4 ms·

From the article: "Meanwhile, someone at Google woke up one day and realized that the company was subsidizing each child to the tune of $37,000 a year — which

by fiaz 18y ago

From the article: "Meanwhile, someone at Google woke up one day and realized that the company was subsidizing each child to the tune of $37,000 a year — which nobody had noticed up until then — compared with the $12,000-a-year average subsidy of other big Silicon Valley companies like Cisco Systems and Oracle." It seems that Google was quite generous over the years and finally realized that given the difficult economic times that they as a company must do something to bring their internal spending in line to a more realistic range. I don't see why Google should be penalized for such a move. Unfortunately for Google, the fact that this is a move that affects children and families such a story becomes even more sensitive. Google is a business like any other business out there. Why are they being treated as though they are something other than a business?

sjh 18y ago
Because the impression is about that they are different, an impression which they have fostered themselves. The opening words of the Letter from the Founders in the IPO prospectus reads: "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one." (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504073639/ds1.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125040...)
condor 18y ago
It seems that google was generous in the way a company is generous by having a policy to pay for traveling employees' hotel stays at the Ritz, and when it learns that they are paying 4x more than competitors who have employees stay at the Marriot, changes its policy by having employees stay at the Ritz but charging them to cover some of the subsidy, instead of changing their policy and paying for employees to stay at a lower priced hotel. Apologies for the looong sentence.
- pmorici 18y ago
  Exactly! The "evil" part about this isn't that Google wants to reduce their subsidy from 37k to 12k it's that Google wants to reduce the subsidy w/o lowering costs. That said no one is forcing the parents to use Google child care and they could presumably band together and go to the company that ran the original lower cost care service and have them open a cost effective center near by, or something to that effect.
gojomo 18y ago
If they were simply reducing the subsidy equally for everyone, the reaction wouldn't be quite the same. Instead, they seem to be making the subsidy -- which includes the unique benefit of having children nearby onsite -- conditional on a high level of copayment. Only if you can already afford gold-plated child-care, then you get the additional Google subsidy and proximity. If the copayment is too dear, you wind up getting no subsidy, and your children wind up farther away. It's like welfare for the already-well-off, which excludes the most needy.

by fiaz 18y ago

sjh 18y ago

Because the impression is about that they are different, an impression which they have fostered themselves. The opening words of the Letter from the Founders in the IPO prospectus reads: "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one." (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504073639/ds1.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125040...)

condor 18y ago

It seems that google was generous in the way a company is generous by having a policy to pay for traveling employees' hotel stays at the Ritz, and when it learns that they are paying 4x more than competitors who have employees stay at the Marriot, changes its policy by having employees stay at the Ritz but charging them to cover some of the subsidy, instead of changing their policy and paying for employees to stay at a lower priced hotel. Apologies for the looong sentence.

pmorici 18y ago
Exactly! The "evil" part about this isn't that Google wants to reduce their subsidy from 37k to 12k it's that Google wants to reduce the subsidy w/o lowering costs. That said no one is forcing the parents to use Google child care and they could presumably band together and go to the company that ran the original lower cost care service and have them open a cost effective center near by, or something to that effect.

gojomo 18y ago

If they were simply reducing the subsidy equally for everyone, the reaction wouldn't be quite the same. Instead, they seem to be making the subsidy -- which includes the unique benefit of having children nearby onsite -- conditional on a high level of copayment. Only if you can already afford gold-plated child-care, then you get the additional Google subsidy and proximity. If the copayment is too dear, you wind up getting no subsidy, and your children wind up farther away. It's like welfare for the already-well-off, which excludes the most needy.