San Francisco Officials Are Planning To Ban Corporate Cafeterias, Force Tech Workers To Eat Out At Local Restaurants (nytimes.com) 825
"According to The New York Times, San Francisco officials are planning to ban corporate cafeterias to force tech workers to eat out at local eateries," writes Slashdot reader The Original CDR. Here's an excerpt from the report: Two San Francisco supervisors introduced an ordinance last week that would forbid employee cafeterias in new corporate construction. It is not clear whether the measure will pass, but it is a direct attack on one of the modern tech industry's most entrenched traditions. The ordinance, which seeks to force tech workers out of their subsidized cafeterias and into neighborhood restaurants, is the latest attempt by San Francisco leaders to make the tech companies that are migrating north from Silicon Valley adapt to life in the city.
"These tech companies have decided to leave their suburban campuses because their employees want to be in the city, and yet the irony is, they come to the city and are creating isolated, walled-off campuses," said Aaron Peskin, a city supervisor who is co-sponsoring the bill with Ahsha Safai. "This is not against these folks, it's for them. It's to integrate them into the community." Mr. Peskin's ordinance is also aimed at getting more out of a tax deal given to tech companies that would agree to move into a troubled area called Mid-Market. In 2011, the companies were given tax breaks on payroll and stock options with the hope that they would bring jobs and investment to the neighborhood, just a short walk from San Francisco's City Hall. Within a few years, a number of companies like Twitter, Square and Uber moved into Mid-Market. But despite initial excitement over the opening of a number of restaurants and shops, the neighborhood has not yet flourished the way many had hoped. Further reading: San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Chronicle
"These tech companies have decided to leave their suburban campuses because their employees want to be in the city, and yet the irony is, they come to the city and are creating isolated, walled-off campuses," said Aaron Peskin, a city supervisor who is co-sponsoring the bill with Ahsha Safai. "This is not against these folks, it's for them. It's to integrate them into the community." Mr. Peskin's ordinance is also aimed at getting more out of a tax deal given to tech companies that would agree to move into a troubled area called Mid-Market. In 2011, the companies were given tax breaks on payroll and stock options with the hope that they would bring jobs and investment to the neighborhood, just a short walk from San Francisco's City Hall. Within a few years, a number of companies like Twitter, Square and Uber moved into Mid-Market. But despite initial excitement over the opening of a number of restaurants and shops, the neighborhood has not yet flourished the way many had hoped. Further reading: San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Chronicle
Truly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Truly (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, all that poop on the streets, used syringes everywhere, crazy bums assaulting people at the BART station and living in the elevators, we'll deal with those later, we need to address the critical issues first.
Re:Truly (Score:5, Informative)
I live nearby. The stories are 100% real:
Search for "San Francisco feces" and "Bart Station homeless", you will see all you wanted to see, and far, far more.
I would add, the new Mayor has already said she has no intention of "interfering" with the homeless or coming up with a broad plan on how to resolve the poop on the sidewalks problem, just, ask the homeless nicely to clean up after themselves.
Re:Truly (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm, not it's not, humans are omnivores, their poop smells way worse to me. Also as someone said further down the fresher human poop is the harder it is to get it off the bottom of your shoe (and sometimes the side, depending on the size of the turd). Not only that but human poop carries way more disease than horse poop.
Re:Truly (Score:5, Funny)
I live in an area where avoiding horse dung is a weekly occurrence on my morning dog walks. Horse crap ain't got nothing on human. I would put my face into a pile of horse crap and take a deep breath if it meant I didn't have to deal with the horrors I have had to smell in the bathroom at work.
The only time horse crap gets bad is when they mix it with horse piss and it starts getting that strong ammonia smell about it, and then it's really more just the smell of ammonia burning your nostrils.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. The local restaurants can hire the cooks that were laid off from the company cafeterias. That should help unemployment a lot.
It's a shell game (Score:3)
> All of that does take money. You know how to get more money? Making people buy lunch off
> campus instead of eating at the free office caf which generates revenue from additional
> restaurant licensing, liquor sales, and staff wages paying city taxes. Crazy idea right?
* Add additional restaurant licencing... but lose property taxes on cafeteria in building
* liquor sales... are you out of your effing mind?
==> Employee drives to restaurant and then drives back to work with alcohol in his system; t
Politically connected restaraunt owners (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)
They should all have to get to work in rickshaws, too, and buy their shoes from local cobblers.
You are obviously being sarcastic, but if you put your proposal on the ballot, it is likely that many SF voters would support it.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Funny)
The cobbler bill receives full support from the brownie union. It is unclear whether the SF Pixie trade union will support.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you actually wanted to integrate the tech population (or any of the upper middle class in most cities), the best way to do that would be to force everyone to send their kids to the public school system (and make sure the individual districts are uniform). I've read several papers stating that that is probably the best way to fix the public school system. Right now, anyone with any money in most big cities quickly opts out. It's similar to the brain drain that merit based immigration systems cause to 3
Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Insightful)
Making the schools mandatory would lessen their incentive to improve even more.
If removing freedom of choice actually created better results, capitalism would be dead, and all our cities would have statues of Karl Marx.
We should be trying to broaden choices in education, rather than reducing them.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
If removing freedom of choice actually created better results, capitalism would be dead, and all our cities would have statues of Karl Marx.
Public schools are not run as capitalist ventures, and they do not usually compete for students. Public schools provide an important public service. In addition to finances, the composition of the students and the engagement of the parents influence the quality of the school. Creating an additional incentive to further segregate society along lines of income and wealth is not a good plan.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Eliminate them entirely for a voucher system that covers everyone. The schools that suck would get no students and therefore no funds, and close. The ones that do not suck will get many students and funded. Basically, its a "vote with your feet" option where the government money that would have gone to public schools directly goes to parents who can spend it on the private school of their choice.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
By then where would the schools be poor area of they city? People in poor areas will be left without a school or only a very bad school, because none of the rich people will send their kid to a poor neighbourhood, and none of the good teachers will want to teach in the poor neighborhoods full of underperforming students.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Eliminate them entirely for a voucher system that covers everyone.
Covers everyone fully? Including autistic and other special needs students? I.e., one voucher pays for one kid, if a school accepts vouchers it can't demand additional funds or selectively decline kids? Because otherwise all a voucher system does is provide a private school discount for the wealthy and the easiest to educate. The poor and the toughest to educate get concentrated in the remaining public schools.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Look at Milwaukee
If you look at Milwaukee before and after vouchers, and compare similar students in public and private schools, they did about the same ... but this is because the public schools improved. They were forced to do so by competition. They trimmed administrative costs, and found a way to fire bad teachers.
... and little improvement
Is that your best argument? That we should stick with the status quo because it is worse than the alternative, but not by much?
Vouchers are not a magical solution that dramatically transform education. Bu
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, high ability kids with good parents must suffer to increase the scores of section 8 kids by a percentage point through osmosis ...
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn to deal with "lesser humans" early actually. A very important skill considering that if you're destined for the upper classes, you should learn empathy for the lower classes.
Something utterly absent in elites on both political left and right today, and imho one of the biggest societal problems that US is facing today.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think your scheme would backfire, at the moment they are mostly paternalistic. I think your scheme would make them outright classist.
If you want to teach your kids empathy with the lower classes have them do some physical blue collar work, the working class is the better class of the lower class.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Learn that they are human, just like you, and have legitimate interests, just like you that you probably should pay attention to if you want to be in upper class and effective at it.
2. Never get it in your head even as a conceptual thought that people who have different background from you are "deplorable".
3. Win elections.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the best way to fix bad public schools is to end seniority pay, cut administrative staff, stop building multi-million dollar classrooms and put that money into teacher salary and subsidized housing. And fire the principal while you're at it. I looked into becoming a teacher once and let's just say I like having my own room and not eating ramen every day.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Insightful)
And most importantly: allow public schools to expel students who are violent or chronically disruptive. Get the most severe troublemakers out of the traditional classroom and into an alternative jail-like school, and allow those who want to learn to be able to do so without continuous distractions.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why stop there, indeed?
The Examiner quotes Supervisor Peskin saying
“People will have to go out and eat lunch with the rest of us”
Given that San Francisco is famous for the amount of human faces on the streets [sfgate.com] I'd say they should also ban restrooms in office buildings so people will have to go out and poop on the streets "with the rest of us"
Except..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And more importantly, does it provide free food to the public sector employees. This isn't about banning food service at the workplace, it's about banning free/subsidized food service.
Re: Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)
I live a 10-15 minute walk away from Twitter HQ. Humans shitting on the street here really is a thing. You also often have to hold your breath until you start turning blue, lest you inhale the gag inducing stench of stale urine.
Just yesterday I went up the street to grab an afternoon coffee and on my way back saw a crazy person staggering around in the middle of the busy street trying to pull their (couldn't determine if was man or woman) pants up. About ten yards later I saw what that person had left on the sidewalk out the front of a bank - a huge pile of semi-solid, semi-liquid shit.
You can regularly see junkies openly shooting up on the street or passed out on the sidewalk with needles sticking out of their arms while the police just walk on by.
If you dare to question why nothing is being done to clean up the place you are labelled a bad person. I've been to 3rd world countries that are cleaner and have more civic pride.
San Francisco is like hell on earth and that's why I'm leaving this overpriced shithole in under 24 hours. I've been here for four years and I've had it with the whacko's who "run" the place and the people who vote them in.
I was making big dollars, but even if I had Jeff Bezos-level "fuck you" wealth I wouldn't choose to live in San Francisco,
Aaron Peskin is my local Supervisor. He's a petty little alcoholic manlet and the embodiment of the sheer lunacy of Bay Area progressivism/Democrats.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, his spelling was as close to faeces as yours.
Both shit.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd care more about your bitterness if you could spell 'feces' properly.
The correct spelling is faeces. He dropped one letter. You dropped another instead.
Why stop at corporations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why stop at corporations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's ban citizens from preparing meals in their households as well. What better to ensure the success of local eateries?
Just wait. That's next, right after they mandate what you have to buy at the local eateries, what kind of transportation you must use to get to the eatery, what you must wear, what you must say when ordering your food, how you have to say it, and...well let's just dispense with any pretense of this whole "freedom" and "liberty" thing since government elites obviously knows what we need far better than we do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Latest government overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't enough the government wanted to tell you what to eat. It wasn't enough they took away your plastic straws. Now they want to tell you where you must eat.
At what point do people sit up and say "wait a minute, you don't need to be meddling in my life to this extent"? Are people oblivious to the slippery slope this kind of stuff always leads to?
Liberal paradise (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds exactly like the liberal paradise they all wanted. Always makes me think of this meme https://pics.me.me/wants-more-... [pics.me.me]
Re:Liberal paradise (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny. But that's not more government, that's more police.
Plus, there's a good chance that young lady wanted different government, not more of the same one that militarised the police.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh?
Re:Latest government overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
You miss the point. Peskin wants this to become law. That is obvious because it was proposed. That such a person can continue to serve after making such an asinine proposal and not be run out of office by the voters shows the absurdity of San Francisco politics. They clearly would love a government that tells everyone what to do, all the time, regardless of the situation.
The implication here is citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions and must be forced into specific behaviors by the Almighty Hand Of Government, because only government has the wisdom and altruism necessary to ensure the well-being of the people. Don't the voters understand how they're being condescended to by stuff like this? "You can't be trusted to do what's best for you, therefore we will make laws that force you to do what we think is best for you."
Re:Latest government overreach (Score:4, Interesting)
"The implication here is citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions"
uh... did they not vote a clown in that thinks just exactly this? Apparently even the citizens themselves believe they are too stupid to make their own decisions. It seems to me that Peskin is just reflecting what his voters want. I believe that is his job as their elected, right?
governments are a reflection of its people. A truth many people will refuse to their very graves, very much to their detriment.
Would y'all please stop? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Would y'all please stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Y'all come on. Just remember why you left
Except that they don't. They claim to be fleeing the "unlivable mess" in California but they bring their politics with them and begin destroying their new home just as they destroyed California. Why do you think "Don't Californicate <Insert State Here>" is such a popular bumper sticker? Trust me, you don't want more rocks-for-brains Liberals moving to Texas from California.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Texas has its own forms of crony capitalism. [texasstandard.org]
Fiefdoms - Corporate City (Score:5, Insightful)
"tech companies have become independent fiefs with dry cleaning, gyms, doctors, shuttle buses and bountiful free meals...
Fantastic quote from the article. The fiefdoms of tech campuses are creating a new kind of society: the corporate city, open only to those with a badge. On the large scale practiced in the SF Bay Area, this corporate coddling certainly seems to be capable of whittling away at the vibrance of city life.
NEWS RELEASE: "The independent city-state of Google has declared war on the city of San Francisco by poaching its best chefs." LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"tech companies have become independent fiefs with dry cleaning, gyms, doctors, shuttle buses and bountiful free meals...
Fantastic quote from the article. The fiefdoms of tech campuses are creating a new kind of society: the corporate city, open only to those with a badge. On the large scale practiced in the SF Bay Area, this corporate coddling certainly seems to be capable of whittling away at the vibrance of city life.
NEWS RELEASE: "The independent city-state of Google has declared war on the city of San Francisco by poaching its best chefs." LOL.
So, let me get this straight; the noble employees would have been out enjoying the "vibrance" (like homeless crapping on the sidewalks?), but the evil corp executives made that completely impossible by ... building cafeterias.
Or, maybe you mean something else?
Re: (Score:3)
Not forgetting company scrip, which was a corporate currency which was used to pay wages and could be used to buy items from the company store, pay for accommodation at the company hotel and meals at the company bar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We should ban Aaron Peskin's kitchen (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Real estate does so because of the tech companies. What do you think the situation for real estate will be like once the tech corporations that gobble up that real estate are gone and you have a lot of unused land plots that nobody could possibly afford at the asking price. Except tech corporations, who were just kicked out, that is...
Um... every office job I've ever had (Score:2, Redundant)
Why not take the same approach as with immigrants? (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is not against these folks, it's for them. It's to integrate them into the community."
Interesting concept. Perhaps we could try that with immigrants. See if we can get people who immigrate to the United States to respect the laws, learn the language, and integrate into the culture and society.
What? That's ridiculous and shows no respect for the immigrants? Why is it OK to force a company (a voluntary association of people) to respect the laws but not actual individuals? How come cities like SF like to think that they can thumb their noses at federal laws they don't like and then turn around and brow beat companies (and, indirectly, tax-paying citizens) with their own local laws? Will they applaud when those companies stand up to the inhumane overreach of the city government in the same way the city has stood up to the federal government?
Re:Why not take the same approach as with immigran (Score:5, Insightful)
See if we can get people who immigrate to the United States to respect the laws, learn the language, and integrate into the culture and society.
Whoa there buddy. You are all over the radar and trying to tie things that don't go together. Let's unpack it just a bit.
who immigrate to the United States to respect the laws
Those that do so legally, and I'm going to assume that's what you are talking about but what do I know, respect the law or they loose their status. That includes anyone and everyone who is not a natural born citizen. Though rare, even naturalized citizens can be deported for breaking the law if serious enough.
learn the language
Last I checked there wasn't a law that required any particular language. While I get that the majority of folks speak English in the US, there's not a strict requirement by any law to speak it anywhere. And I understand your point here but then that understanding gets derailed when you say:
Why is it OK to force a company (a voluntary association of people) to respect the laws but not actual individuals?
See you are making your argument here that not speaking English is against the law and well that's not true.
integrate into the culture and society
Again, there's not a strict law for any of that. And if there was it would beg the question of "Whose?" I can tell you from traveling around the country that there's a huge difference in "culture" between say, California, New York, Iowa, Texas, and so on. And hells bells there's big difference within States themselves. So you ask someone to "integrate" and what exactly are they supposed to integrate into? It's left really wide open there as to what your question is there, almost to a degree of bigotry, just saying. When you start saying things like, "Person ABC there isn't "American" enough" that's going to raise eyebrows as to what exactly you're meaning there.
How come cities like SF like to think that they can thumb their noses at federal laws they don't like and then turn around and brow beat companies (and, indirectly, tax-paying citizens) with their own local laws?
Because that's how our system of government works. Last I checked Congress hadn't regulated cafeterias within corporate buildings and so that ability to do so devolves, first to States, and then on down the chain of command there. Now I'm not saying that you have to like that law or anything and if it rubs you raw enough, I'll just give you the answer that my State currently has for those that don't like the current batch of abortion laws. Just move somewhere else. That's kind of how it's worked here in the US since like the start of the US. I really don't know what else to tell you there. If you don't like a city doing that, then don't live there or vote or both or neither, I don't really care what you do.
Will they applaud when those companies stand up to the inhumane overreach of the city government in the same way the city has stood up to the federal government?
Those aren't like things. Here's a rough outline for you.
Federal Government = A recognized form of public government within the US.
City Government = A recognized form of public government within the US.
Company = Not a recognized form of government within the US.
See how companies are slightly different? And it's been trending lately to try and treat companies much like citizens or even like organized government, and that's usually proven to be a bad idea, but if that's what the public wants, who am I to argue? Not me, because that's not really a point I honestly care about. Point being, you can't say "Will A blah to B, like B blah to C", when A is something that is completely unlike B and C. Those aren't equal things.
In short, I really had to say something here because the
Re: (Score:3)
Without reference to the regulation in question:
Why is it OK to force a company (a voluntary association of people)
Because the company isn't a mere voluntary association of people, it has limited liability protection. What you are therefore arguing is that companies should get both more protection and priviliges and be subject to no more rules to maintain those.
If you were talking about simple associations of people, then sure you'd have a point. But you're talking about companies so you really don't.
The ever shrinking lunch hour... (Score:5, Insightful)
... will make this unfeasible. Most companies I've worked for in recent years have been moving to a work day that starts at 8:30 and only allows 30 minutes for lunch. (Unless it's someone's birthday or a co-worker's last day. Then it's 2 hours.)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it won't keep shrinking if it's at 30 minutes. That's the minimum in California. And I don't get the early start time (or why it matters), but if you want me to be present at my less productive time, cool. You're paying for it.
Won't change anything (Score:5, Informative)
I was working at a tech company when they closed their cafeteria to do some renovation. Even though we had flex hours and could easily have left campus to eat, to my knowledge practically no one did. The company let a vendor come in and sell boxed lunches, a few people would order delivery but mostly people just brought their lunches. Unless the campuses are extremely small and there are nearby restaurants within an easy 5-10 minute walk, no one is going to leave for lunch. The onsite cafeterias are a convenience and that is it.
"planning to..." (Score:5, Informative)
Two San Francisco supervisors suggested this. There are eleven city supervisors. The summary makes it sound like this is definitely happening.
Everybody hold your water. It's just some harebrained idea that two politicians raised to placate businesses they represent. I doubt it will really happen.
Exempting existing tech buildings (Score:2)
Don't even try.... (Score:3)
Don't even try to bring your lunch, especially if you bring a straw. WTF is wrong with SF?
Re: (Score:2)
So good people with any wage have to be force by a gov spend more to pay more tax.
The daystar! (Score:3)
My initial thought was that this is ridiculous overreach. But the government regularly says where restaurants can and can't be. Framed as : You can't open a restaurant in your house, or your barber shop (I bet), or your office building—it is less unreasonable.
On the plus side, cities are supposed to be the most accountable governmental unit, and the easiest to leave.
Also, some drastic municipal ordinances (no smoking in restaurants, no plastic bags, no large sodas) come to be seen as common sense.
Understandable. (Score:2)
If your want to do your own Cyberpunk enclave, stay in the desert. Plain and simple. I totally get the SF officials on this one. ... Seems awkward.
I'm just wondering if this is the right measure to fix this
The corporate reasoning is simple: (Score:5, Interesting)
The tech companies have made the decision that providing lunch is a bennie and it keeps people inside the bubble longer. If San Fransisco passes the "no cafeteria" regs, expect the corporate offices to rent food trucks on a rotation to stop in front of their office, seven days a week. The press on the local food establishments will be insane. People don't want to integrate into the community, they want to work and go home. Forcing them to go out for take out just annoys them.
San Fransisco has a lot of growing up to do: They have to come to terms if they want the big companies to be in town, they need to build at least 100,000 more apartment units, quickly. And those will get snapped up in about 30 seconds with people screaming for more. Watching the city slowly destroy itself with the: "But we don't want to build anymore units because it will change the city" get trampled by the stratospheric rent rates has been fun to watch from a far distance.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the sig. And as for snagging and bugs...
But yeah I cannot understand people being so precious about any city in America. It’s supposed to be the new world, no?
Re: (Score:2)
The tech companies have made the decision that providing lunch is a bennie and it keeps people inside the bubble longer. If San Fransisco passes the "no cafeteria" regs, expect the corporate offices to rent food trucks on a rotation to stop in front of their office, seven days a week. The press on the local food establishments will be insane. People don't want to integrate into the community, they want to work and go home. Forcing them to go out for take out just annoys them.
Yeah, forcing people to integrate into a community tends to turn people off and be generally offensive, though also incredibly ironic in some ways. SF might be better off encouraging corps to do things like make a habit of having local food trucks come by...and, well, actually making a point of allowing more housing to be built so those working in the offices actually will be in SF for more than just lunch. If you want them to integrate into the community, make sure they can live there.
What will "officials" look for? (Score:2)
Could an advanced water fountain be a "cafeteria" as it allows for hot and cold drinks that are totally removing daily beverage profit from local eateries?
A government inspection to find an office kettle that could make instant coffee and tea on demand for office workers? Another search for any type of hidden "kitchen" area?
Government teams using infrared to look for any hot self-contain
I smell dollar signs (Score:2, Informative)
This is probably crony capitalism, not socialism. The restaurant lobby bribes their way in.
Sure local restaurants can handle it (Score:2)
I'm sure that the all the restaurants within a few blocks of Uber and Twitter HQ (which are pretty much next to each other) could handle the 5000 employees pouring out of Uber and Twitter between 11:30 and 12:30.
Maybe someone can tell these lawmakers the number of cafeteria works that will be laid off...
Re: (Score:2)
and of course company cafeterias magically teleport food and supplies into existence and don't buy things from the local stores.
As stupid as this is (Score:3)
I have to admit I actually find this an interesting idea. But banning is kind of an overly authoritarian way to go about it. Maybe something like a "cafeteria license" where they make them pay extra to provide such a facility (and include all the inspections and other costs that go with it?), making it less economically viable to provide a cafeteria but earning extra revenue for the city from the companies that do. Or, maybe provide an incentive, like waive those costs if they allow local businesses to provide catering/delivery to those cafeteria areas.
Either way this is such a "bay area" problem. And we all know the real way to fix the bay area is to raze it with atomic flame.
Integrate? (Score:2)
"This is not against these folks, it's for them. It's to integrate them into the community." - Aaron Peskin
I believe that workers are perfectly capable of deciding to go out into the city for lunch. Why Mr. Peskin thinks this requires a city ordinance to accomplish this is beyond me.
Solution: be like France (Score:2)
How are corporate cafeterias not local businesses (Score:3)
First, how are corporate cafeterias not local businesses? They employ local people.
Secondly, I think most people just go there because the food is free (in some cases) or because it's convenient. If you work for a big company with a large campus, it's often the case that going to the corporate cafeteria only takes a few minutes, while going off campus to a local restaurant might take 10, or 15, or even more minutes just to get there.
Thirdly, the reason they set up cafeterias in the first place is to allow people to converse about work over lunch. That can sometimes be hard to do when there's people from competing businesses sitting at the table next to you. Not only that, but you have to find a place that everybody wants to go to. With cafeteria style eating arrangements, each person can eat whatever they want from the menu, or even bring their own lunch from home and everybody just gathers at an available table.
Speaking of bringing your own lunch from home, I think this will be the end result if they somehow outlaw corporate cafeterias. People don't want to go off campus everyday and spend money on lunch. They will just bring their own lunch from home. I've never had a corporate cafeteria, so given the choice between bringing my own lunch and buying lunch every day, bringing my own lunch is the clear winner, as it's cheaper and more convenient.
Re:It is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Hm, well, speaking from experience, the corporate cafeteria is more like an attractive nuisance. It's good enough that you don't bother to go out, but not as good as what you'd get if you went out. And because everybody is doing it, if you don't, you stand out, which a lot of people aren't comfortable with.
I don't think this ordinance has a chance in hell of passing constitutional muster, but I actually think the idea behind it is good. Sometimes the only way to get the right result for individuals is to have a collective norm.
Re:It is ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
You need to try some of the cafeterias at the Silicon Valley companies. These aren't Sudexo pieces of shit. They have real chefs and actual food. I know at Facebook in addition to 2 cafeterias they had a burger shack, a pizza place, a noodle soup place, a salad place, a barbecue place, and frequent popups. And that was just the main campus, not the sattelites. The food tends to be pretty good, and if it doesn't do it for you the daily places work.
Re:It is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
When you believe that you know what is in other people's interests better than they do, regulation always seems like a great idea.
I do love that SF is being subjected to their own socialism though.
Re: (Score:3)
If a company is going to get tax incentives to move to a particular spot based on the theoretical benefits it'll provide, it damn well better be regulated to ensure it produces what it promised. Although personally -- even though I'm a socialist -- I'd prefer to pass a law outlawing localities from providing incentives to compete with each other for companies (which is of course terribly inefficient for the state/country as a whole).
Re: (Score:3)
TFA mentions existing ones will be grandfathered in, but I also agree with your first sentence.
Re:It is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Hm, well, speaking from experience, the corporate cafeteria is more like an attractive nuisance. It's good enough that you don't bother to go out, but not as good as what you'd get if you went out. And because everybody is doing it, if you don't, you stand out, which a lot of people aren't comfortable with.
I don't think this ordinance has a chance in hell of passing constitutional muster, but I actually think the idea behind it is good. Sometimes the only way to get the right result for individuals is to have a collective norm.
My company isn't large enough to have a full cafeteria, so they do catering, and the catered food is as good as any local restaurant in the $10 - $20 price range I'd be willing to pay every day. The choices are limited so some people chose to eat out and no one cares.
I actually think the idea behind it is good.
Why stop at food? Why not require that employees purchase gas locally... and haircuts... and groceries... and everything else that could be purchased locally? After all, the employers are indirectly paying for all of that through the pay they give employees.
Or, if towns want employees to buy more local products, then maybe they ought to relax their tight zoning laws and allow much more housing to be built near the offices... then they wouldn't have to force people to shop locally, it would happen naturally.
Re:It is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
This law will have a negligible effect for many reasons:
1. It is addressing a problem that doesn't exist. The main problem faced by restaurants in SF is not "too few customers" but "too few workers", since people making waitress and dishwasher wages can't afford to live in SF. Customers aren't going to just wait longer to be seated. They will instead bring a sandwich and an apple in a paper sack and eat at their desk.
2. It doesn't actually ban "free food at work." . It bans new construction of cafeterias. But SF already rejects 95% of all building permits, and the NIMBYs and BANANAs prevent almost all new construction anyway. Existing cafeterias can still be used, and tech companies without cafeterias can just contract with an offsite caterer to bring in meals. Unlike the cafeteria workers, these caterers are likely to make the meals in Oakland or Daly City, and truck them into SF, so this may reduce jobs for SF residents.
Stupid laws have stupid unintended effects.
Re: (Score:3)
Stupid laws have stupid unintended effects.
My admittedly brief personal experience with SF and what I've heard about it, that probably is accurate for a rather unfortunate number of the local laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if it was constitutionally valid, it would be trivially easy to get around, as it only affects construction, but there is no rule that you have to keep using every room the same way in the future. As long as you don't have to remove structural supports, this is just a matter of labeling at the design phase.
Re:It is ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
I work right in the 'meat' of Mid-Market and a third problem is that most of the restaurants that have opened in the area are 'concept' restaurants that a semi-famous local chef sinks a couple million bucks into, which results in the average lunch costing 25 bucks. Cavernous restaurants like that have shuttered at a pretty quick pace over the past couple years because they don't know how to cater to the techie lunch crowd. Meanwhile, Little Griddle, Ananda Fura (sp? I don't eat veggies), Sam's, The Market on Market and even the Subways in the area thrive. The food trucks at Soma Straet Food are often crowded as long as it's not rainy, and people have to walk a ways to get there.
Hopefully these big, prominent failures will start to give restauranteurs a clue about how to appeal to us nerds. When you're competing with free or subsidized food, you have to be different, fast, and reasonably priced (by San Francisco standards.) Nobody cares about your wine list (Dirty Water) or microbrew (that French place whose name escapes me.) Both those places were good for an occasional fancy lunch, but I'm not spending $25 on food every day, nor is anyone that works in the area.
Re:It is ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
"Welcome to the Restaurant Extragavanza. Do you have any reservations?"
"Well, since you asked, the wine list looks a bit pricy and the wallpaper looks a bit tacky."
Re:It is ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
This. When I eat lunch, I care about 3 things: Speed, price, amount. Taste comes in as a close fourth, but the quality level "edible" is sufficient for a lunch place to see me again. But I only have a limited amount of time at my disposal, so optimally my lunch is already ready when I decide I want it. It should be reasonably priced so that it's not more sensible for me to bring my own stuff. And it should be sufficient to last 'til dinner.
Our campus cafeteria offers exactly that. Nothing fancy, nothing that you'll come back for seconds for, but it's ready when I get there (because they cook permanently through lunch time), the price is all right and it's filling.
Plus, as an added bonus, your company is VERY interested in you not getting sick to your stomach from the grub because people who vomit don't work.
Re: (Score:3)
texmex is not bland. It's one of my favorite parts of living here
Re: (Score:2)
They can, and they will. This will get tossed out. It is just a NIMBY feelgood measure that everybody knows won't really go into effect.
Re: (Score:2)
In order for a meal break to be unpaid for non-exempt employees
None of the employers targeted by this proposal hire significant numbers of non-exempt employees
Re: (Score:2)
It's expensive to live there, it's overrun by homeless drunks and drug addicts, the streets are covered in human feces and whinny liberals keep sticking their noses in your business. Why not move to a state like Texas where there's so much land that you can build an entirely new city just the way you want it? San Francisco is a shit hole city, literally. You couldn't pay me to live there.
Why not? Because the employers and employees at these tech companies want to stay in the bay area, and until that change, there won't be another place like it. It may not be to your liking, but no one is forcing you to live there.
Land is not the only issue -- if t was, then why is traffic in Austin so bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Land is not the only issue -- if t was, then why is traffic in Austin so bad?
Land is a necessary, although not sufficient condition. The real issue is control. That's the problem. You see, Liberals, and most especially the kind that run San Francisco, like to control your life. They want to force you to live how they want you to live because they think they know best and that we're all just dumb white men with too much privilege. You will never have the necessary level of control over your own business in San Francisco because the miserable Liberal busybodies who run the place and their lazy bum voters cannot resist meddling in your private affairs.
Ahh, got it... so it's those Texas Liberals that are forcing residents of Dallas, Houston and Austin to sit in some of the worse congestion in the USA (all ranked in the top 13 USA cities for congestion). They have plenty of land, but don't want to use it, they want to force you to sit in your car in traffic. If only Texas weren't so full of liberals, then those cities would have 30 lane freeways and traffic would be free flowing all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably don't want to live in a state that constantly needs federal assistance due to their constant failures to plan leading to fiscal and other crises.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In Europe, in most Restaurants no one would work for minimum wages.
Only a few Pubs can get away with minimum wages because the guests give enough tips.
Minimum wage in Germany is btw. somewhere around EUR 9,50.