3 ms·
"but I really don't get why everyone seems to think that cutting a basic cafeteria" Providing a cafeteria is fine however not charging for the food in the cafe
by gist 11y ago
"but I really don't get why everyone seems to think that cutting a basic cafeteria"
Providing a cafeteria is fine however not charging for the food in the cafeteria is another thing. It's seen as excess when things aren't going well. It's ignored or possibly thought of positively when things are going well. A similar but different example is private jets. Always get chopped when things are bad. But they have value for sure. Executive time is important and it's not just the luxury as is often thought by outsiders.
It doesn't take free food to make employees happy and productive if they are already earning good salaries.
- sokoloff 11y agoBut it does tend to keep people on campus and socializing with each other if it's a) good and b) free.
- FireBeyond 11y agoExecutive jets only make sense for short-notice travel. Hell, even NBA teams have cut down, and all or almost all of them now fly chartered airline (mostly Delta). Same 'red carpet' experience though not all the luxury and trappings, and this is for a group of people typically making between the group $100-200M a year.
- deelowe 11y agoCorporate jets don't cost > $100M per year.
- FireBeyond 11y agoNever said they did. I meant when you categorize "CEO of household name company making 8 digit salary" with "group of world leading athletes making 8 digit salary", and in these days, the latter group (who arguably is going to have the biggest issue with ego) is okay with a Delta chartered 757 for the team, but a CEO who is losing money hand-over-fist absolutely has to be in a new Gulfstream V... The only difference is the need for a corporate jet is short-notice travel (in which case, there are cheaper options than outright ownership), versus the major league team's more scheduled transit.