That’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is allowing food service preparation within office buildings. That’s a zoning issue. People can still bring their lunch, buy some donuts, etc. But zoning controls where people can locate restaurants, or food service preparation.
I’m not talking about personal demeanor. I’m saying, when Amazon strong-arms Seattle into rolling back a tax meant to reduce homelessness in the city, it’s not the guy whose spending sixteen hours at his desk debugging code that’s doing that. The lack of community consciousness among tech companies comes from management. If you have a problem with that - and you absolutely should - you should be going after the people who run these companies. You should not be going after the labor.
No, obviously not. It’s entirely unrelated to community engagement, which is what makes this measure such a bad idea. If you want more community-minded tech companies, go after the top of the structure, not the bottom. This measure isn’t about making corporations more responsible, it’s about punishing the people who work for them.
What is their role in the problem, other than existing and needing a workforce? What specific measures can tech companies take to fix the housing crisis? Build apartment complexes to house their own workers? Bringing back the concept of a company town certainly would go a long way toward re-enforcing the similarities between tech and the old robber barons, but I have a hard time calling it “progress.”
As I understand it that’s not true; in this thread it’s been suggested that zoning laws could be used to achieve this harebrained end, but I don’t get the impression that the legislation at hand is being structured as a zoning issue over food preparation. (The article specifically mentions tax-free cafeterias, not just any old place that sells food.)
But in any case, the stated goal of the law is to prevent me from sharing my donuts, because the donut sellers around me are mad that I’m robbing them of business.
Bad analogy. Are you aware of companies that are forbidden to supply any parking places at all? Generally, the rules work the other way-- build an office building, and you have to build a certain number of parking spaces to go with it. Whether you charge for parking or not is up to the owner.
I’m not disputing legality of zoning laws. Cities can zone pretty much the way they like. I’m noting that this is a stupid practice that favors certain businesses looking for protection by the government. If the restaurant owners were smart, they would figure out a way to operate satellite food service stations at these companies. This is a function that a company generally does do with in-house employees, but subcontracts it out to people who know how to prepare food.
Next up: ban on brown-bagging. Disclaimer: I brown-bagged my entire career.
No, I think it’s a great analogy given the differences between the subjects at hand. Nobody would propose that tech companies could only provide a certain number of lunches - that’s even more silly.
All zoning is about putting certain interests above others.
Not sure how you’d expect the restaurants to compete with “free cafeteria.”
Let me also acknowledge one substantive point: I have no clue the merits of this proposal, as to whether it would actually achieve the desired ends. That’s why I’m not saying it is a wonderful idea. I am saying that no business has an inherent right to have a cafeteria, and that all the whining about loss of free lunches makes me feel about as bad for these employees and companies as when Jeffrey Skillings’ wife complained that she was left with “nothing” after the bankruptcy. Yeah, nothing but your multimillion dollar houses.
Actually, those tech companies you hate provide buses for their employees so that they can go directly from things like transit stations to work, or even from places with slightly more affordable housing.
Facebook is working on providing housing within walking distance from their campus.
You think employees of the company work at the cafeteria? Hardly. It is all contracted out to food services.
We got free coffee (not free lunches) where I worked, but there was still a Peet’s stand in the cafeteria for those wanting espresso drinks. Restaurants could try to negotiate coming in every so often.
Not everyone who works at these companies make six figures. You are screwing the lower paid employees also, who get relatively more benefit from the policy than the rich ones.
And it is not just tech companies. My wife worked for a drug company in Philadelphia over 40 years ago which had a subsidized cafeteria. Hollywood studios have subsidized cafeterias. All film operations I’ve ever been at have craft services - free lunches and dinners depending on how long filming is taking. And every Western Electric factory I’ve been to (quite a few) had cafeterias also.
Free is relatively new, but if you ban free they’ll charge a buck a meal or something, and the restaurants won’t be any better off.
Well, it’s not only tech companies, it is ALL new companies in SF. And in SF it is NOT just free lunches, companies wont even be allowed to have any cafeterias. Milpitas banned free lunches in new buildings.
Supervisors Ahsha Safaí and Aaron Peskin are co-sponsoring an ordinance that would ban “employee cafeterias” from new office buildings in the city. …In a similar effort, Mountain View barred companies from providing employees with fully subsidized meals inside a new office development.
So while I understand your ire at Tech, this would apply to non-profits, hospitals, small family owned businesses, and whatever industry you work in.
If you read on, this is purely a money grab by the restaurant industry.
The text of the ordinance changesthat are being proposed are here. This is a slightly cleaner versionof the same language.
This is a zoning issue:
Here is thedefinition of Employee Cafeteria:
The “tax free” language in the article is in reference to the definition of Employee Cafeteria, but the tax/non tax portion of the food service isn’t critical to what is being proposed.
In looking at the text of the proposed ordinance, the stated goal is not to prevent you from sharing donuts. Even if passed it wouldn’t be applicable to sharing donuts. The purpose is left blank to be adopted with a later resolution, so long as it conforms to:
So yeah, zoning issue.
Not always- wiki: “A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a consequentialist logical device[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[2] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect.”
In other words, if the slope and subsequent events can be shown, it is not a fallacy.
Again, this law is not limited to tech companies.
It’s as was mentioned, rent seeking behavior by the local restaurant owners who are hoodwinking* whatever local politicians are going along with it. The food and related service are being paid for by somebody either way, employing people producing them either way. The local eateries are just seeking a law saying ‘it has to be us’. Classic rent seeking.
And the only defense offered here is a general bloody mindedness toward big tech, ‘well they deserve to be harassed by local govt’. Which has an element of misdirection since it isn’t clear who in ‘the corporation’** is most hurt by this, besides applying to all co’s not just tech. Mainly it misses the real point of needing to think and rethink seriously about antitrust as it relates to big tech. That’s a real issue, though without IMO a single clear solution. This is just a bunch of BS.
*at best, if it isn’t something more corrupt than that
**always the ambiguity when people complain about ‘corporations’, who exactly do they mean: shareholders, management, employees (at different levels)? Clearly in this case it would be a negative for people who work for the company (or outside contractors of the company) providing the ‘free’ meals. Other than that it’s somewhat ambiguous, besides again benefit at govt behest for the rent seekers.
They are proposing that Tech Companies provide 0 lunches. Yes, that is silly.
And not just Tech Companies. Any new company setting up shop.
Except it’s fucking ridiculous as a “zoning issue” because every office building has shops and restaurants on the ground floor. And it’s not about restricting food preparation, it’s just restricting company cafeterias.
This is just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.
The only odd thing about it is that usually the local politicians fall all over themselves to provide favors for big corporations and give local small businesses the shaft. In this case it’s the reverse, but still no better.
So, since this law effects all companies, of which tech companies are a small part, then you agree it’s a bad law?
I understand hat Hooli is lobbying intensely against this proposed law. Gavin [del]Newsom[/del] Belson is furious. Pied Piper has been silent on the issue, so far.
What?? And rob the stores between them of all that walk-past traffic? Unfair! The city needs to put a stop to that pronto.
Fair 'nuff.
It’s still stupid.
Only that you complained that you were misquoted, when it looked more like you were (at best) unclear in your original post about what you actually meant. Possibly you don’t care about that.
As a techie who has worked in the Bay Area in the past, consulted to them, etc…
-
These are not benefits. Instead, they keep you at your desk working. Yes, the cafeteria has seats - but I would argue that 50% of the employees take their food back to their cubicle. The “free” lunch keeps lunch down to a 20 minute exercise, instead of an hour. You lose the walk, etc.
-
A lot of places don’t have the full cafeteria (though I have dined at Google, Rockwell, Salesforce, and the US State Department). What a lot of smaller companies do is contract:
They provide a pre-paid account, and anything over that you pay for yourself. The food itself is often sourced from local vendors, benefiting the businesses much like Uber Eats or Postmates provides.