VIDEO $15 Minimum Wage Is Wreaking Havoc On NYC Dining – Congrats, McDonalds self-serve kiosks all l ocations within 2 yrs // Reclaim Our Republic

The $15 Minimum Wage Is Wreaking Havoc On New York City Dining
Eventually, the world-renowned restaurant life in cities like New York, DC, and San Francisco will die. The only survivors will be fast-casual chains with low overhead and deep pockets.

The $15 Minimum Wage Is Wreaking Havoc On New York City Dining

July 16, 2018 By Ellie Bufkin

The “Victory for New York Families” legislative package Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed more than two years ago has been devastating for New York City. They force businesses to offer mandatory paid family leave and pay every employee at least $15 per hour.

This minimum wage spike has forced several New York City businesses to shutter their doors and will claim many more victims soon. Businesses must meet the $15 wage by the end of 2018, the culmination of mandatory increment increases that began in 2016. Restaurants where staff earn tips are subject to a $5 per hour tip credit, but must pay $10 per hour. That is nearly double the 2014 minimum wage of $8 with a $3 tip credit.

For many businesses, this egregious law is not just an inconvenience, it is simply unaffordable. The most recent victim is long-time staple, The Coffee Shop, a tremendously popular Union Square bar and café favored by many celebrities.

A $15 Minimum Wage Means Fewer Job Opportunities

In explaining his decision to close following 28 years of high-volume business, owner Charles Milite told the New York Post, “The times have changed in our industry. The rents are very high and now the minimum wage is going up and we have a huge number of employees.”

Milite employs about 150 people at his breakfast, lunch, and dinner operation, which also puts him over the Affordable Care Act’s costly mandate that establishments with 50 or more employees provide health insurance.

The Coffee Shop is part of The Gotham City Restaurant Group, which also owns Flats Fix, the former employer of socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The 28-year-old Democratic congressional candidate recently told The New York Times that many of her fellow restaurant workers were uninsured, inspiring her to run for office.

It seems a questionable claim, in light of the size of her former employer. Perhaps she should have encouraged her colleagues to demand the health care they were entitled to, rather than use them as an excuse to promote her dangerous platform of eliminating private insurance in favor of government-provided “Medicare for All.”

It Costs a Lot to Be Here. Let’s Make It More Expensive

New York’s minimum wage regulations came partially as a response to the constantly inflating cost of living, which actually affects businesses more profoundly than it does employees. Residential leases are protected by a fair amount of regulation, but commercial leases are not.

Many businesses find themselves unable to renew at the end of a five- or ten-year lease because the landlord wants a far more lucrative agreement. Property owners often prefer to sit on vacant spaces awaiting optimal lease agreements, which has led to a recent spike in unoccupied storefronts. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio even suggested penalizing property owners for the vacancies to help get lessees into the spaces faster.

Seattle and San Francisco led New York only slightly in achieving a $15 per hour minimum pay rate, with predictably bad results for those they were intended to help. As Erielle Davidson discussed in these pages last year, instead of increasing the livelihood of the lowest-paid employees, the rate increase forced many employers to terminate staff to stay afloat because it dramatically spiked the costs of operating a business.

Understaffed businesses face myriad other problems from wage mandates. Training hours for unskilled labor must be limited or eliminated, overtime is out of the question, and the number staff must be kept under 50 to avoid paying the high cost of a group health-care package. The end result is hurting the very people the public is promised these mandates will help.

High-Labor Restaurants Hardest Hit

Of all affected businesses, restaurants are at the greatest risk of losing their ability to operate under the strain of crushing financial demands. They run at the highest day-to-day operational costs of any business, partly because they must employ more people to run efficiently. In cities like New York, Washington DC, and San Francisco, even a restaurant that has great visibility and lots of traffic cannot keep up with erratic rent increases and minimum wage doubling.

When the minimum wage for tipped workers was much lower, employees sourced most of their income from guest gratuities, so restaurants were able to staff more people and provided ample training to create a highly skilled team. The skills employees gained through training and experience then increased their value to bargain for future, better-paying jobs.

Management-level employees, who earn a salary, are not subject to overtime rate protections, and minimum wage hikes cause restaurants to use them in place of their expensive hourly subordinates. Despite their additional skills and qualifications, managers of most restaurants subject to a $15 minimum hourly wage stay stagnant at their minimum annual compensation of $58,000. Thus, as I know well from holding one of those positions, responsibilities formerly relegated to hourly staff become managers’ duties. They are thus frequently required to wait tables or bartend atop their managerial duties, all while handing any earned gratuity to the staff.

For now, the $5 tip credit provides a small comfort to restaurants, but as in DC, there is a strong push to have the credit removed in the deeply misguided name of “fair pay.” Eventually, minimum wage laws and other prohibitive regulations will cause the world-renowned restaurant life in cities like New York, DC, and San Francisco to cease to exist. The staff skill levels will drop, the number of servers and bartenders will never be enough, and the only survivors will be fast-casual chains with low overhead and deep pockets.

New York’s new look will be vacant storefronts between an occasional Pret-a-Manger or the public restroom formerly known as Starbucks. But don’t worry. That charming, downtown studio apartment will still run about $5,000 per month for the privilege of proximity to all that culture.

Ellie resides in New York City, you can follow her on Instagram or Twitter.
Photo WestportWiki / Wikimedia

VIDEO Strzok Perjury Problem? – FISA,Nunes,Gaetz – Manafort trial reveal embarrassing detail s about Dem consultants // Reclaim Our Republic

The release of documents relating to the FBI’s surveillance of then-Trump presidential campaign advisor Carter Page reveals many things. While the documents do not advance the Democratic Party narrative that Carter Page did anything illegal, nor that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump “colluded” with the Russians to alter the outcome of the 2016 election, they may pose a problem for FBI agent and partisan Democrat Peter Strzok.

Does Strzok Have a Perjury Problem?

July 23, 2018 by Steve Byas

Does Strzok Have a Perjury Problem?

The 412 heavily redacted pages obtained by news organizations and Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request included applications made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) made to obtain warrants to surveil Page. The documents show that the warrants were obtained in October 2016 by the Obama administration’s Justice Department and FBI, using a now-discredited fake “Russia dossier,” which was paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign.

Not only did former FBI Director James Comey sign the FISA applications despite this fact, so did Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. And Rosenstein, after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation into allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to sway the presidential election to Trump’s favor, chose Robert Mueller, a Comey friend, as a “special counsel” to investigate the allegations of Russian collusion.

As incredible as Rosenstein’s obvious conflict of interest is — asking a FISA court to issue surveillance warrants on an American presidential candidate using material provided by his principal opponent without informing the court of this pertinent fact — the role of Strzok, is, if anything, more unbelievable.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said it took a year to receive the documents they had requested under FOIA. Recently, Strzok told the House Judiciary and Oversight committees that he had nothing to do with obtaining the FISA warrants against Page. He swore under oath that he provided no substantive input on the application, arguing that he had not supplied any evidence for it and he was not involved in the presentation of the warrant request to the FISA Court.

Yet, the released documents led some observers to believe that he actually did have something to do with it. Investigative journalist Paul Sperry tweeted, “Newly released FISA application shows Strzok did in fact use Carter Page’s Sept. 2016 letter to Comey as a ‘pretext’ to open investigation on him, as Strzok suggested in email to Page in Sept re ‘Crossfire FISA.’ Yet Strzok just swore he had nothing to do with Page FISA.”

Unfortunately, blatant partisanship seems to be the order of the day. Rather than expressing outrage at how the rights of U.S. citizens have been abused and condemning Strzok for misleading a committee of the House of Representatives, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi somehow concluded that “these documents provide clear evidence of ‘Russia’s coordination with Carter Page,’ a high-ranking Trump campaign official, to undermine and improperly and illegally influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

In other words, Pelosi is arguing that Carter Page, who has still not been charged with anything, is guilty because of a warrant request based on a dossier bought and paid for by a political campaign in an attempt to dig up dirt on a political opponent. The so-called dossier, which contained unverified and salacious material, was compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele. The research firm behind Steele’s dossier was Fusion GPS, which in turn was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. None of this pertinent information was provided to the FISA court, and none of it appears to bother Pelosi.

In the warrant request, the FBI nevertheless described the Steele dossier as “credible” and “reliable.”

While Page’s business relationships inside Russia were cited as a reason to investigate him, he has never been charged with anything. As President Trump tweeted, “Misled the Court to provide a pretext to SPY on the Trump Team. Not about Carter Page … was all about getting Trump.”

Even if Strzok is not charged with perjury for lying to Congress under oath, failure to punish federal law-enforcement officials for violating the civil rights of Page, in particular, and the “Trump Team” generally, would be a travesty. After all, the Fourth Amendment clearly does not allow law-enforcement officers to lie in obtaining a warrant: “The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.” (Emphasis added.)

Any law-enforcement officer who lies on a warrant application, then, is guilty not only of violating a person’s constitutional rights, but is also guilty of perjury.

But, considering Pelosi’s demagogic attitude, don’t hold your breath waiting for any “courageous” Democrats to break ranks and stand up for the Constitution.

Photo: AP Images