5 ms·
I've always liked the explanation given by __--__ [0] in a HN thread long ago on a Steve Blank post "The Elves Leave Middle Earth – Sodas Are No Longer Free"[1]
by tbrake 11y ago
I've always liked the explanation given by __--__ [0] in a HN thread long ago on a Steve Blank post "The Elves Leave Middle Earth – Sodas Are No Longer Free"[1] about the same subject :
> "I'm not management, but I've had it described to me like this: cutting soda, while it may be insignificant and certainly isn't going to change a damned thing money-wise for the company, makes the management feel better about the situation. It makes them feel like they're doing something and something is better than nothing. It's also a CYA tactic. If the CEO wants to hold somebody personally accountable, the CFO can say "look, we did everything, we even cut back the soda!"
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5757467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5757467
[1] http://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-earth-%E2%80%93-soda%E2%80%99s-are-no-longer-free/ http://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-eart...
- crimsoneer 11y agoI mean...they're saving $600,000. That's not nothing.
- pif 11y agoIndeed, it's not nothing compared to the aimed cut of $2,500,000,000: they've already got at nearly 1/4,000 of their target!
- lifeformed 11y agoOut of $2.5B? That's $0.0006B. I mean, it basically is nothing... For 36,000 employees, that's less than $17 per person. Meanwhile, the CEO gets paid $21,800,000 per year.
- noonespecial 11y agoThe real question is that if the CEO somehow knew for certain that cutting the soda would allow him to earn that 21,800,000 but keeping the soda would boost productivity earning him 22,500,000 instead, would he cut it anyway because that's just the way things should be done?
- lifeformed 11y agoI bet the soda cut was more about keeping up the appearance of doing something. His compensation is probably more directly affected by his perceived effectiveness than from the subtle productivity benefits more soda would bring.
- tbrake 11y agoRight! It's low impact, high visibility. And the last line of the old post - "we _even cut out_ the sodas" - is a great soundbite. To borrow from the common criticism of the TSA - it's cost cutting theatre.
- tajen 11y agoLet's ask some building manager: How much costs a seat in a nice building? I'd say 300-800€ a month. 3 sodas/coffee a day incl. service to fill up the machine = 45€, which would only have converted to 30€ after tax if paid to the employee.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago15 euros for a drink? What country are you talking about? I'd fire that building manager if he's charging that kind of money for a drink that's worth a fraction of a euro.
- anon4 11y agoI think he means per month.
- blisterpeanuts 11y agoThanks, read that before I had my (free) coffee :)
- InclinedPlane 11y agoIt's important to look at this change in its true form. This is not a savings. It's not as though employees are filling up backpacks with cans of soda, going to the overpass, and chucking cans at cars. It's not as though $600k in soda is rotting away somehow because it's being improperly stored. No, this is a benefit provided to employees as a condition of their employment. Cutting that benefit is equivalent to a salary cut. Management is taking money away from its employees and giving it to themselves and the shareholders.
- buildops 11y agoHow long is it going to take the employees to leave - especially the best ones? Employees are motivated by intrinsic motivations such as feeling valued. These little things help it. Sadly, the CEOs need to go back to business school and re-learn organizational behavior.