GGRA Would Rather Pay Less Than Minimum Wage

In addition to paradoxically declaring that it supports health care but not paying for it, the latest twist in the Golden Gate Restaurant Association's ongoing struggle to fight the Healthy SF mandate is that the group might consider dropping its lawsuit—which the Supreme Court may or may not even consider—if the city would enact a tip credit policy. From the Chron:

California is one of seven states that prohibit a tip credit, requiring that waiters earn the same minimum wage as everybody else ... San Francisco, which has its own $9.79 minimum wage, could legally decide to reduce waiters' pay to the state minimum wage of $8 without breaking California's no-tip-credit law.

In other words, anyone who gets a tip would conceivably make lower than the city's minimum wage. Westlye goes on to compare the plights of a full-time cook that earns $15 an hour ($31,000 a year) with that of a waiter often makes $30 an hour with tips ($62,000 a year) ... with the curious upshot being that the waiter should be earning crap money too?

On the other side of the argument, the restaurant workers union is obviously not having it:

"You really want to lower the wages of anybody who gets a tip?" [Mike Casey, union president] said. "Our members are hit very hard right now - let's not try to subsidize health care on the backs of low-wage workers."

And finally, Supervisor Dave Campos sees the minimum wage law and Healthy SF as two separate issues, saying that the GGRA "should drop its lawsuit because it's the right thing to do, regardless of the tip credit or anything else." Either way, with a Supreme Court decision expected any day now, we've got a feeling that this tale of woe could be reaching its stirring climax very soon.
· All Healthy SF v. GGRA Coverage [~ESF~]
· Restaurant owners renew call for tip credit [Chron]