If I had to go somewhere else, I’d expect them to “compete” - ie give me my lunch subsidized or free. I’d also expect to have it in the same time frame… I’d just start bringing my lunch from home and then they’d have to put up with me being cranky from having some manky cheese sandwich.
Seriously, there’s a reason they have in-house catering. I don’t live in a city the size of SF, but queuing to get lunch in any city takes time… and then you’ve got no time to eat it.
[Moderating]
Because I only just now got to it. This isn’t about the flavor or presentation of food, just about who’s paying for it and where. It’s a political issue: Off to GD.
Milpitas, Mountain View, whatever. All those south bay cities look the same 
Realistically I think the food is primarily a fringe benefit designed to entice and retain employees. Companies that don’t do this are t’s a competitive disadvantage, and since older companies would be grandfathered that too seems unfair.
Maybe this is a clever way for San Francisco to solve its housing problem. As it is, something like 45% of people in a recent poll said they were planning to move out of the bay area. This, and the stupid straw bans and the homeless explosion is only going to accelerate that.
People keep saying they want to move, but our population keeps increasing. Anyhow, even if San Francisco does this, there are plenty of other cities, like mine, which would welcome them free food and all. Facebook is in Menlo Park, and I can testify there aren’t a lot of choices near that campus.
Actual homeless population censuses indicate that the homeless population is not exploding or even growing very much at all. In a meeting with the head of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing I heard him claim, and support the claim, that his department has learned to winnow out the long-term local homeless from opportunistic arrivals, and the real opportunities and support go to the locals. I suspect word is spreading on the grapevine that SF is no longer the gravy train it once was.
As for the straw ban (singular), you may think it’s stupid (I don’t) but it’s hardly anything that is going to drive even a single person away from living here.
Population pressure and cost of living seem to have reached a sort of equilibrium in the past couple of years, as the general population has leveled off at around 900,000 (SF only). I think there is a lot of pressure still on the surrounding areas.
The pharma campus I worked at a few years ago had something like six eateries. Three were corporate food service and the other three were restaurants in nearby towns that opened satellites on campus. The restaurant grub was a little more expensive, but a nice treat.
funny thing … the only thing I have conservative views on is food ……let humans eat what they want (and let it be produced in the manner they choose )when they want
well ok no eating other humans would be a rule
Fascist.
well some one has to be alive to cook the food…
They had already left because of the plastic bag ban. They all went to Texas. But we’ll get the last laugh when bags start coming out of their faucets.
I’m increasingly confident of my view that tech companies are generally about as ethical as the railroads at the turn of the 20th century: what they are doing is very important, but the way they do it is not to the benefit of the public at large. I’m playing the world’s smallest violin for those who want a free lunch.
How exactly is it unethical for a company to provide free or subsidized lunch to its employees?
Typically, the food is still taxed, and they’re employing a lot of people in food prep and food service in the area, and it’s worth it to them, because employees who stay on campus to eat have more time to work, and have more time to interact with other employees which spurs innovation.
But this is unethical, why?
Is it unethical everywhere? I don’t live in SF, but my company provides free lunch to employees. Is that unethical? If a small business routinely provides free lunch to it’s employees, is that unethical? If a company provided free lunches, but only to non-salaried hourly employees making less than $15 an hour, would that be unethical?
What exactly is the cutoff in your mind for ethical food provision?
Seattle isn’t Silicon Valley, I guess. It’s not uncommon here. And SF is the hot new tech capital. As someone said upthread, this could easily be enacted as a zoning issue. There is a tremendous amount of animosity between the folks in the new SF tech economy and the longer term residence.
This issue was on the local news a few nights ago, and as I understand it, it would apply only to new businesses. It wouldn’t affect those already offering free food.
This is the dumbest shit on Earth.
“Our consumers are not meeting their quota! We must force them to buy more things!”
That’s not what I said. Do you think I called the railroad robber barons unethical based on their employee meal practices?
When we look back on this time from decades from now, in the words of someone I heard on the radio years ago, we will judge Silicon Valley to be an economic miracle and a social failure. The tech companies are the heart of this. To the extent that the perks given by tech companies have impact on the community, they need to own that, too.
That’s why I say I have next to zero sympathy for defending the prerogatives of tech companies to offer free or heavily subsidized food. Meh.
Yeah, and what’s up with all the free parking in company parking lots. Employees should use paid parking garages!!
I can surmise that you’re trying to be the devil’s advocate, but this is so Bay Area.
It’s not good enough that there are quality, great paying jobs there. But now the city needs to be involved in how employees are compensated, and why others aren’t benefiting for that.
If this ever went through (and I can’t imagine it will) there would be no end to this stuff.
BTW, it’s pretty common for tech companies where I live to provide personal services like work-out facilities (fuck you, local gyms!!) and even dry cleaning. Some even provide day care. It’s all about keeping employees happy. And close to work!
Maybe we could require companies to ensure that at least 25% of an employee’s vacation is taken in the form of a “staycation” to support the local tourist industry. I was going to say 100%, but let’s not be ridiculous!! 
No more “free” donuts and coffee at those morning meetings. Both have to come from local, non-chain shops.