9 ms·
SF Supervisors Move to Ban Workplace Cafeterias
- 1996 8y ago> tech companies like Twitter and Airbnb, which are widely known to have access to dining in their own buildings, depriving nearby restaurants of the dollars usually spent by nearby worker Only in Soviet Russia... and Silicon Valley can you see nonsense like that.
- vilhelm_s 8y ago> Peskin said, it’s a hope to mitigate the “app culture” of workers who [...] dine in their places of employment [...] depriving them the pleasure of mingling with the rest of The City. Uh, thanks, I guess.
- megaman22 8y agoIt's funny, but sad, watching people trying to kill the golden goose by a thousand cuts.
- refurb 8y agoThis is the thing. If they succeed in fixing the "problem" of tech workers, SF will end up like it did in the 1970's where people were more people moved out than moved in.
- Grue3 8y agoFor the record, in Russia a company is actually required to have a workplace cafeteria once they have more than N workers employed.
- sampo 8y ago"Things that happen in Silicon Valley and also the Soviet Union": https://twitter.com/atroyn/status/1014974099930714115?s=21 https://twitter.com/atroyn/status/1014974099930714115?s=21 HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17471324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17471324
- bdcravens 8y agoWill they also ban ziplock bags, to prevent workers from bringing their own lunch?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- snerbles 8y agoIt is plastic waste, after all.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- masterleep 8y agoIncredible... a meaningful risk of doing business in SF is the exposure to socialist / progressive extremists in the city government.
- baybal2 8y agoNot an SF only phenomenon. Things equally disruptive of property rights happen all around US. America actually scores less on property rights than most hardcore "socialist" countries. Many Chinese coming to USA are astonished to see a "capitalist" nation being so dirigistic and dismissive of property rights.
- jonny_eh 8y agoMountain View is doing the same.
- forgotmysn 8y agofrom what I understand, there is a similar measure underway in Mountain View as well
- dmitrygr 8y agoSlightly different. MV measure bans cafeterias from being free, not from existing, They are just limited to subsidizing food cost to 50%. SF just outright bans cafeterias.
- Analemma_ 8y agoDo they think that workplace cafeterias summon fully-prepared meals from the aether? Those places employ cooks and purchase wholesale food just like restaurants do. FFS, San Francisco.
- bcx 8y agoIt seems that ultimately this just subsidizes the commercial real-estate owners. 1) Force companies to not have free cafeterias 2) Workers have to buy lunch from local businesses 3) Restaurant Location becomes more valuable given the large number of workers forced to find lunch and buy it. 4) Raise rents on restaurants because space is now more valuable, since it is basically subsidized by nearby tech companies. 5) Restaurants pay higher rent, landlords make more $$, due to California Property Tax policy, landlords do not have to pay proportional additional property tax on their now more valuable property. The reason something like this is considered speaks to the power of commercial real estate to shape policy for their own benefit.
- mertd 8y agoRegulations almost always cause some sort of rent seeking behavior. Sometimes they are negligible in comparison to the greater good gained from the regulation. I don't think this is the case here.
- thr0waway5678 8y agoThere would never be rent seeking behavior without regulations. The natural state of mankind is perfect harmonious cooperation without the spectre of rules agreed upon by communities.
- carapace 8y ago> If Princes and Monarchs could but preserve this simplicity, every creature in the world would submit itself to them; Heaven and Earth would be in mutual accord, and shower down sweet dew; the people would need no laws, but live in harmony of themselves.
- EliRivers 8y agosince it is basically subsidized by nearby tech companies Well, those tech companies are subsidized by their own customers and investors. Although this is the first time I've heard the act of people paying for goods and services described as a subsidy. I guess I subsidise the supermarket every time I buy some milk.
- dragonwriter 8y agoTo the extent that discouraging this practice is useful, a tax seems more sensible than a zoning ban; a zoning ban, by effectively grandfathering incumbents, is basically a barrier to new entrants competing (if on-site cafeterias didn't have a business function, firms wouldn't spend money on them) with incumbents (whether for talent, or on productivity if food in-house contributes to that.) A tax can internalize whatever negative externalities are seen from the practice in a manner which neither prohibits use of existing investments nor creates an unfair preference for incumbents.
- pcwalton 8y agoIt's Peskin. Zoning is his weapon of choice.
- ThrustVectoring 8y agoThe entire point of the law is to extract economic rents for incumbents at the expense of newcomers. It's been the modus operandi for the Bay Area for a long time. Adding a tax to incumbents doesn't do that. Besides which, I doubt that the legislators involved even know what deadweight losses are, let alone why they're an important part of the argument for Pigovian taxes.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> The entire point of the law is to extract economic rents for incumbents at the expense of newcomers. While I don't (as indicated in my other comments in this thread) disagree with the idea that that is a probable ulterior motive, the overt purpose is to deal with negative externalities imposed by in-office cafeterias. I'm pointing out that, to the extent that the overt purpose is a real issue, there are much better ways to address this.
- mkempe 8y agoInstead of quibbling about the choice of means in social engineering, maybe the first question to consider is whether such interference is a legitimate power of government.
- clay_the_ripper 8y agoWon’t this make it harder for newer businesses to compete for hires? Ie ones that haven’t already built kitchens in the office? It’s a nice benefit to be able to grab a free lunch (saving thousands a year) or take a to-go box home.
- dragonwriter 8y agoWouldn't be surprised to find if you dig deep enough you'll find this motivation behind the scenes promoting the proposal (though it probably originates in the restaurant industry.)
- djohnston 8y agoalso an effort to fuck catering companies or contingent workers who work in these large cafeterias. what an idiotic and arbitrary restriction of the fundamental human right to eat where/what we want
- masterleep 8y agoWho cares about them when we can vigorously virtue-signal by shitting on tech workers?
- WallWextra 8y agoThe bit about local restaurants losing business seems like a pretty thin fig leaf over a law that's really about taking tech employees down a peg. I don't live in the bay area, so maybe someone can fill me in. How is it supposedly so gentrified that nobody but software engineers can survive, yet local politicians feel comfortable doing things like this? Who actually lives in the city?
- bsimpson 8y agoRent control has bifurcated housing costs. Those who have lived in the same spot for 15+ years and/or who own their property have housing costs much lower than people who have moved this decade. A new lease on a 1 bedroom probably costs $3500 now, but could be <$1000 if you've been here for a while. "Progressive" SF politicians like Aaron Peskin pander to low-income renters and kowtow to NIMBY homeowners who don't want new housing built, while vilifying newcomers. "These evil techies are gentrifying your neighborhood - elect me to stop them." (Of course, the cost of living isn't just housing, but it's also the biggest factor in your assumption that "nobody but software engineers can survive.")
- themagician 8y agoThe area people are talking about is mainly Civic Center / Tenderloin. It’s the only are left in the city with real public housing, and it’s in the middle of the city. As a result of the zoning, it’s hard to gentrify. So what the city had been doing is giving huge tax cuts to companies to move into the area. But they move in and create a ivory tower that no one ever leaves. You see extreme poverty next to extreme wealth. The streets are filled with drifters, day hookers and an open air drug market and the people in the towers get chauffeured to and from work.
- pliny 8y agoBanning workplace cafeterias is a good start, but really the solution they should be discussing is banning workplaces. The workers at tech companies like Twitter and AirBNB are known to have access to working in their own buildings, which deprives nearby cafes of the dollars they could be spending buying a single espresso and then working for 9 hours.
- kangnkodos 8y agoDon't joke. Local politicians can decide to take private land and buildings. See Kelo v. City of New London. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
- fiter 8y agoFurther reading at that Wikipedia link leads to the fact that California has outlawed such takings covered in the Kelo v. City of New London case.
- loco5niner 8y agoSounds like a great way to drive businesses away from your city. Penny wise, pound foolish.
- tweedledee 8y agoFist they came for the plastic straws and I said nothing because I don’t use straws...
- seibelj 8y agoSF should ban private cars, because it deprives public and commercial transportation of customers. SF should ban owning your own apartment, because it deprives landlords of rent. SF should ban e-commerce purchases, because it deprives local retail stores of sales. SF should ban cleaning your own home, because cleaning companies need more business.
- themagician 8y agoThe first three would create a pretty interesting urban space.
- adventured 8y agoBanning home ownership so that landlords benefit is not interesting, it's extremely regressive and morally wrong.
- themagician 8y agoThere are other cities around the world that do 99-year leases or where the state owns the land and it seems to work okay.
- platinumrad 8y agoHuge difference between landlords and the state.
- dogma1138 8y agoIn virtually every case those leases are “customary” only and can and are extended and renewed often on a rolling basis often without even charge.
- snerbles 8y agoFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
- mbgaxyz 8y agoMaybe office workers prefer not to have to run the gauntlet of feces and hypodermic needles, just to buy a sandwich. "San Francisco Man Steps on Hydodermic Needle, Demands Action" https://www.nbcbayarea.com/on-air/as-seen-on/SF-Businesses-Want-City-Hall-to-Take-Action-on-Diseased-Stre_Bay-Area-475616773.html https://www.nbcbayarea.com/on-air/as-seen-on/SF-Businesses-W... "Junkies Take Over Corridors Of San Francisco Civic Center BART Station" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gT5NULvRSk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gT5NULvRSk "SF Crime, Squalor Scares Away $40 Million Medical Convention" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLcoOIDJBsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLcoOIDJBsc SF Mayor: 'There's More Feces ... Than I've Ever Seen' https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Mayor-Theres-more-feces-on-the-sidewalks-than-Ive-ever-seen-488156431.html https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Mayor-Theres-more-f...
- jonny_eh 8y agoMaybe those things will get addressed once people have to run a gauntlet to buy a sandwich. It's much harder to ignore in an ivory tower.
- akira2501 8y agoMaybe the city should directly address those things instead of hoping that a bought-out law crafted for special interests will magically fix it for them.
- mbgaxyz 8y agoReplace "people" with "politicians" and I'll give you an upvote.
- toomanyrichies 8y agoAt the risk of nit-picking the humor out of your comment, I'd say the city's politicians already do run that gauntlet. City Hall is adjacent to the open-air drug market known as the Tenderloin, and many members of the city's transient population frequent the park in front of City Hall. Also, the closest BART stop (Civic Center station) is arguably the stop in SF with the most persistent hygiene issues.
- jensvdh 8y agoBut London Breed is amazing... right, .. guys?
- pcwalton 8y agoSafai and Peskin are members of the "Progressive" faction, not Breed's "Moderate" faction. This proposal is classic Prog posturing. I doubt Breed is on board with it.
- dragonwriter 8y agoWhat does London Breed have to do with this? It's like if in 2009, forty Republican senators proposed something and you blamed Obama for it.
- keeganjw 8y agoThis reminds me of the recent op-ed where the guy suggested replacing libraries with Amazon. Just a really dumb idea that is needlessly protectionist.
- mkempe 8y agoWhat are the effective limits on these local tyrants? I've heard many people watch movies at home instead of going to the theaters. Surely these home screens could be eliminated with some clever zoning restrictions.
- thr0waway5678 8y agoYou're totally right. All of those movie theaters that were heavily subsidized by billions in public money or tax cuts based on the promise of providing foot traffic and value to adjoining businesses should have their day!
- UnFleshedOne 8y agoSo, can a company buy/open a restaurant nearby and provide free food for employees while also being technically open to the public?..
- bitL 8y agoWhen city's crab mentality meets corporate crab mentality...
- lele0108 8y agoHey! I've been trying to get in touch with you (I'm doing some research on Retail). Can you drop me an email? My email: jimmyliu@berkeley.edu, thanks!
- bahmboo 8y agoWhat if I make my own lunch and bring it to work?
- thr0waway5678 8y agoDepends on if you're buying your groceries from Airbnb or Twitter honestly, the economic impact of buying produce and meat from them over a local grocery store really varies between the two tech companies.
- greatamerican 8y agoWhat disgraceful garbage. The technology sector needs to be relocated out of this hellhole.
- kernoble 8y agoIsn't this the same as the Broken Window Fallacy? They want to force people to use economically inefficient services, small restaurants versus large cafeteria, to create more economic "activity". Which would be analogous to celebrating the waste of breaking a perfectly good window, because fixing/replacing the window generates economic activity. Is that fair? This is under the (I think reasonable) assumption that a cafeteria designed for 500-1000 people is probably more efficient than the dozens of smaller scale restaurants needed to match that supply.
- bsimpson 8y agoI trust that I have access to higher quality, healthier food at work than I would if I had to buy lunch at a restaurant. Employers have a stronger incentive to prioritize long-term health in conjunction with short term satisfaction. Restaurants have an incentive to overuse unhealthy but addictive/inexpensive ingredients like salt/sugar/fat to maximize short term pleasure.
- srinivasan 8y agoThis.
- thr0waway5678 8y agoYes I too trust the clearly defined category of "employers", with their uniform set of values and practices with regard to employee health and safety. Why on earth would a person trust somebody who was elected by a community for the job of helping its citizens over a corporation that has to generate value for shareholders?
- fcbrooklyn 8y agoI wonder if they'll be allowed to order a pizza.
- ncr100 8y agoPeskin is indirectly blaming "techies" for the fall of Retail. This proposal reminds me of nationalism, in the way he talked about, "...the rest of us[.]" We're seeing Trump trying to use protectionism, smothered with a thick gravy of nationalism, to solve the macroeconomic woes of the US industrial sector. Trump's foolish effort is failing. Peskin also clearly does not have a viable solution. Someone needs to help him, and the City, get a grip on reality.
- rm_-rf_slash 8y agoMaybe San Francisco should consider banning restaurants to protect the jobs of cafeteria workers.
- diebeforei485 8y agoGet Aaron Peskin voted out in 2020, and half of this city's problems will go away. https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/33420-district03_map_lg.pdf https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/3... If you live or work in that district, you should actively support whoever his opponent is.
- bsimpson 8y agoI'm very much looking forward to his departure, but isn't he term-limited again anyway?
- mc32 8y agoWTF, I hope Breed nixes this nonsense. What next, ban me from bringing in my home cooked meal because it deprives some hole in the wall which uses subpar ingredients from making a living? Ban buses, it deprives Uber and taxi drivers a job. This is utter socialist nonsense.
- thr0waway5678 8y agoThe responses to this are genuinely some of the funniest posts I've seen on this website. The amount of gymnastics people are doing to avoid mentioning that these large companies have gotten millions/billions of handouts from the state and city and are therefore in a different class/category of business than your average brick and mortar shop. So I'll clarify 90% of the detractors comments here: "To the people of San Francisco: Fuck you, got mine. The fact that i lied about the nature and value of our economic contribution to the community and you bought it puts you at fault. I won my ivory tower through any means necessary, and therefore it's immoral to suggest that I in any demonstrable way cooperate to improve anything outside if it. Again. Fuck you. Got mine. " You can skip all the comments now! :)
- ap3 8y agoSeems absurd - Can I still bring my own lunch?
- dogma1138 8y agoThey should just tax employees like any other benefit, most countries do that if you have subsidized meals you pay the value of the meal in tax. E.G. if you ate $400 worth of meals in a month and you have an income tax of 25% you pay $100 in additional income tax. It shouldn’t be any different than getting a company car or any other material benefit.
- a-dub 8y agoI never understood the point of an on-site cafeteria in a centrally located urban office anyway. It makes loads of sense in the spread-out suburban 20m to the nearest Chili's hellscape that is the ever pleasant south bay, but you really don't need it in SF. I feel like a lot of it was a sort of "us too" copying of Google/Oracle without fully understanding why it was done in the first place.
- RestlessMind 8y agoI really wish someone challenges this all the way to the Supreme Court. Current composition of the court gives me hope that such stupid laws are struck down. Because if this ban is allowed to stand, what is to stop the government from banning other perks - gyms, shuttles, massages etc.
- diogenescynic 8y agoThis is an awful idea. This will just hurt blue collar workers employed in those cafeterias. Why is our city government so ineffective and asinine?
- purplezooey 8y agoSoon there won't be any housing here for restaurant employees anyway, so it won't matter. We've kind of already crossed that point with most folks commuting huge distances.
- ckrusk 8y agoCan't wait until they want to build a new hospital and they are barred from adding a cafeteria.