Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516454)

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

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516444)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516448)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516447)

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."

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 516453)

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.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 516455)

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

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 516453)

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516454)

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

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 516461)

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516465)

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