Safe vs Dangerous in LA
-
But the movies, man. The movies!
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
-
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
That was my initial take but there are valid reasons for viewing these differently, one is the likelihood of the employees being tested frequently and other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work. Would be interested in counterpoints to those arguments.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
That was my initial take but there are valid reasons for viewing these differently, one is the likelihood of the employees being tested frequently and other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work. Would be interested in counterpoints to those arguments.
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Glad to know she and her employees run the place for fun and not work.
-
Glad to know she and her employees run the place for fun and not work.
@LuFins-Dad said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
Glad to know she and her employees run the place for fun and not work.
I knew it might be taken that way. I was talking about the customers.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
Yeah. I second Mik's first comment.
The specifics of her situation are ideal for viral sharing, though. I hope she has a GoFundMe.
That was my initial take but there are valid reasons for viewing these differently, one is the likelihood of the employees being tested frequently and other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work. Would be interested in counterpoints to those arguments.
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
-
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
I was talking about the clientele not the workers put out to the street.
-
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
I was talking about the clientele not the workers put out to the street.
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
I was talking about the clientele not the workers put out to the street.
I don't see how that's in any way material. Her employees' jobs aren't less important because their clientele are there "for fun," any more than the movie production company and its employees aren't important because "all they do is make movies." You have a small-ass patio that's essential to keep open so that the woman's business doesn't go under. You have a shitload of tents set up for a movie production company that arguably don't need to be, because you can find other logistical means to feed your staff.
(Honestly, what the production company should do is hire the woman for catering. Everybody's happy.)
Please love yourself.
-
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
Cumulatively in LA? I doubt it.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
Cumulatively in LA? I doubt it.
@Mik said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
and the other mostly for essential work
There. We can't go without movies. That would be horrible.
It would lead to an assload more people unemployed than the woman's business. Just sayin'.
Cumulatively in LA? I doubt it.
No, just her business. As for total restaurants vs. total movie crew, probably you're right? I have no idea.
-
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
I was talking about the clientele not the workers put out to the street.
I don't see how that's in any way material. Her employees' jobs aren't less important because their clientele are there "for fun," any more than the movie production company and its employees aren't important because "all they do is make movies." You have a small-ass patio that's essential to keep open so that the woman's business doesn't go under. You have a shitload of tents set up for a movie production company that arguably don't need to be, because you can find other logistical means to feed your staff.
(Honestly, what the production company should do is hire the woman for catering. Everybody's happy.)
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
I was talking about the clientele not the workers put out to the street.
I don't see how that's in any way material. Her employees' jobs aren't less important because their clientele are there "for fun," any more than the movie production company and its employees aren't important because "all they do is make movies." You have a small-ass patio that's essential to keep open so that the woman's business doesn't go under. You have a shitload of tents set up for a movie production company that arguably don't need to be, because you can find other logistical means to feed your staff.
(Honestly, what the production company should do is hire the woman for catering. Everybody's happy.)
Great. What about the Food Service people hired to take care of the production staff?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
@Loki said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
other being one venue is mostly for fun and the other mostly for work.
Both are for work. It might be argued that the movie crap isn't imperative (therefore "for fun"), but that would depend on a lot.
I was talking about the clientele not the workers put out to the street.
I don't see how that's in any way material. Her employees' jobs aren't less important because their clientele are there "for fun," any more than the movie production company and its employees aren't important because "all they do is make movies." You have a small-ass patio that's essential to keep open so that the woman's business doesn't go under. You have a shitload of tents set up for a movie production company that arguably don't need to be, because you can find other logistical means to feed your staff.
(Honestly, what the production company should do is hire the woman for catering. Everybody's happy.)
Great. What about the Food Service people hired to take care of the production staff?
@LuFins-Dad said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
Great. What about the Food Service people hired to take care of the production staff?
I know very little about movie-making, but what I do know bleeds a little bit into what I know about food service; once you do catering work for one production, and you don't suck, word gets around that you're a catering option. Very slim chance this one contract is going to break the bank for that catering company. (They're tied into essential business, after all.) The woman's business, on the other hand, is on the verge of bankruptcy.
-
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
-
I do not think the "movie business" is "essential" at all. So if there is an order to close "unessential" businesses, the movie business should be closed too.
-
Specific to the outdoor dining tents, there may be crucial differences that set the movie company's dining tents apart from the typical restaurateurs' dining tents, and those differences may be in rules and procedures that a "company" can enforce on their crew/employees but a "restaurant" cannot enforce on its patrons. E.g., an "employer" can enforce mandatory temperature checks on every one before every shift, an "employer" can threaten dismissal for rule violations, an "employer" can setoff their employees/contractors rules that are stricter than the state or municipality ... in short, "employers" have more leverages to set stricter rules and to enforce those rules than what a typical restaurateur can do with their general public clientele. Of course I do not know for sure whether this is indeed the case in this specific instance, but it is conceivable.
-
-
@George-K said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
But the movies, man. The movies!
-
I do not think the "movie business" is "essential" at all. So if there is an order to close "unessential" businesses, the movie business should be closed too.
-
Specific to the outdoor dining tents, there may be crucial differences that set the movie company's dining tents apart from the typical restaurateurs' dining tents, and those differences may be in rules and procedures that a "company" can enforce on their crew/employees but a "restaurant" cannot enforce on its patrons. E.g., an "employer" can enforce mandatory temperature checks on every one before every shift, an "employer" can threaten dismissal for rule violations, an "employer" can setoff their employees/contractors rules that are stricter than the state or municipality ... in short, "employers" have more leverages to set stricter rules and to enforce those rules than what a typical restaurateur can do with their general public clientele. Of course I do not know for sure whether this is indeed the case in this specific instance, but it is conceivable.
@Axtremus said in Safe vs Dangerous in LA:
I do not think the "movie business" is "essential" at all. So if there is an order to close "unessential" businesses, the movie business should be closed too.
Says the guy who regularly posts movie and YouTube recommendations for what he's seen recently. Practice what you preach, Ax. Otherwise you're helplessly full of shit.
-
