5 ms·
Maybe you should read the article - the argument was that while yes, perks were offered as a reason to accept a smaller wage, they were then gradually eliminate
by skore 15y ago
Maybe you should read the article - the argument was that while yes, perks were offered as a reason to accept a smaller wage, they were then gradually eliminated without changing the wage.
- cleverjake 15y agoMy mistake, I misread it. Thank you for pointing that out, for myself and others.
- ok_craig 15y agoWhat about that 10% raise the whole company got?
- sliverstorm 15y agoEverybody forgot about it. Yea, I guess they won't be doing that again, for all it got 'em.
- throwaway64 15y agothe 10% raise was 5 years after the perks started dissapearing....
- brown9-2 15y agoAmazing how often this one-time across-the-board salary raise is being trotted out in defense of other cuts elsewhere. What a great PR move that was. Besides, I would imagine that in a company doing as well as Google, annual raises of this amount were usual for the performers anyway.
- ok_craig 15y agoSounded like it was a raise on top of whatever else they got. I'd take that kind of raise for fewer perks. They could have just as easily not given it.
- steve8918 15y agoSince when were they eliminated? Have you been to the Google campus? The free food is still there and it's still better than most cafeterias that you have to pay for.
- skore 15y agoAgain - please read the article. This lady is writing about how free food was offered to her in exchange for a lower wage and was then gradually eliminated (which is different from completely eliminated). So yes, from what that lady writes, free food is still there, but less so than when she accepted it in exchange for a lower wage. I never claimed to add any original research - just that the person I replied to hadn't read the article.