They already do. Local, organic, dolphin-free, sustainable donuts. The only kind I eat!
Why are employees of local restaurants more worthy of employment than employees in company cafeterias?
I usually bring my lunch from home and eat at my desk. Thus, my money goes to local grocery stores rather than local restaurants (and to my wife, who I support while she makes my lunch). What are they gonna do about things like that? Are they going to go thru my lunch bag to be sure the produce is locally sourced?
I got my usual proposal for the SF people who are pushing this. I will eat whatever I want, where ever I want, any time I want. In return, fuck off and go bother the whales or something.
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s the thing though; where do you draw the line? Nearly everything a company does outside of their core business is probably a service provided through some sort of local business. There are companies that rent office furniture, clean bathrooms, serve lunches (restaurants), provide coffee, etc… All of which are things that companies often provide with in-house resources.
Should a company be compelled to discontinue the big urn of cheap coffee because some guy opens a coffee shop down the block and is struggling? Should they not hire a janitor because there are janitorial companies out there that need work? What about the commercial furniture rental places? What about the free gym for employees? Should Lifetime Fitness get their panties in a twist?
Free or subsidized lunches are no different really. The only place they differ is that it’s something companies typically don’t do for employees, but it isn’t unheard of either.
You could argue the same thing for any company out in the community that provides a service that a company does/can do for itself. And that’s not a reasonable thing- there are perfectly legitimate reasons that the companies do this- employee retention, less time spent going/coming from lunch, healthier workforce, etc… Clearly their bean counters have done the math and decided that this is worth doing.
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help!!!”
It’s the capitalists who own the restaurants that are pressuring the government to subsidize them via regulation.
Classic rent seeking behavior by capitalists.
I’m aware of office buildings that have had parking spaces limited due to zoning regulations that seek to avoid congestion and push people to take public transit.
If the restaurants in SF are having trouble, why doesn’t the city just raise the minimum wage? That way, everyone has more money to spend, that boosts the local economy, and more people can go out to eat. Problem solved.
Or so I have been told.
Regards,
Shodan
Are these two statements supposed to mean the same thing? Do they read that way to you?
I’m not following what meaingless nit you’re trying to pick.
You’re aware that slippery slope arguments are a fallacy, right?
My larger argument, setting aside the issue of lunch, is that tech companies are making generally rational decisions for themselves that have consequences on the rest of the community. See for example, small houses in Palo Alto selling for $2 million or more. Arguing that they are acting in their own self-interest is completely missing the point.
Ravenman, could your position be summed up as “I don’t know whether this law is a good idea or not but fuck those tech companies.”?
Yeah, basically. ETA: or maybe a little more of, I just don’t care that much when the highly privileged may have a perk curtailed in the future, and certainly don’t see it as a matter of liberty.
We are not talking about those who want a free lunch, but about the right of someone to provide a free lunch. Or, more to the point, taking away that right solely to benefit another, different person.
So you have a problem with tech companies. Are they the only ones to affected? What about insurance companies, research firms, architecture firms, law firms and the other businesses that are in that same area? Why restrict their rights to benefit downtown restaurateurs?
Sure seems like the issue is driven by tech companies. To the extent that other companies do the same, TANSTAAFL on a deeper level.
The issue is being driven by restaurateurs and two boneheaded supervisors. This is not an issue the government needs to address.
I don’t see how those two sentences actually relate to each other.
But the people making those decisions, by and large, are not the workers who are getting free food. Jeff Bezos may be an asshole, but the guy coding Amazon’s webpage is just trying to do his job. Legislating away free lunches makes their job just a little bit more shitty, and does fuck-all to make the company as a whole more community-minded. If you want to compare tech companies to 19th century robber barons, you’re taking the position that because Andrew Carnegie was an jerk, you’re going to oppose giving his workers weekends off.
That’s a pretty poor example - tech companies are responsible for a lot of people moving to the Bay Area, but they’re not responsible for Bay Area communities failure to build new housing to match rising demand.
This isn’t about personal demeanor of the CEOs of the companies; that is a separate issue. It’s about how these businesses have impacts on the communities that aren’t adequately taken into account by relying on the companies deciding what is best for themselves.
But I’m curious as to the bolded part – do you think things like free lunches make these companies more community minded? How so?
I completely agree that housing policy in the Bay Area is a serious problem – but obviously there’s a connection to the tech industry. You’re right to say that it is not all laid at the feet of the tech industry, but neither do I absolve them of their role in the problem. I don’t think the industry is maliciously trying to create the problem, to be clear.
That wasn’t a slippery slope argument, that was a “these things are clearly stupid, and the thing in question is the same as these things” argument.
And this plan to ban free company lunches is clearly stupid. If I hire somebody, buy a box of donuts, and let him have one of my donuts, that act should not illegal.
Reduced traffic congestion. Reduced pollution. (I can’t claim to have thought of these answers myself; I cheated by reading the previous comments on the thread).