San Francisco Weighs Ban on Employee Cafeterias(sacbee.com)
sacbee.com
San Francisco Weighs Ban on Employee Cafeterias
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215493815.html
15 comments
If you want them supporting SF restaurants, stop fighting density and let them live in SF.
Soon, SF will ban kitchen in new homes, everyone should eat out. /s
San Francisco makes it clear that tech companies aren't welcome here. Will tech companies finally take the hint?
What the SF City officials are covertly asking for is campaign contributions!! This is literally not affecting daily life or commerce for residents, but it's a great distraction and fundraising opportunity for city officials
this is such bullshit... like do yall even private property? like how is this even being considered? smh
> “People will have to go out and (eat) lunch with the rest of us,” Aaron Peskin, a San Francisco supervisor who co-sponsored the proposal, told The San Francisco Examiner.
I get what they're trying to do but this is silly. Good intentions tend to make terrible government policy.
> However, the proposed ban would not affect the 51 employee cafeterias already in San Francisco, only future office buildings, “so it’s not goring anybody’s ox,” Peskin told the Examiner.
Ha! So one more perk that only existing, large, entrenched players can offer. A level playing field indeed.
> The nearby city of Mountain View recently barred a new Facebook office from offering free- or reduced-cost meals at its cafeteria, reported the Chronicle.
Does this include ordering a pizza to a war room or is it specific to a separate structure for day to day dining?
I get what they're trying to do but this is silly. Good intentions tend to make terrible government policy.
> However, the proposed ban would not affect the 51 employee cafeterias already in San Francisco, only future office buildings, “so it’s not goring anybody’s ox,” Peskin told the Examiner.
Ha! So one more perk that only existing, large, entrenched players can offer. A level playing field indeed.
> The nearby city of Mountain View recently barred a new Facebook office from offering free- or reduced-cost meals at its cafeteria, reported the Chronicle.
Does this include ordering a pizza to a war room or is it specific to a separate structure for day to day dining?
Amen. San Francisco is ground zero for well-intentioned, but ultimately awful public policy. Often these policies further make whatever problem they're trying to solve worse, because it gives the illusion that they've actually done something about it.
I, as a 20 year SF resident, would much prefer Aaron Peskin do something about the feces and hypodermic needles before he worries about cafeterias.
I, as a 20 year SF resident, would much prefer Aaron Peskin do something about the feces and hypodermic needles before he worries about cafeterias.
> I, as a 20 year SF resident, would much prefer Aaron Peskin do something about the feces and hypodermic needles before he worries about cafeterias.
But that would require him to deal with various unlawful behaviors and individuals! Much easier to pass some law, when you know law-abiding corporations will respect it.
But that would require him to deal with various unlawful behaviors and individuals! Much easier to pass some law, when you know law-abiding corporations will respect it.
Also, WTF, the last thing I'm worried about in SF is not having enough restaurants.
> Ha! So one more perk that only existing, large, entrenched players can offer. A level playing field indeed.
Yup, this exemption makes this idea even worse.
> Does this include ordering a pizza to a war room or is it specific to a separate structure for day to day dining?
Per an article in Eater.com (https://www.eater.com/2018/7/23/17603424/facebook-mountain-v...):
> The rule — which was actually passed in 2014 — states that companies cannot routinely fund more than 50 percent of employees’ meals, but it can fully subsidize meals if they come from open-to-the-public restaurants.
So the occasional pizza-in-the-war-room would be fine, but establishing their own cafeteria inside their complex that provides free food would be forbidden.
This rule seems to allow them to routinely order-in from "open-to-the-public restaurants", however if none of the nearby restaurants offers food that is up to their standards - they're SOL.
This rule is bad for employers and bad for their employees.
There's no way you can get food catered from local restaurants that will match the quality of what Google cafes offer, especially health-wise: restaurants optimize for taste and cost, disregarding customer health as long as they don't serve outright poison.
It's no coincidence that Google spends billions on sourcing their own employee food, and its competitors follow suite.
The result would be that new offices in MTV won't be able to provide the same healthy food that Google has been offering for decades.
Yup, this exemption makes this idea even worse.
> Does this include ordering a pizza to a war room or is it specific to a separate structure for day to day dining?
Per an article in Eater.com (https://www.eater.com/2018/7/23/17603424/facebook-mountain-v...):
> The rule — which was actually passed in 2014 — states that companies cannot routinely fund more than 50 percent of employees’ meals, but it can fully subsidize meals if they come from open-to-the-public restaurants.
So the occasional pizza-in-the-war-room would be fine, but establishing their own cafeteria inside their complex that provides free food would be forbidden.
This rule seems to allow them to routinely order-in from "open-to-the-public restaurants", however if none of the nearby restaurants offers food that is up to their standards - they're SOL.
This rule is bad for employers and bad for their employees.
There's no way you can get food catered from local restaurants that will match the quality of what Google cafes offer, especially health-wise: restaurants optimize for taste and cost, disregarding customer health as long as they don't serve outright poison.
It's no coincidence that Google spends billions on sourcing their own employee food, and its competitors follow suite.
The result would be that new offices in MTV won't be able to provide the same healthy food that Google has been offering for decades.
Here's an idea: San Francisco should ban restrooms in office buildings, so people will have to go out to urinate and defecate on the streets with the rest of us.
> We don’t want employees biking or driving into their office, staying there all day long and going home. This is about getting people out of their office, interacting with the community and adding to the vibrancy of the community
Cool, but why is this a decision of SF government?
> However, the proposed ban would not affect the 51 employee cafeterias already in San Francisco, only future office buildings
Making it harder for new companies to compete with the benefits offered by existing companies.
Cool, but why is this a decision of SF government?
> However, the proposed ban would not affect the 51 employee cafeterias already in San Francisco, only future office buildings
Making it harder for new companies to compete with the benefits offered by existing companies.
This ban is just a bunch of restaurants threatening city hall into some short sided vision of theirs.
Ban cafeterias and you'll just get more delivery services.
Funny how this ban won't affect the city hall cafeteria.
Ban cafeterias and you'll just get more delivery services.
Funny how this ban won't affect the city hall cafeteria.
Does Aaron Peskin share his lunchtime location? I would be more than glad to join him for lunch.