
Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies - fluxsauce
https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-free-cafeteria-food-facebook-ban-2018-7
======
ironjunkie
This is one of the most stupid policy I have ever seen in the bay area (and
there are a lot of stupid ones over here).

As much as I dislike some of the big tech cos and the TechBros working there
bragging about the free food all the time, I still believe a company should be
able to decide if they want to offer food or not.

Restaurants were unable to turn a profit, so they lobbied successfully and now
everyone beside them got a worse outcome.

This is economy 101. A highly visible group of people lobbied hard (in this
case the restaurants), and they put a small burden on everyone else to have
their issue resolved. However when you calculate the outcome, the burden on
everyone else is bigger than the gain that the highly visible group got out of
it. Everyone is worse off.

~~~
sonnyblarney
To be fair, it's not quite 'economy 101'.

Or rather, 'economy 101' is that anyone with enough leverage, will use
monopoly powers in one area, to take control of an adjacent economy.

American Oil empires were not built on some new amazing way to get at oil, it
was because some had control of the railroads, and charged their competitors a
little more to transport therefore putting them out of business (through
aggressive consolidation).

The FB cafeteria example is not a very good one admittedly, but an alternative
could be 'they buy up all the restaurants in the area and make them
exclusively available for FB staff'. Which they very well could do, and it
would then seem kind of crazy, no?

Economically speaking, it would be 'above bar'. After all, 'free market',
right? If neighbourhood residents want to eat in a restaurant, screw them,
they can go across town!

We live in communities, not economies.

The city ordinance is stupid, but the motivation is not.

Ironically, these are 'rich people problems' ... the kinds of things that
happen when little dots of wealth blow up and there is a huge economic
inequality, even if most people are 'kind of well off'.

~~~
stcredzero
As it turns out, poverty doesn't cause crime. It's _relative_ poverty that
causes crime. Basically, if people are low down enough on the dominance
hierarchy, they feel like they have no hope of getting anywhere, then why
shouldn't they start acting up?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE)

(On the other hand, in societies where everyone is poor, there can be peace.)

~~~
adventured
If you're in a society where everyone is poor, there is not peace, there's
extreme violence being applied by a government that is responsible for
_everyone_ being poor (it's not just a subtle thing for everyone to be poor,
that requires an incredible amount of persistent violence and rights denial by
a central authority with overwhelming power). You're just swapping one type of
violence out for another.

~~~
pas
There's no need for a central power for that.

Tribes constantly warred with each other, because they saw that as a good way
to get resources.

Of course, during the middle ages it was feudalism, which was not centralized
at all, it was stratified. Classes, classes, classes. Haves and have not-s.
The haves of course arranged things in a way to keep what they have, so they
come up with rights for themselves, which were very much not egalitarian ones.

And of course there's the real centralized one-party autocratic setup, where
instead of noble houses openly competing with each other, people just play the
subtle game of extort those who are under you, which makes inequality even
worse.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _The ban wouldn 't be retroactive, however, so on-site food at companies
> like Google and Twitter would still be available_

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.)

~~~
FLUX-YOU
>Cool, so start-ups lose a potential hiring perk to the incumbents.

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.

~~~
BurningFrog
The benefit of a company cafeteria is mostly that you don't lose half an hour
walking to a restaurant, waiting in line, ordering etc.

It's not about the money.

~~~
sAbakumoff
Yes, it's not about the money. It's about slavery. Tech giants want their
workers to spend as much time as possible near their working places. Even
during their lunch time when people are supposed to get some rest from their
jobs, walk to the nearby restaurant, maybe meet some new people instead of
those faces they see every f'ng day. NO! Facebook, etc. don't allow any
distraction. They wrap slavery in shiny candies and give it to employees who
are so happy that they are bragging about sushi, whatever to instagram. The
new regulations are going to break that and that's perfect!

~~~
Zak
I've read a number of definitions of slavery coming from a variety of
political perspectives. Some go so far as to term hiring anyone who isn't
independently wealthy to work for wages "slavery".

None of them included giving employees perks in the hope that it will increase
their productivity.

~~~
sAbakumoff
They definitely want to increase your productivity, you are right. Your
productivity drives their revenue forward. They are willing to contribute
small amount of that revenue for giving you free food. But do you really want
to be like that? Work harder for free food?

~~~
Zak
I don't think the purpose of free food is to incentivize employees to work
_harder_. It's to let employees have lunch in the office without having to
leave. As mentioned several times in the comments here, employees at companies
that provide this option tend to _like_ it.

~~~
sAbakumoff
it is to _make_ employees have lunch in the office without _letting_ them
leave.

~~~
hueving
None of these tech companies make anyone eat the lunch and they certainly let
employees leave. Do some research before posting.

~~~
sAbakumoff
Indeed they don't lock employees inside the building. Indeed it's far from
slavery. It's wrong word. Rather it's exploiting of employees by using cheap
tricks.

------
otterpro
Company-provided lunch provides an opportunity to build relationship among the
coworkers. Most people do not says "no" to free lunch, especially if it's
good. So, they naturally sit down together to eat.

When I worked at a company that offered free lunch, the company used it to
help build rapport and camaraderie among the coworkers. It's one time during
the day when the entire team can sit down and eat lunch together and get to
know about each other, which is not possible through Slack nor via meetings.
Just hanging out with everyone on the team, talking about the latest Marvel
movie or Star wars, etc. It was also about convenience as well as reducing
stress and decisions on an already-busy day.

If the team still wants to do lunch together everyday at an outside
restaurant, it would not be easy, especially the logistics, which would be a
nightmare -- getting everyone to agree on one place where everyone likes their
food, finding a place that can seat the entire group at a single table,
finding transportation / assigning driver/riders if it's beyond walking
distance, and having to divide the check afterward (or Venmo), etc. Just for a
meal that lasts no more than an hour, top.

~~~
scarface74
_When I worked at a company that offered free lunch, the company used it to
help build rapport and camaraderie among the coworkers. It 's one time during
the day when the entire team can sit down and eat lunch together and get to
know about each other, which is not possible through Slack nor via meetings. _

I stopped bringing my lunch to work and go out to eat specifically to get a
break from my coworkers. Not that there is anything wrong with my coworkers,
but I really enjoy the alone time in the middle of the day where I can just
sit back and read.

~~~
EchoAce
And that’s great if that’s what you want. OP was just saying that free,
internal lunch promotes team bonding for those who do desire it.

~~~
irq11
I work at a company that doesn’t provide lunch, and we still manage to go out
together and “bond”.

Miracles do happen.

~~~
always_good
Why were you under the impression that nobody here knew that was a possibility
and needed an exceptional anecdote?

The upstream comment even said free lunch "promoted" camaraderie, not "is the
only way it can happen."

~~~
irq11
The original comment regarding “bonding” was equally anecdotal - you just
agree with it, and therefore perceive it to be an argument.

Rationally, there’s no inherent reason that free lunches promote “bonding”,
and no inherent reason that teams that go out to lunch won’t bond. It’s just
cargo culting and post hoc rationalization for people liking free food.

Intellectual rigor is alive and well on HN.

~~~
therealdrag0
I absolutely brushed shoulders with more coworkers when I worked at a company
that had a cafeteria (this wasn't even free to us). My current teammates eat
together sometimes, but unless it's an 'event' it's just 2-3 people, and
always someone who wont go due to diet or financial reasons.

------
nostrademons
Lotta hate for Mountain View in the comments here, which is ironic because
with this ordnance Mountain View is trying to fix a problem that tech
companies get a lot of hate on HN for. I've got mixed feelings about this, so
I'll try and explain both sides:

The problem MV's fixing is the perception that highly-paid tech workers have
become a class of their own, isolated from the larger communities in which
they live and insulated from negative social consequences in the communities
around them. When you get paid a high salary, eat at work, only socialize with
coworkers, have all your logistic needs taken care of by your rich employer,
and only go home to sleep, it's really easy to feel like your city's problems
are other peoples' problems. In other threads on HN, you will see plenty of
mudslinging about tech workers who step over homeless people on their way to
work or kick neighborhood teams off a public basketball court so they can play
a company game.

The Village at San Antonio is supposed to be exactly the type of mixed-use,
mixed-income development that urban planners salivate over today. It's got a
mix of luxury apartments and affordable housing over street-level retail,
connected by pedestrian thoroughfares to the office space that Facebook is
about to rent. There are over a dozen restaurants within walking distance,
ranging from Chili's, Veggie Grill, and Sajj to The Counter burgers to upscale
sit-down places, along with a Walmart, a Safeway, and a Whole Foods. The whole
point is to fix all the problems with tech insularity and wealth polarization
that everyone complains about here.

OTOH, the cynic in me says that it won't actually do a damn thing about this,
and that tech workers will stand around talking to each other and ignoring the
locals in line for Veggie Grill while the service workers around them eat at
the Walmart cafeteria. And the only effect will be to reduce efficiency for
people who could otherwise just grab free food, take it back to their desk,
and get back to work. A lot of the point of the free cafes at Google was to
cut out the friction of deciding where to eat, walking there, and paying, and
instead just focus on the job we had to do.

There's no free lunch. Sometimes it turns out our desires are contradictory,
and the flip side of intangibles like community engagement are reduced
efficiency and heavy-handed regulation.

~~~
jackconnor
I feel what you're saying, and that definitely is something that happens.
Especially for people who move for the job, it's very easy to keep oneself
separate from the community. But making it illegal to feed your employees is a
very stupid, very authoritarian way of dealing with it that feels like a
terrible idea. I don't want to be told where to shop, ever, for any reason,
and I dislike that these local governments are trying to force people to spend
money at specific places over others. It would be difficult to describe this
as any part of a free economy, and if I were starting one of these startups it
would be a bad indicator for what might happen in the future and I would be
extremely reluctant to set up shop in the town. What if the next move is even
more egregious? Can't risk it man.

~~~
null000
I see these types of comments, and I have a really hard time viewing them as
anything but pretty entitled.

I mean, yeah, it's unfortunate for those who won't get free lunches anymore
(I'm currently part of the group that does, although I'm not in the bay area)
but it's not like you _deserve_ free food as a perk any more than any other
random worker. If it were my company inflicting the decision on me after a
record earnings call, yeah, I'd probably be pretty pissed off. But a city
trying to make sure a corporation in a public, mixed use space doesn't
insulate itself too much from the surrounding economy? There are pretty
obviously people who benefit and people who are harmed, but it's not like this
is the end of the world, those employees just aren't getting a benefit 99% of
other employees in the world don't get either.

~~~
someguydave
Private corporations on private property should be able to make private
contracts with employee as they see fit, without government interference.

~~~
jartelt
If the private corporation didn't like the conditions of the city zoning and
development laws, they could build their office elsewhere.

~~~
stale2002
Or instead we could vote these politicians out of office.

There are more techies moving to the bay area every day. Sooner or later those
numbers add up and we've got ourselves a real voting bloc.

~~~
nostrademons
These were the politicians that techies voted _into_ office. The politicians
that techies voted out of office opposed all development whatsoever - they
were the folks that opposed the San Antonio Center development as a whole, and
that blocked the North Bayshore redevelopment for over a decade until Googlers
actually did form a voting bloc and voted the supervisors opposed to
redevelopment out en-masse.

There are a surprising number of tech employees who actually do favor smart
urbanization, community engagement, and mixed-use developments instead of
holing themselves up in their employers and writing code. Tech (and particular
Big Tech) has become a lot more extroverted than the days when it was kids who
got bullied at recess because they spent all day playing with computers rather
than learning social skills. (And IMHO, this is one reason why the industry
has become less innovative lately - there are fewer programmers willing to
hole themselves up with a computer for years until they solve a hard technical
problem, and fewer managers willing to sponsor that kind of work. The Erlich
Bachmans are outnumbering the Richard Hendricks.)

~~~
stale2002
Indeed.

As bad as the current supervisors are, the former ones were a hundred times
worse as they opposed ALL development.

And because of the changing demographics of the city, the worse politicians
were voted out. Which basically proves my point.

And as demographics continue to change, the political power of this voting
Bloc will continue to improve as well.

Maybe in another decade this increase in voting power will allow us to vote in
politicians who are actually decent, as opposed to merely being less horrible
than previous ones.

Yes, techie voting power has fought off the worst of the problems, but we can
still continue to improve.

------
Roritharr
This is very interesting for me for a very different reason:

We're in Germany where this is taxed heavily. If you offer your employees free
meals, this becomes part of their taxable income, so you actually have to give
them a raise to even this out, and then you have employees that want to opt-
out to get the hands on that cash...

I always wondered how Google Germany deals with this. There is a minimum below
which it doesn't get taxed and specific items like coffee, water etc fall out
of this, but it blew my mind the first time I was trying to set something like
this up for our company.

~~~
ghein
It's taxable in the US as well.

There have been occasional attempts to enforce the law - IRS recently made
noises in 2014/15.

The challenge is that it's taxable to the employees but hard to track and
prove, it's for relatively little money per employee, and the firms argue that
it's for their benefit to secure information/improve productivity/build
cohesion...

Google can and will fight far harder than the IRS is willing to on this issue
and the IRS isn't entirely sure that they'd win. The IRS can spend resources
in places to make a much higher return with an almost certain chance of
success.

So no effective taxes on meals.

To make it happen in your company, follow the Google and Uber strategy. Just
do it and deal with the law later.

Your ability to pay any fines later may be different from Google's and the
chance that one of your employees will call the tax office on you may be
dramatically higher because Germany.

~~~
nashashmi
Free meals are considered income?

But free benefits are not considered income?

I don't see the difference between the two.

~~~
ghein
Most benefits are taxable at least in part.

Health is the most tax advantaged, and then retirement. Comes from WWII era
rules aimed to prevent wage increases.

------
optimusclimb
Man - California, specifically the Valley, is completely off its rocker when
it comes to policy making.

I really hope Amazon's new HQ helps pave the way to start de-centralizing the
tech industry from that one, overcrowded, and increasingly almost hostile
spot.

~~~
Shikadi
I'd just like to point out that Amazon HQ isn't in California, it's in
Washington over near Microsoft, separated by half of California and the state
of Oregon. Either way, I hope the same

~~~
scaryspooky
Poster you're replying to said 'new HQ' indicating their comment was about the
place Amazon is shopping to build, not their current Seattle HQ.

~~~
Shikadi
Right, but it sounded as if they were implying the old HQ was in Silicon
Valley. I'm sure that wasn't the intention, just clarifying for the
possibility of readers who may misinterpret.

------
justinzollars
I'm sorry but this is so f*cking stupid.

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.

~~~
DeepYogurt
If all tech workers went out for lunch every day that would be a huge boon to
the local low skill labor market.

~~~
dunpeal
So over 20,000 employees would leave the Googleplex every day at noon to get
lunch?

This just means the next massive campus complex will not open in Mountain
View. Big profitable companies and their hordes of tax paying employees will
go elsewhere, and definitely will not be supporting MTV's local businesses.

Welcome to the wonderful world of unintended consequences!

~~~
PretzelFisch
Is there anything stopping the next campus from opening a restaurant and not
charging their employees?

~~~
kamaal
Some thing exactly like that will happen.

 _" We don't serve free food to our employee, we charge $0.000001 per meal"._

------
tzs
I was not surprised when I read the headline, but I was surprised when I saw
the reason when I read the article.

I had expected it would be over taxes.

From the photos and description in the article and elsewhere, it looks like
you can get full meals for free, meals that would cost at least $10 if bought
at retail.

An employee who took two meals a day at the free company cafeteria every
working day would be getting a benefit worth almost $5000/year. That's
equivalent to something like an extra $8000/year salary.

I believe that food provided to employees is normally not taxable for the
employee, and is actually deductible as a business expense by the employer
(but I've not looked into how the recent major tax changes may have affected
that), but I think that was intended for things like where employees have to
remain available for emergencies during meal periods, or where meal breaks are
too short to allow employees time to go get food, and things like that.

The term of art is that the meals have to be provided for the employer's
convenience. In the short meal break case, for example, providing meals is for
the employer's convenience because it saves them from having to offer longer
meal breaks.

Meals offered for things like goodwill, morale, or attracting employees are
not considered to be for the employer's convenience, but are still OK if they
are de minimis. So things like donuts, soft drinks, meals when employees have
to take occasional overtime, the occasional company party or picnic, and
things like that are fine.

Putting in a cafeteria that offers free full meals to all employees all the
time probably is not de minimis. It may not actually violate tax laws, but if
it does not it is pushing the limits hard so I'd certainly not be surprised to
see attempts to crack down from that angle.

~~~
jacquesm
Except of course that the _value_ of the food is not $10 because it is not
being bought retail.

So the real value is probably more like $2, and even at two full meals per day
that would translate to 200 working days times $4 is about $800.

~~~
sonnyblarney
No, value is $10. Cost of ingredients $2. But 'making a nice dish and serving
it is labour intensive' and so that brings it up to $9, the remaining $1 would
be the profit of the restaurant.

A better way to think of it would be how much it would cost otherwise, and
it's $10. So the calculation of annual value is pretty much there.

~~~
Dylan16807
A cafeteria with a ton of business and no need to advertise can probably cut
those costs by a couple more dollars though.

------
gnicholas
This was covered by the local news [1] and the city council member who was
interviewed said:

> _“We felt the employees who work there should be able to patronize the
> businesses—the smaller businesses—in this shopping center”_

Employees already have the _ability_ to patronize these businesses. This law
is about compelling patronage.

1: [https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/New-Facebook-
Offices-M...](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/New-Facebook-Offices-
Means-New-Business-for-Mountain-View-Restaurants-488948401.html)

~~~
sverige
Yes, compelling people to buy things that ought to be a personal and private
decision is a very popular policy position for governments to take in recent
years.

~~~
toomanybeersies
The government isn't compelling you to go to the local shopping centre. You
can still order off Amazon.

~~~
emilfihlman
Still.

But given this, can you say it will be for long?

------
post_break
This reminds me of the Steve Blank story about when companies stop giving out
free soda: [https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-
ear...](https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-
earth-%E2%80%93-soda%E2%80%99s-are-no-longer-free/)

~~~
0003
Came for this link.

------
kyleblarson
Much easier for city councils to virtue signal on non issues rather than
tackling the sea of needles and shit on their sidewalks.

------
carbocation
This feels politically coherent: it strikes a populist chord, but just
furthers the rent-seeking interests in the area. It's of the same ilk as
NIMBYism, but this time, it's a different form of rent.

~~~
ghein
Note that the Golden Gate Restaurant Association supported the 2 supervisors
who introduced the measure and has provided quotes as to how good an idea it
is.

No one has mentioned the jobs to be destroyed in catering, nor the fact that
catering jobs pay far better than restaurants for all the people making the
food!

------
DannyBee
Since the article doesn't have it that i saw, here's the text of the facebook
development condition in san antonio center:

""CAFETERIA CONDITION: In order to foster synergy between office, restaurant,
and retail uses in the Center and realize the economic vitality of the
project, the project anticipates employees in the office space will utilize
food and retail services available in the Center. The applicant will encourage
tenants and employees of tenants to utilize food and retail services available
in the Center. Neither the applicant nor tenant(s) will subsidize meals by
more than fifty percent (50%) or provide free meals for employees in the
office space on a regular daily basis. An employer can subsidize or pay for
employee meals as long as they are patronizing restaurants in the Center.

In addition: The applicant may make a request to amend this condition. The
City Manager or a designee may make a recommendation to the City Council on
this matter."

------
acchow
Laughable. Do these politicians think that the food is conjured out of thin
air with magic?

These cafeterias are located in the city (just like a restaurant would be),
creating jobs in the city (just like a restaurant would), paying good wages
and benefits to these people (unlike most restaurants would).

~~~
knuththetruth
>paying good wages and benefits to these people

Absurdity of this proposal aside, most food service workers in these
cafeterias are contractors who are not paid well and receive shitty, if any,
benefits.

~~~
srinivasan
How does working at a cafeteria provider like Bon Appetit compare to working
at a restaurant? By that I mean a place where office workers are likely to get
lunch daily, where the typical lunch costs <$10.

Also consider that workplace cafeteria jobs generally have fixed schedules
with weekends off.

~~~
toomanybeersies
Never worked at a mass catering company like Compass Group myself, but I know
people who have. They are terrible places to work compared to a restaurant.

The smaller catering companies, with <30 employees aren't usually too
different from a restaurant, but the big ones are run by corporate bean
counters, where everything and everyone is just a number in a spreadsheet.

I guess it's no different from your local mom & pop Italian restaurant vs
Olive Garden in that respect though.

------
Johnny555
If cities want employees to patronize local businesses, they they should start
providing enough housing so employees can live near work. Stop forcing
employees to live 30 miles away by restricting housing and then complain "But
why won't they shop here!?"

~~~
TomMarius
No, they should stop getting in the way of housing. Definitely not provide it,
that's just calling for a catastrophe as we can see from policies like this
one.

~~~
Johnny555
I didn't mean "provide" as in the city building housing themselves, but meant
"provide" as in to make planning decisions that allow developers to build
higher density housing, especially near existing transit.

~~~
TomMarius
Oh, okay. Many people actually think the government should be the organization
that builds and then provides housing. :-/

------
dev_dull
These cities really are trying their hardest to kill their golden goose.

~~~
commandlinefan
Yeah, really. Big tech companies, come down here to Texas. With your well-
above-market-average salaries and free food.

~~~
sidlls
And regressive state politics and terrible culture and weather. Tech companies
hiring in Texas is a negative signal.

~~~
dev_dull
Regressive is in the eye of the beholder.

~~~
sidlls
A state that thrives on the glorification of implements of violence, considers
the health of women and sexuality to be subordinate to religious beliefs, and
education a luxury is one I'd consider regressive. Others certainly disagree:
I would not want to live in communities where their voice has any political
power, and the feeling is probably mutual. So this negative signal is a win-
win.

------
im3w1l
I can kind of see where Mountain View is coming from, basically the "San
Antonio Center" (if you didn't read the article, MV is only applying the
restriction in that particular place, not in the whole MV) is one of two
places in MV with some life and bustle (it's kinda the day destination, having
a bunch of grocery shops as well as a walmart, kohls and target and the other
is kind of the night destination, being more focused around restaurants and
nightclubs), and if they allow some big company to have their own cafeterias
and self-segregate it could risk killing the life of the place.

One thing they should do in my opinion is make the place more pedestrian
friendly. Maybe they could replace the big parking lots that create sprawl
with denser garages?

~~~
lern_too_spel
Why would it risk killing the life of the place? The people who already eat
lunch there will still eat lunch there. This is simply a money grab by the
people who happen to already be there, just like Prop 13 and rent control.

~~~
bobthepanda
Large employers moving in and increasing land value would also increase the
rent that a commercial landlord could get for offices vs. restaurants.
Restaurants get no upside to this since it's very hard to compete with free.
And this is before we consider that new companies moving in with free
cafeterias could be replacing old companies with no free cafeterias.

------
United857
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.

------
grahamburger
A place that I worked (not in the bay area) had a cafeteria where employees
could eat one meal for free per workday by using a meal ticket. They also cut
deals with nearby restaurants so the meal tickets could be used as basically
$5 vouchers at the restaurants. That seemed like an OK compromise. Not sure
how it worked behind the scenes.

~~~
optimusclimb
Why should there even be a "compromise"?

My employer gives me free health care. Should that be restricted so I have to
spend my own dollars and not get the benefit of a group plan?

Should employers not be allowed to give a transit subsidy because it hurts
Lyft/Uber?

Maybe tech companies should not be allowed to offer stock based compensation
because it's unfair to other city residents who work jobs without such things.

~~~
scarface74
_My employer gives me free health care._

Your health care is not “free” it’s part of your compensation where the
employer gets to choose how you’re compensated. I get healthcare via my wife’s
insurance and I would much rather have the money.

In a sane society, your health care wouldn’t be tied to your employer.

~~~
optimusclimb
It's "free" in the same sense that the food is.

~~~
iamdave
Contesting this on the grounds that until a line-item on my paystub starts
showing up for the cost of a free lunch, I don't think they're comparable at
all.

~~~
Noumenon72
The line-item on your pay stub was a mandate from Obamacare for price
transparency. Prior to that the employer contribution for healthcare did not
appear.

~~~
jessaustin
"Trumpfeed" will probably have a similar requirement...

------
sonnyblarney
My bet is that it makes no difference.

FB workers are rich, and they'll not want to eat every day in the caf, and
they'll be out and about as much as they would otherwise.

The alternative won't be 'restos' it will be 'the microwave'.

~~~
beenBoutIT
It's going to make a huge difference in terms of FB's appeal to potential
employees. Who wants to work at FB if it means that you'll have to waste time
and energy figuring out what to do for lunch every day?

~~~
lovich
I dont think that's considered a deal breaker for most people, or even a major
consideration

~~~
tananaev
If two companies offer offer same salary and similar in every other sense, but
one doesn't offer free food, I will choose one that does. If the company that
doesn't offer food has +$20 salary per day, I would probably still choose one
with food. It's easier, more convenient and probably healthier as well.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"If two companies offer offer same salary and similar in every other sense,
but one doesn't offer free food, I will choose one that does."

... but in reality there are hardly any jobs that are so directly equal.

I used to always 'go for the money' when I was younger, but now ... all the
other factors matter so much. Just the temperament of your direct reports
matter so much. One fewer headache a week? What's that worth? A lot :)

Meals are a nice thing, but relatively small in the equation, at least
compared to all the things related to the job ... and I find the food more a
matter of convenience than anything. Personally, I'd be happy with free
microwave burritos on those 'I'm busy' days, but that's just me.

~~~
genocidicbunny
I would argue that figuring out where to go for lunch, getting there, waiting
in line with the dozens if not more other people who had a similar hankering,
getting my food, eating in a crowded area or taking it back to work, are way
more than one headache a week. I would consider that a daily migraine. In
fact, that was my daily migraine before I just stopped going out for lunch
altogether.

Free food isnt just about the food. Its also the convenience. I already have
to fight traffic getting to work, and I fight through the crowds any time I go
shopping or anywhere remotely popular in the area. Having to deal with that
madness in the middle of a work day when I just want a meal would certainly be
a dealbreaker for me.

And from my understanding, you wouldn't get any free microwave burritos --
those would be illegal.

------
rpearl
All the ripple effects of this are so poorly thought out. There'd be
environmental effects--all that takeout is going to come in disposable
containers instead of reusable plates. There'd be delivery congestion--
personal delivery and catering increases. There's the fact that you're just
putting tech kitchen workers out of a steady, consistent job (not to mention,
those workers don't rely on tips!). And then at the end of the day, most
people aren't going to go to sit-down restaurants to spend $20 on a sandwich
in SF; they're just going to bring food from home.

~~~
null000
> putting tech kitchen workers out of a steady, consistent job

From what I understand, pretty much 100% of the work is fulfilled by
contractors. While I could be wrong, that's not what I would call a "steady,
consistent job"

------
derekdahmer
Honestly the most offensive part of this is the tired Silicon Valley
stereotype that tech workers don't "participate in the local economy" or
"interact with their community".

The people I know in SF tech take BART, grocery shop, buy coffee, go to bars,
go out for dinner, buy clothes, buy and sell on craigslist, hang out in parks,
play soccer, bike, go dancing, date, have kids, etc, all in their city just
like everyone else.

We are not that different from any other professional industry and shouldn't
let people imply that we somehow contribute less to this city.

~~~
sj123
This! When tech workers make up more than an eighth of the city's population
and are some of the biggest local tax contributors as well.

------
kazinator
> _San Francisco Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech
> companies ..._

... while they hand out hundreds of thousands of free needles that end up on
the street, among shit.

~~~
toomanybeersies
I live in one of the heroin hotspots of Australia, where they hand out free
needles like candy.

It's better than the alternative, which is people sharing needles and giving
each other all sorts of diseases.

Not only do they hand out free needles though, but also free sharps
containers, and there are needle disposal bins all over the place for users to
drop their used needles in.

I'm not sure how they convinced all the heroin users to dispose of their
needles correctly, but they've done a fairly good job. It's rare for me to see
a needle on the street.

------
htmlfan
Can everyone in this thread stop assuming Facebook employees are rich? There
are plenty of non-engineering employees who make $50K for example and the free
meals offer a huge benefit to them and even their families.

------
pascalxus
So, are tech companies going to finally leave the bay area or what? I can see
we're not welcome here.

------
kup0
I don't see any positive outcome to policy that tries to _restrict_ benefits
companies can offer? In a nation where many companies don't offer the greatest
benefits anyway, it seems rather atrocious.

I get that this is localized in an area that has companies that probably offer
better benefits than most others, but the idea of restricting benefits at all
seems ludicrous to me

~~~
smsm42
This is especially funny if one remembers the genesis of fringe benefits in
the US. Those proliferated after, in the years of WWII, the government moved
to cap salaries paid by companies. The companies, looking to attract best
workers, started to offer a variety of fringe benefits - health insurance,
lodging, life insurance, free food, free clothes ("uniform"), etc.

The regulation treadmill never stops, there's always a need to introduce new
regulation to fix things broken by the previous regulation.

------
chatmasta
Can anyone comment on the legality of this? IANAL and it’s just a feeling, but
it seems like this must be unconstitutional somehow?

~~~
DannyBee
It's likely legal for states to do it It would not be legal for the feds.

There are fun loopholes though. Here's the text of the condition for facebook.

"CAFETERIA CONDITION: In order to foster synergy between office, restaurant,
and retail uses in the Center and realize the economic vitality of the
project, the project anticipates employees in the office space will utilize
food and retail services available in the Center. The applicant will encourage
tenants and employees of tenants to utilize food and retail services available
in the Center. Neither the applicant nor tenant(s) will subsidize meals by
more than fifty percent (50%) or provide free meals for employees in the
office space on a regular daily basis. An employer can subsidize or pay for
employee meals as long as they are patronizing restaurants in the Center.

In addition: The applicant may make a request to amend this condition. The
City Manager or a designee may make a recommendation to the City Council on
this matter."

So for example:

Facebook could open a restaurant in the center. If it does, it cannot legally
choose to discriminate in who they serve (in california, anyway. In a lot of
states you often can).

It can, however, legally price discriminate in various ways (AFAIK, if someone
has case law otherwise, love to see it). This is in fact, quite common.

So for example, it could charge the public that walks in 1 million a meal. It
could offer advance tickets to employees at no charge, and no one else.

This is also non-discriminatory on the basis of race, color, religion, or
national origin (which is what the 1964 civil rights act covers), disabilities
(covering the ADA), etc.

I don't believe it would be found discriminatory to a protected class in most
states (a lot of states add political affiliation, etc).

(this is just an example, and one i'm sure the IRS would have fun with :P)

~~~
lainga
There's a law in certain states that you can't serve alcohol in an
establishment that doesn't also serve food. So, many breweries have tasting
rooms where at the bottom of the menu, it makes it clear that, by law, they
are required to have a food section - with a single token item which they will
serve you, like a Pizza Pop or a single M&M - with jocular disdain.

------
ajmurmann
Techies in the Bay area need to get more involved in local politics. They are
what makes the area tick and without them nobody would give a shit about the
area. This finally need to get reflected in local politics, not nimby and
keeping crap like it was in the seventies. Let's build that damn city from
Blade Runner!

------
augbog
I want to say this is the least rude way but I'll just say it -- this really
seems like an oversight of local restaurants being unable to adapt to the
market they have. It's similar to how certain stores who failed to realize
online retail failed.

Right now, with tech it's heavily favored toward catered food which local
restaurants don't necessarily specialize in. At my start up we have a generic
catering company that will have a rotating meal each day. It's cost-effective
and still good quality food and removes the hassle of our Workplace Services
from figuring out what food we should get next time.

If local restaurants could adapt to such a model and made more of an effort to
advertise toward their market and perhaps arrange a monthly catered meal or
something of the sort, they might see themselves doing better.

~~~
null000
> this really seems like an oversight of local restaurants being unable to
> adapt to the market they have

I mean, how are you supposed to compete against cafeterias that get to
literally embed themselves in a campus?

> At my start up we have a generic catering company that will have a rotating
> meal each day

FWIU that would still be allowed under the rules everyone's complaining about.

------
ropans808
This is very interesting, I had never considered the impact free food at a
large office has on its surroundings. The legislation certainly sounds
backwards, but to me the situation is reminiscent of a company using profits
from one sector to subsidize another, in order to drown out competitors in
that space. I don't think Facebook is actually trying to kill off restaurants,
but this is definitely how you would do it in an anti-competitive way.

~~~
GordonS
I don't see what's anticompetitive about it - surely they buy the food they
give out from local retailers?

~~~
sundaeofshock
A food wholesaler and a restaurant are two entirely different businesses.

~~~
patejam
I think the idea is that it's still a local business that handles it. And it's
locals who are hired to prepare the food, just like a local restaurant.

------
ksec
How about Tech companies spin out their Cafe and require their worker to pay
for it?

The companies would have owned the property, and making the meal cost at least
30% cheaper.

~~~
adt2bt
That's pretty similar to what Microsoft does with its myriad Cafés on campus.
The food seemed cheaper than a restaurant, as if they charge for labor +
ingredients. You could only order there as an employee or guest of an
employee, though.

------
nissimk
Folks, these companies can still offer free food. At smaller companies in NY
that don't have a cafeteria but want to keep the employees in for lunch they
give out a seamless allowance. It works quite well. Not sure if it would scale
to an office with thousands of workers but it probably could. Some places also
order catering from local food vendors.

------
neap24
So, let me get this straight. Bay Area creates legislation like building
codes, permitting, increased minimum wage etc. that makes it very expensive to
open and run a restaurant. That is probably reflected in the food prices,
which makes subsidized food at work an attractive perk. To counteract this
problem, even more legislation is proposed.

------
dmode
This title is a little hyperbolic. There has exactly been two proposals. One
in Mountain View, that only applies to a single office development. That also
doesn't ban office cafeterias, but limits subsidies. The other one is in
proposal stages in SF, which is a regulatory capture by the local restaurant
industry. Unlikely to pass

------
catpawsandwich
I'll end this by saying "this is so f*cking stupid."

It is not the problem of the business that decides to plant itself in a
location and provide food first off. All the vendors of that location are
privy to supply... unless this large corp has signed a contract with a
specific vendor.

However, if they did, the individual food vendor would never know because it
would be like the corp planned to not make a footprint. So they just provided
food. nbd. So they did not hurt the local market and keeping it inward.

So now outside food vendors are irritated because a precaution was put in
place to not affect them, but "an unknown - of growing" got too big and now
they feel they can't survive next to their neighbor. --Valid point. So how do
we as big corps help the neighbor... and this is not just about food.

------
beamatronic
There is a lot of good food in this area (San Antonio shopping center in
Mountain View), places that would draw the workers on their own merits anyway.
Sajj, Chef Chu’s, Dittmers, Mamacitas food truck, Paul Martin, Pacific Fresh,
several pho places, I could go on.

~~~
lern_too_spel
Exactly. A big tech office next door will only give them nore customers than
they have already, even if the office has its own cafeteria. Why are they
forcing _everybody_ to leave their office to eat?

------
harlanji
If I read correctly, Alphabet can just add another letter that's a catering
company with a commercial kitchen and bring all the meals in on trucks.
"Startups" don't have their own food preparation operations as-is, they use
catering or similar food delivery which seem unaffected. Maybe the people
affected don't realize that. More demand from those services might even make
them cheaper as more players enter the space. I don't see who loses, unless
"kitchen" extends all the way down to stocked pantries and dish washers.

No opinions of my own offered here. I've enjoyed offices with and without meal
options in SoMa and around the Bay.

------
panzagl
This is how businesses get driven to the suburbs.

~~~
seehafer
That is the usual refrain from the "die techie scum" SF denizens: "go back to
the suburbs!"

Unfortunately the suburbs are now hostile too:
[https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/New-Facebook-
Offices-M...](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/New-Facebook-Offices-
Means-New-Business-for-Mountain-View-Restaurants-488948401.html)

~~~
dunpeal
MTV isn't "hostile" to tech. It just got greedy and is trying to get more out
of its resident tech companies.

"So we have all these big tech companies opening offices in our town... How do
we get more out of them... Let's force their employees to buy their food in
local stores by banning free food... Let's tax them a bit more..."

Etc.

This will work in the short term, especially when some of these rules only
apply to new offices.

It will fail on the long term, as more and more companies question the wisdom
of setting up shops in the Valley and California in general, and move to
locations with much lower tax and restrictions, such as Austin TX.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>It will fail on the long term, as more and more companies question the wisdom
of setting up shops in the Valley and California in general, and move to
locations with much lower tax and restrictions, such as Austin TX.

But that will only last a decade or two before they turn Austin (or wherever)
into SF 2.0 and all the business goes elsewhere.

~~~
dunpeal
> But that will only last a decade or two before they turn Austin (or
> wherever) into SF 2.0 and all the business goes elsewhere.

I don't think local government in Texas is as amenable to well-meaning but
ultimately intrusive and disruptive policies like in Northern California.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
By the time Austin is SF2.0 local government in Austin will be made up of all
the same clowns that make up local government in SF. CA was like Texas once
upon a time.

~~~
dunpeal
You think? In my opinion, it's the manifestation of the hippy culture of the
60s and 70s.

California was never a hands-off state, never had the hands-off tradition that
Texas had.

I don't see any reason to expect that the same stuff would happen in TX.

~~~
shiftpgdn
Austin was the hippy central of Texas until the tech boom.

~~~
dunpeal
Different kind of hippies, I believe.

------
taf2
Wow what in the crazy head reason did they have to not want to allow companies
to offer free food?? The impact of this would be more traffic at lunch time
right and didn’t the Bay Area already have terrible traffic ?

------
catpawsandwich
Everyone knows that while deep in code, running out to get food wastes a
shitload of time. 30min travel. 15min to eat(best case if rushing)worse if
farther. These Golden Gate Restaurant Association people do not have any
observation of that because they do not code on a regurlar basis. Not to
mention, the 15 mins lost by distraction. So much wasted time because they
can't get their restaurant into a cafeteria. Did they offer to vendor to the
cafeteria? How were they doing before the cafeteria showed up. I'm sure they
were doing just the same.

------
urda
Bay Area should focus on fixing the housing crisis, homeless issue, traffic
congestion, and a dying BART system.

But at the same time, I'm not shocked. This is a classic California move and
government overstep.

------
vzaliva
Cracking down on cafeterias might bring some business to the restaurants, but
it takes away business from people running these cafeterias: cooks, cleaning
staff, grocery delivery, etc. Most of these people are local. So it is
basically re-distribution of income between two different groups of Mountain
View residents and as such is pretty pointless, economically.

P.S. I work at MTV area and finding parking at lunch is already a challenge.
With the influx of Facebook lunchgoers, it will become impossible to park in
downtown.

------
buss
This is pure political theater and a distraction from real issues. This has
two possible outcomes:

1\. The "Progressive" majority on the Board of Supervisors passes it and Mayor
Breed vetoes it, giving Progressives yet another "you're a shill for big
tech!" line of attack

2\. It doesn't make it out of committee and everybody quickly forgets what an
ass Aaron Peskin is

Just ignore it and donate to reform-minded leaders like Theo Ellington, Sonja
Trauss, and Christine Johnson.

------
throwaway426079
Does anyone know if the government tried to get any of the companies to try to
partner with local food places? Like grahamburger mentioned in their post?

~~~
plorkyeran
Most of the companies which provide free lunches _do_ partner with local food
places.

------
contingencies
Total cost to businesses is huge.

Assume you have employees on an average salary of USD$140K (example round
figure) doing 7 hours work with 1 hour for lunch.

Ignoring the staggering environmental impact, if you lose an extra 30 minutes
(1/14th of the 7 hour work day) because of transport and parking bullshit due
to this new rule, then you are effectively losing USD$10K per annum per
employee.

------
stretchwithme
Maybe its time for companies to consider building cities that just serve their
needs and that are connected to existing cities by high speed rail. Build the
housing too.

You can't really do that in the coastal areas but maybe inland or in states
like Arizona or New Mexico. Put it all under a solar dome so you can control
the heat. Okay, maybe that's too much :-)

------
danmg
Now the perk will be $1 meals instead of free.

------
sabujp
What's stopping FB from ordering catering and pre-packaged meals for their
employess from one of these large contract companies : [https://www.food-
management.com/top-50-contract-companies](https://www.food-
management.com/top-50-contract-companies) ?

------
satsuma
as someone who works in a place a solid few miles from restaurants, and has a
break room with a few microwaves/a toaster oven as well as a vending machine
with gas station tier food... how common are workplace cafeterias like this?
is it just sv megacompanies or is it smaller firms across the country?

~~~
bkmartin
I work for a medium sized company in the commercial insurance space in PA. We
have a cafeteria. They do charge for meals, but we have access to unlimited
drinks. I think larger companies in general will have a cafeteria of some
kind, but free food is very much a perk of software companies on the whole, I
do believe.

~~~
satsuma
i don't even mind charging for meals, but not having to spend most of my lunch
break driving for easy food would be a huge plus. guess i know what to look
for once i graduate.

~~~
stevenwoo
I've worked in a lot of places with cafeterias in the Bay Area and we still
went out to eat a few times a week for variety, a change of pace and to
satisfy a desire for some food that was not available or much higher quality
than the cafeterias, and since we commuted together from/to restaurants, it
was more time spent socializing with coworkers and getting out of the office
and getting some sun and fresh air. In my opinion so it might not matter to
everyone, it's kind of a waste to live here with this fantastic weather 9-10
months a year and not spend some of that time outdoors, even during the work
day.

------
gnopgnip
More specifically they are prohibiting on site kitchens. They are not
prohibiting free food that is catered.

------
torgian
This is a good thing if done correctly. Companies could potentially use free
food and other facilities (at the company) as an excuse to give a lower wage.
There’s also perceived pressure to stay late and work. Why go home when you
have everything you need at work?

------
justizin
I can see the motivation here for the SF legislation, it _is_ problematic that
we tend not to leave the office for lunch, but there are some major issues
that the author, Asha Safai, has clearly missed:

    
    
      (a) Twitter, Google, Facebook, and Genentech are grandfathered into their cafeterias, and it's fairly unlikely any other companies will build cafeterias.
      (b) This is partially because most companies are too small for a dedicated cafeteria, so they use a catering service like ZeroCater, which source most meals from local restaurants that don't do much or any lunch service.
      (c) There are other companies like Gap, which have a cafeteria largely because there is nothing near their office but parking lots, and they are next to UCSF which certainly has at least one cafeteria at that location.
    

I think there is work to be done here, I think that this _does_ tie into other
problems like housing and general rent, but I don't think it's a good solution
to it.

One of the major ways this misses the boat is that there are lower paid
employees in tech companies, often contractors, who have access to free food
in ways that substantially makes life more affordable for them. So yes,
engineers pulling six figures are maybe given a little toooo much perks, but
when that is spread around, I'm strongly in favor of it. There are people in
these tech offices making not much more than minimum wage, and I'm not just
talking about janitorial and maintenance staff - I'm talking about CS, QA, UX
contractors and all manner of other office work.

Safai is not really a progressive, so he's probably come up with this idea to
overcompensate for that and appeal to progressives. This doesn't really sound
like Aaron Peskin, either, who mostly works to coalition build and is
primarily focused on housing policy.

I would suspect that Peskin is supporting this to get Safai to work with him
on some other bill, and that he expects it to fail.

~~~
smokey_the_bear
I worked at Genentech in 2004. My recollection is that there are zero
restaurants nearby, and that I had to park in garage and then ride a shuttle
to the office due to limited parking. Not having the excellent cafeteria would
have been a hassle there.

------
elheffe80
If it were my company- everything would be $0.01, thus not free. Stupid rule.

------
imh
If they do this for food, they should do it for coffee. Even more companies
have free coffee than have free food. Just think of all the new cafes that
could survive and the jobs that would add! \s

------
FrozenVoid
This ridiculous law can be easily bypassed with vending machines and food
delivery directly to office(doesn't even have to be out of building, making
food on-site is not illegal).

------
benkarst
This is the beginning of the end for SF. Now that the techies are forced to
experience the third world standards of the city, they will move to more
habitable cities, like Detroit.

------
mesozoic
So from reading the regulation it appears Facebook can just open a public
restaurant in the center. Charge $200 per meal but subsidize it completely for
their own employees.

------
flak48
So catering industry workers' (and tech) jobs are less important than
restaurant workers jobs - according to California city councils.

------
mesozoic
As someone not in Bay Area I find it hilarious. As someone who may have to
move there it's enraging.

------
jiveturkey
one zoned development decision made 4 years ago, and one new proposal now is a
crackdown? please.

------
hithereagain
Aren't these free meals essentially untaxed compensation for employees?

------
StClaire
Could tech companies charge a penny and take it out of employees paychecks?

------
really3452
Ummm, just pack a lunch? Really, why would you spend a bunch of time in the
middle of your work day to go out for lunch. I just want to get my work done
so I can enjoy rest of the day. Seriously, on days I forget to bring lunch I
just skip it and eat later, no big deal.

------
WalterBright
"cracking down" ??

They aren't doing anything wrong.

------
mycodebreaks
But, doesn't this contradict the spirit of free markets?

~~~
noarchy
Do you think that matters one bit to those who advocate for these kinds of
measures? Not everyone is a proponent of free markets, and some of them are in
positions of power - and this kind of measure should illustrate that in
abundance.

------
pjspycha
Cannot bundle a free meal with your job because it's abusing your position to
stifle competition. I jest but I imagine it may be hard for some restaurants
to open and offer lunch menu's in these areas.

------
kirubakaran
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

------
seanhandley
Another victory for the bag lunch.

------
exabrial
"The restriction aims to increase business for local food retailers."

Wow. Incredibly corrupt. I'm guessing next lunch boxes are going to be banned?

~~~
jorts
The stupid thing is that most of the tech companies, outside of the giant
ones, get their food from local retailers.

~~~
gregschlom
This proposal would ban the construction of office cafeterias so if you're
just serving free catered food (which is what most small and medium companies
do, I'd guess) it's fine.

~~~
gesman
Exactly. Why waste space for cafeteria. I like to eat at my desk anyways.

------
mnm1
Talk about fascist capitalism. If I ran these companies I'd make everything
cost one cent and have a giant barrel of pennies just sitting around with
"take what you need" written in it. It's not free anymore. Problem solved.

~~~
idbehold
That's taxable income then, no?

~~~
dragonwriter
Yes, the penny-per-meal charge would be a tiny amount of income which,
presuming deductible business expenses did not increase to absorb it, would be
subject to corporate income tax (which is really a retained profits tax.)

None of the companies involved are even going to notice it.

~~~
xienze
No, it’s the value of the free meals that’s considered taxable income. IIRC
there was already a controversy about this a couple years ago. Employees
getting the equivalent of what, $20 in free food every day? That adds up to
real money.

~~~
dragonwriter
The decision to charge a penny by the company doesn't change that in any
meaningful way, AFAICT, so it may be a tax issue for employees, but it doesn't
seem relevant to the proposal that was being discussed.

------
beenBoutIT
California's found a unique way to incorporate only the shitty parts of
European socialism without adding in any of the massive benefits. We get the
same high taxes and restrictive overreaching laws without any of the free
healthcare, free university tuition, or pension plans.

~~~
21
How is this European socialism? I'm unaware of such restriction in Europe.
Also, the zoning rules in most of Europe are much saner.

------
Sushi-san
This reminds me of WeWork's company-wide ban of meat for employees.

