Taylor Gourmet Ban

[Anonymous]

I just read that there is a ban in Taylor Gourmet. Apparently, the owner showed up at an event to cut regulations for small business owners that happened to take place at the White House. Taylor Gourmet's owner is being called out for supporting Trump's efforts, but Taylor Gourmet's owner defends itself by saying that they just want regulations removed that impact their small business.

What I really want to know is what regulation does Taylor Gourmet want to get rid of? They seem to enjoy a good flow of business at all of their locations.

The key regulations that apply to them likely have to do with food safety and fair wages for their employees (local residents). As customers, don't we want these regulations?

If Taylor Gourmet wants to slack off on food safety and paying fair wages, then I think a ban is fair.

[Anonymous]

OP, do you mean boycott?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read that there is a ban in Taylor Gourmet. Apparently, the owner showed up at an event to cut regulations for small business owners that happened to take place at the White House. Taylor Gourmet's owner is being called out for supporting Trump's efforts, but Taylor Gourmet's owner defends itself by saying that they just want regulations removed that impact their small business.

What I really want to know is what regulation does Taylor Gourmet want to get rid of? They seem to enjoy a good flow of business at all of their locations.

The key regulations that apply to them likely have to do with food safety and fair wages for their employees (local residents). As customers, don't we want these regulations?

If Taylor Gourmet wants to slack off on food safety and paying fair wages, then I think a ban is fair.

Can you post a link

[Anonymous]

Its amazing that when someone goes to try and make a change, people cry because he tried to give input. How is that different than protesting?

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the attempt at political activism of late, but I do wish activists would be more thoughtful and precise with their language. It's hard to take this post seriously when the word "ban" is used so nonsensically.

[Anonymous]

Didn't Jeff delete a similar thread to this earlier?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Jeff delete a similar thread to this earlier?

I deleted a thread that was advocating a boycott. As long as this one focuses on the topic raised by the OP, I have no problem with it. If anyone knows the answers to the questions, that would certainly be more enlightening than additional comments about the OP's use of the wrong word.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why anyone would jump to conclusions and think the owner may have nefarious motives. Based on what? The thing is that we can't possibly know what kind of things they're talking about. I can't imagine boycotting a business because the owner was interested in having a seat at the table when invited by the president to discuss issues that affect small businesses. They cannot slack off on issues of food safety and paying fair wages. Those are laws. Food safety is inspected by Dept of Health.

People are making wild guesses and big leaps and the fact is, you're talking about someone's livelihood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why anyone would jump to conclusions and think the owner may have nefarious motives. Based on what? The thing is that we can't possibly know what kind of things they're talking about. I can't imagine boycotting a business because the owner was interested in having a seat at the table when invited by the president to discuss issues that affect small businesses. They cannot slack off on issues of food safety and paying fair wages. Those are laws. Food safety is inspected by Dept of Health.

People are making wild guesses and big leaps and the fact is, you're talking about someone's livelihood.

The owner also posted selfies with prime, reserved seats at Inauguration. He supports this Administration and "reducing regulatory burden" - aka fattening his pockets at the expense of his workers and customers.

He sows what he reaps. Meh.

[Anonymous]

There are regulations around almost any aspect of owning a business. From equipment energy efficiency requirements, food safety, wage and hour, FMLA, health care for employees, social security, EEOC, etc. In a lot of cases, it's inaccurate to assume the company is against the protections afforded by law to workers and consumers. It's that the burden of paperwork and reporting to prove that you're following all applicable regulations is a lot. Taylor Gourmet has 15+ locations so it probably doesn't qualify as a small business for a lot of these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are regulations around almost any aspect of owning a business. From equipment energy efficiency requirements, food safety, wage and hour, FMLA, health care for employees, social security, EEOC, etc. In a lot of cases, it's inaccurate to assume the company is against the protections afforded by law to workers and consumers. It's that the burden of paperwork and reporting to prove that you're following all applicable regulations is a lot. Taylor Gourmet has 15+ locations so it probably doesn't qualify as a small business for a lot of these programs.

Great post. Well written and PP addresses the actual question.

I think it is fair to ask Taylor Gourmet, which of the burdensome regulations they want to be rid of.

As a consumer of food establishments, I am grateful for the regulations.

It seems Taylor Gourmet, may want to have issue with the high rents for the locations that they choose, but hey, they chose those locations, so . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why anyone would jump to conclusions and think the owner may have nefarious motives. Based on what? The thing is that we can't possibly know what kind of things they're talking about. I can't imagine boycotting a business because the owner was interested in having a seat at the table when invited by the president to discuss issues that affect small businesses. They cannot slack off on issues of food safety and paying fair wages. Those are laws. Food safety is inspected by Dept of Health.

People are making wild guesses and big leaps and the fact is, you're talking about someone's livelihood.

The owner also posted selfies with prime, reserved seats at Inauguration. He supports this Administration and "reducing regulatory burden" - aka fattening his pockets at the expense of his workers and customers.

He sows what he reaps. Meh.

+1. It's not this meeting alone that set people off. It's his recent public history of a relationship w/ the orange peel.

[Anonymous]

The same regulations that are in place at your local organic soup kitchen in Takoma Park that are a burden to the owner, the same regulations that cause price increase at whole foods, I assume you will be boycotting them as well, just because the Taylor guy was present doesn't mean your local independent or corporate business is against the reduction of regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The same regulations that are in place at your local organic soup kitchen in Takoma Park that are a burden to the owner, the same regulations that cause price increase at whole foods, I assume you will be boycotting them as well, just because the Taylor guy was present doesn't mean your local independent or corporate business is against the reduction of regulations.

was the organic soup kitchen guy doing a photo op with Twitler?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are regulations around almost any aspect of owning a business. From equipment energy efficiency requirements, food safety, wage and hour, FMLA, health care for employees, social security, EEOC, etc. In a lot of cases, it's inaccurate to assume the company is against the protections afforded by law to workers and consumers. It's that the burden of paperwork and reporting to prove that you're following all applicable regulations is a lot. Taylor Gourmet has 15+ locations so it probably doesn't qualify as a small business for a lot of these programs.

Great post. Well written and PP addresses the actual question.

I think it is fair to ask Taylor Gourmet, which of the burdensome regulations they want to be rid of.

As a consumer of food establishments, I am grateful for the regulations.

It seems Taylor Gourmet, may want to have issue with the high rents for the locations that they choose, but hey, they chose those locations, so . . .

They may not be seeking particular regulations to be rid of, but could be there to offer a viewpoint and personal experience with certain issues.