|
OwlFancier posted:Because disclaiming all responsibility to the workers and encouraging them to flout the regulations established for the public welfare and to ensure job security and safety for workers, while siphoning profit off the top is a particularly abhorrent form of exploitation and I have absolutely no truck for people who promote that, which is a lot of startups. ... so your problem seems to be that someone did a capitalism. Ok. 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. The cooks can set their own hours, choose what they offer and when, and take the lion's share of the profit, be as intense or relaxed as they want to be... to all appearances it's a huge boon for small producers and makes them less dependant on exploitative capitalists (restaurant owners...and if you think restaurant owners are not worse about that than Josephine then ROFL) rather than more. Absurd Alhazred posted:I wonder why more states/Federal agencies haven't gone after them using RICO statutes. Why would they? What would be the point?
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Poison Jam posted:It's the latter Nah not really.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:sorry i was quoting you but really i was responding to the dishonest guy Umm. Not being dishonest. I've also worked in restaurants, and known people who have worked in restaurants, and have had different experiences than you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The unstated assumption is that the laws are so obviously good that it's not necessary to defend their merit beforehand. re: CA food safety law, both the CA legislature and CA public health authorities are on board with changing CA's cottage food production law to incorporate the sort of production the company is facilitating. The bill will (probably) be passed in 2017. computer parts posted:Like, not having random people in random kitchens cook your food with no inspections on quality is not a situation anyone wants to be in. Not even the company people are criticizing wants to be in that situation.  Subjunctive posted:It's interesting that scale is so important here, though. Every church potluck works as you describe, but the law doesn't care because, AIUI, it's non-commercial. It's not clear to me how the presence of money makes the health issues different. Because capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You don't bake thousands of cookies every week. Josephine's individual kitchens don't either. They're producing food at best on the scale of like a church pasta dinner.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:They try to but typically what happens is that some rear end in a top hat or some rear end in a top hat with a long-standing gimmick comes in and goes "BLURP! I'M A loving IDIOT! WHY DON'T THINGS WORK IN AN IDIOT WAY?! THINGS SHOULD!" Pro tier post / name combo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:I can buy cheap consumer-grade playground equipment for my backyard, but commercial/public playground equipment is vastly more expensive. Hey if it's safe for my kid to play on, it's safe for any arbitrary number of kids right? Gonna disrupt the playground industry by using consumer-grade equipment instead of cowing under to Big Playground. This is pretty dumb, though? The consumer-grade playground equipment you buy is safe, just not as durable as the things made for actual playgrounds and smaller scale because it's not intended to accomodate a dozen kids at once.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
jre posted:This is pretty dumb, though? The consumer-grade kitchen equipment you buy is safe, just not as durable as the things made for actual commercial kitchens and smaller scale because it's not intended to accomodate a dozen meals at once. I don't think you made the point you thought you did. feedmegin posted:When stuff is not as durable as it is intended to be for a given environment, it tends to break. If it breaks while a kid's playing on it, because it was designed for occasional use by one kid and now there's dozens playing on it all the time, that can be unsafe. Sure. But it could accomodate, say, a dozen kids coming and going in small groups throughout the week without any trouble. There's probably a scale at which it's fine to have a bunch of kids using your equipment. Just like a non-commercial rated kitchen is going to be able to produce a couple of trays of enchaladas or whatever a few times a week without issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:no, he's right. theres a difference of scale and intent here, as well as liability. or are you going to lie about your familiarity with those things too? Dude, while I would never say an argument should be judged on its tone, tone does have a great effect on whether someone wants to engage with you or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i frankly don't care if you like my tone or not given that you've been caught out lying about your firsthand experience with regulations as a vague anecdotal ploy to talk about why food safety inspections aren't necessary Okay duder.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I am interested in hearing more about this, do you have any links? It's in one of the articles linked by the poster who started this thread of conversation. edit: Becauase it's not really a derail.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Section 230 is part of the obscure anti-porn law that has since been largely dismantled. I wasn't aware of those origins, were you? Also to be frank I've never even heard section 230 period, instead I hear stuff about the DMCA safe-habor stuff. Section 230 is a very important piece of law that enables a ton of e-activities. Social media basically couldn't exist without it. The SF city attorney will probably argue (disclaimer: IANAL, may be talking out of my rear end) that AirBNB is not merely a transmission agent because it processes payments, arbitrates disputes, etc. Dunno if that argument would fly or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
go3 posted:Travel agents are especially handy if you're trying to do a group trip. Or for travel outside the US where sometimes you can't plan your whole trip off of google searches.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:why not just have drone trucks -- use the automated driving handle as much of the trip as it can, then hand-off to a remote operator in some transportation center somewhere to overcome obstacles the program doesn't believe it can handle I think the sorts of problems that would be hard for automated driving to handle are also the kind of things that would require more eyeballing or communication than someone teleoperating the truck from a remote center could do.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_30263318/dublin-uber-lyft-partner-public-transit Apparantly the transport authorities were losing money like crazy on the two routes that are going to be replaced. Maybe this will be a better use of resources.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Buses only make sense if they consistently have high occupancy rates. I know nothing about those particular routes, but we had a couple of them here that were packed (i.e. you had to stand smashed into the windshield the whole way) in the mornings but were frequently running empty off-peak. This is obviously much worse than 0 cars for economic, traffic, and environmental reasons. The article mentions that the No 3 route in West Dublin that was discontinued had about 5 passengers an hour.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:on buses: it turns out that public transportation infrastructure isn't necessarily supposed to be maximally efficient if it still serves a clientele that otherwise don't get to have jobs. Counterpoint: If those people can be served in a more efficient manner, isn't that a gain for society. edit: I mean... the article mentions that on the route that was closed, those five riders per hour cost their fare + a $15 state subsidy per ride. If comparable services can be provided for less money that is all to the good, right? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Not when it's more efficient by because it's done by a third party that exists by flouting existing safety and employment regulations. Oh god can we not do this again. Send your comments to the appropriate transit authorities. I am sure they will be very grateful and impressed with your hot take about their partner.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, sure. Feel free to leave. You were wrong the last time you championed regulatory evasion, and you're wrong this time too. The actual regulatory authorities involved here seem to think Uber is fine to work with, so ??
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:And they're wrong. You're not in a wheelchair, are you? If only they were engaged in some sort of a pilot program that could be used to assess and address problems before implementation...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Paratransit services usually cost about $16 a trip and you need to schedule pickup pretty far in advance. The people relying on these services are often on fixed incomes . They'll typically get discounted or free fare on buses assuming they can access the stops. On the other hand, county agencies aren't exactly rolling in cash and if something like this frees up transport dollars that can be more impactfully used elsewhere (maybe adding buses on busy routes, or even subsidizing paratransit) then I TT for the bus drivers but meh? Like, go through this exercise. If the savings generated by the program, on one route, amount to $10 per rider x 5 riders per hour x 10 hours per day x 200 days (just to make this easy math), that is $100,000 that could be used for other purposes, like subsidizing paratransit. At $16 each that is 6,250 rides for disabled people just along that route. If total ridership is 10,000 rides a year, that probably means every disabled person who was riding that route could be given free paratransit with some money left over to subsidize other things. Transit authorities could negotiate with Uber and make provisions for the disabled within the partnership agreement and likely save even more.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
You could jump through all of those hoops to get a journal article, but it would be so much more efficient to just hop online and download it. And how much better could be the quality of your research if you didn't have to know exactly what you wanted before you could get a look at it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
xrunner posted:FYI, other people who short term rentals have displaced have to commute every day into the city driving cars create pollution and congestion and create another negative externality. Meh? Long term renters suck up more housing stock than short term from the point of view of people looking to rent in an area. gently caress those established residents keeping people out of their neighborhoods amirite?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Going to be bold here. I don't care whether Uber follows local regs or whether goony goons think Uber employees are being exploited. People can choose for themselves whether it makes sense for them to drive, and their personal cars are no less safe than many cabs I've been in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's not really bold to say you don't care about other people. in fact that's a pretty common opinion that doesn't take any particular level of bravery I think other people are adults capable of making their own choices. Not a popular opinion here on dee and dee.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:He's not wrong though. It's not bold or brave at all and acutally matches well with phrases like "adults capable of making their own choices" which goes great when people talk about healthcare and 'just don't get sick, lol'. Just don't sign up to drive with Uber is the new just don't get sick, I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:
Would be a huge pita for the users. .
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The thing is, if you're in a commercial kitchen, there are eyes on you. (How much they care is another issue.) If you're at home and you're under the clock because the kids get home soon and you take a safety shortcut, there's nobody there to say "No, you don't use the chicken that turned out to smell bad when you opened it." There's also nobody to comment if you ignore the safety standards you were taught when you were certified. Reusing the chicken knife on the vegetables? No problem. Using the mushrooms from your back yard in soup? Knock yourself out.* Finally, a commercial kitchen has high-heat dishwashers that will kill all bacteria, while a home dishwasher (or handwashing!) is a lot iffier. Don't assisted living communities have certified and inspected kitchens?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yes, and bringing random ingredients you found into a kitchen and cooking them is a big no-no I concur. Acinonyx posted:Food poisoning is a thing; like a 3k people die per year and like 125k hospitalized in the US sort of thing. There is a reason that it is very tough to get a home kitchen licensed for anything that is not shelf stable. The kitchens in many restaurants, even with the oversight, are scary. Food prep and handling are not something I want disrupted. OTOH haven't you had tons of meals at friends' houses or at bbqs or in other unregulated and possibly sketchy settings without any problems? I certainly have. As long as a home kitchen's production really is small scale it's not a lot different than that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Acinonyx posted:Anecdotes are not evidence. Well, sure. They're just anecdotes. But your anecdotes also are not evidence. Where does that leave us in this casual conversation? Acinonyx posted:My kitchen has been licensed for commercial production. If anything, I wish the inspections were more frequent and guidelines stricter. We'd get visited once year because the inspector had many hundreds of restaurants and seasonal food producers to visit in addition to home kitchens. We never had any issues, but there would have been a lot of opportunities to cut corners if we were inclined to try and 'disrupt' some extra money into our bank account. There are all sort of requirements about labeling, allergens, shelf life, etc. that require great attention to detail. It is considerably more involved than cooking for your friends and family (and it should be). Ok. You could have cut corners if you'd wanted to because an annual inspection doesn't constitute a lot of oversight. But you didn't, right? Why didn't you? Why would you assume people using the app would cut corners when you could have and didn't? Why would that not apply to operators of licensed kitchens, who (because annual inspections don't constitute a lot of oversight) have plenty of opportunities to cut corners?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Do you quiver in fear when having a dinner party in case you poison your guests? The only safe option is to never have dinner parties unless you have a licensed kitchen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:By which I mean they could pay a living wage and let people keep the "freedom and flexibility", but that would be terrible for the bottom line. As it turns out, "freedom and flexibility" is a red herring used to keep Uber from going even more negative on a quarterly basis. Ummm... not just terrible for the bottom line. It would make the whole model a non starter. You couldn't run a traditional cab company on that basis, either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
I wonder who will be scapegoated after AirBnB is brought to heel and everyone realizes SF still has a massive housing problem?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It just gives you time to read, or play around with your smartphone or whatever these days, I guess. Plus, many places will now have exclusive public-transport lanes just to avoid this very problem. You can't read through traffic when you're driving (or shouldn't). IDK man. I can catch the bus like four blocks from my apartment and get off two blocks from my office. It still takes me an hour each way in a bus that is standing (barely) room only with no AC vs a comfortable 20 minute commute by car or taxi. This is in Santiago.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 19:41
|
|