Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 546 posts

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#331

Post by wbl »

eropple wrote: post #83
wbl wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they given the gains to concentration? Other metro like Chicago and NYC do have tech offices.

Maybe to not effectively destroy cities and communities with CoL traps? Y'know. Basic "we are members of a society and should be working to make it better" stuff. (Shocking, I know, but there have been eras where even Big Businessmans thought about this.)

Uhm, you do know that CA housing supply has not grown nearly as fast as in other states? We are not keeping up with population growth. That's why CoL is high. What should be an easy deal of more tax dollars from the rich and services for the poor has become more money for landlords and evicting the poor.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#332

Post by talmand »

anigbrowl wrote: post #299
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hospital you might be denied visitation rights I don't understand this. If I turn up at the hospital you're in and claim you are my (opposite sex) spouse (with the same surname), do the hospital staff demand to see a certificate of marriage registration and then perform a search to ensure there is no state issued marriage annulment?

No, but consider the situation where A elopes with B (but doesn't get legally married) against the wishes of A's parents, and they have a child C. A tragic car accident puts A and C in the hospital but A is in a coma, and by the time B gets to the hospital A's parents are there and disputing B's eligibility to attend at the bedside of family members.

B should just respond with "those aren't my wife's parents, don't know who they are".

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#333

Post by 0xffff2 »

angersock wrote: post #324
SteveGerencser wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to allow employees to take home any food left over at the end of the day. Worked great for about 4 months. Then the food cost started creeping up, then it nearly exploded. Seems that the late shift discovered that if they simply made a lot of food right before closing they could take it home so it wouldn't be "wasted". You know it has gotten bad when people are starting to argue about who gets to work the clo…

So, how much were you paying your employees? Were you giving them enough hours? Were they getting tipped-out appropriately? People aren't shitty just to be shitty--there's usually a reason they find themselves taking advantage of a system.

>People aren't shitty just to be shitty

Eh, especially in the service industry I have found this untrue. Nowhere near a majority of people are shitty just to be shitty, but it really only takes a few.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#334

Post by wbl »

eropple wrote: post #106
selectodude wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those cities should stop destroying themselves and allow new construction.

Ah, yes. It's the cities' fault. Only the cities'. Not the people piling on top while knowing it's both untenable and unfair to their fellow citizens to piss in the public pool as they are--they're blameless. You know we can walk and chew gum at the same time, right?

Piling housing on top is exactly what is illegal.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#335

Post by uiri »

eitally wrote: post #318
derekdahmer wrote: post #195

> A spokeswoman for Facebook said none of the company’s contingent or contract workers have access to facilities such as clinics, gyms, or bring-your-child-to-work days One thing I liked about AirBnB was their entire staff including cafeteria workers and security guards were full-time employees who ate the same food, had access to the same facilities and events, and went through the first week 'bootcamp' alongside de…

I don't know if this was a special circumstance, but I shared a table with a security guard during my noogler orientation. That made a similar impact on me (and we stay in touch even now, actually). But, at Google, there is also a strong differentiation between full time employees and everybody else (temps, vendors, contractors), with clear and consistently impressed rules about what non-FTEs are allowed to see and d…

Security personnel are somewhat special. They need to keep temps/vendors/contractors away from sensitive information covered by NDAs for full time employees. This necessitates those security guards being exposed to the sensitive information in question. Therefore, security folks are full time employees while cafeteria and gbus staff are not.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#336

Post by angersock »

perfectstorm wrote: post #264
angersock wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever heard, least of all because a TV on sale on Black Friday is pretty far from a nice sandwich. This sort of selfish reasoning--"but but but what about the poors that might somehow abuse the system"--is cancerous, and you sir or madam are a shitty person for suggesting it.

what made you think that I suggested this ? I worked at a major retail chain that has a deli while in college and this was the reason my manager told me. i'm just passing that info here.

Thanks for the clarification--your post I was responding to didn't represent it as such.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#337

Post by jahaja »

jeffdavis wrote: post #185

They make decent money -- good money even. This is really an article about the high housing costs in the Bay Area. I don't see any other real message here. All of the people who oppose residential development near work sites are to blame. Period.

Housing costs? Well partly sure, but equally due to the lack of a social welfare system.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#338

Post by overcast »

ryandrake wrote: post #258
jeffdavis wrote: post #185

They make decent money -- good money even. This is really an article about the high housing costs in the Bay Area. I don't see any other real message here. All of the people who oppose residential development near work sites are to blame. Period.

Sorry for having to be "that guy" but they're living in Menlo Park for crying out loud! I'd love to live in Menlo Park too, but I can't afford it, so instead I live 2 hours away and commute to work like everyone else. In the Bay Area, living close to work is pretty much a luxury for the rich.

Sorry, you commute two hours EACH WAY EVERY DAY? Nothing is worth that. I'd expect serious money for putting up with that, and at that point, you could just afford to live closer.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#339

Post by talmand »

angersock wrote: post #324
SteveGerencser wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to allow employees to take home any food left over at the end of the day. Worked great for about 4 months. Then the food cost started creeping up, then it nearly exploded. Seems that the late shift discovered that if they simply made a lot of food right before closing they could take it home so it wouldn't be "wasted". You know it has gotten bad when people are starting to argue about who gets to work the clo…

So, how much were you paying your employees? Were you giving them enough hours? Were they getting tipped-out appropriately? People aren't shitty just to be shitty--there's usually a reason they find themselves taking advantage of a system.

Or, they're just taking advantage of a system for their own benefit. It's been known to happen.

Re: Cafeteria workers at Facebook struggle to make ends meet

#340

Post by bykovich2 »

kittiepryde wrote: post #245
bykovich2 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point, dude.

The point seemed to me, they were saying that selling a kid to pay for the others was equivalent to not being legally married.

I believe the point was that selling a kid to pay for the others is a suggestion similarly (if not identically) indifferent to emotional realities as suggesting that a committedly-married couple get a divorce to change their tax status.
Post reply on HN