Did he ever invite a person at random to join him?In some places I've worked there was barely enough space for a kettle, never mind a "sick room" or subsidised restaurant!
I've worked in a couple of fairly large-ish supermarkets where there was a proper canteen (and at subsidised prices), but I'd imagine there were sufficient people using the facilities for it to make a small profit. Back in those days they could get away with giving you a 45 minute break for lunch instead of an hour if there were catering facilities on the premises (Shops Act, if I remember correctly). Clearly, if you have a large number of employees and the business is located some distance away from any cafes, restaurants (or Gregg's if that is your preference), it makes sense to provide some kind of catering on the premises, but for smaller businesses it simply isn't feasible.
However, there was one smaller branch of Safeway I worked in that had a very old-school store manager (everyone else insisted in calling him Mr .... when the company had long abandoned such formalities) who was waited on when he went to the "canteen" for his lunch, while the rest of us relied on stuff that could be eaten cold, or heated up in the microwave.
Oh no - we weren't of high enough status for that. Not that anyone would have wanted to anyway!Did he ever invite a person at random to join him?
I would have done, a different person each day of the week!Oh no - we weren't of high enough status for that. Not that anyone would have wanted to anyway!
Inspired by this I read yesterday: https://forums.digitalspy.com/discu...provide-a-sick-room-and-subsidised-restaurant
I think it's a ridiculous idea.
No. Obviously.
There is a threshold in workplace size where both catering (self service) and a sick room become sensible ideas. The threshold depends on industry and location.
There is a threshold in workplace size where both catering (self service) and a sick room become sensible ideas. The threshold depends on industry and location.
I agree with this for larger companies. For example, having to provide a canteen in a large office building, bus depot, etc.
This is a fair point, though I don't really see a case for subsidising it, just run it at cost.
This is a fair point, though I don't really see a case for subsidising it, just run it at cost.
Site in the middle of London: no point whatsoever, there are loads of food purchase opportunities.
Large site in the middle of nowhere with nothing nearby: probably sensible, if for no other reason than to reduce unnecessary car journeys to whatever is available.
And the rest somewhere in between.
But then when it comes to it...if your employer doesn't provide one and it's important to you that they do, time to look for a new job perhaps?
(I work in a City centre office surrounded by yuppie outlets and fantasise about such an establishment).
You have my sympathies, there's a distinct lack of Gregg's in central London. Although Yo Sushi's and Pret a Manger seem to grow like weeds round there.
I believe it should be mandatory by law that we have a cheap bakery on every high street.
I'm tempted to create a tube style map of every cheap bakery, greasy spoon, fish and chip, Pie and Mash shop within Zone 1.
Short answer is no in both cases. However, depending on the various circumstances, a sick "bay" of some description and canteen type facilities should be considered.
I work in the public sector, in a building with probably 400 staff working on any given weekday. We have an on site nurse, but their primary role is not directly related to staff. It does though, mean a bed of sorts is required. This is available to certain staff in exceptional circumstances eg. Staff continuing to work whilst on fatigue inducing medication such as chemotherapy. It is NOT available to people coming in to work with a hangover.
As regards a canteen. In our previous building (with similar staff numbers), we had a (self service) staff restaurant open for breakfast and lunch and also to prepare refreshments for both internal meetings and guests. I understand that the facility cost the employer £20,000 (net of revenue) per annum and was closed down for this reason in about 2006. The employer's total budget at the time was about £100-150 million. The canteen was well patronised, the food was excellent and varied with a rolling menu (making it easy to order in advance) giving a choice of two main meals on any given day. The food was cooked "conventionally" (no microwaves) and included plenty of vegetables and fruit. Being on site, meant your lunch time (minimum 30 minutes) was spent eating lunch (!) and chatting with colleagues often from other departments.
We now have a choice of Greggs or "ready meals" from one of three Supermarkets about 5 minutes walk away from the office. So, clearly not healthy. Bearing in mind that some of us (admittedly a minority) are on fixed 30 minute breaks, we are supposed to go and purchase lunch, bring it back, probably queue to microwave it in a "new" cooker with the door taped up and then hope the "breakout" area is not full have people having meetings all in that 30 minute period.
Now, excuse me for taking a holistic view, but I'd like to bet that the "new" arrangement costs FAR more in sickness/lost productivity than having a canteen.
So, yes, if your work location has a staff of say, more than 50, I would seriously argue that a facility for providing healthy food options would benefit all in the long run.
We now have a choice of Greggs or "ready meals" from one of three Supermarkets about 5 minutes walk away from the office. So, clearly not healthy. Bearing in mind that some of us (admittedly a minority) are on fixed 30 minute breaks, we are supposed to go and purchase lunch, bring it back, probably queue to microwave it in a "new" cooker with the door taped up and then hope the "breakout" area is not full have people having meetings all in that 30 minute period.
This thread is silly, but sensible discussion could be extracted from it:This is a fair point, though I don't really see a case for subsidising it, just run it at cost.