>> this is "eyewitness news upclose with diana williams." >> you can forgive american women if some of them right now have a case of mental whiplash. that's because the american cancer society changing its guidelines about when women should start getting mammograms and how often they should do it. is this change a good idea, or is just creating even more confusion for women when it comes to mammograms? this morning we take an up-close look. but first, so, how much do you tip when you go out to eat? that question might become a thing of the past, at least in some of new york city's best-known restaurants. the man who runs them says his group of eateries will eliminate tipping. say what? so, why is he doing this and why now? good morning, everyone. i'm bill ritter, in for diana williams. so, what do you think about tipping?

then the sometimes not-so-subtle game between you and the waiter or waitress serving you because that's their job, but also knowing -- you and the server -- that if you like the service, you might very well leave a very healthy tip, and if you don't like the service, you definitely will not leave a healthy tip. maybe no tip at all. now one of the best-known restaurant executives in the world -- certainly in new york city -- is saying, "let's stop that game" and saying goodbye to all that -- goodbye to tipping. danny meyer is the c.e.o. of the union square hospitality group gramercy tavern, union square cafe, blue smoke, 11 other restaurants. the end of tipping might very well mean less money for servers, maybe, but more money for other restaurant workers. so why is he doing this? we thought we'd ask the man himself this morning. danny meyer joins us. and welcome, danny. >> thanks, bill. >> full disclosure -- we've been pals for a long time -- upwards of two decades. but that said -- >> that means you can ask even tougher questions. >> that's what i was just gonna say, so i'm glad we have that understanding. you know, when we talk about a

disney movie, we have to say "abc is owned by walt disney," so i have to say that we are friends. but as a reporter to a news maker, why are you doing this? >> well, we're not doing it so that our servers can make less money. i want to get that out of the way right off the bat. we're doing it because the system is completely broken, and the system is completely an anachronism, and i just want to explain it. there's a whole lot of people who say exactly what you just said, which is, "i need to tip in order to get good service." and i just want to say, that's completely ridiculous, because i would challenge all of your viewers out there to answer a couple questions. do you do your job as well as you do your job only because of an expectation of a tip at the other end, or do you do your job because you actually love doing it well? and i wouldn't want to go to a restaurant where the server was only being nice to me in the hope and expectation that i'm gonna give a good tip and the guy next to me might not be on

service 'cause i might not give such a good tip. but we've all been doing this for so long. i think tipping is the third-oldest profession or something. there are so many professions, so many jobs, that are tip-dependent. you can't stop that. you can't stop the bartender or the shoeshine guy or the car-wash guy. that's not gonna stop. why are you gonna try it here? >> well, i think that the restaurant industry is not working right now, and it's not working largely from an economic standpoint. it's been nearly impossible to have the kind of healthy influx of culinary talent that you need if you're gonna have really, really good restaurants. why is that? because the laws, since the 1970s, have said that tips that you leave on a table or on your credit card or wherever, must be shared -- or, may be shared with employees but only those employees who spend 80% of their time face-to-face with the customer. so here's what's happened over the last 30, 40 years.

the disparity between what a tipped employee can make and what a non-tipped employee can make, i.e. a cook or a busboy or a dishwasher -- >> who don't spend 80% of the time looking at the public. >> that's correct. has just grown dramatically. why? the prices on all menus over the past 40 years have gone up dramatically -- 200%, 300%. the amount people leave for tips has also gone up. 40 years ago, everybody left a 15% tip. then people said, "let's make it 17 1/2% 'cause it's easy to double the tax. and then, all of a sudden, i'd say for the last 10 years or so, it's been 20%. so, you multiply 20% times a 250% menu increase over the last 40 years, and then you look at the people in the kitchen, who do really, really hard work, who may not share in your tips, whose hourly wage has gone up about 25% over the last 35 years, and you have an untenable situation. >> so why not change that? i mean, you're a successful businessman.

why not say, "okay. you know what? the prices have gone up, the tipping rates have gone up, all the people in the back who don't spend all their time looking at the public, we're gonna raise your salary, too. >> we are gonna do that. that's exactly what we're going to do. but we think that the tipping system has to go first, and here's why. starting in january of 2016, the minimum wage is gonna go up for everybody. number two, there's a little-known new law which is going to make the minimum wage for a manager in a restaurant $50,000. the reason for that law -- a lot of people don't know about this -- but the reason for that law is that there are many, many restaurants who, in order to avoid paying time and a half to someone who should be potentially classified as an hourly worker, are calling them managers but paying them $35,000, $30,000, $38,000. so here's what's gonna happen in every restaurant, starting in

january that wants to stay in business. you consumers are gonna see your menu prices go up. >> certainly the menu prices business. >> that's right. but, bill, if the menu prices are gonna go up everywhere and you don't eliminate tipping, what you're going to see is that the tipped workers are now gonna be making a windfall because labor's gonna force me to raise my price. that. and, meanwhile, i'm squeezed so the cooks won't get a raise. so i want to do both things. >> the restaurant industry, your colleagues, your competitors and your friends, have been talking about this quietly for a long time. what was your internal process like? how long you been talking about it, and what was your workers' reaction? i assume you told them before you went public. >> oh, my gosh, yes. well, i've been talking about this -- in fact, even writing about it -- for 21 years. i dug out an old union square cafe newsletter where i wrote about this 21 years ago. but times have changed. we weren't ready 21 years ago. all waiters were not reporting all of their cash tips 21 years

gonna try to make this change 21 years ago, there would've been a revolt, internally, 'cause there are waiters who would've made a lot less money. that's all changed. number two, people are used to something called uber today, so people are used to the notion that you don't have to tip to get good service. as a matter of fact, people who leave 20% tips leave the same tip every single time. they don't vary it whether the service was this good, this good, or this good. if i take 20 new york city taxi rides, the thing i like most is seeing you on the screen in the back, but the second thing is, i would say, i top 20% every time. if i take 10 uber rides, i never tip anything, and i'm gonna tell you that my service experience is even better with uber because i have an opportunity after that experience to rate the experience, and i'm gonna tell you right now, that if we can adopt mobile pay in restaurants, which is gonna -- i promise you, within two years, you're gonna see it everywhere. if i get the data, i'm not gonna

but i am gonna leave every waiter 20%. and so the waiter's gonna learn more if you really want to reward and say thank you or you really want to punish, you're gonna learn more with that than via a tip. >> your reputation is that you treat your workers very well -- your customers best and your workers very close to that, 'cause you believe that you can't have one without the other. how did your workers respond to this when you brought it to them? and you took their input, i heard. >> well, we've been spending the last two months doing open town hall meetings with -- open invitation to all 1,800 of our employees. so, we've had three of them so far. there's another one. we've also had an open internet where any question any employee wanted to ask would be published with the answer for everybody to see internally. and people have generally had the same reaction -- everybody is proud to work for a company that's doing this, 100% of the cooks are happy, 100% of the waiters, so far, have said, "great idea. it doesn't feel good to have a really busy saturday night where

we take home a big wad of cash and the cooks just had to work harder and couldn't share in any of that, legally." but then, the waiters have also had a lot of very fair questions, which is, "so how's the math gonna add up? how is this gonna work for us?" >> and what have you told them? >> well, we've told them this has to work on three levels, or it will not have worked. it's got to feel like an even better place to work than it ever felt. it's got to be a place that even more guests want to eat at because they support this, and we've got to see a number of our industry colleagues convert and adopt this themselves. if those three things happen, it'll work. the biggest challenge that we're gonna have, bill, to making this all work is that, if people come in, and we're the only guys who are raising their menu prices enough to pay for this ourselves, and we're going it alone, it's gonna be a tough thing. >> we only have a couple seconds left. if all those things don't happen, would you reverse the policy, or is it here to stay for you? >> oh, my gosh. i don't see anything but success, because if we don't

raise our prices like everybody else with an even more broken system. we got to fix it. >> well, you're groundbreaking in how you approach the restaurant experience for consumers -- that's why you call yourself a hospitality group, not a restaurant group -- and you're doing a groundbreaking thing here. good luck. >> thanks, bill. >> i know i don't have to worry about figuring out 20% anymore. >> that's right. >> thanks, danny meyer. good luck to all you're doing and your "no tipping" policy. just ahead, we're gonna switch topics. talk about changes in mammogram guidelines, now stirring up new controversy for women. is it a good idea for women with an average risk of breast cancer to have mammograms later in life and less frequently? one expert medical group now says yes.

>> welcome back to "upclose." another round of new guidelines on when women should start getting mammograms. the american cancer society now revising its recommendations to make it later in life, and that is surprising to some women who are battling breast cancer. eyewitness news reporter toni yates has the new guidelines and reaction. >> being diagnosed at 44 and going through this battle, i see more and more young women diagnosed with breast cancer. >> the american cancer society's 2015 recommendations for mammograms pushing it later for women who have only an average risk of developing breast cancer. the cancer society now saying those women should begin having annual mammograms at age 45, then at age 55, have mammograms only once every other year, and that it no longer recommends clinical breast exams for this lower-risk group. abc's chief medical correspondent, dr. richard besser. >> i think this is a good move. the goal here is to maintain the benefits of screening and cut down on some of the harm.

nearly 231,000 new cases of breast cancer will occur this year in this country and more than 40,000 women will lose the fight. two breast-cancer survivors we spoke to today say not only early detection but even earlier detection could've made a difference in their cases, and that's why these new recommendations are so unsettling to them. >> my cancer hid within a lump. >> roberta albany and lynne schweizer are finding support and guidance at mary's place by the sea here in ocean grove, which has been, in the past six years, a haven for more than 5,000 women from across the country battling breast cancer. they speak firsthand. >> early detection's your best bet before it can travel, get into your lymph nodes. >> the younger you are, and when they do find your breast cancer, it's more aggressive, later-stage. >> it's best for all women to make medical decisions with their own physicians. in ocean grove, toni yates, channel 7, eyewitness news.

>> joining us now to talk about the new guidelines, three guests -- dr. larry norton, the deputy physician and chief for breast cancer programs at memorial sloan kettering cancer center, dr. clare bradley, past president of the american cancer society's eastern division, and jane herman, the new york outreach coordinator for force -- that stands for "facing our risk of cancer empowered." she helps educate and support women affected by hereditary cancer or who are at increased risk of cancer. thank you all for joining us. >> pleasure. >> dr. bradley, let me start with you, since you were with the american cancer society. why now? why do this now? >> well, screening guidelines and publishing them, creating them, is something that the cancer society does. we do it periodically. breast cancer is a major cancer among women. it's the second leading cause of death among women. the last time we changed the guidelines was in 2003. there's been much more evidence that's come out. mammography is better. so it was time to look at the evidence, see if the guidelines that were published in 2003 were correct and should stand or if

there should be changes. and the evidence has led us to change those guidelines. >> now, i understand this was a canadian study that a lot of people were relying on, and they looked at film mammography. but now we're into digital mammography. so, might you have been looking at something wrong? doctor? >> i mean, there's a lot about this that's really fascinating, and i just want to commend the acs for doing such a thorough job of review. i mean, this was actually a very thorough job. and if you read carefully, what it says is that the biggest impact of breast screening is in that 45- to 55-year-old age group. but they're not saying there isn't an impact starting at 40, and they're not saying that there isn't an impact in doing it yearly after 55. they're just saying the biggest impact is in that window. in fact, you can't find any age where mammography doesn't improve your chances of not dying of breast cancer. and that is clearly in the report and clearly stated. to me, one of the most important things about the report is it says that women should have the option of doing it yearly, starting at age 40, which is still our guidelines at

memorial sloan kettering, and we're not gonna change that. and i think preserving that option is extremely important so people do have a choice. >> let me just play the skeptic here, though. and, jane, maybe you can talk about this. insurance companies are gonna look at this and look at these guidelines and say, "whoa! we have a big out here. you want to do it under 40, it's not what's recommended anymore. you have the option, of course, but we're not gonna cover that." do you worry about that? >> i do. and the option for annual screening at 40 is very important, particularly for people who may be at hereditary risk for breast cancer because the vast majority of them are unaware that they are mutation carriers. >> you have a marker for this, and you might be a carrier. and when did you get diagnosed with that? >> i did not find out until i was 47 years old that i am a carrier of a brca2 mutation. and so i consider myself very lucky to have reached that age without having been diagnosed with cancer.

>> but some would say, "well, you've reached that age. if you'd known about it, wouldn't have made a difference," right? you would've still been 47 or 48, and you're a little older now, and you still don't have it, right? >> i have taken precautions to ensure that i do not. >> so the risk is, what jane's saying, is that if she had found that marker earlier, she would've taken precautions, might've prolonger her life even farther. how do you answer that? >> these guidelines that changed recently are for average-risk women, so that would not include jane. so these are for average-risk women without genetic mutations. and the guidelines do allow you, with the recent changes, to begin mammography at age 40. but what we do is, we bring the woman into that decision, from 40 to 44, to be a part of that decision, because the benefit is not as great as it is starting at 45. >> you heard the women in toni's story express some confusion and some frustration. do you understand why women -- some women might have mental whiplash in all this? >> yes, and that's why it's important to have programs like this, so that we can actually spread the word and could

actually talk about it so people can be involved in their own decisions, in terms of what to do, and i think that's a very important part of this. >> let's look at by the flip side. to have a test, to have a false-positive, and then go in and start doing biopsies can have risks and negative impacts. >> i want to get into that word "harms," because that word "harm" was even mentioned in the clip before. what we're talking about in "harms" here is having to come back for another film and sometimes a sonogram, and a very tiny percentage of people having to have a needle stick to get a sample tissue to make sure they don't have cancer. a lot of people think that word "harms" means their health is gonna be harmed, and the harms here are very subjective -- how you feel coming back for a film, how you might have a very tiny chance of a biopsy -- where the benefits have a life-saving aspect to it, and that's got to be emphasized. that word "harm" is commonly misunderstood, and that's why it's important for us to talk about what that really means. >> is this a natural evolution of this disease? >> i think it is, and i think what it does is it -- the guidelines are tailored to

so, as women get older, their risk increases. women get breast cancer in their 20s and their 30s, but we don't recommend population screening that all women in their 20s and 30s should get mammography. so, as the risk changes, the guidelines change with those risks. >> and, of course, a lot of it is to know your family history. you knew your family history, i guess, right? or did you not? >> i didn't. it was only after we lost my mom that my sister and i got tested. >> and that sparked you to do it. and your bottom line about the new guidelines, jane? >> i continue to have concerns, but as you indicate, the guidelines apply to women at average risk, and i don't fall into that category. >> final comment from either one of you? >> i think that people have to be educated and make their own decisions. if you want to minimize your chance of dying of breast cancer, the evidence is clear that annual mammography, starting at age 40, is the best way to do that. if you want to start at 45 and get every year till you're 55,

you are giving up some of that for the fact that, you know, you have other gains, but it has to be a very individual choice. >> well, thank you for giving some light on this. big changes, the guidelines. and breast cancer awareness month, it's appropriate that we do this now. >> thanks for inviting us. >> thank you. >> just ahead on "upclose," vice president joe biden bows out of the presidential race. so what now? we talk presidential politics

next. are you getting the internet speed you need? [excited yelling] ah, yes! you cannot stop it! aww...your mom liked my post. you're friends with my mom? we all use it differently. so why should we get it all the same way? now you don't have to. with time warner cable, you get speeds from 3 megs, ultra-fast 300 megs. with no data cap. no long term contract. even wifi you can use at home and on the go. call us today. prices start at $14.99 per month. if you're not happy,

we'll switch you back. no risk. no contract. no catch . call now. whoa. another? definitely. switching to time warner cable is easy. call us and find out about free installation and our one-hour service window. see why so many people are switching. from $14.99 everyday low price internet, to 300 meg ultra-fast internet, we've got you covered. even with wifi at home and on the go. get it today with no long term contract. no risk. no catch. call us now. time warner cable. >> welcome back to "upclose." he has been in public office since 1973. richard nixon still had more than a year and a half left in office before he resigned the presidency in disgrace and facing impeachment for watergate. we're talking about joe biden. we thought we knew him before, but it's been something of a political soap opera -- at

times, emotionally charged watching him publicly churn all the reasons he should or shouldn't run for president next year. after weeks of speculation, will he or won't he, does he or doesn't he -- it sounds like a clairol commercial -- vice president biden announced that he will not run for president. biden making his announcement last wednesday in the rose garden, his wife on one side, president obama on the other. the vice president speaking movingly about mourning the recent death of his son, beau, and his family's need to grieve. >> beau is our inspiration. unfortunately, i believe we're out of time -- the time necessary to mount a winning campaign for the nomination. but while i will not be a candidate, i will not be silent. >> biden pledging to continue to talk about the issues he says are important to democrats, the 72-year-old has told friends he doesn't plan to retire in any kind of traditional sense after his term ends. joining us now to talk about all this are our political analysts, jeanne zaino of iona college and hank sheinkopf, also associated

with a college -- the sheinkopf institute for all things political. >> [ laughing ] >> i just got you a new job. congratulations. >> that's excellent, thank you. >> so, what do you think? first of all, whoever thought right? >> yeah, he's never gonna be silent. you know, i don't think many of us were surprised. he really didn't have an avenue forward, he didn't have a path forward, and so i think he came to the right decision. but, you know, he went out with a bang. he had a strong message to hillary clinton, in terms of the fact that republicans are not our enemies, and he also, i think, made a really important call that washington is in trouble if it doesn't clean up its act and begin to work together in a bipartisan fashion. so i think we're gonna hear him holding the democrats' and the republicans' feet to the fire during the campaign for the middle-class issues he cares about. >> he said he didn't have enough time to mount a successful campaign, but he was the one that created the shortage of time. >> i don't think it was about time at all. i think it was about age and about desire and about how stressful the campaign is when you're running for president. if the president of the united states said to his fundraisers, "oh, by the way, do me a favor -- start bundling money for joe biden, to be enough cash the next day," and if the president of the united states said to democrats

around the country, with his phone, "hi, it's me, the president. get everything ready for joe," they'd be there. >> when the announcement came out that biden was gonna make a press conf-- an announcement in the rose garden and obama was gonna be there, everyone knew that there's no way he's running for president with the president there and in the white house. >> yeah, you knew it was over at that point. and i think, hey, listen -- if something happens to hillary clinton, if the fbi finds something, he still has an avenue forward. so he closed the door, but if he still come in. >> you're right, but there's another issue here, too. i mean, hillary clinton, you know, joe biden -- democratic party looks like it's aging out of existence. i mean, that's the other problem facing with the republican party candidates, away from trump. i mean, the other serious people, they're much younger, much more vital, much more alive, not that people in their 60s aren't. i can attest to that. but it's just aging, and biden and hillary reflect that. >> and they are more diverse, as well. >> which is why you talk about marco rubio a lot, right? >> rubio is -- i think the kasich-rubio ticket would be very tough, or rubio-kasich. either way would be tough for the democrats to beat. >> interesting.

let's talk about hillary clinton briefly, and then we'll go back to the republicans. what a week she had, though. a good debate, hosting "saturday night live," biden drops out, webb drops out, chafee drops out. she had an incredible, i think, testimony before the house committee, looking into benghazi. >> yeah, absolutely. it's been a great time for her. you know, you could see somebody looking forward to all these things and dreading that they had to go through all this, and she has come out much, much stronger than she went into it. she had a very tough summer, but she's having a magnificent fall. and the hearings, she knocked it out of the park. there's no question. the committee looked partisan, the committee was bickering, the committee members were bickering amongst each other, and i think the most telling point was trey gowdy, the chair, came out afterwards and said he hadn't learned a darn thing from 8 or 11 hours of testimony. >> this was like a campaign event. >> it was like a campaign event, very expensive for the american public, and we learned nothing. and, by the way, we didn't even learn how we could protect our ambassadors and future diplomats from going through this again. so it was, i think, a big problem for the republicans. >> the kind of week she had, hank?

hillary clinton. it's about how stupid the why? they effectively made her the nominee by making her stronger, and now they may have made her the president. so if they whack her again, guess what -- she's gonna definitely win that race. >> we only have about 30 seconds left. i want to show you a quick graphic showing dr. carson ahead of donald trump in iowa for the first time. what does this pose for trump? we got about 15 seconds left. >> what does it pose for trump? trump is gonna be -- the ideological conservatives are gonna line up in iowa, and they may just get rid of donald trump once and for all. >> and will he drop out, jeanne? >> i don't know if he'll drop out as a result, but this is iowa in its purest form. the evangelicals always win. mike huckabee -- i mean, you can just go through the gauntlet. carson is a natural for the iowa caucus-goers, and he'll probably get the win there. >> jeanne zaino, hank sheinkopf. we'll see you next time. >> thank you. >> there's lots more to come. finally, this morning, we're gonna remember nypd officer randolph holder, the latest victim of senseless gun madness and the fourth new york police

in less than a year. officer holder, shot and killed tuesday night while he chased a gunman in east harlem. he's a five-year nypd veteran, a third-generation cop. he was only 33 years old. the funeral's wednesday. he will then be buried in his native guyana. on this sunday, our thoughts are with his family and with his other family, the men and women of the nypd. an entire city is mourning with you. and that'll do it for this edition of "upclose." if you missed any of today's programs, we invite you to catch it again on our website -- abc7ny. thank you all for watching. i'll bill ritter, in for diana williams, and for all of us here at channel 7, thanks for