2 ms·

I support restaurants breaking out health insurance as a separate charge so that it's very conspicuous. In the restaurant industry, it isn't customary to provi

I support restaurants breaking out health insurance as a separate charge so that it's very conspicuous. In the restaurant industry, it isn't customary to provide health insurance benefits. (It shouldn't be that way, but right now, in the US, it is.) If a restaurant is going to try to treat their employees better, it's crucial for customers understand why they're paying more. Otherwise, they'll just think it's a bad deal and go to another restaurant. Then the restaurant will have to stop providing insurance. I don't think you can make it work if it's built into the price. You can try telling people about it and putting up signs, but you'll run up against two unfortunate laws of human nature: people don't listen, and they don't read. This add-on fee should be disclosed beforehand as prominently as possible so that you don't get charge more than you expected. But I think it needs to be a separate fee. Otherwise, I just don't see how you can get customers to understand that your food prices are comparable to other restaurants.

SoftTalker 4y ago
Why should it be that way? Why should health insurance be the responsibility of an employer at all? It is in the US, for historical reasons as an unintended consequence of WWII-era price and wage controls, but I don't understand why we continue to think that makes any sense at all.
- adrianmonk 4y ago
  I don't actually want restaurants to be the ones providing health insurance. I want the workers to have insurance. Within the framework of the laws that exist today (which, like you, I think should be changed), there are tax advantages for employers that provide it, so that's the most practical approach right now.
  - pixelatedindex 4y ago
    > I don't actually want restaurants to be the ones providing health insurance. I want the workers to have insurance. Then who provides this insurance? Are you saying they should buy their own via Obamacare?
    - adrianmonk 4y ago
      No, I'm saying that, given the constraints of the law, restaurants should do it. But I don't think of it as ideal.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      That is what people who have jobs with no insurance benefit do. So why not?
pixelatedindex 4y ago
> In the restaurant industry, it isn't customary to provide health insurance benefits. Not just the restaurant industry. It’s any place where you work less than 40 hours. And I’ve worked at many, and most of them will try to give you 39 hours so they don’t have to offer this to you. I think the number of hours have changed (it’s 30 hours now?) but the problem persists.

SoftTalker 4y ago

Why should it be that way? Why should health insurance be the responsibility of an employer at all? It is in the US, for historical reasons as an unintended consequence of WWII-era price and wage controls, but I don't understand why we continue to think that makes any sense at all.

adrianmonk 4y ago
I don't actually want restaurants to be the ones providing health insurance. I want the workers to have insurance. Within the framework of the laws that exist today (which, like you, I think should be changed), there are tax advantages for employers that provide it, so that's the most practical approach right now.
- pixelatedindex 4y ago
  > I don't actually want restaurants to be the ones providing health insurance. I want the workers to have insurance. Then who provides this insurance? Are you saying they should buy their own via Obamacare?
  - adrianmonk 4y ago
    No, I'm saying that, given the constraints of the law, restaurants should do it. But I don't think of it as ideal.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    That is what people who have jobs with no insurance benefit do. So why not?

pixelatedindex 4y ago

> In the restaurant industry, it isn't customary to provide health insurance benefits. Not just the restaurant industry. It’s any place where you work less than 40 hours. And I’ve worked at many, and most of them will try to give you 39 hours so they don’t have to offer this to you. I think the number of hours have changed (it’s 30 hours now?) but the problem persists.