Bay Area cities are cracking down on free food at tech companies

Post by optimusclimb » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #92

optimusclimb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thing…

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.

Post by sonnyblarney » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 10:22 PM UTC

bumholio wrote: post #100

sonnyblarney wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aggressi…

> an alternative could be 'they buy up all the restaurants in the area and make them exclusively available for FB staff'. If Facebook is willing to pay substantial amounts of money for a restaurant, while at the same time guaranteeing customers to those who refuse to sell, it would seem the number of public restaurants in the area will explode.

Post by anonymous5133 » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 10:24 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #95

dev_dull wrote: post #79

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

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

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 10:26 PM UTC

ghein wrote: post #106

Roritharr wrote: post #80

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…

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 will…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 10:26 PM UTC

beenBoutIT wrote: post #65

sonnyblarney wrote: post #23

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'.

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?