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.
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
Hm, well, speaking from experience, the corporate cafeteria is more like an attractive nuisance. It's good enough that you don't bother to go out, but not as good as what you'd get if you went out. And because everybody is doing it, if you don't, you stand out, which a lot of people aren't comfortable with.
I don't think this ordinance has a chance in hell of passing constitutional muster, but I actually think the idea behind it is good. Sometimes the only way to get the right result for individuals is to have a collective norm.
"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.
"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
When you believe that you know what is in other people's interests better than they do, regulation always seems like a great idea.
I do love that SF is being subjected to their own socialism though.
This law will have a negligible effect for many reasons:
1. It is addressing a problem that doesn't exist. The main problem faced by restaurants in SF is not "too few customers" but "too few workers", since people making waitress and dishwasher wages can't afford to live in SF. Customers aren't going to just wait longer to be seated. They will instead bring a sandwich and an apple in a paper sack and eat at their desk.
2. It doesn't actually ban "free food at work." . It bans new construction of cafeterias. But SF already rejects 95% of all building permits, and the NIMBYs and BANANAs prevent almost all new construction anyway. Existing cafeterias can still be used, and tech companies without cafeterias can just contract with an offsite caterer to bring in meals. Unlike the cafeteria workers, these caterers are likely to make the meals in Oakland or Daly City, and truck them into SF, so this may reduce jobs for SF residents.
Stupid laws have stupid unintended effects.
Y'all come on. Just remember why you left
Except that they don't. They claim to be fleeing the "unlivable mess" in California but they bring their politics with them and begin destroying their new home just as they destroyed California. Why do you think "Don't Californicate <Insert State Here>" is such a popular bumper sticker? Trust me, you don't want more rocks-for-brains Liberals moving to Texas from California.
Hm, well, speaking from experience, the corporate cafeteria is more like an attractive nuisance. It's good enough that you don't bother to go out, but not as good as what you'd get if you went out. And because everybody is doing it, if you don't, you stand out, which a lot of people aren't comfortable with.
I don't think this ordinance has a chance in hell of passing constitutional muster, but I actually think the idea behind it is good. Sometimes the only way to get the right result for individuals is to have a collective norm.
My company isn't large enough to have a full cafeteria, so they do catering, and the catered food is as good as any local restaurant in the $10 - $20 price range I'd be willing to pay every day. The choices are limited so some people chose to eat out and no one cares.
I actually think the idea behind it is good.
Why stop at food? Why not require that employees purchase gas locally... and haircuts... and groceries... and everything else that could be purchased locally? After all, the employers are indirectly paying for all of that through the pay they give employees.
Or, if towns want employees to buy more local products, then maybe they ought to relax their tight zoning laws and allow much more housing to be built near the offices... then they wouldn't have to force people to shop locally, it would happen naturally.
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
Funny. But that's not more government, that's more police.
Plus, there's a good chance that young lady wanted different government, not more of the same one that militarised the police.
City Hall, where these morons work, has it's own in-building cafeteria. They call it a Cafe... Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.
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.
Huh?
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday