4 ms·

> No more paternalistic benefits. Cutting benefits and calling it a feature. Amazing. A lot of "work will set you free" vibes from this.

agd 5y ago
They also set out how they've paid the value of these benefits to employees instead, and have started a profit sharing plan. Looks like a better deal to me?
- Afforess 5y ago
  Cash value != Benefit value. That you interpret the cash value as being identical shows you trust management over the employees, who this actually effects...
- yaml-ops-guy 5y ago
  I don't know what Basecamp's books look like, I don't have the clairvoyance to know what they will look like in the future.. humor a speculative question for a moment: would the "better deal" have been to give employees the option of how they'd like to receive their fringe benefits versus a one-size-fits-all edict, so that those with less tolerance for the volatility of profit sharing can enjoy a bit of stability with such fringe benefits if profits decline? Especially after, as another commenter mentioned: the tax implication of cash payout?
- itsdrewmiller 5y ago
  Paid out "this year" - pretty weaselly. Are they going to pay out the value next year too or just cut it from the budget?
  - markmark 5y ago
    The job market is great, if people aren't happy with their comp they can find someone who wants to pay them more.
    - mplewis 5y ago
      Answer the question.
      - markmark 5y ago
        They are paying out this year, then introducing a 10% profit share next year. But, as I said, this is just a compensation discussion. If people are unhappy they can renegotiate their comp or find someone else to pay them more.
swyx 5y ago
cutting benefits and paying out the cash value of them so you can decide what to do with it. i understand the objections to the other points in the post, but why do you present half the story on this one?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lxgr 5y ago
  > paying out the cash value of them so you can decide what to do with it. Doesn't this have tax implications? At least in my country, some types of benefits are income tax exempt.
  - swyx 5y ago
    thats a fair point. no idea if its possible perhaps they could classify it as a lump sum tax exempt benefit rather than a categorical reimbursement based one that mostly goes unused. still even with a 40% tax hit - i'd take a "cash benefit" over the piles of benefits i know i'm not using.
    - zrail 5y ago
      That wouldn't work for US employees. Any benefits other than very specific allowed categories are taxable income. The wellness benefit, CSA share, etc are already taxable.
- sleepydog 5y ago
  I wonder what the cash value is, since a large group can usually negotiate a better deal than an individual. Will employees get the amount the company spends per employee, or the amount it would take for them to get the benefit for themselves?
- dahdum 5y ago
  They've paid out the benefits for "this year". They could have, but did not, raise base compensation by the value of those benefits.

agd 5y ago

They also set out how they've paid the value of these benefits to employees instead, and have started a profit sharing plan. Looks like a better deal to me?

Afforess 5y ago
Cash value != Benefit value. That you interpret the cash value as being identical shows you trust management over the employees, who this actually effects...
yaml-ops-guy 5y ago
I don't know what Basecamp's books look like, I don't have the clairvoyance to know what they will look like in the future.. humor a speculative question for a moment: would the "better deal" have been to give employees the option of how they'd like to receive their fringe benefits versus a one-size-fits-all edict, so that those with less tolerance for the volatility of profit sharing can enjoy a bit of stability with such fringe benefits if profits decline? Especially after, as another commenter mentioned: the tax implication of cash payout?
itsdrewmiller 5y ago
Paid out "this year" - pretty weaselly. Are they going to pay out the value next year too or just cut it from the budget?
- markmark 5y ago
  The job market is great, if people aren't happy with their comp they can find someone who wants to pay them more.
  - mplewis 5y ago
    Answer the question.
    - markmark 5y ago
      They are paying out this year, then introducing a 10% profit share next year. But, as I said, this is just a compensation discussion. If people are unhappy they can renegotiate their comp or find someone else to pay them more.

swyx 5y ago

cutting benefits and paying out the cash value of them so you can decide what to do with it. i understand the objections to the other points in the post, but why do you present half the story on this one?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lxgr 5y ago
> paying out the cash value of them so you can decide what to do with it. Doesn't this have tax implications? At least in my country, some types of benefits are income tax exempt.
- swyx 5y ago
  thats a fair point. no idea if its possible perhaps they could classify it as a lump sum tax exempt benefit rather than a categorical reimbursement based one that mostly goes unused. still even with a 40% tax hit - i'd take a "cash benefit" over the piles of benefits i know i'm not using.
  - zrail 5y ago
    That wouldn't work for US employees. Any benefits other than very specific allowed categories are taxable income. The wellness benefit, CSA share, etc are already taxable.
sleepydog 5y ago
I wonder what the cash value is, since a large group can usually negotiate a better deal than an individual. Will employees get the amount the company spends per employee, or the amount it would take for them to get the benefit for themselves?
dahdum 5y ago
They've paid out the benefits for "this year". They could have, but did not, raise base compensation by the value of those benefits.