We are all Slave now.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

DOJ says it's going to treat no-poach agreements more harshly going forward, fwiw.

Good. What kind of evidence do they need? I need me some treble damages. Do I need a tape?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm not sure that is the case. I can think of a couple of law firms and two private banks in Boston that offer food in their in-house cafeteria that is on par with Google. I can also think of several shops whose cafeteria do not meet that mark.

Happy to be wrong about that.

I suspect what is different about tech firms relative to other employers is that they seem to have concluded that it makes sense to offer employees free lunch (and sometimes breakfast and dinner) both because it makes them want to work there and happy when they do, and also because they get more done when they aren't leaving the building to get food. Some big tech firms have cafeterias where they make the food, but I suspect it's much more common to cater it out. Other businesses in the area are still getting the spend, and they may get more of it to the extent that employees don't bring food to work because they know they're going to get it there, but the spend doesn't necessarily go to restaurants in a close proximity. If so, a proposal like Peskin's will be bad for San Francisco, even if some restaurants benefit -- in the same way that Trump's steel tariffs cause a lot of pain to American manufacturers and consumers and create smaller (in the aggregate) but bigger (in the individual case) benefits for some American producers.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I avoided mine. The food was decent, but it required eating with colleagues. That's kind of creepy. To use a Star Trek reference, "Borg-like."

Lunch is time to take a break from co-workers. Get out for a moment and recall, You Have a Life. Or time to work through, so you can finish what you're doing earlier and get out of the office sooner.

We get free food. Already eaten but what they hey, half-eaten pastrami sandwich is better than bring your own salad.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I hate this idea, but since we're exploring awful social engineering concepts, why not tax employees on the free food? It is a form of income, I believe -- several thousands of dollars of income per year, in fact. Use the proceeds from the tax to provide tax breaks to local restaurants.

I'd file this story under "Reason 38353928 We Need to Start Seriously Discussing UBI." Or, "Reasons a World War Which Resets Everything Might Be US Labor's Best and Last Hope."

Sounds reasonable, if it's a benefit (and a form of compensation).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Oh fuck, I guess I am still earnest for a bit. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Plan is deeply flawed. Let's even assume that, due to the fact the nobody seems to know what effect the implementation of the Plan will have on addressing racial disparities, it is at least possible that the plan could worsen those disparities, at least in some neighborhoods. (For example, I have heard arguments that some of the real victims of the plan will be the Mexican-Americans who own small houses in the single-family home blocks of my neighborhood, whose blocks could be disrupted by the Plan so that young white professionals who are not ready to own a home yet can have increased access to high end apartments close to downtown). If that is true, and yet you are saying that anyone who opposes the plan is standing up for the status quo and thus is standing up for racism, you come off as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Are some people opposing the plan because they are standing up for the status quo? Sure. But you seem to dismiss the possibility that some people (maybe even rich, white people) who oppose the plan are not actually standing up for the status quo, but are instead saying that this particular change to the status quo does not accomplish what people say it will and could have very negative unintended consequences. For you to dismiss the people making those arguments as "standing up for racism" -- which is really you just calling them racists -- is indeed shameful. I realize you are too entrenched in your beliefs on this issue to hear what I am saying, as evidenced by the fact that your argument shifts dramatically with each post you make. But you are far from the only person in the city who is dismissing anyone who opposes the plan as simply being racist. That is only going to undermine support for the plan, and turn an already highly emotionally-charged debate into an escalating series of screaming and name calling, making it even more difficult than it already is to evaluate the plan on its merits.

To pursue Adder's line of thought, maybe those Mexican-Americans are (unintentional) Uncle Toms. They are standing up for racism with their cabins.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Good. What kind of evidence do they need? I need me some treble damages. Do I need a tape?

Those cases had some great evidence because it never even crossed the minds of the people who were making those agreements that there might be something illegal about it. Now the sensitivities are much higher. But what about suing franchises of restaurant chains for non-competes that prevent workers from going to other restaurants in the same chain? If the language is pushed by the franchising entity, it sounds like a hub-and-spoke conspiracy, and if it's per se illegal than that sounds like treble damages.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Oh fuck, I guess I am still earnest for a bit. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Plan is deeply flawed. Let's even assume that, due to the fact the nobody seems to know what effect the implementation of the Plan will have on addressing racial disparities, it is at least possible that the plan could worsen those disparities, at least in some neighborhoods. (For example, I have heard arguments that some of the real victims of the plan will be the Mexican-Americans who own small houses in the single-family home blocks of my neighborhood, whose blocks could be disrupted by the Plan so that young white professionals who are not ready to own a home yet can have increased access to high end apartments close to downtown). If that is true, and yet you are saying that anyone who opposes the plan is standing up for the status quo and thus is standing up for racism, you come off as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Are some people opposing the plan because they are standing up for the status quo? Sure. But you seem to dismiss the possibility that some people (maybe even rich, white people) who oppose the plan are not actually standing up for the status quo, but are instead saying that this particular change to the status quo does not accomplish what people say it will and could have very negative unintended consequences. For you to dismiss the people making those arguments as "standing up for racism" -- which is really you just calling them racists -- is indeed shameful. I realize you are too entrenched in your beliefs on this issue to hear what I am saying, as evidenced by the fact that your argument shifts dramatically with each post you make. But you are far from the only person in the city who is dismissing anyone who opposes the plan as simply being racist. That is only going to undermine support for the plan, and turn an already highly emotionally-charged debate into an escalating series of screaming and name calling, making it even more difficult than it already is to evaluate the plan on its merits.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Republican denial is bigger than a river in Egypt, but this is not going to age well. No surprise, I guess, but still surprisingly damning.

eta: Relatedly, I haven't found Andrew Sullivan interesting for a while, but this description of Trump and the Cohen tape is insightful.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

DOJ says it's going to treat no-poach agreements more harshly going forward, fwiw.

I think he's gone so far as to say to expect criminal prosecutions (the policy guidance the published last year said they would in theory, but think he's referencing specific cases).

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hey TM, speaking of fragile white people, see this:

White people really don’t like being called white people. They don’t like being reminded that they are white people, part of a group with discernible boundaries, shared interests, and shared responsibilities.

After all, one of the benefits of being in the dominant demographic and cultural group is that you are allowed to simply be a person, a blank slate upon which you can write your own individual story. You have no baggage but what you choose.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hey TM, speaking of fragile white people, see this:

Given that African Americans vote 90% dem (and I assume Latinos do at some large majority) would the better poll be to ask only white people? I am not arguing with the premise just the value of the numbers. Would truly like to see the numbers limited to whites and broken down by affiliation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Hi

[Hank Chinaski]

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-...called-racist/

And to add to T's post, here's an interview with the author, instead of the reviewer's thoughts, so a bit better answer to the "progressive" question- spoiler- I think you'll agree I was mostly correct.

[Hank Chinaski]

Quadrafecta!!!