4 ms·

> childish perks like free food Ahh yes, food, such a childish thing.

shankr 4y ago
Big boys go for yacht and stuff /s
hobbitstan 4y ago
Conveniently dropped the ‘free’ I see. Whenever I interviewed with companies and they mentioned free meals or fridges full of sodas as a perk, that was a red flag. Companies like IBM and Microsoft had on-site cafeterias and coffee shops usually with subsidized pricing and it never came up in in interviews.
- DimitriPetrova 4y ago
  Probably because the food isn't good and they're paying for it?
- skyyler 4y ago
  Free lunches are childish to you? Paying for food as a captive audience is very mature? I guess I'm glad to be childish :)
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    Well you could actually very much look at it as childish. The "free" food is obviously paid for by the company with money that could otherwise go to salaries. If everyone got higher salaries and food was charged for, then you could make choices about spending money in the cafeteria or saving money bringing food from home. Adults make choices. By making the decision for you that you'll take the lower salary but get unlimited food, the choice is being made for you, much like a parent decides for a child. So yes, there's a very strong argument to be made that "free" lunch takes away adult autonomy and is indeed "childish".
    - skyyler 4y ago
      Why are we assuming it would go to salaries? Do budget surpluses normally result in bonuses for rank-and-file employees? Aren't you still capable of eating something that isn't free? This line of reasoning makes any workplace perk into an act of infantilisation: 401(k) matching? You mean you let them remove that much agency from your investment planning? Healthcare? I would prefer to be a big girl and buy my healthcare plan on the open market. Free parking? I'll decide for myself where to park since I'm an adult. Nice toilet paper in the bathroom? Do you think I can't provide toiletries for myself? That money could have been salaries.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - crazygringo 4y ago
        > Why are we assuming it would go to salaries? Because companies generally budget for total compensation and then divide between salary and perks, and because employees generally compare offers using total compensation rather than just salary. > This line of reasoning makes any workplace perk into an act of infantilisation Of course it can, but it exists on a spectrum. Things like 401(k) matching and healthcare and toilet paper aren't infantilizing because they're cheaper or have tax benefits when provided through the company, and most people use them. So they're simply a win-win. On the other hand, if a company provides a lower salary but free housing, that can be extremely infantilizing since a big part of adult autonomy is balancing a lot of factors in choosing where to live. Things like free meals, rec rooms, laundry, and haircuts are generally more on the infantilizing side of things, since a lot of employees would just prefer cash instead. Lunches provided at-cost can make a lot of sense though when restaurants are far away though -- it's not infantilizing because you still pay for lunch, but it's win-win because the company isn't making a profit off of you like restaurants do.
        skyyler 4y ago
        >it's not infantilizing because you still pay for lunch I don't buy it, they've still made the decision of where you're getting your food for you. The only way to escape infantilisation is to never be an employee. Why would you let mommy and daddy tell you what projects you're allowed to work on?
  - buildsjets 4y ago
    TANSTAAFL. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. It’s been in the hacker jargon file since the ‘70s, maaaaan.
- genmud 4y ago
  Having worked at a place with subsidized cafeteria onsite, oh boy was the food shitty. The old school businesses I worked at had this really strange view of cafeterias, like they expected their employees to hear the whistle blow and everyone take their tin lunchbox to the lunch room.
  - elzbardico 4y ago
    I have heartburn and can feel the smell of stale cooking oil in the friers from the cafeteria in an IBM campus I worked ages ago just by thinking about it. Jesus Christ, the food was so awful i used to call it Websphere.
vineyardmike 4y ago
To be fair, the free food was intentionally to create a collegiate type environment. But I think it’s a universally good perk for more than children. It’s tax efficient (company pre-tax and non-profit expense vs post-income-tax expensive), and it keeps people around the office and around their employees. Keeping employees at work with their coworkers is for sure good for business.
Tarucho 4y ago
I guess it came as childish because that´s the way those perks were given to us by management. In fact the head of a big studio (around 800 people) I worked on refered to these perks in private as "glitter".

Big boys go for yacht and stuff /s

Conveniently dropped the ‘free’ I see. Whenever I interviewed with companies and they mentioned free meals or fridges full of sodas as a perk, that was a red flag. Companies like IBM and Microsoft had on-site cafeterias and coffee shops usually with subsidized pricing and it never came up in in interviews.

DimitriPetrova 4y ago
Probably because the food isn't good and they're paying for it?
skyyler 4y ago
Free lunches are childish to you? Paying for food as a captive audience is very mature? I guess I'm glad to be childish :)
- crazygringo 4y ago
  Well you could actually very much look at it as childish. The "free" food is obviously paid for by the company with money that could otherwise go to salaries. If everyone got higher salaries and food was charged for, then you could make choices about spending money in the cafeteria or saving money bringing food from home. Adults make choices. By making the decision for you that you'll take the lower salary but get unlimited food, the choice is being made for you, much like a parent decides for a child. So yes, there's a very strong argument to be made that "free" lunch takes away adult autonomy and is indeed "childish".
  - skyyler 4y ago
    Why are we assuming it would go to salaries? Do budget surpluses normally result in bonuses for rank-and-file employees? Aren't you still capable of eating something that isn't free? This line of reasoning makes any workplace perk into an act of infantilisation: 401(k) matching? You mean you let them remove that much agency from your investment planning? Healthcare? I would prefer to be a big girl and buy my healthcare plan on the open market. Free parking? I'll decide for myself where to park since I'm an adult. Nice toilet paper in the bathroom? Do you think I can't provide toiletries for myself? That money could have been salaries.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      > Why are we assuming it would go to salaries? Because companies generally budget for total compensation and then divide between salary and perks, and because employees generally compare offers using total compensation rather than just salary. > This line of reasoning makes any workplace perk into an act of infantilisation Of course it can, but it exists on a spectrum. Things like 401(k) matching and healthcare and toilet paper aren't infantilizing because they're cheaper or have tax benefits when provided through the company, and most people use them. So they're simply a win-win. On the other hand, if a company provides a lower salary but free housing, that can be extremely infantilizing since a big part of adult autonomy is balancing a lot of factors in choosing where to live. Things like free meals, rec rooms, laundry, and haircuts are generally more on the infantilizing side of things, since a lot of employees would just prefer cash instead. Lunches provided at-cost can make a lot of sense though when restaurants are far away though -- it's not infantilizing because you still pay for lunch, but it's win-win because the company isn't making a profit off of you like restaurants do.
      - skyyler 4y ago
        >it's not infantilizing because you still pay for lunch I don't buy it, they've still made the decision of where you're getting your food for you. The only way to escape infantilisation is to never be an employee. Why would you let mommy and daddy tell you what projects you're allowed to work on?
- buildsjets 4y ago
  TANSTAAFL. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. It’s been in the hacker jargon file since the ‘70s, maaaaan.
genmud 4y ago
Having worked at a place with subsidized cafeteria onsite, oh boy was the food shitty. The old school businesses I worked at had this really strange view of cafeterias, like they expected their employees to hear the whistle blow and everyone take their tin lunchbox to the lunch room.
- elzbardico 4y ago
  I have heartburn and can feel the smell of stale cooking oil in the friers from the cafeteria in an IBM campus I worked ages ago just by thinking about it. Jesus Christ, the food was so awful i used to call it Websphere.

vineyardmike 4y ago

To be fair, the free food was intentionally to create a collegiate type environment. But I think it’s a universally good perk for more than children. It’s tax efficient (company pre-tax and non-profit expense vs post-income-tax expensive), and it keeps people around the office and around their employees. Keeping employees at work with their coworkers is for sure good for business.

Tarucho 4y ago

I guess it came as childish because that´s the way those perks were given to us by management. In fact the head of a big studio (around 800 people) I worked on refered to these perks in private as "glitter".