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
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
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.
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.
"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
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.
You need to try some of the cafeterias at the Silicon Valley companies. These aren't Sudexo pieces of shit. They have real chefs and actual food. I know at Facebook in addition to 2 cafeterias they had a burger shack, a pizza place, a noodle soup place, a salad place, a barbecue place, and frequent popups. And that was just the main campus, not the sattelites. The food tends to be pretty good, and if it doesn't do it for you the daily places work.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
Don't even try to bring your lunch, especially if you bring a straw. WTF is wrong with SF?
Zoid.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stupid laws have stupid unintended effects.
My admittedly brief personal experience with SF and what I've heard about it, that probably is accurate for a rather unfortunate number of the local laws.
This is probably crony capitalism, not socialism. The restaurant lobby bribes their way in.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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
Even if it was constitutionally valid, it would be trivially easy to get around, as it only affects construction, but there is no rule that you have to keep using every room the same way in the future. As long as you don't have to remove structural supports, this is just a matter of labeling at the design phase.
I work right in the 'meat' of Mid-Market and a third problem is that most of the restaurants that have opened in the area are 'concept' restaurants that a semi-famous local chef sinks a couple million bucks into, which results in the average lunch costing 25 bucks. Cavernous restaurants like that have shuttered at a pretty quick pace over the past couple years because they don't know how to cater to the techie lunch crowd. Meanwhile, Little Griddle, Ananda Fura (sp? I don't eat veggies), Sam's, The Market on Market and even the Subways in the area thrive. The food trucks at Soma Straet Food are often crowded as long as it's not rainy, and people have to walk a ways to get there.
Hopefully these big, prominent failures will start to give restauranteurs a clue about how to appeal to us nerds. When you're competing with free or subsidized food, you have to be different, fast, and reasonably priced (by San Francisco standards.) Nobody cares about your wine list (Dirty Water) or microbrew (that French place whose name escapes me.) Both those places were good for an occasional fancy lunch, but I'm not spending $25 on food every day, nor is anyone that works in the area.
"Welcome to the Restaurant Extragavanza. Do you have any reservations?"
"Well, since you asked, the wine list looks a bit pricy and the wallpaper looks a bit tacky."
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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
How much do you think the homeless and crazy people like sharing the streets with selfish assholes?
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.
City Hall, where these morons work, has it's own in-building cafeteria. They call it a Cafe... Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.
If a company is going to get tax incentives to move to a particular spot based on the theoretical benefits it'll provide, it damn well better be regulated to ensure it produces what it promised. Although personally -- even though I'm a socialist -- I'd prefer to pass a law outlawing localities from providing incentives to compete with each other for companies (which is of course terribly inefficient for the state/country as a whole).
This space intentionally left blank
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.
This. When I eat lunch, I care about 3 things: Speed, price, amount. Taste comes in as a close fourth, but the quality level "edible" is sufficient for a lunch place to see me again. But I only have a limited amount of time at my disposal, so optimally my lunch is already ready when I decide I want it. It should be reasonably priced so that it's not more sensible for me to bring my own stuff. And it should be sufficient to last 'til dinner.
Our campus cafeteria offers exactly that. Nothing fancy, nothing that you'll come back for seconds for, but it's ready when I get there (because they cook permanently through lunch time), the price is all right and it's filling.
Plus, as an added bonus, your company is VERY interested in you not getting sick to your stomach from the grub because people who vomit don't work.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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).
Yeah... fuck freedom... Some politician thinks it's a good idea, so I guess everyone will be FORCED to do it. You are a cunt.
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.
TFA mentions existing ones will be grandfathered in, but I also agree with your first sentence.
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.
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.
1. Learn that they are human, just like you, and have legitimate interests, just like you that you probably should pay attention to if you want to be in upper class and effective at it.
2. Never get it in your head even as a conceptual thought that people who have different background from you are "deplorable".
3. Win elections.
texmex is not bland. It's one of my favorite parts of living here
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.
> 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