|
Absurd Alhazred posted:To deter people from encouraging other people to violate the law in the name of their bottom line. You know, that thing law enforcement is for, particularly in the context of organized crime. I think we'd have to get pretty far down into the weeds about specific situations that are legal or illegal to even debate that proposition, don't you? I don't see how you could support that as a general proposition.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The solution to exploitative business practices is not a different flavor of exploitative business practice. I was making a joke but actually it was exactly this. Well, alright. edit: That is to say, the problem in your eyes is that capitalism is involved. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I mean, what the company does is gives cooks access to a platform that gives them exposure they couldn't otherwise get and allows them to turn their skills (cooking, hospitality) into money without having to work for a restaurant or caterer or etc. yes, and this is illegal "what the company does is give access to peer to peer transportation networks which develop emergently and allow individuals to contract between each other to transport small, anonymous parcels across state lines. this empowers small scale freight drivers to leverage their motor vehicles and skills at discreet transportation of shrinkwrapped packages. i dont understand why you hate capitalism"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I think we'd have to get pretty far down into the weeds about specific situations that are legal or illegal to even debate that proposition, don't you? I don't see how you could support that as a general proposition. No, it's actually pretty straightforward. There's no point in getting into the weeds with you on anything because you repeatedly ignore instances where people are showing you that, say, Josephine admittedly encourages people to violate health regulations, and just continue to pretend you haven't been shown this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I was making a joke but actually it was exactly this. Well, alright. I have a problem with people being exploited for the benefit of others, yes. Especially when it also constitutes an attack on the laws which exist to secure the safety of the public and of workers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
if josephine is really all about connecting communities through home cooked meals and introducing neighbors to each other why do they have to take a ten percent cut and have a business development staff
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Well, there are potentially thousands or even tens of thousands of home cooks who would like to make money by inviting people to eat in their homes, and who make the long margin on that business. So there's that to consider. You still haven't bothered to address the issue of public health. Would you mind explaining to me why you believe that the ability to make money in this very specific manner should be privileged over protecting consumers from dangerous food-borne illnesses? Illnesses that cause severe pain, loss of organ function, miscarriage and even death?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:No, it's actually pretty straightforward. There's no point in getting into the weeds with you on anything because you repeatedly ignore instances where people are showing you that, say, Josephine admittedly encourages people to violate health regulations, and just continue to pretend you haven't been shown this. With respect, have you read the linked material? Here is the linked article from upthread http://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/05/11/food-startup-josephine-pauses-east-bay-operations/ Every criticism of illegality leveled here has been based on some reading of that article. But there are a couple of big problems with using the article to make those claims. First, the company paused operations in response to action by the health department. The very first few paragraphs of the article posted:In an email sent out to 2,000 East Bay customers last week, Oakland-based food startup Josephine announced that it would be pausing cooking operations in Alameda County. All non-profit partnerships, including Josephine’s partnership with Willard Middle School, have not been affected. From that we could conclude that the company isn't encouraging people to break the law. It's explicitly telling them "Hold up while we figure this out, don't do things that could potentially be illegal." Like... stopping operations in response to problems with regulators is very explicitly following the law. So criticisms that the company is encouraging people to break the law based on that part of the article are incorrect. Regardless of what you think of what they've done, this alone would make applying RICO statutes to Josephine ridiculous. Further, the company and its founders acknowledge that it operates in a legal gray area - click through to the linked blog comments and you can read for yourself what they've posted. The law does not contemplate small-scale production, and they are part of a movement working to expand California's Cottage food law to cover hot meals. quote:Full meals of the likes produced by Josephine cooks do not meet these regulations, but the company has never been shy about acknowledging this discrepancy. Josephine employees have regularly engaged with commenters on websites like Nosh like Chowhound regarding the legality of the company’s operations and the limitations of existing legislation. The company also publishes blog posts and has actively engaged with politicians and food advocates on the subject. Further, California regulators are not even opposed to that effort. quote:Regulators are not opposed to seeing changes. Justin Malen, the executive director of the California Conference Directors of Environmental Health, told the SF Chronicle that he supports a move towards the legalization of home-cooked food. However, he said that food safety would be a top concern, and legislation would need to address equipment requirements like refrigerators that can maintain a temperature, as well as food handling rules for cooks and and limits on the number of meals or people served. The company has food safety on its mind as well. quote:All Josephine cooks are required to follow specific safety standards in order to sell food through the company’s platform — all cooks must complete a ServSafe food handler’s course, as well as an extensive vetting interview and kitchen inspection with Josephine employees. In addition, the company provides a “Cook Knowledge Base” wiki of best business and culinary practices to all cooks. It's cooks each get certified and get a CA food handler's card, paid for by the company. Josephine is literally working with regulators and lawmakers to help enable safe and legal cottage production of hot meals. Stop being goony goons and making GBS threads all over something because it's a startup and capitalism exists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if josephine is really all about connecting communities through home cooked meals and introducing neighbors to each other why do they have to take a ten percent cut and have a business development staff A combination of "It costs money to run this service" and "we like getting paid" and "even non-profits have business development staff because this thing is not going to build itself out", I would guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
The parts you quote have them literally admitting to violating the law. The "discrepancy" described, and which the company admits wholeheartedly, is between their conduct and the law. And eventually the health department got around to enforcing that law. Much like there is a discrepancy between you jacking someone else's car without permission and the law, except somebody else goaded you to do in online with the argument "Bob only uses it during the day, and it remains unused during the night, so the law should allow unilateral ride-sharing, as long as wateroverfire pinky-swears to treat it well and return it with the same amount of fuel he took it."
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Do you think that things aren't illegal until you're actually told they are or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
As long as they admitted that what they were doing wasn't legal, they're ok. They stopped when they were told to stop? Well let's give them a gold star!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:A combination of "It costs money to run this service" and "we like getting paid" and "even non-profits have business development staff because this thing is not going to build itself out", I would guess. so you admit it's not a non-profit that encourages people to do questionably legal things, it's a business that encourages people to do explicitly illegal things wateroverfire posted:Josephine is literally working with regulators and lawmakers to help enable safe and legal cottage production of hot meals. Stop being goony goons and making GBS threads all over something because it's a startup and capitalism exists. there's already a process for cottage production of hot meals. josephine is just setting itself up as an unnecessary rent seeking middleman at the potential cost of public health by adding another layer of oversight between food safety and the consumer. stop being a goony goon and sucking an unethical startup's dick because government exists boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
If their kitchen inspections are equivalent to Uber's vehicle inspections then they're laughable at best since Uber farms that poo poo out to chain garages that get paid a terrible flat rate per car, which if you are a car mechanic is a really awful thing. A bay in your garage is tied up all day (reserved in some cases for Uber inspections), you aren't making any flag hours while you're loving with these people's cars so you just push them through as fast as you can without really giving a poo poo about bald tires or rusting brake lines. If the same lackadaisical attitude is taken by whoever they're farming these inspections out to then there is a very real chance people will get sick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
rscott posted:If the same lackadaisical attitude is taken by whoever they're farming these inspections out to then there is a very real chance people will get sick. oh yeah. it's pretty difficult to trace the source of a food illness, especially if the cause is improperly prepared food. this is why local health inspectors work on preventative measures like random, frequent inspections. as wateroverfire has pointed out this system itself is pretty flawed and doesn't catch everything which is baffling as to why he seems to think relaxing this tenuous oversight with broad police power and high stakes (they can enter your business and shut you down unilaterally) would somehow increase food safety but they don't actually have an inspection system, they "want to empower relationships based on trust" and they require a servsafe certification which is as easy to ignore as it is to obtain
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
The A+ of food prep certifications from what I remember
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
rscott posted:If their kitchen inspections are equivalent to Uber's vehicle inspections then they're laughable at best since Uber farms that poo poo out to chain garages that get paid a terrible flat rate per car, which if you are a car mechanic is a really awful thing. A bay in your garage is tied up all day (reserved in some cases for Uber inspections), you aren't making any flag hours while you're loving with these people's cars so you just push them through as fast as you can without really giving a poo poo about bald tires or rusting brake lines. If the same lackadaisical attitude is taken by whoever they're farming these inspections out to then there is a very real chance people will get sick. The article -funny enough in the section wateroverfire is skipping in his quotes- also has Josephine specifically acknowledging they don't do kitchen inspections/ensure their users are following the law but instead have best practice guides and make them pinky promise they are doing stuff right. They got word from legal and the inspectors that wasn't going to cover their own asses from liability so they sent notice to their users telling to to stop operations that violated the law. If they still thought they were indemnified you bet they'd continue just relying on the wink and nod. Also for all of the "lol they shut down a bakesale!" talk, the non-profit users such as the school were actually allowed to continue operating. The school is fun to poke fun at and is somewhat skeezy good-will building/bald-faced marketing. I will totally cop to characterizing it as child-labor though, but then again I linked to both articles including what was practically a PR fluff piece.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yes, and this is illegal Does this company exist, because I can't wait till say a Silicon Valley disruptor meets a Teamster boss or one of the billionaires that current run around in the transport industry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Does this company exist, because I can't wait till say a Silicon Valley disruptor meets a Teamster boss or one of the billionaires that current run around in the transport industry. That was a joke, but Truxx does exist. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Lol yahoo sent me a shareholder informational packet thing. I can vote against Marissa. I'm pretty sure all my stock is restricted shares...how do i get a vote in this??
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Does this company exist, because I can't wait till say a Silicon Valley disruptor meets a Teamster boss or one of the billionaires that current run around in the transport industry. Truxx is more just the hey dude we'll help you move the couch/u-haul replacement. but I don't know how you could 'disrupt' freight, I mean it's not exactly hard to get a carrier. Especially for something non-haz, since you could even just use UPS if cost was less important that scheduling/having to get a vendor or account.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Lots of states have cottage food laws that permit some items to come from home kitchens - usually baked or canned goods, breads and fruit jellies. I bumped into this myself when I bottled a bunch of jerk-spiced habanero hot sauce, then found out that hot sauces aren't on the list of permitted cottage food items. I gave them all to friends instead. EDIT: They were delicious and poisoned zero people. a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Winkle-Daddy posted:I'm pretty sure all my stock is restricted shares...how do i get a vote in this?? Depends on which type, in some cases you can vote the shares even before they lapse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
I guess I'll do my part and vote for David Filo, against Marissa and will abstain from all the other stuff...but I'm not bitter about my time there or anything...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Lots of states have cottage food laws that permit some items to come from home kitchens - usually baked or canned goods, breads and fruit jellies. I bumped into this myself when I bottled a bunch of jerk-spiced habanero hot sauce, then found out that hot sauces aren't on the list of permitted cottage food items. I gave them all to friends instead. Simply shocking that food requiring refrigeration could be prepared in a home kitchen without killing everyone who ate it. You truly dodged a bullet and I hope you learned a valuable lesson. I bet you didn't have so much as a safeserv certification *smdh*. Coolness Averted posted:The article -funny enough in the section wateroverfire is skipping in his quotes- also has Josephine specifically acknowledging they don't do kitchen inspections/ensure their users are following the law but instead have best practice guides and make them pinky promise they are doing stuff right. They do a kitchen inspection and credentialling when a cook signs up, but don't do ongoing inspections. Absurd Alhazred posted:The parts you quote have them literally admitting to violating the law. The "discrepancy" described, and which the company admits wholeheartedly, is between their conduct and the law. And eventually the health department got around to enforcing that law. The discrepency described in the article is between their inspection/credentialling process and the one set out in the CA Cottage Food law, which doesn't cover preparing hot food anyway. The article is sort of poorly worded. I'll admit that yes, at the moment home cooking for profit is against the law in CA, but Imma follow with "So what?". The company stopped (hurting lots of home cooks and the people who enjoyed their cooking, and benefitting precisely no one) and is working to change the law - a thing legislators and regulators are both in favor of. Popular Thug Drink posted:oh yeah. it's pretty difficult to trace the source of a food illness, especially if the cause is improperly prepared food. this is why local health inspectors work on preventative measures like random, frequent inspections. as wateroverfire has pointed out this system itself is pretty flawed and doesn't catch everything which is baffling as to why he seems to think relaxing this tenuous oversight with broad police power and high stakes (they can enter your business and shut you down unilaterally) would somehow increase food safety I think screening and feedback can do about as much as health inspections wrt food safety. The inspection process is deeply, deeply flawed and in the unlikely event a restaurant is inspected, it takes repeated serious violations to get an establishment shut down. Many provisions regarding employee conduct, such as food preparers not working while sick, are almost impossible to catch and are rarely enforced by restaurant management. The system mostly comes into play after someone gets sick and complaints are made - and at that point it can work the same way with home cooks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I think screening and feedback can do about as much as health inspections wrt food safety. The inspection process is deeply, deeply flawed and in the unlikely event a restaurant is inspected, it takes repeated serious violations to get an establishment shut down. Many provisions regarding employee conduct, such as food preparers not working while sick, are almost impossible to catch and are rarely enforced by restaurant management. The system mostly comes into play after someone gets sick and complaints are made - and at that point it can work the same way with home cooks. lmao no it doesn't. when i worked in foodservice every restaurant i worked at was inspected randomly every 6 months or so (random inspections often meaning the inspector just walks the gently caress in the back door at 1:30 and starts rummaging through the coolers) and they had the power to shut you down immediately for a 1-3 day period if sufficient critical or cumulative violations took place, and you'd get to reopen if you passed a follow up inspection AFTER the public was notified that you had failed an inspection either you live in a jurisdiction that doesn't give a poo poo about food safety or you're 100% talking out of your rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
It's the latter
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Poison Jam posted:It's the latter Nah not really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Nah not really. you're completely full of poo poo bro lying about familiarity with the restaurant inspection process is one of the more pathetic things i've seen people lie about to win an arugment
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'll admit that yes, at the moment home cooking for profit is against the law in CA, but Imma follow with "So what?". How many other illegal things would you like to handwave away?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:... so your problem seems to be that someone did a capitalism. Ok. Oh yes, the fundamental pillar of capitalism: taking a cut from someone else's labor and capital without contributing anything but a trivial phone interface. Truly Adam Smith's greatest idea. sbaldrick posted:Does this company exist, because I can't wait till say a Silicon Valley disruptor meets a Teamster boss or one of the billionaires that current run around in the transport industry. Teamsters? Someone didn't read closely enough. Cartels. Harik fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Harik posted:Oh yes, the fundamental pillar of capitalism: taking a cut from someone else's labor and capital without contributing anything but a trivial phone interface. Oddly, the home cooks who signed up with Josephine didn´t seem to feel the company´s contribution was trivial. Popular Thug Drink posted:you're completely full of poo poo bro It was a nice anecdote you posted but still nah. WampaLord posted:How many other illegal things would you like to handwave away? Probably lots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'll admit that yes, at the moment home cooking for profit is against the law in CA, but Imma follow with "So what?". The company stopped (hurting lots of home cooks and the people who enjoyed their cooking, and benefitting precisely no one) and is working to change the law - a thing legislators and regulators are both in favor of. The company knowingly broke the law for a profit and only stopped when there was legal action taken against them, which is the normal for idiotic "disruptive" bubble companies The idea of enthusiastic amateurs with no training and no oversight preparing food for commercial sale would horrify you if you'd ever actually worked in a commercial kitchen. I love how you characterise it as "hurting home cooks" as if its a cute cottage industry and not a 0 hour contract workforce for a bunch of SV shitheads who are risking killing people for profit quote:I think screening and feedback can do about as much as health inspections wrt food safety. The inspection process is deeply, deeply flawed and in the unlikely event a restaurant is inspected, it takes repeated serious violations to get an establishment shut down. Many provisions regarding employee conduct, such as food preparers not working while sick, are almost impossible to catch and are rarely enforced by restaurant management. The system mostly comes into play after someone gets sick and complaints are made - and at that point it can work the same way with home cooks. Thanks for confirming you are clueless about how food safety works quote:Simply shocking that food requiring refrigeration could be prepared in a home kitchen without killing everyone who ate it. You truly dodged a bullet and I hope you learned a valuable lesson. I bet you didn't have so much as a safeserv certification *smdh*. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/two-more-sufferers-in-latest-ecoli-outbreak-1280791.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:How many other illegal things would you like to handwave away? I am moving forward with Jackr, the unilateral carsharing app.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I am moving forward with Jackr, the unilateral carsharing app. I'll get started on squattr
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Regulatr, crowdsource your safety inspections from our talented underemployed. We even provide the nice glossy certificates for them to hand out to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Regulatr, crowdsource your safety inspections from our talented underemployed. We even provide the nice glossy certificates for them to hand out to you. Our inspectors are paid by the passed inspection so they have incentive to work with you to get you ready to work rather than against you like the city/state/your absent father.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It was a nice anecdote you posted but still nah. why would you lie about food safety inspections to win an internet argument? what do you have to gain from that and, when it's obvious that you're lying, why double down and discredit yourself? are you just stubborn?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:why would you lie about food safety inspections to win an internet argument? what do you have to gain from that and, when it's obvious that you're lying, why double down and discredit yourself? are you just stubborn? wateroverfire has the same brain problem everyone in silicon valley does, where they think being marginally good at one skill makes him a genius about everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you're completely full of poo poo bro tbh, in oklahoma city the inspections of our kitchen was scheduled and not random, and even then we could barely pass (pizza hut) once our make table's refrigeration broke down because of a heat wave and our manager put dry ice in the bottom to keep the ingredients fresh, but it didn't work, and my brother reached into one of the bins to find maggots squirming on his hands. i walked off because i refused to deliver pizzas to people that could poison them, and my manager lectured me about how irresponsible i was the next time i saw him. i didn't report him to the health inspector the day of and i really regret it Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:19
|
|
