Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Officials Are Planning To Ban Corporate Cafeterias, Force Tech Workers To Eat Out At Local Restaurants (nytimes.com)
"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
"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
the highest priority for the city.
They should all have to get to work in rickshaws, too, and buy their shoes from local cobblers.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
People should be able to eat where they want to eat. The corporate cafeteria is likely to take less time and still be okay. Maybe some people get paid during their lunch break? That's considered unpaid time where I work, so I just get something and come back.
Let's ban citizens from preparing meals in their households as well. What better to ensure the success of local eateries?
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?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
why go out when it can be delivered
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...)
Sounds exactly like the liberal paradise they all wanted. Always makes me think of this meme https://pics.me.me/wants-more-...
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Y'all want immigrants to integrate into their communities, right?
was the best thing I ever did. They have the best average daily weather of anywhere Iâ(TM)ve ever visited.. but there was no way to compensate for the frustration of being packed into such close quarters with so many other people. The taxes and zany lawmakers were simply a manifestation of the unfortunate general mindset of the locals... and since more of them than of me... better to let them have it. Plenty of other, more livable places that are almost as pleasant, where the money goes further and people (and govâ(TM)t) keep more to themselves.
In order for a meal break to be unpaid for non-exempt employees, employees must be free to have their break onsite or to leave the premises if they choose. Employers can require employees to stay onsite during a meal break. However, if an employer requires this, the meal break is considered to be paid time.
If cafeterias or sufficiently large enough breakrooms are not provided, then it it's time to report every non-conforming company in SF to the California Department of Industrial Relations Sorry but state law trumps municipal code here!
"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.
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.
Facts have a liberal bias.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"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?
... 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.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The ordinance, which seeks to force tech workers out of their subsidized cafeterias and into neighborhood restaurants
Or, they'll just bring in lunch. Congratulations, not only are those restaurants still not seeing an increase in traffic, but now people who would have gotten a job at the internal cafeteria have no where to go.
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.
The commute is going to be amazingly bad!
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So probably will have very little effect.
Don't even try to bring your lunch, especially if you bring a straw. WTF is wrong with SF?
Zoid.com
Feudalism isn't a new concept. Why does poor journalism attempt to present it without a historical context?
Roughly 100 years ago, US miners would commonly live in homes owned by the mining company, with natural gas supplied by the mining company, in Michigan. That means the mining company controlled the minimal wages, the means to heat the homes in the winter, and the ability to find lodging for the work. If people are generally too stupid to consider that poor living conditions, then they would allow Facebook and other technology companies to create the small cities they have.
Leftard vs. Leftard
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.
Thanks for the jealous red state child molester retard perspective. Your link sucks slightly less cock than you do, which is saying something. Enjoy watching Trump hang for treason with us, popcorn?
It's expensive to live there, it's overrun by homeless drunks and drug addicts, the streets are covered in human feces and whinny liberals keep sticking their noses in your business. Why not move to a state like Texas where there's so much land that you can build an entirely new city just the way you want it? San Francisco is a shit hole city, literally. You couldn't pay me to live there.
Drive to any corporate cafeteria in a Hummer while wearing a MAGA hat and thrust a straw into your Caprisun juice pouch.
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. ... Seems awkward.
I'm just wondering if this is the right measure to fix this
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
That's not really an example of feudalism, though I see why you said that. That's an example of a "company town" or "camp town"
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Cafeterias and the like are super convenient. You know the food, where it is, how muhc it costs, don't have to travel far, can eat in peace with coworkers. Do they want their city turned into some Japanese flood of white-collared office workers who migrate from their buildings all at the same time of day in search of food? Why not just ban the companies providing the food and force local food guys to produce the food for them? Fuck I don't even have one of these anymore but it still pisses me off they would remove these.
This just in. San Francisco bans workers from carrying Bologna sandwiches to work.
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.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Search your office for a "refrigerator" above a set capacity that could allow workers lunch "food" to be kept on site?
... wondering out onto the streets and using more of a wage to be forced by a government to buy what your own company can offer?
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-contained small cooking appliance between 11am and 2 pm?
Why should workers be forced by a government to spend their own wage in a way a government demands?
Who wants to walk out on the streets to walk around waste, drug use, tents, RV and crime?
When a really great employee cafeteria allow workers to eat and talk in a really nice area?
No crime, clean, great food, good people... vs
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
You don't have to live there. Your company doesn't need to have an office there. The rules don't need to make sense.
Encouraging your citizens to be carbon neutral, yet want them to burn fossil fuels needlesly for some PC crap. Want corp america to foot more perks for employees like health care, ergonomics etc and shame them when they go BEYOND.
What is it with you libs? Are you ever satisfied?!
Totalitarians, on both the left and the right, are all the same.
I am just going to guess that they are Democrats. Because looking for new ways to restrict personal freedom and to treat adults like their own social experiment toys is what this party has become.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That one makes me chuckle.
This is probably crony capitalism, not socialism. The restaurant lobby bribes their way in.
Table-ized A.I.
The politicians running San Francisco are members of the blue tribe. As a consequence in this context they must necessarily approve of what the red tribe opposes and tell people what they can and can't do while standing on a party platform of liberalism without the liberty.
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...
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.
"...they come to the city and are creating isolated, walled-off campuses," " It's to integrate them into the community. Change tech worker with immigrant and the same San Francisco Officials would call you racist.
Seattle, the other end of the San Francisco 'treat', is next.
Some people I know work in a secure building, so it's actually a hassle to leave the office and come back. Their employers provide food so they don't need to leave the building. Even exercise equipment is in the building.
And won't thousands of cafeteria workers be put out of work? Probably for little gain, since there's nothing preventing employees from eating at their desks. Either they brown bag it or their employees just bulk order some food trays. (Note the latter won't necessary be from restaurants, there are plenty of food service companies that do the same thing, even supermarkets.)
Word verification: unionize
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
"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.
Immigrants do respect the laws, learn the language, and integrate into culture and society. The technical term for that is "assimilation", and it's why America is called a "melting pot".
Contrast that with places like Germany or Japan, where foreigners can remain foreigners even after multiple generations. Jews in Europe weren't considered "German" or "Russian"; they were considered "Jewish" no matter how many generations their families had been on the land. But once they came to America they became simply "American", and we think of the work of Irving Berlin, Aaron Copland, Al Jolson, and the Gershwins as All-American music rather than "Jewish music".
You probably think of pizza and Budweiser as American foods! But only because those Italian and German immigrants that brought them over assimilated so well that you don't even realize their foreign origins. Now imagine if you weren't allowed into Italian restaurants because you're not Italian. You can bet that pizza wouldn't be considered American and there wouldn't be pizza shops on every corner.
But what does this have to do with government subsidies? SF decided that they could revitalize some neighborhoods by giving tax breaks to companies who move in. When the revitalization never materialized because the companies were making their own private restaurants instead of patronizing neighborhood businesses, the city decided to do something about it. Just like if Italians came into my neighborhood for tax subsidies and opened restaurants where only Italians could eat, I'd ask the city to do something about it.
dom
Immigrants should learn English. I pretty much favor open immigration, but they should learn the language of the place they want to live. It's rude not to.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
I am not making a value judgment on SF choosing to regulate corporate cafeterias. If they want to let them. The voters there in SF can decide if they like it or not. While it is true that Congress has not regulated cafeterias at the federal level, they do regulate immigration. So, in the way that a company operating in SF is a constituent of SF and subject to the applicable laws and regulations, SF is a constituent of the United States and subject to the applicable laws and regulations. In this case, Congress has constitutional authority to pass legislation related to immigration and the executive branch has a constitutional authority and responsibility to enforce those laws. The position that SF (and other local and state governments) take of obstructing the enforcement of those laws is just that: obstruction. I suspect that if a company in SF denied enforcement officials access to their corporate campus on humanitarian grounds, SF city officials will not be amused.
Sandwiches nfm
If I were a business owner, I wouldn't want my offices to be in San Francisco. What's the advantage of it?
I can see lots of disadvantages to being in SF: High cost, a very slow permit process, and ridiculous regulations such as this proposed regulation. Also the needles and the human poop.
Seriously what's the advantage to being in SF? I just don't see it.
You can eat all the Baloney sandwiches you want in Leavenworth next to Trump Junior, faggot traitor
"How to drive away companies from your state 101"
Not forgetting company scrip, which was a corporate currency which was used to pay wages and could be used to buy items from the company store, pay for accommodation at the company hotel and meals at the company bar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
You need Putin's cock deep up your ass, like a real Trump. Only then will you understand "Trump Tower Moscow" comrade! DRINK, for tonight in Soviet Trumpistan, PUTIN FUCKS REPUBLICANS UP ASS & THEY LOVE IT AGAIN!
All over San Francisco there's a steadily growing hatred of tech workers, who are seen as the root cause of job losses, gentrification, wage depression and the uprooting of entire communities and wholesale ruin of families. I have seen people distributing leaflets encouraging violence against "corporate machine men" - one of the terms used, I kid you not - along with accurate locations for where tech workers live and eork and how they move from one place to the other. Force them in public areas and it's only a matter of time before murder happens. We will see pogroms against tech workers before long, I'm afraid.
Because it is so much fun having to navigate around all the drug addicts, homeless and crazy people, their feces and needles.
Immigrants do respect the laws, learn the language, and integrate into culture and society. The technical term for that is "assimilation", and it's why America is called a "melting pot".
You're behind on the times. Haven't you heard that the term "melting pot" is now a trigger word because it implies someone must give up their previous identity? It is no longer acceptable to expect someone to learn your language (or even come here legally) in order to become a citizen.
I think this is a great idea. There's nothing to stop a company from having caterers bring food in, or setting up a meal voucher program, much like my company does for my commute costs. They give me a debit card with which I can add value to my Clipper Card. Why not issue debit cards for use in buying meals from nearby vendors?
You described a company town, a substantially different beast from feudalism. The latter is a bunch of little shit fiefdoms incapable of meeting all the needs of residents, the former is potentially capable of meeting all the needs of residents (and being held accountable by them, much like any other town incorporated in the US.)
Any of the many things they could would effectively reduce world poverty!
This action - increasing the amount of people getting out and about, the small businesses created to service the demand - would be effective in reducing the problems Brett Buck listed.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
What you're talking about is just slightly more extensive employee perks than what we're used to today. You can still find company-paid employee lodging particularly in very seasonal work, but typically it's smaller things like cafeterias, daycare and gyms.
Sure, to an outsider it does look unfair, but in reality the employees who have access to employee perks like that are still paying for all of it, just not up-front.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
A family member had an interview at a company last week. The company was located in the San Francisco Presidio. I volunteered to give them a ride to their interview.
Looking up the location on Google Maps I saw that the area previously claimed by Letterman Hospital had been turned into a dot-com playground. But nothing has been done about the roads - which are narrow, one lane, one way, and confusing to navigate.
I dropped off my payload successfully and began to navigate my way back to main roads. I turned a corner and, in front of me was a brand new black sports car - so new, it didn't have plates yet - driving, slowly. It reached a stop sign and came to a stop.
The extremely young black man driving this brand new car then began to engage an older woman, with threads of gray in her dark hair, standing on the street corner, in conversation. I gradually realized that the man in the car was making some sort of a food delivery and that the woman standing on the corner was his customer.
Neither of these citizens thought it was necessary or appropriate for them to move their transaction aside so that others could use the public roadways. And so things quickly went downhill.
Thinking about it, afterwards, and tracing back to identify the source of the problem, I at first was critical of the young black man - who had been given use of a car he obviously could not afford, and did not, obviously, possess the required expertise to operate, in a crowded urban environment - to deliver sandwiches. Really, he should have been on a scooter, or a bicycle.
(Because I am a former San Francisco bicycle messenger, I actually know what I am talking about - I have done similar work, when I was a similar age.)
Then, I became critical of the woman, who could not be bothered to make a !@#$ sandwich and bring it to work or to microwave something from last night, but simply had to be served. Her need for attention, disguised as a preference for gourmet luncheons for one, at 4:00 in the afternoon, were not adding value to the traffic pattern.
(When I am in San Francisco I stay in the Sunset District, and my particular corner of SF is chock full of overpaid singles, Uber'ing, here, and receiving hot meals delivered to them by desperate-looking guys driving new cars and passive-aggressively blocking traffic, there. So I'm seeing a lot of this. ... You can tell an Uber customer because mostly, they look like upper class prostitutes - young, well dressed, and female - standing on a corner, looking like they are waiting to be picked up. Honestly, I suspect that one of Uber's major demographics is picking up and dropping off whores, so I might be closer to the truth about some of my neighbors, than I realize.)
But I was forced to admit that the City of San Francisco had made a muck of things by allowing businesses to site at a location that did not have adequate roads, adequate parking, or adequate services - you know, like a place to go get a hamburger. As critical as I was of these two bozos, I had to admit ... there was no place nearby for this woman to go, to get something to eat.
And so I have ZERO FAITH that the City of San Francisco will get this corporate cafeteria thing right.
After all, the "corporate cafeteria" is usually just another small business, run by a small business person, who is taking a gamble that employees will not prefer to go out on the street, to eat. Corporations don't run their own cafeterias. They outsource that shit, too, just like they outsource everything else.
And so this whole debate may be based upon a false dichotomy - large corporations versus small businesses - when, really, it's just small businesses versus other small businesses.
Food for thought.
~childo
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Because something something corporatism, amirite? What a load of bullcrap.
A company town is a way to avoid excessive taxes and allow a town which formed under a singular revenue stream (e.g. mining and lumber towns were big on them) to pool resources tax-free via company scrip and allow workers to have a stronger say in how the corporation was run than a more common top-down model. Company towns were more like town-owned company branches than company-owned towns, the citizens would run everything and they could do so without bleeding themselves on taxes with every transaction in the process.
What happens in San Francisco is a bunch of companies working for themselves to lock workers into their structure and skirt taxes while ensuring those unpaid taxes prevent people from quitting due to the cost of living issues in the surrounding city.
You're comparing a method which allows workers greater control of their lives vs one which allows corporations greater control over people, and through your own ignorance call them the same when they are entirely antithetical in nature.
City Hall, where these morons work, has it's own in-building cafeteria. They call it a Cafe... Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.
A company town is a communist paradise? Wishful thinking must have twisted your mind... All the workers in the company town became wealthy from helping the company achieve success? of course not, why would you think otherwise?
Just like bail outs etc.
There's a bunch of people with a lot of money. They are started doing shitty things that consumers were like, you know what, I don't need it.
Or due to inflation, cost of living vs wages, they're saying we can't afford it.
Eating out is crazy expensive with everything else. Hell if I want two small pizza's delivered it's 30$, plus they expect you to tip the driver, even though 4.50$ of that is for the fucking delivery charge in the first place.
I'll spend 6$ on a large frozen pizza from the grocery store. Yea it's not as good, but it's good enough, especially at that price.
It's not my fault too many restaurants opened up, don't pay their staff enough so they can't afford to eat out, walmart shut down local businesses and they don't pay enough for their staff to eat out etc.
Like all these companies keep siphoning money away from local communities, pay shit wages, and then people are fucking stunned when no on can afford to use the businesses in town.
They could read this very post and they still wouldn't fucking get it. They're stare blankly in to space, their face going duhhh as soon as the words not paying staff enough enters the field, all their brains turn to mush and they forget how the local economy works since each of them just look at their business savings that year for paying low wages, expecting the money to come from the other businesses, which are doing the same fking thing.
that's really a very fascist move, forcing a company to not have a cafeteria is ridiculous. This is going too far (I guess one of the people who came up with this plan has a restaurant him/herself (or one of it's friends) near those big companies..
Companies should be able to decide for themselves if they want to have a cafeteria to cater for their employees, having to go out to a restaurant also takes a lot of time so people will have to be away from home longer than necessary, only due to some stupid politician not wanting companies to have their own cafeterias for their employees..
When I was recruited, Mr. Johnson said I would never have to leave the Arcology for any needs. I hope the suits figure this out.
That's racist. Why shouldn't we learn their languages?
My favorite taco truck spits at people that hatefully refuse to speak Spanish when ordering. If you're going to act like a Nazi, then you deserve spit on your face. It's sad seeing so many intolerant people refuse to learn other languages. There's also a good Thai place near where I work, and they'll treat you like crap if you hatefully refuse to speak their language or ask for a menu in English.
The bigger problem is the misconception white people have about Mexican food. It is very bland since it is traditionally food for poor people. They didn't have money for spices. Too many white people shove their misconceptions down the throats of others. Mexican food must be bland. It is cultural misappropriation and hate to dishonestly make it something it isn't.
I don't know why companies continued to build so much there and in other high cost areas. Why aren't they setting up in cheaper areas and then bringing in people?
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.
Next up: all Whites must have a global average of non-White friends.
That's racist. Why shouldn't we learn their languages?
Domus mea, praecepta mea
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Astonishing how restaurants can survive the world over with minimum wages but not in the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So it's racist to refuse to learn Spanish but it's not racist to refuse to learn English?
Everybody in Scumcity would like to live inside Evercity and become Immortal, but they just can't afford the currency, boo fucking hoo!
Let Scum reside in their own scummy filth I say!
I'm liberal, live & work in San Francisco and I'm worried that the city is going to shit (literally) while our city 'government' stands by and fills the pockets of its friends (campaign contributors).
Whoa there buddy, you are very quick to condescend given that you're tunneling here.
It's not a legal requirement that I walk up to you and punch you in the face but it could happen. Just because it isn't legal doesn't mean there are no implications I remember the story of the US ambassador getting knifed in the face in South Korea. He was probably speaking English or having wealth while being white maybe. You see people tend to make their own laws more often than not, their own sense of right and wrong based on perceived justice.
Narrow minded statement. It's ultimately capital that rules and shapes a society. That's much more powerful than any government. A non argument in substance at least.
Nothing's been proven. Mathematical theories get proven, not some random crap you spew out on the interwebs.
"Will A blah to B, like B blah to C" - I think you should post on youtube instead. Seems like your intellectual capability.
... I suppose it is kind of funny to watch the smug eat themselves, lol!
"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.
Funny, isn't it? People are human. Being urbane might even be more of a pose for most; it's almost like they are human or something.
Hey SF tech people, Feel free to move to the Rust Belt. More and more tech companies are opening offices here. Our commute times are sane and housing affordable. Our internet speeds are reasonable so you can remote into the office. In all my years here, I've only found a single human turd and a single syringe laying around.
Yea don't worry about anything else but forcing people to eat where you think the city can earn the most tax dollars. Glad I don't live in California, I would probably start to feel like it was part of different nation. Don't drink the water out there, its tainted with socialism.
Next, they will ban lunch boxes and brown bags.
In Europe, in most Restaurants no one would work for minimum wages.
Only a few Pubs can get away with minimum wages because the guests give enough tips.
Minimum wage in Germany is btw. somewhere around EUR 9,50.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Citizenship cannot be revoked. Citizens cannot be deported, natural born or otherwise.
In the real world, companies running company towns would severely underpay their workers, and then fleece them on prices at the company stores, hotels and restaurants, the only places that would accept company scrip.
You have to be real goddamn deep in corporate pockets to even think that would somehow improve worker's rights and influence over the company.
Eat the rich.
How to make companies move just outside of SF in one easy step!
And, honestly, I'm not sure something like this could survive a challenge in court.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It's not racist, at worst it's linguist. Anyway I speak Spanish, so your points weren't well thought out. Try again.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There's no such thing as a communist paradise because communism is just bait used to trick morons into supporting psychopaths. A company town is a tax-avoidance scheme on behalf of a population, whereas other such schemes are on behalf of a company.
it's interesting to think of corporations as foreign communities. The idea is that they blend in with the locals, but if the group is big enough they just form their own communities, with local shops from their place of origin. In the end they all stay together and don't blend in at all, some of them won't even be able to write/speak/read the local language. Now it seems that big corporations are very much like that, if they are big enough, they will provide for themselves, without any benefit to the local city. they just need a place to be, they couldn't care less where it is.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
You might want to add that living expenses in Germany are also way lower than in SF. Living off 1500 a month is very doable in Germany. Not so in SF.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Will there be a special deal for all the newly unemployed tech cafeteria workers?
Company towns give workers more say? Really? Have you read history? The workers get uppity, company management calls in the Pinkertons to bust some heads, and the workers go back to toiling away. Company towns are horrible for the workers, its effectively slavery.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It really depends on the company and the people. Company towns existed in places where there was no option to move away for the company - the resource they needed was in or around the company town. People working there had all the power in that scenario, but it didn't eliminate scarcity: it was still a single revenue stream supporting an entire town (as in, all of their needs.) Even in more traditional towns with a single company it's effectively the same resource scarcity issue at play, the only difference is that in non-company-towns the company doesn't take on the immobility of a company town because it can move if the workers are non-compliant. A company town is a tool, just like any incorporated town (e.g. "town,") it can be used for good or bad but more often than not the workers had more say because the company could very rarely just pack their shit and leave if they didn't like the demands of their workforce. Company towns went out of style largely because of this exact "issue," companies who could abuse their workforce slightly more due to the ability to say "fine, don't like the pay then we'll go to X town because they'll appreciate us" ended up surviving whereas company towns didn't (outside of the few long-lived ones which happened to be founded literally on top of a mine.)
Step One - Learn Spanish
Step Two - ???
Step Three - Profit
Literally all companies were like that when company towns were a thing. The big difference between a company town and the population of a company in a normal town is that the same dollar value in wages is worth more in a company town because it doesn't get knocked down 50% on pay, 50% on food, 50% on rent, etc during taxes (counting both sides of the equation there, not just income tax and sales tax but what the person they are buying from pays in taxes on that transaction as well when factoring in taxes on their income.) Company scrip was the defining characteristic of a company town, the town was just the infrastructure in which the scrip was usable. Scrip didn't get taxed so long as it was circulating within a company - a modern example of this was the Microsoft store, where until a few years ago employees could purchase MS products basically for free with an internal credit system - they ended up getting in trouble for allowing cash sales when employees would tell their friends and family about it and had to close it down as a result, but the key factor to such a system is avoid double, triple, and quadruple taxation because the distributor, middleman, seller, and buyer don't all have to shell out a percentage of the transaction going from distributor to buyer in taxes - it effectively means a scrip equal to a dollar officially is equal to about 6-12 dollars in actuality.
god damn you are retarded
Says the person who believes in a "communist paradise?" Funny.
And you realize that company scrip, which was only useful in that company town, effectively meant that workers had absolutely no ability or means to leave the company, right? That next town down the road? Owned by a different company so they won't take your scrip. Workers had no freedom of choice, they could only "buy" what the company offered to sell them. If the company even offered exchange services for legal tender it would be at exorbitant rates making that impractical. I don't know why you seem so high on company towns. It's a horrible situation for the worker, almost on the level of slavery as I said above. Makes our current H1-B situation look like a good deal.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Then run for office. Maybe you can enrich some of of your friends before sheâ(TM)s completely dead.
Are you fundamentally misunderstanding what a company town is? It is the ultimate expression of a horizontal monopoly, benefits the corporation and not the workers, effectively reducing them to indentured slaves. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
>"San Francisco Officials Are Planning To Ban Corporate Cafeterias"
Ah, central planning in Socialist SanFran to the rescue again... I am sure government meddling in all aspects of the "free market" will prevail, eventually, because bureaucrats know so much better what is best for people and economies and businesses. And CA still wonders why they are hemorrhaging tax payers to surrounding states more rapidly every year.
Company scrip didn't take the place of minimum wage, it added to it. You still have the supply issues of any town, the only distinction is that a company town provides additional benefits for employees in the form of greater access to goods due to the cost savings of scrip for applicable goods. It adds the burden of managing those supply chains and the associated economy to the company in question, which most were not cut out to manage simply because it's a complex problem but still did a much better job of it than their peers. You have to keep in mind who it was used for: blue collar workers who wouldn't exactly have afforded mansions to begin with, it was a net win for them relative to what they would have had otherwise. Applying the company town model to something like Google for example might mean people making $500,000+/year now might be reduced to $80,000/year+scrip, but if scrip covers housing+food+utilities in full it's still a net win for them, since in the San Francisco area they could easily make that much along with their partner and still barely get by.
Then it's a local restaurant. The fact that virtually zero people from off-campus are ever going to eat there shouldn't invalidate that. Or, if it's good enough, people will come from off-campus and effectively certify it as a local restaurant?
I think the folks in San Francisco should stick it to thier town. Bring thier lunch in. If it was me I'd bring my tail gate grill, some steak tips, mushroom and oinions in
salt and pepper and olive oil wrapped up in foil reay to go on the grill.
If they don't know how to cook or there is some stupid ordinance stopping them from grilling outside then bring some meat and veggie wraps.
Another case of do-as-we-say-so control. Micromanagement of a population never works.
I don't care what some city official wants. I decide which region of the city I want to go out in and which one not. There is zero reasoning to make some nonsense law about it. Next they'll think of regulating hairstyles like North Korea, or beards like ISIS.
However they have every right to tie their tax incentives and other corporate welfare to conditions. Totally within their rights there, they are forking over money so they can say "if..."
But if the company moves into the city without any tax benefits, I don't see which leg they hope to be standing on with this idea.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
your lunch. Well at least until the city outlaws that.
;)
Just my 2 cents
Pretty much every "leader" is a psychopath, weather we are talking about CEOs, presidents, supreme leaders, etc. It's not limited to communist governments.
Remember how they once tried to ban the JROTC because of the war in Iraq, while shielding known juvenile delinquents and known bandits from from immigration authorities? They also tried a special tax on alcohol to cover the city's own health care costs.
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'm not sure what fantasy world you're talking about, but in the real world history is a little different.
People working there had no power at all. They were payed in scrip, the prices were artificially high meaning they were basically working to keep themselves in debt, and because they weren't payed cash they couldn't save up to leave or go anywhere else. It's slavery, pure and simple.
So either someone has drunk deep of the Randian Brand Flavoured Drink Mix, or are being payed to shill by one of the big multinationals that think going down this path is a great idea (we'll pay you in Amazon Bucks that you can redeem at the Amazon Store!)
Company scrip didn't take the place of minimum wage, it added to it.
Nope, at the time there was no such concept, and they weren't payed in cash. You're living inside your own fantasy world. A typical libertarian, in fact! Please move back to your cultural homeland of Somalia ASAP.
Most of the upvoted comments here seem to be totally missing the point. The impetus behind this idea didn't come out of thin air - it's not as if these city supervisors pulled the idea out of a hat. They're not hell-bent on telling people what to do because they're authoritarians, or think they know better than other people.
As the article states, "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."
In other words, the city supervisors are basically saying, "Hey tech companies, we gave you tax breaks and other benefits so that you would come here and help out existing local businesses by your employees patronizing said businesses. It turns out your workers aren't really doing that, which means we're giving you these benefits and not getting much in return. To make the deal more fair, we're going to find ways to force/encourage your employees to spend money in the local economy."
Now I happen to think this is the wrong solution to the problem. The solution is not to offer big corporations special tax breaks in the first place, since that really means everyone else is subsidizing them, including the citizens and local businesses who the move was intended to help. But for all of these people commenting that the city supervisors are proposing this out of some authoritarian mindset - that's just not the case.
$1000 bucks a week to enroll in drug treatment, min 2 weeks. Hmu getpaid@frankiesflophouse.com
Don't have any drugs in your system? No problem.
Extended stays available. No HMOs. Federal policies welcome.
both South and East Asian bring their lunches with them. They rarely eat out.
Soviet Union had corporate subsidized cafeterias in every organization. It was mandatory since there ware no economy outside of campuses :-)
Instead of building a Cafateria, then build storage areas, and when construction is complete --- Setup a kitchen area and use the storage areas for storing food to be prepared and delivered to employees to eat in their break rooms and offices.
Just give up the tax break (tax breaks on payroll and stock options mind you) and you can build your fancy cages. But when you demand tax breaks, the tax payer has a right to expect something in return, and not some empty vague promise.
That's point people are missing. The city provided tax break on the expectation that there would be investment in the community. Heck that's the fucking selling point businesses make. All the workers swarming in your community think of the money they will spend. But then that doesn't happen because businesses build these campuses which keep people from going out into the community.
That wasn't the selling point. Businesses didn't mention that would happen. But they're happy to take their tax breaks.
The City Hall "Cafe" is open to the public as well as city employees. But, yes, still hypocritical....
...it wouldn't hurt to get a jump start on ruling the lower class.
There is or isn't a law - is a BS argument. Laws are not truth or justice or wisdom, they're just laws.
The article is kind of a demonstration of that.
People come here because they think it'll be a better life than it was where they originated. They should consider why that might be - maybe our culture works better in some sense, and they should learn it and our language in order to be a contributing member. And sure, we should also learn from the better parts of their culture, but ditch the horrible flaws that are the reason these people left their original home in the first place. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
There was no such concept of minimum wage yet "they weren't 'payed' in cash" - interesting "contradiction" you found there.
Most company cafeterias are subsided so that lunch doesn't cost of lot of money for the employees. Some companies go so far as to provide free food.
By forcing employee to go out, it will cost these employees more money. Likely more employees will just bring in lunch, being they won't even have the excuse of going to the cafeteria to have lunch -- they just eat at their desks. So you'll get not-many-more employees going out for lunch, those that do being out of pocket, and those that don't having less movement in the day.
There was no minimum wage anywhere at the time. Corporations basically beat their workers for not working everywhere then, let alone revolting (company town or not.) Company towns, meanwhile, are still legal constructs and would function radically differently given the working standards of today (in an all-around better way for employees at that.)
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.
...says the guy doing the same thing.
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.
See you are making your argument here that not speaking English is against the law and well that's not true.
In fact, he listed "respect the laws" as a distinct action separate from "learn the language" and 'integrate into the culture". Your insistence that he is lumping all of these traits under "against the law" is complete bollocks.
since there was a 400-unit condo right next door with an aggregate property tax of $5million/year, that their home should have a similar value and force them to sell up
Not sure what "sell up" means, but because of Prop 13, yearly property tax increases are limited to 2% until it's sold. So your house can be assessed at $200,000 one year and $400,000 the next year, but for tax purposes it is only worth $204,000. It does wonders for your credit score, though, as you have a valuable asset to borrow against.
Italian food is world renowned for being both peasant food and incredibly flavorful. Your argument is hollow.
Good-bye
...to attempt to control every nook and cranny of your life.
Doing that turns a 1/2 hour lunch into a 1 hour lunch while you walk or drive to someplace you like, and so your time out the door is another 1/2 hour later, and that sucks. Probably will make the waits for service in the restaurants longer too as 1000's of new customers stress the ability of the kitchen to be able to turn out that much food in that short of a time.
Liberalville is a terrible place to live...
https://www.eater.com/2018/1/23/16917388/minimum-wage-restaurant-challenges
Anonymous coward is correct if you just google a few articles on whats happening to restaraunts in SF with the minimum wage increase.
This proposed ban is like straight out of North Korea. Cafeterias are to keep employees at hand, not to scatter them around 2-hour-long commute to-and-from lunch meals.
Democrats. Behaving just like the Soviets, which they "supposedly" hate very much.
or they loose their status
loose
LOOSE
How is this rated 5?
The poor and the toughest to educate
Why would the rich want to educate their children at a place that attracts the poor and toughest to educate? Out of altruism or something? I am asking seriously. I get what's in it for the poor people and schools but what's in it for the rich people going to crappy schools? Why would anyone do that if there is a better option somewhere else?
What you are advocating (those dang rich people should send their kids to public school like the rest of us!) doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like starting a war on jealousy.....it just ain't gonna happen.
I rarely go out for lunch except for social occasions.
Time is a big issue. 15 minutes to get there, 5 mins to get your order taken, 10 minutes for it to arrive, 15 mins to eat, 15 minutes to get your bill, 15 mins to get back... and you're hoping your boss doesn't notice you were gone for 1:15 on your 45 min break.
Then the health issue. There's no portion control, so much salt, sugar and fat. Pressure to get a "drink" (sugar, alcohol or just overpriced bottled water)
The atmosphere is usually loud, too loud to talk properly with your coworkers.
And for all this, you're expected to evaluate their service, tip well, be ready to justify yourself, or be called a cheapskate or asshole.
Then the hygiene... restaurants... ugh.
No, I'll keep brown bagging or hitting the employee cafeteria. No time for this bullshit.
If you are in transnational corporation then you are doing fine, but you are never going to make any impact on the economy, due to the simple fact that everything you do belongs to the corporation you are working in
If you are on your own you have to expect years of below average income for the chance to grow your own business, take the fact that most of corporations work for years on investors money without any profits
There is almost no difference between state owned corporations and contemporary transnational super corps, all of them make similar impact on the countries economy.
Increasing the footprint of government for no gain.
SF has a very high min wage that has reduced restaurant numbers in the city. They won't undo the min wage to make restaurants competitive again so now they'll target the competition. Rules, with more rules to fix the old rules - soon everything is illegal.
SF law makers would never think to legislate private amorous arrangements between adults but have no qualms about legislating private wage agreements . hmmmm?
You're right... we should force immigrants to integrate. We should probably start with the Irish here celebrating their culture with St. Patrick's Day parades, etc.
Oh or actually are you OK with white immigrants from Europe?
- Great-grandfather immigrated from ireland through Ellis Island.
Only Outlaws will have brown bagged lunches.
Please do the needful and eat a dick trollmitter.
Go be a street junkie then if you think its such a sweeeeeet life.
Moran.
You'ld fit in perfectly with their state murder program. They might even let you pull the trigger. I know you havr an erection just thinking about that, you sick unAmerican fuck.
> First, how are corporate cafeterias not local businesses? They employ local people.
First: depends on your definition of "local" - they have to commute just like everyone else, and since they're paid less, esp. in SF, they'll have to commute further.
Second: rarely is it an actual local business - catering may be done by a business in SF - except it costs so much there, I bet the food is prepared elsewhere and also commuted in. That happens even in non-big cities, especially when a company with multiple campuses wants to contract just a single business for catering everywhere. Not sure if that translates across states (eg. Google).
We need the firewood for our homeless barrel filled otherwise with only your empty promises and political lies. Fuck you, believer!
Isn't this stupid? Also, isn't this forced vs free choice? Wait, this is socialism!!!
Seems to me like the end game is to punish success! do they not realize that the people who get those free lunches also pay the bulk income and property taxes they rely on? Pissing off your tax base doesnâ(TM)t end well. They can leave.
I don't get it? Why do we think vouchers and public schools are mutually exclusive? Why do we think public schools have to suck? Why do poor neighborhood schools have to be worse than rich neighborhood schools? Why can't all schools adhere to some standards of performance?
I hardly see how that can be. But it could be a matter of perspective: horse germs are more dangerous to horses and human germs are more dangerous to humans because microbes tend to specialize. Therefore, species-X-poo is going to be more dangerous to a random member of species-X than species-Y's poo.
As far as the smell, I live fairly close to a horse trail, and under certain circumstances, horse poo does really really stink.
(Can't believe I'm debating horse poo vs. human poo. Slashdot has gone to shit, literally ;-)
Table-ized A.I.
While I do not work in San Francisco, I would wager this issue is the same across all the major cities.
That issue being you can not go to lunch at " lunch time " because a bazillion other people are also going to lunch.
Traffic during lunch hours is fucked, second only to rush hour periods.
IF you can manage to get through traffic, then you get to stand in line or wait for a table for half an hour or more.
By the time you actually GET to eat, you have to head back to the office if you want to get back on time.
In the end, it will be easier to just bring your lunch. . . which means the local eateries still miss out.
Unless they ban that too :|
California is the capital of social engineering. Do this, don't do that. It is all for the good of the everyone, comrade.
"That government is best which governs least...", Thoreau's Civil Disobedience . But that would make it impossible for the government to take from someone/somecompany and give it to me and thus buy my votes.
Sigh...rant complete.
That is false. A naturalization can be revoked if all of the following are true:
The naturalized U.S. citizen misrepresented or concealed some fact;
The misrepresentation or concealment was willful;
The misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material; and
The naturalized U.S. citizen procured citizenship as a result of the misrepresentation or concealment.
Ok, so you have 100's of thousands of tech workers eating lunch at work, or 100's of tech workers driving across town at lunch. Which is more sensible....
That's a great idea! Just like the pilgrims all learned and started speaking Abenaki when they landed.
Oh wait...
Cafeteria food eats you.
> All of that does take money. You know how to get more money? Making people buy lunch off
> campus instead of eating at the free office caf which generates revenue from additional
> restaurant licensing, liquor sales, and staff wages paying city taxes. Crazy idea right?
* Add additional restaurant licencing... but lose property taxes on cafeteria in building
* liquor sales... are you out of your effing mind?
==> Employee drives to restaurant and then drives back to work with alcohol in his system; traffic hazard
==> Most employers will fire you on the spot if you come back from lunch with alcohol on your breath
* staff wages paying city taxes... but lose the money from former cafeteria employees who used to pay city taxes
Crazy idea? Damn well right it is.
Another item. Most employees want to get home after work as quickly as possible. Let's say you have a choice between
* half hour lunch break at work cafeteria
* one hour lunch break of which you spend 15 minutes getting to restaurant, 1/2 hour eating, and 15 minutes getting back to work. That's at at a fast-food joint. At a "real restaurant", it's "please wait to be seated", and dump menus on your table. They'll be hovering over you all the time to take your liquor orders, but it'll be 15 to 20 minutes before someone comes around to take your food orders. In 30 to 45 minutes the food will have been prepared+served. It's one thing for an occasional office event, but not daily. That would be 30 hours per month out of your life that you'd never get back.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
good god you need to die
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Fealty_(novel)
My god, was that beautiful.
Vote Republican! Things WILL change for the better - guaranteed!
Your post is a non sequitur, emotional based argument. Notwithstanding, I would point out that it would have been better for the natives if the pilgrims had learned Abenaki.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Company scrip didn't take the place of minimum wage, it added to it. You still have the supply issues of any town, the only distinction is that a company town provides additional benefits for employees in the form of greater access to goods due to the cost savings of scrip for applicable goods.
Shill or troll, hard to figure out what you are.
Of course scrip didn't take the place of "minimum wage" -- there was no minimum wage. Scrip took the place of ALL wages. All you got was scrip.
Scrip didn't give you greater access to goods, it limited your access to what the company store wanted to sell. It didn't create "cost savings" for the employees, because the price of goods was controlled solely by the company, and they didn't sell at a discount. If you liked Kellogs's Sugar Pops for breakfast and the company store sold only Wheaties, you bought Wheaties because you couldn't drive to the next town over to buy what you wanted.
Applying the company town model to something like Google for example might mean people making $500,000+/year now might be reduced to $80,000/year+scrip,
No, it would mean employees would be paid entirely in scrip, which could only be used to pay rent for a company apartment, buy food from a company store. You could scrimp and save for the future, but you couldn't use whatever you saved if you left the company -- it's useless outside the company town.
but if scrip covers housing+food+utilities in full it's still a net win for them
Unless they wanted something that the company didn't sell, or to save for a future that the company didn't provide. Someone making half a mil a year and able to live where they want could save a lot of money and retire early. Someone getting paid in scrip that went for food and clothing and shelter has no future. If you leave the company you leave with zero assets. Oh, maybe you have 10,000,000 scrip "dollars", but they're no good anywhere outside your ex-employer's stores, and you don't have a badge to access those stores anymore.
Only a shill or a troll would argue that company towns were good for the employees. Or an ignoramus.
and restaurant owners.
The hospitality workers will not benefit.
People works in restaurant gets worse pay and conditions than people works in tech company kitchen.
This ruling will only shift hospitality workers from tech company to the commercial restaurants or fast food oulets.
Only corporate cafeterias will be outlaws. Right? That IS how the saying goes, right?
The position that SF (and other local and state governments) take of obstructing the enforcement of those laws is just that: obstruction
Okay so you might not be savvy to this debate, but the Federal government wants local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws because the Federal government "feels"... You know what I'll just cut the crap. The Federal government doesn't want to really pay for it. Now there's been some cities that are totally okay with "helping" out the Federal government, there's some that give the Feds the middle finger, and then there are the majority that are like, "Sure we'll do that, how much are you going to give us?" And when the answer back is a big fat zero, those cities are content to sit on their hands. Now there are some cities like our current topic, SF, that see through this BS and openly aggravate and that's fine if you view that as obstructing, but ultimately enforcing those laws are up to the Feds and we've had a few court cases that have indicated that cities don't have to lift a finger for doing law enforcement for the Fed if they aren't getting paid to do it. In short, like most things, it mainly comes down to money for the majority. But yes, SF is one of those that are in the minority and sit on the sideline saying "neener-neener-neener".
I suspect that if a company in SF denied enforcement officials access to their corporate campus on humanitarian grounds, SF city officials will not be amused.
Again you're doing the tie things together that aren't related. SF can do that to the Feds because they're a government. Companies cannot because they distinctly aren't forms of government. It's a really simply concept to follow. If A SF company denied enforcement officials anything, they'd get a court order and come in anyway. That's because the court recognizes that the government is, wait for it... A government! (insert mind blown sound) And that's not my opinion on the matter that's literally me just pointing out our form of governance, since late 1700s.
Cities don't have to put up with companies antics. They put up with it, because they bring in money, but they only do so as a courtesy. So if a city doesn't care about the money are they see the company as a bad fit, they can run them out of town and there's not really a legal recourse for the company unless some contract was signed between them and the city. That's why you see companies sign deals with cities before they move in. That's a CYA move by the company, so that they gain something resembling some form of rights. But outside of those contracts, companies are the city's/state's bitch if the state or city so wished it.
TL;DR summary. SF can thumb the Feds because they're elected officials, they are recognized by the courts as being a legally binding government. Companies don't get to thumb anyone unless they signed a contract allowing them to do that, that's because unlike SF and the US, they are recognized by the courts for squat in these matters that we speak of.
I am not making a value judgment on SF choosing to regulate corporate cafeterias. If they want to let them. The voters there in SF can decide if they like it or not.
I do agree with this part of your comment, so thumbs up random Internet person. I doubt you care though, but at least we agree on something, so I'll have a beer to that and call it a night. Cheers person!
If not then your business plan should have warned you of this before opening a restaurant nearby.
That's racist.
No, it isn't. It's practical and reasonable.
Why shouldn't we learn their languages?
That's up to each individual to decide if they want to or not. But those who chose to immigrate should also spend some effort to learn the primary language of the country to which they are immigrating. It just makes sense.
[If you could see and feel the dramatic, negative impact of these hordes of self-entitled "tech" workers on present day San Francisco (and even parts of the East Bay)] ...would have been to pass an ordinance which "confined" tech workers to remaining on-campus, dining inside the company store cafterias, thus sparing the citizens, and actually working people, of our community. Please, kiddies, go back to your "open plan" cubbyholes in Mtn View, Sunnyvale, Fremont (LOL)... wherever...
as someone who has lived in the bay area (alameda now but works in sf) for the better part of 25+ years getting people out is good. One thing people that haven't been here long don't understand is that foot traffic and commercial stores downtown and SOMA is nothing compared to what it was even 15 years ago, because of it not just restaurants but other general merchandise sores have turned into empty storefronts over time and the whole vibe is way more isolated than it used to be. People act like this is some kind of cost shifting situation but if a company spends less on food, they can pay workers more and at the same time the lunch crowd can overspill to other businesses as well as make the city more attractive to visitors.
Finally...a reason not to be jealous of the good food they used to get
MORE TAXES! MORE TAXES! And, yet, you will STILL end up with MORE poor homeless fuckers like me. Just saying to all the stupid liberals: like pissing up a rope?
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
Maybe we just kill them 10, 20, 30-50 years EARLIER (before they leave the womb) and do what the liberals do: call it abortion. Toatally legal.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
It's another Bill of Rights violation. California city and state government seem to be competing to see who can add the most illegal laws to their law codes. They aren't alone, of course: US legal history can be thought of as a long-running battle between government and the public, consisting of one incident after another where government (federal, state, or local) breaks the law. Often it takes a long time to fix things: think about how long it took to reverse slavery or to end illegal segregation, both of which were completely inconsistent of the concept of a nation founded to protect the rights of man (Morris, 1787, US Constitutional Convention). Worse, often the criminals in government are well paid and suffer no punishment for their illegal actions.
The right to travel is one of the rights protected as a right "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment, "reserved to the people" under the 10th Amendment. It's one of the right subject to "strict scrutiny".
Forcing people to travel to get their lunches is a violation of that right. Further, excessive law creates an artificial demand for the services of lawyers, and thus violates the right to ethical practice of law - which inevitably means we also a violation of the right to ethical government (since government lawyers will be involved in writing and enforcing the law).
Hence, it is illegal for San Francisco to put this provision into their building codes. A plain and simple conclusion - and one entirely in keeping with the principle that the government that governs best, governs least.
As this is a matter involving the 9th Amendment, and as all members of the US legal profession have many and massive ethical conflicts of interest with respect to recognizing the authority of the 9th Amendment, any attempt by a legal professional in ANY role to legitimize this illegal conduct by government is unethical practice of law and a violation of their oath to uphold the law. For federal judges, it's also a violation of the "good behaviour" requirement.
It's already criminal conduct, and grounds for civil suit, to infringe fundamental rights "under the colour of law". In short, this isn't just illegal conduct, it's criminal conduct under the laws already on the books - and conduct that could very well result in serious budget problems for the city down the road if law suits are pressed against the city for violating the Bill of Rights.
California already has very serious problems with 'rent-seeking' behaviour on the part of special interest groups - all of which are illegal. This incident is just another example of an ongoing crisis in society: will government keep breaking the law, or will we need a reboot?
Local Restaurants should work to make their food so damn good that people would rather go their and pay a bit more instead of eating at work.
Seems a bit backwards to ban something a workplace has already invested in if the local places to eat can't even outdo Cafeteria food.
Crap, I have a levitation class at 25:131. Better set the alarm to 'cinnamon'.
I expect to read "SF Outlaws Brown Bags" next. That will be followed by outlawing eating outside a registered food facility. Somewhere in there, I expect to also read about open season on SF supervisors.
To be completely effective, this law will have to ban brown-bagging.
Will people smuggle lunchesh? Will the city respond by inspecting backpacks and attache cases?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
That city went to shit a long time ago.