Mountain View CA banning FB from offering free meals to employees

I think it is a stupid government overreach.

Tough to answer, likely there were some tax breaks that went along with that new building and those tax breaks we figured based on how much revenue would be flow into the community (outside of property taxes). Reduce that flow and the tax breaks become uneconomical. It also may be the local government trying to prevent significant push back from the community on other new projects. Not to mention shuttered restaurants are never a good look. So I can see it as a way for the local gov to protect itself.

That said, it seems its within a company's right to offer benefits they think will attract the best employees.

My guess is that if you are a local gov, you give it a try and see if it will hold up in court. Depending on what you perceive as your odds of winning it may be worth it. Sucks if you are a FB employee, not so much if you are not and love that sushi place that would close if not for FB business.

This had to happen. Silicon valley is hollowing out the west coast cities.

Facebook bans everything too so it serves them right.

I think the restaurants in the city should offer free nose hair grooming to FB employees to offset this.

You're absolutely correct that it is within their rights to offer whatever they wish to their employees. The beauty of the free market is that if the sushi place is the right fit for the town/area and serves a great product, it will (in all likelihood) thrive. The shuttered restaurants line (BS, i know you're just discussing so this isn't pointed at you) is the typical anti-capitalistic, big-gov't lover who doesn't quite know how to explain the benefits to the local catering company who is now providing 55 full time jobs because they scored the sweet FB contract to be the cafeteria vendor. Basically what this comes down to is freedom of choice (funny b/c many of those supporting these restrictions are "pro-choice," hahahaha), as the local gov't is saying "you can only purchase food in these specific methods, and these other methods of purchase are prohibited because we don't like them." Nearly every argument in favor of said restrictions falls flat. For example, no, it's not "taking away" business, it's *choosing* to GIVE the business to a specific catering vendor, under a long term contract, rather than utilizing multiple offsite vendors (ie, restaurants). It's also not a "free" lunch, as it's baked in to their salaries and productivity expectations. I could go on but... I'd almost love for 800dude to weigh in on this as it seems there's a good chance of a defensible Constitutional infringement upon commerce or some other clause.

BS wrote:

Tough to answer...Not to mention shuttered restaurants are never a good look. So I can see it as a way for the local gov to protect itself.

That said, it seems its within a company's right to offer benefits they think will attract the best employees.

My guess is that if you are a local gov, you give it a try and see if it will hold up in court. Depending on what you perceive as your odds of winning it may be worth it. Sucks if you are a FB employee, not so much if you are not and love that sushi place that would close if not for FB business.