Cool, so start-ups lose a potential hiring perk to the incumbents.
(Does anyone know the story behind this bill? Which politicians and restaurants supported it? I’d like to avoid the latter going forward.)
[0] https://sf.eater.com/2018/7/25/17614570/san-francisco-corpor...
Your position is something like, “Man this Donald Trump guy is f’in horrible. Give me a list of all Americans so I can remember to never talk to them again.”
The position is more like: "Man I hate Donald Trump, I'm going to boycott his daughters clothing line"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/24/ivanka-tr...
1) There are more people in the areas with offices who are around to eat dinner. Therefore, restaurants aren't so dependent on the lunch money of office workers.
2) Restaurant workers can get cheaper rent and therefore restaurants can find staff more easily.
All of the tech workers should boycott the restaurants involved in this political move. Tech workers in the bay area control most of the volume of high-end consumer spending (ie a lot of workers making a lot of money). It would decimate the targeted restaurants instantly.
They could just do something similar to what colleges do:
- increase salaries just a bit
- but the increased salary goes to a food card
- employees can't easily turn this into cash
- you swipe it and "pay"
- the company is essentially paying for the employee's food
Money changes hands, but no one is at a net loss than what a free food perk would cost.
Non-financial compensations are taxed in many countries, I really don't see what's wrong here.
(It is worse for the employee, of course.)
If it's the former, then I think it's still "free food".
If it's the latter, then it removes much of the benefit of the company providing the meal -- keeping employees on-campus and near their desks longer. I like my company's free food since it's easy to walk down the hall and eat a quick lunch between meetings, no need to take an hour to head off campus to a local restaurant. I don't care that the food is "free", but that it's fast and convenient.
Example: Currently living in Switzerland, which has "Lunch cheques" [0]. Employees don't pay income tax on their value, employers don't pay social security on their value, local restaurants/takeaways get more customers.
It's not about the money.
They literally cannot fathom that people in tech are trying to squeeze the most from every minute in the day.
Just. Do. Not. Get. It.
Don't do that. It hurts. You.
If I stop for lunch, I stop, and don't get back into it.
So I eat lunch at my desk. It's not bad for me. 10 hour days to accomplish half the work is bad.
Tell that to the farmer who's crops go bad.
Not everything is the same.
Once I get into productive mode I'd rather not get out of it until I'm finished, and leaving my desk for more than a few minutes, or having to concentrate of complex tasks like talking to someone at a counter, is sure to do that.
If you really want to avoid leaving the building at all costs, there is also another option: ordering your lunch and let it be delivered.
So, a half-hour round trip.
Instead you can spend that time being both grateful and productive
None of them included giving employees perks in the hope that it will increase their productivity.
By "their", you mean the company? Because employees receive the same salary no matter their productivity.
Slavers also fed their slaves, property requires upkeep costs.
No, in fact they typically do not. Drop your productivity to zero and see how your salary holds up.
Or is that a conspiracy theory?
>The measure has the support of Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association and other local merchants.
It seems suspicious that before the legislation is even introduced exceptions have been carved out for the existing big companies.
[1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/supervisors-move-ban-workplace-caf...
At most, they would make a website with a little game featuring an animation of the city burning down, then giggle and and share it with each other, all the while deaf to the irony that, in reality, they already are burning it down; they just can’t see it. The disconcern behind your whining threat exerts, on the broader population, a blunt misery of slow-burning economic torture the likes of which the tech worker’s comforts will not afford them to perceive. A real fire would at least offer closure and hope amidst a new beginning. This one just keeps blistering.
A bit of decency from some of the best paid employees in America would go a long way. This is not what I see in the arrogant, know-it-all attitude of most Googlers though.
So, conspiracy theory or not, it's very plausible that the large established players had a hand in drafting this law.
But sometimes it looks a lot like collusion.
There are only two possible solutions: take the action up several levels financially and get extremely bellicose; or wait until the owners of the political class in SF age out and lose their control.
I don't think catering startups that coordinate with local restaurants (e.g ZeroCater and Chewse) will be affected.
On a slightly off topic note, when your company gets to cafeteria size are you really a startup any more?
Awesome idea, thanks!