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: 14
55
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Hitler is alive and well in California!




posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Godwin's Law

Never fails



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

And if a perk to joining a company is free lunch, who are they to say I can't utilize it!??



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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?




UK has free health care. BUPA is optional. Our only option was to bring in our own meals or go to a truckers trailer a half mile away; hot dogs, greasy burgers and "We're proud of our squirt" authentic sauce.

The crazy thing is that less than three miles away are two empty multi-level office blocks surrounded by 70+ cafes, a train station and bus station with 10 minutes walking distance. Downtown has a farmers market. Both of those office blocks have been empty for years (no parking spaces).



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

The gourmet food truck here are NOT greasy spoons. Although, those still exist. Mostly Mexican food on the west coast. Which can be really good or really bad.

Gotta know your trucks.

They now have Facebook sites that tell you where they're gonna be parked each day.

The Kogi BBQ truck is a very popular one in Los Angeles.

roaminghunger.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   
No. Not ever.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Which is fine for those who eat out of "trucks" ........

Meanwhile, others will continue to enjoy a proper meal among others we voluntarily choose to be around



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.
Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.


en.wikipedia.org...


What we're seeing is soft despotism.



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Agreed!! The same ones who are typically guilty of the things they accuse us of doing.


Yet we conservatives/libertarians are the ones who maintain firearms, equipment and train (all self funded) to defend our nation against threats like Nazis. We are the party of liberty, freedom, voluntary association, voluntary participation, individual rights/expression and the Constitution.

They are the party of "use the State/threat of violence to MAKE people fall in line"

The true fascists/authoritarians/aka Jackboots are clear



posted on Jul, 28 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Annee

Which is fine for those who eat out of "trucks" ........

Meanwhile, others will continue to enjoy a proper meal among others we voluntarily choose to be around


You mean your co-workers?

I don't remember ever being able to choose my co-workers.

I did, however, get threatened with firing for hanging out with the Latino plant workers instead of "my kind".

edit on 28-7-2018 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


You mean your co-workers?

I don't remember ever being able to choose my co-workers.


Sure you can, work is voluntary and you can quit a job at any time to find another one/start your own business/take public money via benefits/etc. Of course that may not be practical (it isn't, I realize that) but there is no law forcing you to associate with anyone. You can go eat at another restaurant, in the parking lot, in your vehicle, at your home (if you live close by). You can choose to not eat at all. The point is that you have CHOICE, not some "government" arbitrarily forcing you to take some action under penalty of violence/death.

And you don't have to quit a job/be able to choose your co-workers to have the free choice of associating with one-another on a personal level. You can't force that or legislate it into existence. If you dislike someone you work with, you can largely ignore them and deal with them on a strictly professional basis if that is your choice.


I did, however, get threatened with firing for hanging out with the Latino plant workers instead of "my kind".


Well, that is a good example of poor management, a repressive policy and typical authoritarian BS. You should (and do legally) have the right to associate with whoever the heck you want

I don't have a problem with folks mixing and mingling and meeting others outside their traditional "castes." Diversity of opinion, of skills, of opinions and interests....all of those are good things. They stop being "good things" however the second some overreaching government comes along and decides to create a law FORCING you to arbitrarily associate (for reasons other than voluntary interest) under threat of violence by the state. That is untenable and unacceptable.

My problem isn't the net effect of this proposition. It is the fact that a free and sovereign people be forced to associate with others against their will under threat of violence/death by the repressive state.
That is a problem, and an immediate deal-breaker/game over/hard stop. Another way to say this is: "pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers" or "passing out blindfolds & cigarettes"


edit on 7/29/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Well there's a surprise. Authoritarianism and fascism showing up in a democrat/socialist controlled society.Who'dve thunk it?

Didn't they also just place a very serious penalty on the use of plastic straws while in the very same sitting openly state that they will not place any penalty on defecating in public? I'm pretty sure that's what I read. Made me want to pay someone to walk around sticking colored straws into piles of human fecal matter that can be found ALL OVER the city of Frisco. (16000 cases of humans dumping loads onto the sidewalk in a single week I believe) I'm sure they'd start taking notice of the problem then.

But now this new law works against them. (They're so low-iq that this never occured to them) Forcing people to go out into the city streets of San Fransisco will very very quickly result in a clash of 'classes' and expose the libs for their idiocy in allowing this type of society to develop.

One 'class' of people in the city openly support hygiene standards and believe that defecating needs to be done in a toilet, with a sewer system, and then flushed away where noone can LITERALLY stand in it while they're waiting for the 'truck' to give them food.

The other 'class' do not. And will drop trou wherever and whenever they feel the need to drop a big chocolate pudding, right on the sidewalk.

Now with this new law, some working class person will see the results of this practice, everywhere, and be very disgusted. So far entrenched in his white priveledge he will never have seen human waste all over the streets before and this 'issue' they're having will be headline news. Right around the time batsh*t Maxine Waters is starting her run for 2020.

(P.S. Please run Maxine Waters in 2020, please. If she's not available then please run anyone. Literally anyone. Whoever you guys pick it's going to be hilairious, I'm sure.)



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


You continue to personalize this - - in making it about those people in the "Ivory Tower".

I am seeing how it affects the local businesses.

Like what happens when a FWY kills a town along a main HWY. Kinda like Route 66.

Route 66 decertified


After 59 years, the iconic Route 66 enters the realm of history on this day in 1985, when the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials decertifies the road and votes to remove all its highway signs.

Measuring some 2,200 miles in its heyday, Route 66 stretched from Chicago, Illinois to Santa Monica, California, passing through eight states. According to a New York Times article about its decertification, most of Route 66 followed a path through the wilderness forged in 1857 by U.S. Navy Lieutenant Edward Beale at the head of a caravan of camels. Over the years, wagon trains and cattlemen eventually made way for trucks and passenger automobiles.

The idea of building a highway along this route surfaced in Oklahoma in the mid-1920s as a way to link the state to cities like Chicago and Los Angeles. Highway Commissioner Cyrus S. Avery touted it as a way of diverting traffic from Kansas City, Missouri and Denver. In 1926, the highway earned its official designation as Route 66. The diagonal course of Route 66 linked hundreds of mostly rural communities to the cities along its route, allowing farmers to more easily transport grain and other types of produce for distribution. The highway was also a lifeline for the long-distance trucking industry, which by 1930 was competing with the railroad for dominance in the shipping market. www.history.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak


But now this new law works against them. (They're so low-iq that this never occured to them) Forcing people to go out into the city streets of San Fransisco will very very quickly result in a clash of 'classes' and expose the libs for their idiocy in allowing this type of society to develop.


Yes, because their visions of "sunshine and rainbows" collapse in foolish naiveté


They truly have no concept of true diversity. They are so blinded by arbitrary divisions like gender, race, religion, etc while ignoring the true meaning of diversity: our differences, no one-size-fits-all.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


You continue to personalize this


Of course I am personalizing this, Laws affect individuals on a personal level


I am seeing how it affects the local businesses.


Sensible approach, and an important question indeed. But how much will it affect the individual employees, who will lose the benefit of free meals, etc? Americans (especially in CA urban areas) are taxed to death as it is already, what average working/middle class Citizen can afford to spare an extra $10-$15 per day for meals? You can't keep asking people to shell out more and more money, especially when they aren't seeing any returns.

Social security/medicare are on the brink of financial oblivion (per a recent report). Americans have less & less money for retirement, and the majority scrape by from pay-to-pay. I read a recent article that showed a plurality of Americans could not come up with $2000.00 in an emergency and that even more did not have 3-6 months of working wages saved for an unexpected illness/injury. All the big ideas are great, but they all leave out the most important question: where does the money come from? And since the government doesn't have money outside the funds provided by taxpayers, the real question is which group of Americans will you take from to fund "XYZ big idea" ?

Our people and this country can only take so much. You can only pay for things with someone else's money for so long, until those people finally wise up to the fact that around 40% of each pay-check goes to taxes and other government mandated "programs" - programs that importantly will most likely not be funded when the current working generation comes of age.

Helping and supporting small businesses is an important task. But we can't rob Peter to pay Paul, and certainly can't continue to increase the economic burden government/social programs place on hard-working Americans who Earn their wages



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: infolurker

You're link goes to a white nationalist blog (so you got that part right, I think) but it has nothing to do with your op story.

Of course, that didn't slow down the first few triggered reactionary comments so I think you're alright.

Jesus, you guys bark at whatever shadow you see these days.


The ironic thing here is that the legislation, which aims to prevent, or ban, large employers from offering free lunches to its employees (legislation with which I disagree), seeks to actually HELP the small business owners in town whose businesses are being negatively affected by this (losing business). And here I though the right was all about "small business owners."

It's simply about capitalism. Dog eat dog for me and mine.

Just another "Wah, gov't leave us alone" at anything that doesn't work out. So yes, barking at the nearest and first shadow to blame the libs and progs.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 05:23 PM
link   
At what point will we as a society collectively say that we already have enough laws and don't need anymore? Do we really need full time government officials whose jobs are to create laws anymore? How much of this is just "job security" these days, I've heard the average American commits 3 felonies a day, if we keep allowing things like this we'll all end up in prison some day.



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: stormcell

The gourmet food truck here are NOT greasy spoons. Although, those still exist. Mostly Mexican food on the west coast. Which can be really good or really bad.

Gotta know your trucks.

They now have Facebook sites that tell you where they're gonna be parked each day.

The Kogi BBQ truck is a very popular one in Los Angeles.

roaminghunger.com...


And how did you feel when someone told you what you could or couldn't do? The Democrats want to shove that leash so far up your butt, you wouldn't even have an original thought anymore.




top topics



 
55
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join