The benefit of a company cafeteria is mostly that you don't lose half an hour walking to a restaurant, waiting in line, ordering etc.

It's not about the money.

This. This is the giant disconnect between muni govnerment planners and tech.

They literally cannot fathom that people in tech are trying to squeeze the most from every minute in the day.

Just. Do. Not. Get. It.

> squeeze the most from every minute

Don't do that. It hurts. You.

On a good day, I work about 5 hours a day. That's non stop, from about 10.30 until about 4pm, or from about 3pm to 8pm.

If I stop for lunch, I stop, and don't get back into it.

So I eat lunch at my desk. It's not bad for me. 10 hour days to accomplish half the work is bad.

Why not just skip eating for those hours? Digestion disturbs brain activity anyway.

Because it is hard to be effective at work when you are hungry

If you stop eating at a certain period every day, you'll stop feeling hungry.

Sometimes I'll get into 'productive' first thing, at 10amish. Other times it takes a few hours, so it's random.

Once I get into productive mode I'd rather not get out of it until I'm finished, and leaving my desk for more than a few minutes, or having to concentrate of complex tasks like talking to someone at a counter, is sure to do that.

you might stop feeling hungry, but you'll then get mysterious headaches or a sense of confusion and frustration you can't identify.

Eat a lot before? 5 hours seems like very doable without hunger.

You can split the work and do the rest next day, there is no rush, really.

There is rush. Tell that to people who die because medical technology is delayed years. Or companies that fail or never materialize because the products take too long to produce and are too expensive.

Tell that to the farmer who's crops go bad.

Not everything is the same.

FAANG companies don't do any of those things.

But dying with overworking, depression and burnout is not a solution I believe.

5 hours a day doesn't sound like overworking.

While I'd love to only work 2 hours a day, it's not really feasible.

> The benefit of a company cafeteria is mostly that you don't lose half an hour walking to a restaurant, waiting in line, ordering etc.

Instead you can spend that time being both grateful and productive

You can order by phone or online in advance so you only have to walk to the restaurant to pick up your food. Maybe you don't like the walking, but then think again: it has been shown many times that some physical movement during the working day is beneficial for your productivity and health.

If you really want to avoid leaving the building at all costs, there is also another option: ordering your lunch and let it be delivered.

Why are you assuming there even are restaurants near the office? A bunch of people getting into their cars and clogging up roads at lunch time doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

We’re talking about SF, so unless your office is in Bayview/Visitacion/deep Outer Sunset|Richmond there’s a restaurant within 15 minutes walk

> within 15 minutes walk

So, a half-hour round trip.

Yes, assuming a standard stride length of 0.7 metres and favourable traffic conditions, each lunch attendee could be expected to achieve 2900 steps. If travelling as a group there could be a minor social interaction every 4-10 steps thus leading to over 700 conversational actions which may help build camaraderie, strengthening team bonds and inproving the overall efficiency of the team.

But is not it really a one hour break? Besides eating, shouldn't you rest a bit during a day? I guess companies with onsite cafeterias trying to squeeze every minute from their employees.

Yes, it's not about the money. It's about slavery. Tech giants want their workers to spend as much time as possible near their working places. Even during their lunch time when people are supposed to get some rest from their jobs, walk to the nearby restaurant, maybe meet some new people instead of those faces they see every f'ng day. NO! Facebook, etc. don't allow any distraction. They wrap slavery in shiny candies and give it to employees who are so happy that they are bragging about sushi, whatever to instagram. The new regulations are going to break that and that's perfect!

I've read a number of definitions of slavery coming from a variety of political perspectives. Some go so far as to term hiring anyone who isn't independently wealthy to work for wages "slavery".

None of them included giving employees perks in the hope that it will increase their productivity.

They definitely want to increase your productivity, you are right. Your productivity drives their revenue forward. They are willing to contribute small amount of that revenue for giving you free food. But do you really want to be like that? Work harder for free food?

I don't think the purpose of free food is to incentivize employees to work harder. It's to let employees have lunch in the office without having to leave. As mentioned several times in the comments here, employees at companies that provide this option tend to like it.

it is to make employees have lunch in the office without letting them leave.

None of these tech companies make anyone eat the lunch and they certainly let employees leave. Do some research before posting.

Indeed they don't lock employees inside the building. Indeed it's far from slavery. It's wrong word. Rather it's exploiting of employees by using cheap tricks.

> giving employees perks in the hope that it will increase their productivity

By "their", you mean the company? Because employees receive the same salary no matter their productivity.

Slavers also fed their slaves, property requires upkeep costs.

> Because employees receive the same salary no matter their productivity.

No, in fact they typically do not. Drop your productivity to zero and see how your salary holds up.

If I waste less time at lunch, I can go home earlier. That's pretty far from slavery.

This is what I do. I spend negligible amount of time for lunch by bringing the food from home, quickly microwaving it, eating as quickly as possible. But, I am pretty sure that free food takes much longer. You want to try this sushi and that fried ice-cream..oh wait and Philz Coffee offers new beans..there are also your co-workers around and you chat with them endlessly.

What words would you have left if you ever encountered real slavery?

yes, wrong word, should have been used "exploiting" instead.

Problem is the employee is taxed on those funds AND those funds aren’t tax deductible for the employer like dine in (50%) or in house food (100%) so it’s nowhere near comperable.

It sounds reasonable that the richest industry/workers in the area don't get free perks at the expense of other taxpayers.

Non-financial compensations are taxed in many countries, I really don't see what's wrong here.

You just summoned the libertarians haha

Money paid to employees in this way is tax-deductible to the employer, same as the rest of the employee’s salary is.

(It is worse for the employee, of course.)

This would make demand less elastic, pushing restaurant prices up for the rest of us.

Absolutely. This will increase demand and raise prices.

Would this card be used at the company cafeteria, or at local restaurants?

If it's the former, then I think it's still "free food".

If it's the latter, then it removes much of the benefit of the company providing the meal -- keeping employees on-campus and near their desks longer. I like my company's free food since it's easy to walk down the hall and eat a quick lunch between meetings, no need to take an hour to head off campus to a local restaurant. I don't care that the food is "free", but that it's fast and convenient.

Convenient for the company.

And for the employees. I don't want to pack a lunch or go seek out a restaurant every day to pick up food. I know that eating at work means I'm spending lunch time in the office, but by spending less time at lunch, I can leave the office earlier. I'm sure it's a net-win for the company -- if an employee is in the office for an extra 15 minutes since they got a "free" lunch, then the meal is more than paid for (assuming tech-worker salaries)

Why jump through all those hoops, instead of stopping at "increase salaries"?

Depending on legislature, it can be a win-win situation.

Example: Currently living in Switzerland, which has "Lunch cheques" [0]. Employees don't pay income tax on their value, employers don't pay social security on their value, local restaurants/takeaways get more customers.

[0] https://www.lunch-check.ch/en

That's a "win-win" if you just take these particular employees and their company into account. It's a net loss for the state and the rest of its citizens however.