It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

San Francisco Weighs Ban On Employee Cafeterias: Eat Lunch With The Rest Of Us

page: 13
55
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




. I may know why they're so obsessed with Russia, however. It seems these dirty socialists want to out-Soviet the former USSR, in terms of repressive policies and retaliatory politics.


You're not far from wrong, but have you ever taken a look at the connections between previous iterations of the Progressive movement and the German Nazi party of WWII and afterwards? No one was more anti-Russian than the Nazi's.

And yet, they call the Conservatives in the US Nazi's................misdirection much?

And what were the Nazi's modeled on? Mussolini Fascism. So my question, who's the real Fascists in all this?




posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Chance321




And just would you do with someone who doesn't want to be forced?


Sick the FBI on them with manufactured evidence until they're beaten in to submission.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: JBurns




. I may know why they're so obsessed with Russia, however. It seems these dirty socialists want to out-Soviet the former USSR, in terms of repressive policies and retaliatory politics.


You're not far from wrong, but have you ever taken a look at the connections between previous iterations of the Progressive movement and the German Nazi party of WWII and afterwards? No one was more anti-Russian than the Nazi's.

And yet, they call the Conservatives in the US Nazi's................misdirection much?

And what were the Nazi's modeled on? Mussolini Fascism. So my question, who's the real Fascists in all this?

I think it was Joseph Goebbels who said to accuse your opponent of what you do yourself. These days, that's the Democratic Party's go-to tactic.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Great post. Wish I could give you more then one star for that.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Chance321

Their ultimate plan is to start a civil war in order to justify a crack-down by a prospective socialist controlled government. Only problem is that our peaceful conservative/libertarian revolution (that took both houses of congress, the SCOTUS, the WH and the majority of state governments) threw a wrench in their plans

NOW what they need is to spark a dirty socialist revolution in order to first come to power and then take to their professed goals of "making us pay" for totally rejecting their make-believe politics and ideals.

Most worthless and non-thinking group of "people" I've ever laid eyes on.
Traitors to our flag, our country, our people and our Constitution. Shame on them. SHAME


Great post, I agree with every word of it. The way things are going it seems like they are working overtime trying to get civil war started. Attacks on the Right daring to stage peaceful protests only to have the left show up and incite violence, ect.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Sick the FBI on them with manufactured evidence


Yeah, that sounds about right. Actually, they don't even really need proof, just the "allegation" that you did this or that.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Annee

You really don't see any issues with this?

Having argued with you more than once over the past decade, I know you're smarter than this...

How is this proposal a long term benefit to anyone? Short term, I suppose it's possible that the city would see a up tick in tax revenue--until people have to start leaving because it's become untenable financially, then this proposal become something of a liability. Just one more straw on an already over-burdened camel's back.


I laid out a scenario - - - how a town dies when a FWY is built - - - bypassing any reason to stop.

It is a simplistic logical viewpoint. It removes all the emotions and knee jerk reactions (no customers - no business).

I worked for Estée Lauder. The building was in an industrial area with no shops or restaurants. There was logical reason for this particular place to have an employee cafeteria.

I also worked in a high rise in downtown Los Angeles (years ago). There are still many hole-in-the-wall "mom-pop" businesses there. I enjoyed them. Enjoyed getting to know the people. Yes there were beggars and homeless people. The real world is not isolation in a high rise.

My childhood was in the 50s - - a neighborhood (Village) where everyone knew each other and watched out for each other.

Over time, there have been more and more apartments built, people are more transient - - people are becoming more isolated (The "Village" is a memory).

Isolationism creates division. More and more its becoming ME, ME, ME.

Is that really a good thing?



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Annee

You really don't see any issues with this?

Having argued with you more than once over the past decade, I know you're smarter than this...

How is this proposal a long term benefit to anyone? Short term, I suppose it's possible that the city would see a up tick in tax revenue--until people have to start leaving because it's become untenable financially, then this proposal become something of a liability. Just one more straw on an already over-burdened camel's back.


I laid out a scenario - - - how a town dies when a FWY is built - - - bypassing any reason to stop.

It is a simplistic logical viewpoint. It removes all the emotions and knee jerk reactions (no customers - no business).

I worked for Estée Lauder. The building was in an industrial area with no shops or restaurants. There was logical reason for this particular place to have an employee cafeteria.

I also worked in a high rise in downtown Los Angeles (years ago). There are still many hole-in-the-wall "mom-pop" businesses there. I enjoyed them. Enjoyed getting to know the people. Yes there were beggars and homeless people. The real world is not isolation in a high rise.

My childhood was in the 50s - - a neighborhood (Village) where everyone knew each other and watched out for each other.

Over time, there have been more and more apartments built, people are more transient - - people are becoming more isolated (The "Village" is a memory).

Isolationism creates division. More and more its becoming ME, ME, ME.

Is that really a good thing?



We all know isolationism isn't good, but also taking way freedoms isn't good either.

If someone builds a free way by my business and all my customers go away, then I move my business to another location. Simple.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

So..........I'm not entirely alone in making that connection!



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Annee

You really don't see any issues with this?

Having argued with you more than once over the past decade, I know you're smarter than this...

How is this proposal a long term benefit to anyone? Short term, I suppose it's possible that the city would see a up tick in tax revenue--until people have to start leaving because it's become untenable financially, then this proposal become something of a liability. Just one more straw on an already over-burdened camel's back.


I laid out a scenario - - - how a town dies when a FWY is built - - - bypassing any reason to stop.

It is a simplistic logical viewpoint. It removes all the emotions and knee jerk reactions (no customers - no business).

I worked for Estée Lauder. The building was in an industrial area with no shops or restaurants. There was logical reason for this particular place to have an employee cafeteria.

I also worked in a high rise in downtown Los Angeles (years ago). There are still many hole-in-the-wall "mom-pop" businesses there. I enjoyed them. Enjoyed getting to know the people. Yes there were beggars and homeless people. The real world is not isolation in a high rise.

My childhood was in the 50s - - a neighborhood (Village) where everyone knew each other and watched out for each other.

Over time, there have been more and more apartments built, people are more transient - - people are becoming more isolated (The "Village" is a memory).

Isolationism creates division. More and more its becoming ME, ME, ME.

Is that really a good thing?



We all know isolationism isn't good, but also taking way freedoms isn't good either.

If someone builds a free way by my business and all my customers go away, then I move my business to another location. Simple.



Taking Freedoms?

No - - I find that to be man made twisted logic in this case.

As I stated - - I worked in a place where it was necessary.

It is not a necessity of any kind in downtown San Francisco.

It creates a man made hierarchy of class division. At least see it for what it really is.

Eliminate the cost of a cafeteria and pay the workers more.



edit on 27-7-2018 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I guess it boils down to a very simple question... "Do Americans have the right to individually isolate themselves wherever possible, or do they not?"

As someone who thrives on isolation and is in no way fond of people, to the point of agoraphobia in many ways, I certainly don't think forced interaction and sardine canning is a good thing by any stretch.
edit on 27-7-2018 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Annee

I guess it boils down to a very simple question... "Do Americans have the right to individually isolate themselves wherever possible, or do they not?"

As someone who thrives on isolation and is in no way fond of people, to the point of agoraphobia in many ways, I certainly don't think forced interaction and sardine canning is a good thing by any stretch.


I thought it was the corporations that are creating the isolationism.

Just so ya know - - I was a Republican most of my life 40+ years (I'm sure today I'd be called a RINO).

I personally am a loner type. Most people annoy me. I have friends in groups that I choose to go to - - that I can go to alone and leave when I'm ready - - alone.

You can always bring food from home. Most businesses do have, at least a small, employee lunch room with a fridge and microwave.

I see this for what it is - - in how it affects the business community in the area.

Perhaps my view is broader to encompass the whole picture.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88

No they are trying to get people to go out and pay high dollar to eat at their bistros so restaurant owners are happy that's all it is.
Thing they don't consider is if you work in office it takes time to get out of building get to your car and then drive to restaurant then wait for order scarf down your food and then try to get back to work on time. It's unsafe and only helps out restaurants like McDonald's and in&out because they can sling food really fast.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: dug88

No they are trying to get people to go out and pay high dollar to eat at their bistros so restaurant owners are happy that's all it is.
Thing they don't consider is if you work in office it takes time to get out of building get to your car and then drive to restaurant then wait for order scarf down your food and then try to get back to work on time. It's unsafe and only helps out restaurants like McDonald's and in&out because they can sling food really fast.


Ha Ha!

I have a better Progressive idea: How about we force everyone who works in the area to buy city food stamps that can only be used for local food and if you don't buy enough in a month, you are fined!

I would make a fine Progressive.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

it will be an issue, as sometimes it is one of the perks of the job, that a company would provide a free lunch for its employees. The food may not be the best, or even great, but it beats having to pay for food. And it is a selling point for getting employees to want to work there.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
Most of my employment situations have involved having a 30 minute lunch, if I were supposed to go out and get lunch my time would be used up just coming and going..stupid f'n idea, they should worry about things that actually matter..like sh#t in the streets first maybe.


UK companies used to let people take flexitime - want a 1 hour lunchbreak, work an extra 30 minutes some other time. You could extend that to a couple of hours so long as you got someone else to cover for you. Admins, call centre and helpdesk staff loved that because they could go out shopping downtown, get their hair done, whatever... it was a perk of the job. Competition was fierce for a job in a city.

These days a lot of companies don't even like people going out for lunch for fear they might be sneaking off to an interview. Many even deliberately choose buildings in out of town industrial estates just to make sure this doesn't happen.
In San Francisco that's the way job moves are made. Meet friends for lunch and move to a new job.

I've worked for several companies and they were absolutely paranoid about employees socialising outside of work. They were the ones that had their own cafeterias.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I could imagine that a company cafeteria and free meals would brighten a lot of peoples days especially if the food is good.

In the army, the food was not the worst, but it was something to look forward to.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee

it will be an issue, as sometimes it is one of the perks of the job, that a company would provide a free lunch for its employees. The food may not be the best, or even great, but it beats having to pay for food. And it is a selling point for getting employees to want to work there.


That's the big issue. If you have a cafeteria with a full menu that they have no shortage of people wanting to work there. One company had difficulty recruiting people because they had a small overcrowded self-service kitchenette that served slices of bread, salami and freeze dried vegetables along with apple or orange juice. Once they moved to full menu cafeteria (chips, burgers, salad, pasta, macaroni, spaghetti, self made sandwiches with full selection of meat and cheese), they had no problem finding staff.

Some places just mixed mayonnaise with absolutely *everything*. Why? Because all the healthy options would go first, and people would complain about a lack of choice. So if they unhealthified everything the items wouldn't sell out and the shelves would have a full range all the time.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Look, it's pretty simple really: People who have a job, work, and struggle to make ends meet are successful, asshat conservitards who don't deserve anything free (especially food!), and should have any little perks given to them from their corporate Nazi maters stripped away to make things fair. Whereas, the poor, innocent, down trodden crack heads and tweakers who have never had a job deserve those meals and benefits since they provide society the greatest of services: waking up to suck up oxygen, steal, rob, and provide that much needed inner city concrete fertilizer.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee

it will be an issue, as sometimes it is one of the perks of the job, that a company would provide a free lunch for its employees. The food may not be the best, or even great, but it beats having to pay for food. And it is a selling point for getting employees to want to work there.


That's the big issue. If you have a cafeteria with a full menu that they have no shortage of people wanting to work there. One company had difficulty recruiting people because they had a small overcrowded self-service kitchenette that served slices of bread, salami and freeze dried vegetables along with apple or orange juice. Once they moved to full menu cafeteria (chips, burgers, salad, pasta, macaroni, spaghetti, self made sandwiches with full selection of meat and cheese), they had no problem finding staff.

Some places just mixed mayonnaise with absolutely *everything*. Why? Because all the healthy options would go first, and people would complain about a lack of choice. So if they unhealthified everything the items wouldn't sell out and the shelves would have a full range all the time.



I vote for better health insurance.

I remember when companies covered it 100% and insurance covered 100%.

I find your argument a bit silly. If a company's only gonna offer sandwiches - - why bother.

Have you experienced the gourmet food trucks lately?




top topics



 
55
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join