This can definitely help support local business. But seems unfair to lower-salary employees. As an employee who used to have free lunch and now doesn't, I have felt the financial effects.
Dining out truly can make a big impact on the wallet- $10 dollars per meal (unlikely in Mountain View unless fast food) x 5 meals a week x 48 weeks a year (let's be generous and assume you get that much PTO) = $2,400 annually
Company-provided meals also tend to provide healthy options which can be expensive to purchase outside of work- and tend to contain less sodium and sugar than restaurant foods.
I can see this potentially benefitting the local business of 'Amazon WholeFoods' and Costco as people buy more groceries to bring lunch to work with them and eat at their desks. Eating out every day is expensive.
There's nothing stopping the companies from providing a dine-out per diem if they choose to. They could for example form relationships with local eateries to subsidize those meals either in full or through discounts, which would support the local economy but also provide that benefit to employees. But of course it's cheaper for them if they control the entire operation.
The problem is dine in food (catering etc) is 50% tax deductible, dine out food is 0% deductible but having your own in-house restaurant is 100% deductible. None of these articles mention this issue, plus any meal subsidies would not only not go as far for the employer but the employee would be taxed on them.
I’ve been provided meals at work for the last 12 years and I will certainly factor that in to any salary calculus in the future. Given this only impacts new buildings, this puts future employers/business at a disadvantage.
You can't just put any arbitrary restriction in a contract that you feel like, particularly not when the party imposing the restriction has the coercive power of government or quasi-governmental entities on its side.
The classic example of this is the old-school homeowner's association covenant that forbade selling your house to people of a certain race.
Protected classes are just one of many examples. There are many others.
Search for "mortmain" for one that's been around in English common law since the Middle Ages. Then search for "takings clause" for one that's been around since the U.S. Constitution was enacted.
If the government forbids them from starting a cafeteria in a space where that was formerly allowed, that is a "taking". The government may (or may not, depending on the court) be able to do this, but if they do they are required to pay the landowner for the lost value.
Certainly sounds very strange the government has the right to tax it as a benefit in kind - but I am sure that would be subject of a lot of litigation.
IT also could be argued to be a forced breach of contract as custom and practice is …
Ah. So the headline is misrepresenting what's going on. These people signed contracts stating they are ok with these restrictions to allow the offices to be built.
This might be a great idea in theory, but terrible execution. By having this only apply prospectively, it makes every new business have to compete with businesses that can offer free meals on campus.
I think it's a terrible idea in theory. In practice it probably won't be as bad as companies find loopholes and exceptions. (For example, is having food delivered a cafeteria?)
Still, companies should be able to decide what they want to offer their workers.
This is a good question. What stops companies from asking $100 per meal, and charge it on an employee account then reimburse the same amount every month to clear any tab? The free meals are taxable income anyway.
The ban on "company cafeterias" cannot possibly work, they will be simply replaced by separated business entities that happen to share the same building and have a financial arrangement like the one described. Pretty soon you will go full retard trying to stop this.
As a Bay Area resident my priorities are the cost of housing, cleaning our dirty streets and alleviating traffic congestion.
This is an example of progressivism gone awry. Solving the basics is incredibly important. Our quality of life is in decline (in the bay area) and this is the best our politicians can do?
Your municipality does not have the legal or financial mechanisms to solve homelessness, housing, and traffic congestion. They are all natural consequences of economic and political decisions made higher up the food chain.
The city is responsible for the housing development. Not all of it but a lot of it. Same for homeless: the city can decide to address the problem by investing on affordable housing and assistance programs
Also get your data: if you don’t have free meal, you bring from home. This is what the vast majority does. And at the end of the day, this is a matter of freedom: if company X decides to offers free meal, what’s the problem? It creates jobs and attract people! Is this the country of freedom or this place incompetent administration wants to control what companies and people should do?
The editorialized title submitted by the OP is incorrect (and probably in bad faith). Free food is banned at one complex in MTV called the village ("That's because the city prohibits companies from fully subsidizing meals in the Village,"), not all over mountain view.
What stops them from paying a “mtv location bonus” of $30~ish dollars a month and charging a dollar a meal?
Edit: it sounds like this is actually a rider on some kind of zoning exception being made for a new development called the Village? Article isn’t terribly clear here
This seems silly. My company doesn't pay for food (chicago), we're right next to tons of options, but food is expensive. Most of us bring lunch from home. We live in the burbs and commute in. I don't see why workers would pay to eat out every day instead of bringing lunch. Maybe it's a SF thing that folks would be willing to waste that much money every day?
I live about 10 minutes from this location, and often frequent the restaurants there. It's smack dab in a high-traffic area (San Antonio+El Camino) and judging from the crowds, I can assure you that they get plenty of business already from the local community, even without Facebook.
That said, I would still have no problem if it was the landlord (WeWork) making this restriction, instead of the MTV government. This is a private business-to-business matter, and shouldn't be the domain of government.
49 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 91.6 ms ] threadEdit: looks like it's a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17619658.
Dining out truly can make a big impact on the wallet- $10 dollars per meal (unlikely in Mountain View unless fast food) x 5 meals a week x 48 weeks a year (let's be generous and assume you get that much PTO) = $2,400 annually
Company-provided meals also tend to provide healthy options which can be expensive to purchase outside of work- and tend to contain less sodium and sugar than restaurant foods.
I can see this potentially benefitting the local business of 'Amazon WholeFoods' and Costco as people buy more groceries to bring lunch to work with them and eat at their desks. Eating out every day is expensive.
This sounds like another of those special microcosm "problems".
I've also done locum work in more than that.
I maybe do it one or two days a month and I am in the minority here.
I’ve been provided meals at work for the last 12 years and I will certainly factor that in to any salary calculus in the future. Given this only impacts new buildings, this puts future employers/business at a disadvantage.
Am I missing something?
The classic example of this is the old-school homeowner's association covenant that forbade selling your house to people of a certain race.
Just because some contracts are illegal does not make this one illegal. It may be over-reach as a bylaw, but almost certainly not as a contract.
Search for "mortmain" for one that's been around in English common law since the Middle Ages. Then search for "takings clause" for one that's been around since the U.S. Constitution was enacted.
If the government forbids them from starting a cafeteria in a space where that was formerly allowed, that is a "taking". The government may (or may not, depending on the court) be able to do this, but if they do they are required to pay the landowner for the lost value.
IT also could be argued to be a forced breach of contract as custom and practice is …
This restriction was made, in exchange for letting the office be built.
They could have asked the Zuckerberg to do the chicken dance, for 10 minutes, in exchange for letting the office be built, if they wanted to.
Still, companies should be able to decide what they want to offer their workers.
The ban on "company cafeterias" cannot possibly work, they will be simply replaced by separated business entities that happen to share the same building and have a financial arrangement like the one described. Pretty soon you will go full retard trying to stop this.
As a Bay Area resident my priorities are the cost of housing, cleaning our dirty streets and alleviating traffic congestion.
This is an example of progressivism gone awry. Solving the basics is incredibly important. Our quality of life is in decline (in the bay area) and this is the best our politicians can do?
I'm enraged.
Your perspective bores me.
Exhibit A: https://shift.newco.co/letter-of-resignation-from-the-palo-a...
- I stepped in dog shit
- F@kin' liberals
This doesn't have to do anything with progressivism, unless you just use it as umbrella term for everything you don't like.
SAN FRANCISCANS: my studio costs $2700 and I stepped on human feces & 1 used syringe on my morning commute
CITY: we hear you, action must and will be taken. Scooters are now illegal
SF-ANS: what
CITY: no more delivery robots
SF-ANS: but
CITY: workplace cafeterias are forbidden
https://twitter.com/Altimor/status/1021973421046022145
Edit: it sounds like this is actually a rider on some kind of zoning exception being made for a new development called the Village? Article isn’t terribly clear here
It's a free meal at the office, but if you want to go out they made deals with most of the local restaurants where it gives the employee $5 off
That said, I would still have no problem if it was the landlord (WeWork) making this restriction, instead of the MTV government. This is a private business-to-business matter, and shouldn't be the domain of government.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17612190