Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States Technology

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
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

San Francisco Officials Are Planning To Ban Corporate Cafeterias, Force Tech Workers To Eat Out At Local Restaurants

Comments Filter:
  • Truly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alyks ( 798644 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:32PM (#57046332)
    the highest priority for the city.
    • Re:Truly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brett Buck ( 811747 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @12:00AM (#57046684)

      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.

    • by Spamalope ( 91802 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @04:12AM (#57047420)
      So, who owns the restaurants/commercial property they're on that stands to gain financially? Someone politically connected stands to make a bunch of money by forcing this change.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:33PM (#57046336)
    They should all have to get to work in rickshaws, too, and buy their shoes from local cobblers.
    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:44PM (#57046386)

      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.

      • by Archfeld ( 6757 ) <treboreel@live.com> on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @11:06PM (#57046484) Journal

        The cobbler bill receives full support from the brownie union. It is unclear whether the SF Pixie trade union will support.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Wycliffe ( 116160 )

        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)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @01:50AM (#57047074)

          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)

            by Stephan Schulz ( 948 ) <schulz@eprover.org> on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @07:52AM (#57048178) Homepage

            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)

          by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @01:52AM (#57047082)

          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)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @02:29AM (#57047160)

            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)

              by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @02:58AM (#57047226)

              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:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @04:04AM (#57047388)
          Forcing integration doesn't work since people will just move a few districts over. There are lots of good public schools in the Bay Area for them to choose from. And no, busing kids around doesn't work either. Nobody wants the kids to spend 2+ hours in traffic every day.

          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)

            by pete6677 ( 681676 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @08:52AM (#57048586)

            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)

          Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Guillermito ( 187510 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @11:14PM (#57046510) Homepage

      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)

        by Puls4r ( 724907 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @02:14AM (#57047136)
        City Hall, where these morons work, has it's own in-building cafeteria. They call it a Cafe... Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.
  • by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:34PM (#57046340)
    Let's ban citizens from preparing meals in their households as well. What better to ensure the success of local eateries?
    • by prisoner-of-enigma ( 535770 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:38PM (#57046360) Homepage

      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.

  • by prisoner-of-enigma ( 535770 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:35PM (#57046342) Homepage

    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?

    • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:41PM (#57046374)

      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]

  • by houstonbofh ( 602064 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:39PM (#57046364)
    Would y'all please stop? We already have to many of your people in Texas now... This will only bring more of them! ;) (Just kidding... Y'all come on. Just remember why you left...)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @11:04PM (#57046474)

      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.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Um, Texas has its own forms of crony capitalism. [texasstandard.org]

  • by SlashGodet ( 4532899 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:44PM (#57046384) Homepage

    "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.

    • Yeah, it basically creates areas of the city not even worth walking through. Those corporate areas are like hell-holes.
    • "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?

  • by grahamsaa ( 1287732 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:45PM (#57046390)
    Surely this would help local restaurants. Sheesh, this city seems determined to force the tech companies that make up a large percentage of the tax base to leave.
  • has a cafeteria. Companies put them in because they get you to work through your lunch in exchange for some food (and sometimes not even that, the places I worked just had cheap food, it wasn't free). This'll get shot down. These guys are just fishing for campaign contributions. The restaurants will get outbid by the the mega corps.
  • by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:46PM (#57046394)

    "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?

    • by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @12:08AM (#57046710)

      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

    • 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.

  • by rnturn ( 11092 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:46PM (#57046396)

    ... 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.)

    • 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.

      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.

  • by Wycliffe ( 116160 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:48PM (#57046404) Homepage

    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)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:50PM (#57046420) Journal

    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.

  • So probably will have very little effect.
  • by zoid.com ( 311775 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:51PM (#57046428) Homepage Journal

    Don't even try to bring your lunch, especially if you bring a straw. WTF is wrong with SF?

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Tax base need more funds for political ideas.
      So good people with any wage have to be force by a gov spend more to pay more tax.
  • by Frank Burly ( 4247955 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @10:56PM (#57046446)

    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.

  • 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.
    I'm just wondering if this is the right measure to fix this ... Seems awkward.

  • by Elfich47 ( 703900 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @11:22PM (#57046536)
    The turn around time for lunch is usually shorter. You walk down to the cafeteria. You grab lunch, eat it and are back at your desk inside the allotted lunch window. If you have to go out, then the travel time is up, there is weather to contend with, lines, its more of a hassle.

    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.
    • by Bongo ( 13261 )

      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?

    • 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.

  • Search your office for a "refrigerator" above a set capacity that could allow workers lunch "food" to be kept on site?
    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)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 )

    This is probably crony capitalism, not socialism. The restaurant lobby bribes their way in.

  • 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...

    • and of course company cafeterias magically teleport food and supplies into existence and don't buy things from the local stores.

  • by Kagetsuki ( 1620613 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2018 @11:53PM (#57046662)

    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.

  • "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.

  • Start requiring companies to enforce a 40-hour week or pay overtime. Require a sane amount of time for lunch, so employees have TIME to go out, go for a walk, etc without having to wolf something down at the company store ... I mean caf.
  • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2018 @08:04AM (#57048240)

    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.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...