4 ms·

Maybe I'm just weird, but this wouldn't bother me. My employer does offer free sodas and snacks, but I don't take advantage of them (I don't drink soda, and te

by bmj 17y ago

Maybe I'm just weird, but this wouldn't bother me. My employer does offer free sodas and snacks, but I don't take advantage of them (I don't drink soda, and tend not to snack on junk food). I do drink the free coffee, but in the past, I've survived this by bringing a thermos from home. I can understand why some people might not like the free stuff to be taken away, but I'd prefer to work for an employer that compensated fairly for my work, and one that does not expect that I work more than 40-45 hours on a regular basis.

dagw 17y ago
The point, as mentioned in the article, is not so much the (lack of) free soda, but what it is a leading indicator of. Once a company starts pinching pennies and ignoring the effect it has on moral then there is a good chance that worse is to come.
- gaius 17y ago
  See this for why it doesn't make sense: http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/11/why-companies-fire-people-not-fancy-snacks http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/11/why-companies-fire-pe...
algorias 17y ago
It's not about your compensation at all. The impact of free snacks is so tiny for the employers cost structure that the decision to offer them or not is completely unrelated to their ability (or willingness) to pay a fair salary. Would you really prefer an extra $200 or so per year over free soda? I think you wouldn't even notice the difference in your bank balance.
- qjz 17y ago
  The company has to succeed, my stock has to go up in value, and as the company grows in size it can get much better deals on things like health insurance than I can alone. $200/yr spent on soda doesn't benefit me in any way at all. I'll drink tapwater at work if I'm thirsty. Is startup culture really so averse to frugality and so blind to its benefits?
  - dagw 17y ago
    If a company is in such trouble that $200 per year and employee will make any sort of real difference, then they have much bigger problems. Not wasting money is one thing, pointless frugality for the point of frugality is something very different. And really I think you're missing the point by focusing on the soda. If you want the company to grow then you have to keep the employees content and productive. A company full of disgruntled workers looking for a new job will not help your stock go up in value. If the price of that is $200 in soda for some people then that is money well invested, and a direct benefit to you.
    - qjz 17y ago
      You'll get no argument from me that a good investment is money well spent, whether it's free soda or a company fleet of Lamborghinis. But what problem is the CFO in the article trying to solve? The author claims the startup is "fairly successful" but it's already a few years old, just breaking even, and still heavily dependent on financing. His true measure of success seems to hinge on the fact that the company continues to exist in a bad economy. Meanwhile, the CFO needs to address "Sarbanes Oxley compliance, a new accounting system, beef up IT and security, Section 409A (valuation) compliance, etc." This sounds like an important phase in the company's growth, and she's trying to find ways to pay for it. In the context of the article, this isn't an arbitrary decision that disregards morale, productivity or even QA. It's a growing pain essential to establishing the company's success. IOW, they do have much bigger problems. There's no question that preventing disgruntlement during these stages is an HR challenge that needs to be handled delicately. But I think the need can be communicated effectively without losing valuable employees. The fact that it wasn't is the real failure in the article.
      - gridspy 17y ago
        Despite upvoting you for your clear argument - I disagree. The top engineers are the lifeblood of the company, and to make trivial cost cutting measures ($10k really is nothing) that risk their retention is incredibly stupid. Decrees from the top that disregard the input of and value of the employees are the issue here, not how those decrees are handed down. I can't think of any way that HR could say "no more free soda" without it sounding like the stupid cost-cutting measure that it is.
- mmt 17y ago
  Part of the problem is that, to replace $200 of company-paid snacks, an employer would need to pay me quite a bit more to purchase the same thing out of a vending machine. I'd estimate the vending machine operating markup to be, conservatively, 25%. That makes my cash out of pocket $250. To get that amount of take-home, with 34.3% federal and state income taxes and 15.3% social security, my salary would have to go up $500. Yes, I'd rather have the $500 increase, but an employer would be foolish for doing it this way.
eli 17y ago
It's not really about compensation... or even about soda. These engineers joined a start-up in its early days because they wanted to work at the fun, informal sort of place that would stock free sodas. (That said, it's not like keeping free sodas would have prevented everyone from noticing the changing culture forever; it's just an emblematic change that is difficult to ignore, even if you rarely look up from the screen)
- bmj 17y ago
  I see this point, and can understand it. I'm not criticizing people for leaving the company, either--merely saying that I would be less concerned about _that_ particular culture change. For me, losing my ability to work remotely would be a HUGE deal, and probable cause for me to look elsewhere for employment.
  - derwiki 17y ago
    Different strokes for different folks. I would probably start looking for work elsewhere if we _started_ letting people work remotely.
    - orborde 17y ago
      Why? I don't think I'm unique in viewing "able to work remotely" as an excellent perk.
      - derwiki 17y ago
        When I worked at an environment where being able to work remotely was tolerated, I often had a 30 minute turn around to IMs. Today, I stand up, see if the person I want to talk to is around, and then IM/walk over there. If you're working completely independently, working remotely is fine. I'd also avoid a job where I don't have to collaborate with others.
gvb 17y ago
Sodas are a correlating effect, not a causation effect. Steve says "The sodas were just the wake-up call." (his emphasis). The problem is not that the sodas are no longer free, the problem is that the company starts treating its "most valuable asset - its employees" as just another cog in the machine. As such, the company has started to transition from being exceptional to being average, and its exceptional employees leave to find another company which is exceptional, completing the transition.
pavel_lishin 17y ago
So what you're saying is that you wouldn't miss the free things that you don't use? Yeah, I probably wouldn't even notice if my company stopped handing out free goats once a month.

by bmj 17y ago

dagw 17y ago

The point, as mentioned in the article, is not so much the (lack of) free soda, but what it is a leading indicator of. Once a company starts pinching pennies and ignoring the effect it has on moral then there is a good chance that worse is to come.

gaius 17y ago
See this for why it doesn't make sense: http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/11/why-companies-fire-people-not-fancy-snacks http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/11/why-companies-fire-pe...

algorias 17y ago

It's not about your compensation at all. The impact of free snacks is so tiny for the employers cost structure that the decision to offer them or not is completely unrelated to their ability (or willingness) to pay a fair salary. Would you really prefer an extra $200 or so per year over free soda? I think you wouldn't even notice the difference in your bank balance.

qjz 17y ago
The company has to succeed, my stock has to go up in value, and as the company grows in size it can get much better deals on things like health insurance than I can alone. $200/yr spent on soda doesn't benefit me in any way at all. I'll drink tapwater at work if I'm thirsty. Is startup culture really so averse to frugality and so blind to its benefits?
- dagw 17y ago
  If a company is in such trouble that $200 per year and employee will make any sort of real difference, then they have much bigger problems. Not wasting money is one thing, pointless frugality for the point of frugality is something very different. And really I think you're missing the point by focusing on the soda. If you want the company to grow then you have to keep the employees content and productive. A company full of disgruntled workers looking for a new job will not help your stock go up in value. If the price of that is $200 in soda for some people then that is money well invested, and a direct benefit to you.
  - qjz 17y ago
    You'll get no argument from me that a good investment is money well spent, whether it's free soda or a company fleet of Lamborghinis. But what problem is the CFO in the article trying to solve? The author claims the startup is "fairly successful" but it's already a few years old, just breaking even, and still heavily dependent on financing. His true measure of success seems to hinge on the fact that the company continues to exist in a bad economy. Meanwhile, the CFO needs to address "Sarbanes Oxley compliance, a new accounting system, beef up IT and security, Section 409A (valuation) compliance, etc." This sounds like an important phase in the company's growth, and she's trying to find ways to pay for it. In the context of the article, this isn't an arbitrary decision that disregards morale, productivity or even QA. It's a growing pain essential to establishing the company's success. IOW, they do have much bigger problems. There's no question that preventing disgruntlement during these stages is an HR challenge that needs to be handled delicately. But I think the need can be communicated effectively without losing valuable employees. The fact that it wasn't is the real failure in the article.
    - gridspy 17y ago
      Despite upvoting you for your clear argument - I disagree. The top engineers are the lifeblood of the company, and to make trivial cost cutting measures ($10k really is nothing) that risk their retention is incredibly stupid. Decrees from the top that disregard the input of and value of the employees are the issue here, not how those decrees are handed down. I can't think of any way that HR could say "no more free soda" without it sounding like the stupid cost-cutting measure that it is.
mmt 17y ago
Part of the problem is that, to replace $200 of company-paid snacks, an employer would need to pay me quite a bit more to purchase the same thing out of a vending machine. I'd estimate the vending machine operating markup to be, conservatively, 25%. That makes my cash out of pocket $250. To get that amount of take-home, with 34.3% federal and state income taxes and 15.3% social security, my salary would have to go up $500. Yes, I'd rather have the $500 increase, but an employer would be foolish for doing it this way.

eli 17y ago

It's not really about compensation... or even about soda. These engineers joined a start-up in its early days because they wanted to work at the fun, informal sort of place that would stock free sodas. (That said, it's not like keeping free sodas would have prevented everyone from noticing the changing culture forever; it's just an emblematic change that is difficult to ignore, even if you rarely look up from the screen)

bmj 17y ago
I see this point, and can understand it. I'm not criticizing people for leaving the company, either--merely saying that I would be less concerned about _that_ particular culture change. For me, losing my ability to work remotely would be a HUGE deal, and probable cause for me to look elsewhere for employment.
- derwiki 17y ago
  Different strokes for different folks. I would probably start looking for work elsewhere if we _started_ letting people work remotely.
  - orborde 17y ago
    Why? I don't think I'm unique in viewing "able to work remotely" as an excellent perk.
    - derwiki 17y ago
      When I worked at an environment where being able to work remotely was tolerated, I often had a 30 minute turn around to IMs. Today, I stand up, see if the person I want to talk to is around, and then IM/walk over there. If you're working completely independently, working remotely is fine. I'd also avoid a job where I don't have to collaborate with others.

gvb 17y ago

Sodas are a correlating effect, not a causation effect. Steve says "The sodas were just the wake-up call." (his emphasis). The problem is not that the sodas are no longer free, the problem is that the company starts treating its "most valuable asset - its employees" as just another cog in the machine. As such, the company has started to transition from being exceptional to being average, and its exceptional employees leave to find another company which is exceptional, completing the transition.

pavel_lishin 17y ago

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't miss the free things that you don't use? Yeah, I probably wouldn't even notice if my company stopped handing out free goats once a month.