3 ms·

> It may be that this resolves the situation, but it very well may be that the 6-bottle-taker now decides to take 8, or 12 - 6 for work and 6 for home. And then

> It may be that this resolves the situation, but it very well may be that the 6-bottle-taker now decides to take 8, or 12 - 6 for work and 6 for home. And then some extra for their kid. Let's stop extrapolate. Taking stuff (meant for employees at the office) for your families at home sounds more like theft. It's a grey area, but it's clear cut when you do it consistently in large amount over a longer period of time... It's a totally different problem. > Now the company has to either up the supply significantly significantly? Please avoid exaggerating to make your point. > Either way, at this point a sane manager would just pull the free snacks program instead. Nah. A junior engineer at Google is paid ~$1000 a day. These bottles' cost isn't significant. It seems more productive to make things more abundance and avoid scarcity. > Blaming and peer pressure is absolutely a good idea when someone behaves antisocially. Nah. Even Rachel (the blog post owner) would disagree with this...

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> It's a grey area, but it's clear cut when you do it consistently over a longer period of time... It's a totally different problem. It's not a totally different problem, it's an extension of the same. There's a shared resource meant for employees to be used in a reasonable way, and someone decides to take it all for themselves. The difference between this and taking extra for family starts with "I'm taking 6 bottles home, but I don't really need 6, might as well give one to my kid". > significantly? Please avoid exaggerating to make your point. Significantly, i.e. to account for growing demand caused by unrestricted freeloading. I can imagine it easily being 5x+ if more people decide to abuse the system too. > Nah. A junior engineer at Google is paid ~$1000 a day. These bottles' cost isn't significant. On the one hand, fair. Maybe this is how it works at Google. On the other hand, all other companies I had personal experience with agonize over spendings that are fraction of their developer's salaries, and most people wouldn't quit over just cancellation of free sodas. > Nah. Even Rachel (the blog post owner) would disagree with this... Well, she just did put a post that's chastising such behavior and that post can probably identify a person at Google to their peers, so I'd disagree with you here.
- ergocoder 7y ago
  > Well, she just did put a post that's chastising such behavior and probably can identify a person at Google to its peers, so I'd disagree with you here. Fair. I'm disappointed in her blog post; she didn't even offer a systematic fix. The blog is, at best, unbalanced, and, at worst, screams public shaming. It's just so unlike how google/facebook thinks about management in general. So, I'd still give her some benefit of the doubt; and say that she doesn't believe in shaming/peer pressure.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    My impression was that the blog post wasn't intended to discuss all the possible ways to approach the problem of undersupply in free snacks, but just to highlight an instance of tragedy of the commons out there "in the small". Were I working there, I too would push for increasing the supply of the constantly out soft drink, though I'd still consider the behavior of that person inconsiderate and would expect of them to raise that issue too, instead of just hoarding.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> It's a grey area, but it's clear cut when you do it consistently over a longer period of time... It's a totally different problem. It's not a totally different problem, it's an extension of the same. There's a shared resource meant for employees to be used in a reasonable way, and someone decides to take it all for themselves. The difference between this and taking extra for family starts with "I'm taking 6 bottles home, but I don't really need 6, might as well give one to my kid". > significantly? Please avoid exaggerating to make your point. Significantly, i.e. to account for growing demand caused by unrestricted freeloading. I can imagine it easily being 5x+ if more people decide to abuse the system too. > Nah. A junior engineer at Google is paid ~$1000 a day. These bottles' cost isn't significant. On the one hand, fair. Maybe this is how it works at Google. On the other hand, all other companies I had personal experience with agonize over spendings that are fraction of their developer's salaries, and most people wouldn't quit over just cancellation of free sodas. > Nah. Even Rachel (the blog post owner) would disagree with this... Well, she just did put a post that's chastising such behavior and that post can probably identify a person at Google to their peers, so I'd disagree with you here.

ergocoder 7y ago
> Well, she just did put a post that's chastising such behavior and probably can identify a person at Google to its peers, so I'd disagree with you here. Fair. I'm disappointed in her blog post; she didn't even offer a systematic fix. The blog is, at best, unbalanced, and, at worst, screams public shaming. It's just so unlike how google/facebook thinks about management in general. So, I'd still give her some benefit of the doubt; and say that she doesn't believe in shaming/peer pressure.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  My impression was that the blog post wasn't intended to discuss all the possible ways to approach the problem of undersupply in free snacks, but just to highlight an instance of tragedy of the commons out there "in the small". Were I working there, I too would push for increasing the supply of the constantly out soft drink, though I'd still consider the behavior of that person inconsiderate and would expect of them to raise that issue too, instead of just hoarding.