Opinion |

Restaurant surcharges: Who will suffer the most

We should have seen surcharges coming

Regarding “Diners have choices for covering surcharges” (Jan. 7): When the voters approved the rise in the minimum wage, who did they think would end up footing the bill? The answer is intuitively obvious if they ever thought about it.

Did anyone explain to the masses that businesses would only pass this increased cost on to their customers?

I do not recall any editorial comments explaining this inevitable economic consequence, even though those who will suffer the most will be seniors on fixed incomes and the poorest among us who can least afford “the response to this government-mandated wage increase.”

Daniel R. Collins

San Diego

Don’t punish wait staff for those surcharges

Regarding the letter sent in by Carl Lind of La Jolla (“Coming to grips with restaurant surcharges,” Jan. 5), who states it’s informative to learn that wait staff at most restaurants are paid minimum wage. This makes sense to him because most wait staff make “substantial” gratuities.

He then states that adding a surcharge provides transparency as justification for increased prices and a guideline to reducing tips in a like amount.

---

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

• E-mail letters@sduniontribune.com
• Mail: Andrew Kleske, Reader Outreach Editor  San Diego Union-Tribune P.O. Box 120191 San Diego, CA 92112-0191.

You can also leave a comment below

---

I am a career server, and I can tell you many wait staff do not make a lot of money. I am fortunate to work in a restaurant where gratuities are substantial, and the declaration of these (as required by the IRS) negate a paycheck, so my paycheck is usually zero. To subtract the surcharge from our gratuities is simply not very nice and punishment for something we have no control over.

Christopher Salem

Hillcrest

Hunter draws national attention with antics

Duncan Hunter’s campaign fund transgressions and feud with the U-T have reached a national audience with syndicated columnist Dana Milbanks’s piece “A ‘Trumpian’ Hunter” Jan. 7.

The list of funds misused is egregious, explained away in Trump fashion as mere oversight and bookkeeping errors. One would think this might portend a disastrous turn for Hunter. But considering how Americans feel about members of Congress that’s not likely to happen.

We view members of Congress, as a group, very negatively (11 percent approval rating). But we view our own representatives very highly.

As long as our reps bring home the bacon or talk the right talk, we’re good. The end justifies the means. Unless it’s the other guy’s reps — then there’s a problem. Therein lies a huge problem.

Paul Jester

San Diego

We should not pay for prisoner sex change

The Union-Tribune newspaper decided to bury a critical article on Page 22 (“California funds first inmate sex-reassignment surgery,” Jan. 8) covering how we taxpayers are being charged $100,000 for a sex change for a 57-year-old prisoner in California just because a misguided federal judge adjudicated that she was entitled to a sex change and then be transferred to a female prison where she will be constantly harassed. It is beyond comprehension.

In fact, a spokesperson in qualifying her to the free surgery under the Eighth Amendment said an inmate diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” was qualified for such treatment. My dictionary gave the definition as “a state of dissatisfaction, anxiety or restlessness,” which certainly does not qualify her for the expensive procedure.

As important is the lack of oversight by our Sacramento Legislature, which could have passed a law to undo the weak judge’s decision after it was codified in error. They did not. What’s next for useless legislation to squeeze taxpayers?

Dan Yelvington

San Carlos

Our communities need all types of workers

Regarding Dan Albee’s “Tired of people looking for free handouts” (Jan. 6): He states that he is sick and tired of hearing about the lack of affordable housing in San Diego and suggests that people who cannot afford to rent or buy here should move to an area they can afford, go to school and get a degree in a field that is in demand and earn more money so they can live where they want.

The question I have for him is, if everyone does what he suggests, then who is going to perform the necessary services that we depend on like restaurant workers, sanitation workers, janitors, home care providers, child care providers, hotel workers, etc.?

These are all honorable ways of making a living, and these workers deserve a living wage and affordable housing. The vast majority of these people don’t want handouts. They want economic justice.

Jerry Ollinger

Mira Mesa

Home affordability issue misunderstood

David Brooks’ commentary on the challenges of house hunting, “Perils of homebuying” (Jan. 9), sidesteps the fact that only a small percentage of Americans can afford to buy a house in today’s market. As real incomes for the 25-to-44 age group have decreased considerably, home ownership rates have fallen to their lowest level in almost a century.

Currently, more than 11 million U.S. households are forced to spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing, putting them very close to homelessness.

What’s happening in many American cities – escalating rents, evictions, displacement – must be recognized as a human tragedy of huge proportions. While Brooks analyzes the dream of a “fantastically eclectic house, filled with beautiful and exotic objects,” America’s burgeoning challenge of unaffordable housing and sprawling homeless tent cities has become a cruel nightmare.

Nico Calavita

Professor Emeritus

School of Public Affairs

San Diego State University

 

 

---

Want to see more letters that appear only online? Follow @UTLetters on Twitter and UTOpinion on Facebook.

---