and then find parking there, pay for it if you can get a spot and there’s a fee to use it, compete with others wanting to buy their food, wait for it to be prepared and then get back to work and find another parking spot there. If they don’t allow on-site food places, I’d expect bringing lunch would be the result, not a huge influx for other businesses. I worked at a site not in town and I always brought my lunch. Driving up to the shopping centre and back getting and eating lunch was not possible in an hour.
Nothing stopping those restaurants from getting into the lunch-catering business for those firms, is there?
This isn’t how downtown San Francisco works.
Inasmuch as catering and restaurants are two different businesses, sure… just like there’s nothing stopping a brushless car wash from being a Chevy dealer.
I agree that the issues confronting workers in the 'burbs are different from those in the city. But the argument that it’s a huge stretch to combine restauranting and catering doesn’t hold water. It’s not especially uncommon. In fact, two of my good friends run combo businesses like that. If your choices are:
-
Adapt to changing business environments
-
Legislate protection for your particular business
I think most Americans, and most economists, would line up behind #1 and not #2.
The larger problem is the tech industry closing itself off from the larger community it occupies, such as by instituting private transportation networks and private food services.
If there is a transportation or food availability problem in the area, then the companies should be supporting improvement of goods and services available to all citizens, regardless of employment. That could mean improving funding of public transportation, for example by supporting increased taxation of themselves, or by subsidizing independent service providers.
At the very least, if they are creating independent service networks, they should be available to the public at the same price that they are available to their own employees.
This is really the goods-and-services equivalent of a walled community. It’s exacerbating the stratification on the basis of class. Tech workers shouldn’t be protected from the realities of the community they’re living in.
I suspect that if tech workers can’t protect themselves from ‘The realities of the communities they live in’, soon you might not have any tech workers.
I have a good idea- Why don’t the local governments and state governments get their heads out of their asses and try to improve their cities so that people don’t feel the need to isolate themselves from them?
Improving the public transit available to everyone isn’t the tech company’s responsibility; it’s the responsibility of the city. And if the city doesn’t meet that responsibility, what do they expect the tech companies to do?
Come on , man. Tech companies put in cafeterias to lower worker downtime not in an effort isolate them from the community. I can’t imagine what the city government can do to change that.
Why would the general public need to travel between SF and Google office buildings in Mountain View? There is already train service from SF down the peninsula. Lots of people take that transportation, and the trains make all sorts of stops along the way. But the Google buses are more direct and they also provide a place where the employees can more easily do work during their commute. It’s not Google’s responsibility to do the government’s mass transit planning or work for them. I’m sure they would be happy to participate at the behest of the local governments, but the government has the responsibility to take the lead.
Well, nothing is like downtown San Francisco works.
You have heard of grubhub?
But I Googled it- 464 San Francisco Restaurants also do catering. So, no, it’s nothing like that.
Again, for the 47th time, this has nothing at all to do with the Tech Industry, the proposed changes affect all- tech, non-profit, small business, hospitals, etc,
I worked at Schwab, they have a very nice company cafeteria. Most large businesses do.
Did you mean for the 2[sup]n[/sup] time? 
It’s about the tech industry. The fact that it’s written broadly enough to affect other businesses is just another way in which it is poorly conceived.
If I were an employee of a firm that provided meals but was then barred from doing so the restaurant(s) that fomented the imbroglio are the absolute last places I would spend a penny.
$10 meal voucher? You haven’t eaten lunch in San Francisco lately, have you?
For very large n.
Notice how everyone who lives in the Bay Area is against this?
San Francisco has relatively excellent public transportation, so that ain’t it. And it gets used, as anyone who has been in a BART station near rush hour can tell you.
Besides what John said about the lack of need of public transit to Google, why would a company want to only depend on public transportation and make its employees commutes longer? Not to mention that the Google buses have good wifi which lets people work longer hours. And are less crowded. And I suspect more comfortable the MUNI buses.
Again, nothing new. My father worked for the UN in Manhattan from the day it was open (and before when it was other places.) He went to the cafeteria. He had a parking spot for his carpool and did not have to struggle with transit or parking. This is from 1951. Cafeterias and such are natural for large organizations.
Sure. But I cleverly got you to make the case that cafeterias aren’t needed, didn’t I? 
Yeah, Grubhub is going to do great with 1,000 orders in 15 minutes.
Since you seem to be in DC, let me ask you this - how would it work for every person in the Pentagon to be streaming out looking for lunch at noon? Every day. Why should they isolate themselves from the community? Hell, they have a metro stop right there. What could go wrong?
This is one of the reasons why I haven’t actually endorsed the proposal under consideration.
What I have said, and I continue to maintain, is that tech workers losing free lunches = no pity.