and minor annoyances). Interestingly, two gentlemen at another table asked their server for his opinion as to how they should handle the issue. At least, I assume that is what they asked: they were using their 'indoor voices' and I couldn't hear their half of the conversation. I COULD hear the response, because the server proceeded to give his extended opinion of the law, the restaurants response, and the like, in a voice loud enough to be heard four tables away. (which I found to be somewhat inappropriate; I am reasonably sure he was speaking that loudly for the benefit of the person behind the bar who appeared to be really in charge of things. This was early in my visit, before it got rather crowded and noisier.) The server in question wasn't unhappy with the policy, just wanted his opinion known (in great detail). He did claim that Incanto's policy was superior to that of 'some' other SF restaurants, 'where servers are being fired right and left even though they have worked there for years'. Not sure if that is true, but am curious as to other Chowhound's views and input, both regarding the policy itself as a viable solution to the issue, and as to what an appropriate tip amount would be under such a policy? Thu Apr 15 22:48:47 -0700 2004 0 susancinsf 1 121316 How baffling! They should at least provide a sensible explanation. it sounds like they still expect you to tip 15-20%, in which case the extra 5% is in fact raising the prices, like one of those resort surcharges. Thu Apr 15 22:56:14 -0700 2004 121314 0 Windy 2 121406 I manage a restaurant and maybe I can help clear this up since most of you have it wrong. -The minimum wage increase is a good thing for anyone that makes less than $8.25 an hour. No doubt. -Servers made (before the change)$6.75 an hour plus tips averaging a combined income of anywhere from $12-$40 an hour depending on the restaurant. Why do they (servers) need the minimum wage increase? -This will cost the restaurant (depending on the size, hours etc..) on average around $8000 a month more. That's more than most restaurants cash flow in a month. -The 5% that incanto adds goes to pay for that. Not to the server. So you don't need to adjust the tip. -This increase also means that the restaurant can no longer afford to give raises to any other hourly employees now. Those not making tips. -This was a poorly planned law. The public voted yes on it, so the public will have to pay through menu price increase. In whatever form it shows up in. -To the poster who had the weakly calculated hourly increase that might be ripping you off, don't forget about the increase in all employee tax lines, workers comp and compensation. I feel to just raise prices is the best method. A surcharge is only going to raise confusion, especially to those who live elsewhere. Yet another stab at the san francisco busines owner. Sat Apr 17 02:21:01 -0700 2004 121316 0 Bob 3 121412 Well, now I wish I had gotten out a pen and copied down the exact wording, but as I reported originally, and as best I can recall, the little Blurb on the menu didn't say something like "this is a surcharge so we can meet the requirements of the law without it eating into our cash flow" (sorry for the pun). No: the essence of the blurb was that this was a 'Service Charge' (which implies it is a tip going to the server) to assure compliance with the law 'without raising prices'. But if the money is indeed going to the resto (for whatever purpose) and not to the server, and the tip should not be adjusted accordingly, than how in the heck can they claim they aren't raising their prices? If they really want to point out a weakness in the law (from their point of view; let me be clear that I am not convinced there is a weakness), why not just print a little note saying, 'sorry, but we had to raise our prices, call your neighborhood supervisor to complain'... and if they just want to keep all of their business, just quietly raise prices and say nothing. I think with the business they were doing at 6:30 on a Wednesday night, and the good press they've been getting, that they really don't need to be too worried, as long as they concentrate on the quality of the food and experience. At best, their way of handling the situation was confusing. Apart from that, I really was bothered that the waiter was using that confusion to make a political point (sorry, but when I spend over $60 for dinner solo after a rough day at the office, I really don't want to hear the server give a political talk). I guess the bottom line for me is: if the place is great or otherwise captures my heart than I won't let a small increase in price keep me away. So far, Incanto hasn't captured my heart, though I will probably give it at least one more try since it is close to my house and one can't eat at Bacco every night :-) However, if I don't end up going back, it will be because of lapses in service and the fact that the food didn't wow me, NOT because the meal was a few dollars more than it might have been a few months ago. Sat Apr 17 03:52:45 -0700 2004 121406 0 susancinsf 2 121409 My name is Mark Pastore; I am Incanto's owner. I am posting in response to the thread of dicussion about Incanto's 5% partial service charge. In a nutshell, we decided to implement this service charge at Incanto because, after months of evaluating how this law would affect our business, we concluded that a service charge would be the most fair and equitable long-term solution both to our guests and to our employees as a whole. We are not attempting to make a political statement or to attempt to trick any of our guests. We sincerely believe this policy is in everyone's best interest, considering the specifics of the circumstances. The following facts led us to our decision to implement a service charge: - Like many table service restaurants in San Francisco, the only minimum wage employees at Incanto are those who work in our dining room, earning minimum wages plus tips, the latter of which effectively double, triple, or quadruple their hourly earnings. Although these tips are reported to and taxed by both state and federal governments, California is one of only a small number of states in which tip income does not count toward the minimum wage. Thus, at Incanto, only our 12 already highest-paid hourly workers, all of whom work in the dining room and receive tips, received a raise as a result of this law. The remainder of our staff: Incanto's dishwashers, prep cooks, and line cooks, the true working poor in San Francisco restaurants, were left behind by this law, as they were already earning $9 or more per hour. While we don't begrudge a pay increase to any of our employees (including our tipped employees), I am not alone in feeling that it would also be nice to do more for our lowest-paid employees if we are going to increase the pay of our highest-paid employees. For Incanto, this law made it impossible to do so. To put this law in context, San Francisco's minimum wage of $8.50 per hour is currently more than 2.5 times the national average minimum wage for tipped employees and is by far the highest anywhere in the United States. A pay gap between dining room employees and kitchen employees already existed in restaurants, but in a single stroke this law has both widened the disparity and made it substantially more difficult for many restaurants (such as Incanto, which last year earned a profit only one-third of what it will cost to conform with this new law) to stay in business, let alone continue offering benefits such as health insurance to our employees or to raise the wages of our lowest-compensated employees. - Most San Francisco restaurants are dealing with this law by reducing staff, trimming work schedules, eliminating employee benefits, and/or raising prices. We felt that all of these strategies would negatively impact either our employees or our guests. Since the law went into effect, there have been layoffs (mostly among "expendable" low-wage staff) at many prominent restaurants in the city, as well as two high-profile closures (Prop L cannot be blamed for these closures entirely, but it certainly could not have helped the financial picture for these struggling restaurants). Moreover, because the law includes a provision to increase the minimum wage by the local inflation index annually forever, following these strategies will lead to reducing service and increasing prices every year to keep up with rising costs. A service charge provides an alternative to all of these problems, without raising base prices or eliminating jobs. - By implementing this 5% partial service charge instead of increasing our menu prices, we enable our customers to keep the cost of dining at Incanto exactly same as at was before the law went into effect (provided they were accustomed to leaving at least a 5% tip for the staff). A meal that used to cost $100, plus a $20 tip, still costs $100, with a $5 charge for service, after which the guest has every right to deduct this amount (that's why it's called a partial service charge) from his/her additional tip, therefore paying the same $120 in total, including tip. If, on the other hand, we were to raise prices by 5%, the same meal would cost $105 before tip. Assuming the same 20% tip on the higher bill ($21), the new cost of a meal would be $126 -- effectively multiplying the price increase passed along to the guest, though ironically, I would not be in the position of needing to explain it to our guests. Once again, these price increases would continue over time as the minimum wage continues to increase each year. - Incanto uses the funds from the 5% service charge for two purposes: 1) two-thirds go to paying the wage increase to all our minimum wage employees, 2) the remaining third goes to paying for 100% of the premiums for medical, dental, and health insurance, a benefit we offer to all our employees who work more than 30 hours per week. Incidentally, eliminating these insurance benefits would also have paid for the costs of implmenting Prop L without implementing a service charge, but our kitchen staff rely on these benefits more than any of our other employees and once again I did not want to cancel these benefits, hurting these employees, merely to comply with this poorly-conceived law. The 5% service charge enables us to preserve these benefits for all employees. The biggest downside of the service charge is, in spite of a written explanation printed on both sides of our menu, for many of our guests it is unexpected and unfamiliar and requires explanation. Since we implemented it two months ago, we have had many questions, but surprisingly few outright complaints. At the risk of being undiplomatic toward those who have posted criticisms of the service charge, I will say that it tends to be our most cynical guests who insist on reading some bad intent into the service charge and don't believe us when we say that we are trying to be fair to our employees, to preserve health benefits & jobs, without raising prices. Naturally, some people will believe that management is trying to pull one over on the customer and screw our employees while we're at it. All I can say to anyone who believes in this view of the world is: please walk a mile in my shoes and tell me what you would do in my position: lay off employees, eliminate insurance benefits, or increase prices to give a raise to half of your employees while ignoring the plight of the other half. To be sure, we have chosen a more difficult course than most restaurants, we have opened ourselves to and received criticism, but we have done so for the right reasons: a desire to treat both our employees and our guests fairly. This explanation really only scratches the surface of the thought that went into implementing the service charge here at Incanto. I am happy to respond to individual inquiries if you have them via email at info@incanto.biz. Regards, Mark Pastore Incanto Sat Apr 17 03:09:03 -0700 2004 121316 0 Incanto 3 121414 ok,now I am REALLY confused. (I just read this after posting my second post on the topic). It sounds like you are encouraging patrons to reduce their tip by the 5% (and indeed, that is what the term 'partial service charge' would mean to me.) So if we all really did that, how is it exactly that you would then have the extra money to pay the minimum wage and benefits etc? aren't you really secretly hoping/counting on the fact that folks will continue to tip their normal amount? otherwise, how would you have the extra funds you need? I must be missing something here, but bottom line: you take five or more paragraphs to explain it but I am still confused (as you admit many folks are.) The fact that you don't seem inclined to rethink your policy given the level of confusion does in fact increase my suspicion that your actions are at least in part politically motivated (and sorry, but that doesn't make me a cynical person). Truth is: I went into your restaurant Wednesday night wanting nothing more than a pleasant, relaxing evening after a long difficult day. Instead, I received a political lesson that I wasn't looking to get.... Sat Apr 17 04:24:44 -0700 2004 121409 0 susancinsf 4 121426 I'm also confused, and while I appreciate your attempts to clarify your policy, you might step away from judging those who are confused by it as cynical or complainers. I've never heard of such a policy, whether well intentioned or inflationary for diners or both, nor have the others who posted here. I also wonder why you don't just add a service charge of 15% (or whatever) if you want to apportion the $ yourself more equitably. Patrons can always round up for fine service, but that would remove the need to carry two calculators around or split hairs on having to calculate a tip on top of sales tax and an additional 5%. Going out to dinner shouldn't have to be a mathematical or ethical puzzle, especially after a few glasses of wine. Sat Apr 17 13:03:11 -0700 2004 121414 0 Windy 5 121524 you're right. it shouldn't be this complicated, but that can happen when propositions are dropped haphazardly on an already complicated system. the problem is that the proposition has a NEGATIVE effect on some types of businesses, like Incanto. there, it enriches the highest paid workers, putting the squeeze on the owner, and in turn forcing him to put the squeeze on his other employees, his customers, or simply fold (firing all his employees). what can we do? we can understand the issue, help implement incanto's solution, encourage similar solutions elsewhere, and think more carefully next time such propositions come before us. as nice as it would be to have a 'simple' dinner out, ours is an increasingly complex world in which we cannot live in ignorance of our surroundings. we can and should pay close attention to where our food comes from, right? well now we have to understand where our service comes from as well. we're the ones who passed the proposition, so now we have to live with the consequences, forseen and unforseen. Mon Apr 19 14:38:16 -0700 2004 121426 0 ed 4 121444 I understand it, and am glad that Mr. Pastore took the time to write the response. It's helpful to see his point of view... He is being required to pay more money to his highest paid employees, the wait staff. If he raises prices across the board to pay for this increase, then it will also raise your tip amounts, and thus increase those salaries even more. The 5% surcharge circumvents that, and also gives him the ability to use some of the "tip" money to pay for other expenses, namely insurance, benefits, etc. that ALL employees benefit from. He adds that you, the customer, can determine what additional tip to leave -- the full 15-20%, or less the 5%, as the wait staff will be receiving higher pay regardless (but not as much as if you left the full 20%). I am fine with his decision -- but it is unforturnate that it is so hard to explain. Dinner should be more straightforward -- adding the full tip amount to the tab and splitting it up how they see fit seems most reasonable/simple. But I doubt the wait staff would agree to that. I wonder if the wait staff had any say in the decision to add the 5% surcharge? And whether I agree with the policy or not, Incanto is a nice restaurant and it is a good thing that it's owner was willing to put so much thought into this. I have no problem with returning to a restaurant with a thoughtful owner.... Sat Apr 17 18:58:10 -0700 2004 121414 0 bubbles 3 121419 I think it's great that you already pay your other employees more than minimum wage, but I'm sure that's not the case in many -- if not most -- SF restaurants. Across the board, this means the law does indeed benefit the poorest employees. I have no problem with the five percent surcharge. I think the problem is the confusing way it's being implemented. Sat Apr 17 10:46:47 -0700 2004 121409 0 Ruth Lafler 3 121515 Thank you for the response. The following point bears repeating, as it is the information that any diner at Incanto should have (I pleaded with The Team to allow the discussion to continue on the board so we could get this tip): "the guest has every right to deduct this amount (that's why it's called a partial service charge) from his/her additional tip" It now all makes perfect sense to me...it even explains the behavior of the waiter that Susan described. Here's the way I see it with HYPOTHETICAL numbers to illustrate (don't whip out your calculators, folks, to see if this adds up to 5%)... Before the law, a server made $6.50 per hour plus maybe $15 per hour in tips, for a total of $21.50 per hour. Other laborers get paid, say, $9 per hour. The law comes along and says the waiter now has to be paid $9. If the restaurant does nothing to pricing, that means the waiter now gets $9 + $15 = $24 per hour, and the restaurant has to cut costs to make up the $2.50 per hour increase its paying in wages to waiters. Fire people, use cheaper ingredients, cut benefits, close. By just increasing prices across the board, as in Mark's example, you not only fund the $2.50 salary increase but also add additional tip income, effectively giving the waiter two pay raises, and adding even more cost to the diner. You might go from $15 hourly tips to $20, so the waiter gets paid not $21.50 but $9+$20 = $29. The 5% solution effectively funds the $2.50 salary increase (along with other incremental costs that go with it, and apparently benefits increases for all). Of course it doesn't "go to the waiter" as tip income. If a diner does deduct the 5% from their usual tip (say from 15% to 10%), then the result to the waiter is they get paid the same as before. So why might a waiter be grumpy? Along comes a law that will give you a pay raise, and possibly two, yet management has figured out a way to pay you the same salary without increasing prices. Bummer. But like most agree, the waiters are the ones in a restaurant that need a raise the least. For what it's worth, I applaud this approach. It's obviously one that requires a great deal of education and thought for a diner to understand. That'll be hard to do, especially in this cynical city. Good luck. Like Susan, I haven't fallen in love with the food yet (admitted it's been a while since I've eaten there), but I'd hate to see that wine program (which I do take advantage of from time to time by doing a flight or two at the bar) disappear. -Nick Mon Apr 19 13:49:49 -0700 2004 121409 0 nja 4 121630 well, I am not sure I agree that the tipping policy is a good thing. but then, I never could have figured Nick's calculations out in my head (one more reason to have a flat service charge, for us math impaired types :-)). However, getting back to the food for a minute: the best part of my dinner was the dessert (a really nice pear poached in port, with marscapone and 'risotto', i.e. sauteed rice, stuffing.) So it did occur to me the other day that Incanto might be a good place to go for dessert late, with a dessert wine flight (I remember seeing one on the menu), after a concert or other fairly nice evening out.... Tue Apr 20 22:23:55 -0700 2004 121515 0 susancinsf 3 121518 thank you mark, for taking the time to formulate this policy and explain it to us. it makes perfect sense actually. it is a logical response to the unfortunate implementation of a well-intentioned but ill-conceived proposition. Mark's fixed expenses have just gone up substantially to give a legally mandated raise to his highest paid employees. he recognized how unjust that was, so to avoid passing the pain to us or his other employees, he is essentially providing us with a means to sidestep any negative outcome. he invited us to deduct the 5% from the tip. go ahead and do it. the 5% 'service charge' is going to pass through mark's hands and go to the server anyway. that will help maintain the status quo, rather than enrich the well-paid server at anyone else's expense. i could explain this with crystal clarity using a graph, but since that's impossible here, you'll have to carefully read what he and i said (it's actually a fairly simple micro-economic equation). no one is cheating anyone here, he's trying to do the right thing. Mon Apr 19 14:10:56 -0700 2004 121409 0 ed 1 121317 If they're adding 5 percent to every bill, they've raised their prices whether they want to call it that or not. And as your post demonstrates, they've done it in a way that's very confusing to the customer. Thu Apr 15 22:57:59 -0700 2004 121314 0 Ruth Lafler 1 121327 It sounds like an act of spite that will probably backfire (your post and the responses do far are a case in point). If restaurants just raise their prices 5% across the board it would be hardly noticeable to most diners, especially those who don't blink at paying a 300% or more markup on copious quantities of wine. No sense in trying to rub the voters' noses in what was a heart-felt act on their part. Fri Apr 16 01:22:16 -0700 2004 121314 0 Gary Soup 2 121329 Come to think of it, 5% might be an extravagant increase. If each waitperson averaged only one 4-top per hour, the extra $1.75 in his/her wages would amount to 44 cents per diner, which would be 5% of an $8.80 tab. It would be about 1% of a $20 tab. Maybe Incanto is ripping you off. Fri Apr 16 01:39:03 -0700 2004 121327 0 Gary Soup 2 121336 "If restaurants just raise their prices 5% across the board it would be hardly noticeable to most diners" I think that is exactly the point. I suspect that Incanto and other restaurants want diners to understand that this law is increasing the price they pay for the meal. Maybe by calling attention to it they can annoy enough citizens of this city that they will seek to have the law amended. If they just increase their price without calling attention to it, the law just works its way into the woodwork to never been seen again. Grassroots dining. They still need to clarify the tip. If this 5% is going to the server to cover the mandatory salary increase, the it would stand to reason that a diner should decrease their tip accordingly to 10%-15%. I know that Incanto staff sometimes post here, I hope somebody steps in to offer their point of view. Fri Apr 16 11:54:15 -0700 2004 121327 0 nja 3 121356 Why should the law be changed? I don't have a problem with my restaurant tab going up five percent to ensure a living wage for the people who serve my food (and more importantly all the drudges in the kitchen washing dishes, etc.). The positive thing I can say about this is that by doing it this way, Incanto is only increasing the bill five percent, instead of raising prices five percent and then rounding it up to the next "even" price. In other words, by doing this a $12 appetizer is only going up to $12.60, when if they were putting new prices on the menu it would probably be $13. Fri Apr 16 15:04:12 -0700 2004 121336 0 Ruth Lafler 4 121388 plus the sales tax on the larger price. Fri Apr 16 19:50:39 -0700 2004 121356 0 rich 1 121334 The Chron had a good story on this in January: "'For the average table service restaurant in San Francisco, this will be the difference between being marginally profitable and posting a loss,' said Mark Pastore, who opened Incanto in Noe Valley 18 months ago and enjoyed his first day in the black on Dec. 31." For example: "Jardiniere plans a 3 percent 'surcharge,'according to general manager Larry Bain. The Civic Center restaurant cleared $85,000 on $6 million in sales in 2003. Bain figures the wage hike will cost about $70,000, on top of a 32 percent jump in employee health benefits and 20 percent more for workers' compensation. ... Raising menu prices 3 percent, from an average check of $68 to $70 before tax and tip, is another option. But Bain says people tend to compensate by ordering less or coming in less frequently." Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/26/BAG2C4HM081.DTL Fri Apr 16 11:37:57 -0700 2004 121314 0 Robert Lauriston 2 121358 You know, that's just silly. I can't imagine anyone saying "I was going to eat at Jardiniere, but now that my tab is going to be $70 not $68, I think I'll stay home." Fri Apr 16 15:11:27 -0700 2004 121334 0 Ruth Lafler 3 121363 Larry Bain's about as knowledgeable and trustworthy a source as you'll find. Presumably it's not that people will stay home, but that they'll go to competitors. A restaurant that has a lot of dishes at e.g. $19 could lose a significant amount of business if they had to go to $20. What's silly is making restaurants give raises to their best-compensated employees. The SF Board of Supervisors should deal with that by adjusting the law. Fri Apr 16 15:55:58 -0700 2004 121358 0 Robert Lauriston 4 121368 If the law is the same for anyone, then it doesn't put anyone at a competitive disadvantage. In fact, it rewards employers who are already paying their staff good wages by making their competitors do the same. Fri Apr 16 16:36:50 -0700 2004 121363 0 Ruth Lafler 5 121374 That's true, but the new law doesn't distinguish the needs/constraints of the smallest businesses, and Incanto runs on a different scale than Jardiniere. Its scale makes it a very different work environment, for what it's worth. Be that as it may, I appreciate the surcharge being called out, because it reminds me that legislative change has a real downsteam effect. I might not consider *why* the price increase occured without the note on the menu, and might be inclined to think, "Well now that they're popular they're hiking their prices! Hmph." And I have always found Incanto to be a good value for the food, environment and service. I wouldn't stop patronizing an SF restaurant if they added such a surcharge, and explained why. I also wouldn't mind if there were a note at the bottom of a menu that explained a more general price increase. I would imagine that over time Incanto will build this one back into their prices. Fri Apr 16 18:12:16 -0700 2004 121368 0 amalia 5 121425 Per the restauranteurs quoted in the Chron article, SF's "living wage" law had no benefit for the restaurant employees who make the least money, since the going rate was already higher. The only people who were earning minimum wage were waiters, who thanks to tips were still making far more than other staff. Sat Apr 17 12:56:53 -0700 2004 121368 0 Robert Lauriston 6 121546 I simply don't believe it. Maybe that's the going rate for "white tablecloth" restaurants like Incanto, but that's only a modest fraction of the total restaurants in the city. If you believe every dishwasher in this town makes $9/hr., I have some lovely bridges to sell you. Of course I suspect many (if not most) of the dishwashers are illegal or quasi-legal and probably not working unter minimum wage laws anyway, but that's a different issue. Mon Apr 19 17:09:30 -0700 2004 121425 0 Ruth Lafler 7 121848 gimme a break ruth- incanto doesnt have table cloths- have you even ever been there!!!!!! Fri Apr 23 12:13:35 -0700 2004 121546 0 mikes ike 8 121852 Didja notice the quotation marks around "white tablecloth"? And what about my main point? Care to dispute my statement that every dishwasher in town does not make $9? Fri Apr 23 13:32:31 -0700 2004 121848 0 Ruth Lafler 1 121343 Hiya Susan- Please note the regional boards are reserved for discussion about where to find delicious chow in any given region. Since this topic is about a restaurant practice we would like you to move the discussion to the Not About Food board. Please re-post this over on Not About Food. After you re-post you may post a "heads up" on the S.F. board, pointing Chowhounds to the re-posting. We will be deleting this thread after you have re-posted on Not About Food, and we will delete any posting added to this thread, subsequent to our posting here. Thanks. Link: http://chowhound.com/boards/notfood/notfood.html Fri Apr 16 13:18:04 -0700 2004 121314 2 The Chowhound Team 2 121350 I gotta disagree with this call, at least the part about deleting the thread. This is about how some SF restaurants are reacting to an SF law that affects the dining experience that diners will have in those restaurants. If somebody is interested in having dinner at Incanto, they should know this information...and where would such a person look for information on Incanto? Here, not Not About Food. If you want more general discussions of this subject to move to Not Aboud Food, fine. But don't remove from this board useful information that is specific to one bay area restaurant. -Nick Fri Apr 16 14:01:18 -0700 2004 121343 0 nja 3 121351 i agree. this is an issue specific to SF and would most behoove people by keeping the topic here on the SF board. Fri Apr 16 14:14:24 -0700 2004 121350 0 shocker 3 121357 I agree...and will do an ultra-rare overrule of our (extremely capable and indispensible) moderating staff. So long as it's local, it's cool. HOWEVER....the thread is veering in and out of locality, and threatens to blossom into pile-on off-topic discussion number 3 jillion of The Tipping Issue....which would be off-topic and disruptive of this board (which is what was concerning the moderator). We won't delete the thread, but I'll ask the mods to selectively delete postings expanding this into the Larger Issue. People who want to do so are encouraged to do so on the Not About Food board (to their heart's content, so long as it's civil!)...just post a "heads up" to this thread so readers know to make the jump. Finally, please go with the moderator flow, even if you disagree. As in any game, the umpires get the call. If you have a big issue or objection, write in to webmaster@chowhound.com. Discussion of food discussion is off-topic here. Fri Apr 16 15:10:43 -0700 2004 121350 0 Jim Leff 1 121345 this may actually be a step in the right direction. the current system of tipping is de facto a service charge in most cases. but it has several problems. - it is less merit-based than it should be. you know your server has to live on the tip, so you feel like a cad leaving anything much less than 15%, even when you watched your lunch get cold on the counter while the server was chatting with the bartender. - at lower-end restaurants some diners leave abysmally low tips regardless of service. - cash tips encourage tax cheating (and dammit, i just paid my fair share). a basic 'service charge' (of, say, 10%) built into the tab with a truly meritocratic tip (of, say 0-20%) solves all these problems. it guarantees the server a 'living wage' of at least 10%, ensures that our beleaguered governments get their fair cut, and instills a real incentive for the server to practice their craft with elan. Fri Apr 16 13:38:42 -0700 2004 121314 0 ed 2 121398 I have some comments on this, but since they're not related specifically to SF, I'm going to take them to the Not About Food board. Fri Apr 16 21:09:05 -0700 2004 121345 0 Ruth Lafler 2 121424 As described in the Chron article, the service charges at Incanto and Jardiniere are not being passed on driectly to the servers. They're being kept by the restaurants to offset the cost of SF's "living wage" law. Sat Apr 17 12:51:07 -0700 2004 121345 0 Robert Lauriston 3 121526 obviously they aren't passed 'directly' to the servers. but the servers are getting a raise in their paychecks, and this fee funds it. Mon Apr 19 14:43:54 -0700 2004 121424 0 ed 1 121847 i heard the owner keeps the 5%- this charge helps him pay the minimum wage increase. you should tip normally, 15-20%. the 5% goes to the house not the waiter directly. i think they should just raise prices, but the law is written so that the city can raise the wages year after year and restaurants who simply raise prices will continue to raise them year after year. Fri Apr 23 12:03:11 -0700 2004 121314 0 mikes ike