I don't think Healthy SF coverage is mandatory. From what I've read, businesses have two other options: provide a regular healthcare plan, or set aside a fund to reimburse employee healthcare costs as they arise. Restaurants usually go for that last option.
"usually passed onto patrons as a 4% fee on their bill, though this isn’t dictated by statute"
I find the last part of what you wrote interesting. It's true that this isn't dictated by statute. But it would be surprising and unusual for a statue to dictate that a business must make its customers pay a specific business cost.
Of course, there are instances where businesses are responsible for collecting taxes from their customers (notably sales taxes and recycling fees) but these are explicitly taxes on consumers that the business is collecting for the government's convenience, not taxes on the business that the business is tricking consumers into paying, by making them believe they're responsible for them.
No. They just have to spend at least a certain amount. They don't have to spend more than that, even if employees need more due to their specific health needs.
Good point, I updated my comment with an edit: Healthy SF isn’t mandated, providing health care is (and the very limited Healthy SF coverage is basically the cheapest option, so most restaurants do that).
On the “dictated by statute”, I actually mentioned that because so many people figured it was! Much like sales tax, it’s often on the bill as if it’s a thing that the city has specified and that it was a city program (rather than the city mandating that larger businesses provide coverage). Many restaurants are quite clear about it “we use this money to pay for healthcare for our workers”, but the biggest surprise for me was that the “market rate” ended up settling at about 4%. When some restaurants instead do an $X/patron or $Y/ticket add on, it catches people by surprise.
Either way, I find it amusing what people are “willing” to pay for things, especially if we can get closer to living wages for everyone. (I’m all for more “taxes” on bills that somehow people prefer over menu items going up in price).
"and the very limited Healthy SF coverage is basically the cheapest option, so most restaurants do that"
If someone works only a few hours per week, the 'Healthy SF' coverage can cost more than the minimum employer spend. So it's not always the cheapest option.
I don't think Healthy SF coverage is mandatory. From what I've read, businesses have two other options: provide a regular healthcare plan, or set aside a fund to reimburse employee healthcare costs as they arise. Restaurants usually go for that last option.
"usually passed onto patrons as a 4% fee on their bill, though this isn’t dictated by statute"
I find the last part of what you wrote interesting. It's true that this isn't dictated by statute. But it would be surprising and unusual for a statue to dictate that a business must make its customers pay a specific business cost.
Of course, there are instances where businesses are responsible for collecting taxes from their customers (notably sales taxes and recycling fees) but these are explicitly taxes on consumers that the business is collecting for the government's convenience, not taxes on the business that the business is tricking consumers into paying, by making them believe they're responsible for them.