5 ms·

My last job had this for several years (over a decade, I was only there for a couple years though) and then when the parent company was acquired 2 years ago, th

My last job had this for several years (over a decade, I was only there for a couple years though) and then when the parent company was acquired 2 years ago, the perks slowly started to get scaled back. Eventually, they made Friday afternoons mandatory again. Most of the devs with the luxury of moving and getting a different job started looking immediately. I changed jobs less than 6 months after the policy change. Productivity also went way down because morale was in the gutter.

irrational 8y ago
I've seen this happen so many times. How is it that the higher-ups can't understand the effect of removing perks has on morale? Of if they do understand, do they really feel the effect on morale is worth money saved (or whatever else the rationale is)? Are they hoping the effect will be short-lived?
- coliveira 8y ago
  A lot of managers are only looking for short term "savings" that they can use to "prove" that they are doing a good job and to advance their careers. This is so common that they won't even think twice before doing something that hurts the company in the long term.
- taeric 8y ago
  Taken to a logical extension, this is also why you shouldn't give most perks. No? Joke I always have is that folks will get actively pissed if you take away free coffee/soda. To the point that they will look to leave. If you never even offer it, though, they'll just complain about it.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    I've seen the same sort of thing happen with bonuses, much better to avoid them in the first place.
  - WalterSear 8y ago
    Just turned down a job offer over the management's behavior regarding quality of life factors. I consider it a strong tell - if they need to tighten the screws, the neither understand the work nor do their own jobs well.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  If you believe that programmers are a cog in a wheel and that there are many more cogs on the market, cogs who are working 10% less hours are good candidates to replace with new ones. They probably understand that there will be a temporary instability as old people leave and new replacements come in. Not that I believe this, but I can understand the logic of it.
  - lloeki 8y ago
    A startling discussion I had mere days ago: "You're not productive enough! If you're doing work X in n hours per day then you can do work X * n+2/n in n+2 hours per day! BTW, screw your high quality, efficient† work, and you're not getting a raise." Surprise surprise, that's not how it works. We're not doing cog work, and productivity cannot be measured by the time sitting in front of a bloody screen. Also, pro tip: morale wins battles. † Efficiency is producing work with a given amount of power. A given efficiency does not mean it can be reliably sustained – if at all reached — at a higher power level.
enraged_camel 8y ago
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons companies are extremely resistant to providing these types of perks even if the benefits are clear: once provided, they can't be scaled back and/or taken away without making employees really, really unhappy.

irrational 8y ago

I've seen this happen so many times. How is it that the higher-ups can't understand the effect of removing perks has on morale? Of if they do understand, do they really feel the effect on morale is worth money saved (or whatever else the rationale is)? Are they hoping the effect will be short-lived?

coliveira 8y ago
A lot of managers are only looking for short term "savings" that they can use to "prove" that they are doing a good job and to advance their careers. This is so common that they won't even think twice before doing something that hurts the company in the long term.
taeric 8y ago
Taken to a logical extension, this is also why you shouldn't give most perks. No? Joke I always have is that folks will get actively pissed if you take away free coffee/soda. To the point that they will look to leave. If you never even offer it, though, they'll just complain about it.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  I've seen the same sort of thing happen with bonuses, much better to avoid them in the first place.
- WalterSear 8y ago
  Just turned down a job offer over the management's behavior regarding quality of life factors. I consider it a strong tell - if they need to tighten the screws, the neither understand the work nor do their own jobs well.
mikekchar 8y ago
If you believe that programmers are a cog in a wheel and that there are many more cogs on the market, cogs who are working 10% less hours are good candidates to replace with new ones. They probably understand that there will be a temporary instability as old people leave and new replacements come in. Not that I believe this, but I can understand the logic of it.
- lloeki 8y ago
  A startling discussion I had mere days ago: "You're not productive enough! If you're doing work X in n hours per day then you can do work X * n+2/n in n+2 hours per day! BTW, screw your high quality, efficient† work, and you're not getting a raise." Surprise surprise, that's not how it works. We're not doing cog work, and productivity cannot be measured by the time sitting in front of a bloody screen. Also, pro tip: morale wins battles. † Efficiency is producing work with a given amount of power. A given efficiency does not mean it can be reliably sustained – if at all reached — at a higher power level.

enraged_camel 8y ago

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons companies are extremely resistant to providing these types of perks even if the benefits are clear: once provided, they can't be scaled back and/or taken away without making employees really, really unhappy.