7 ms·
OP's link should really include the full title: Ikea’s boss solved the Swedish retailer’s global ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, introducing flexi
by misterbwong 2y ago
OP's link should really include the full title:
Ikea’s boss solved the Swedish retailer’s global ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, introducing flexible working and subsidizing childcare
Cutting it off there just makes it seem like ikea thinks "more money = happy workers" when in reality it is more nuanced than that.
- jp57 2y agoSubsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same work that's great for the company. I am in favor of flexible work arrangements, and I have no idea if those have costs to the company, or how much more you'd need to pay the workers to accept the less flexible arrangements.
- grecy 2y agoFor the people that want the childcare, it’s better than more money, because it’s tax free
- golergka 2y agoCan company provide a choice for employees where they can either get facilities or a raise?
- bell-cot 2y agoIANAL, but I'll bet the answer is "yes-ish, in most-ish circumstances and jurisdictions, if the company is willing to pay enough lawyers & taxes & stuff. (If $Company is not big global retailer like IKEA, then things would probably be far simpler.)
- QuarterReptile 2y agoIn the US, and presumably elsewhere, no way. My wife tried to negotiate a higher salary in exchange for forgoing health insurance a few times, to no avail.
- bombcar 2y agoIndividually it usually doesn't work unless you're at a level where there is "only one of you" - think C-level exec. But collectively it can work; the company may talk to the union and offer either X benefit which costs $Y or $Y applied to salaries.
- dmurray 2y agoIt won't save as much as you might expect, though, because the insurance provider also knows that the people opting out of the scheme would have (on average) cost the provider less to provide healthcare for.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoI’m pretty sure it isn’t up to the company, they have to provide health insurance if certain criteria are met, it doesn’t matter if your partner already has health insurance.
- grecy 2y ago> In the US, and presumably elsewhere In every other developed country everyone has healthcare, irrelevant of job - even people that don't have a job. Healthcare is not tied to your job, it is a basic human right. So this discussion makes no sense outside the US.
- quietbritishjim 2y agoI suppose that depends on location. In the UK, it would count as a benefit in kind, and is taxable in exactly same way as regular income.
- em-bee 2y agodepends on the form, amount and also income: https://www.litrg.org.uk/benefits/childcare/employer-supported-childcare https://www.litrg.org.uk/benefits/childcare/employer-support... workplace nurseries are tax free as is any child care for lower incomes. other benefits are tax free up to a certain amount.
- mashlol 2y agoIt's better for the company - they can pay less and the employee gets the same equivalent amount in their pocket. E.g. if the company were going to pay $2k extra but it would be taxed $1k, they would have to pay $3k to get the equivalent "happiness" boost. The employee gets $2k / year either way. $2k tax free -> $2k in your pocket $3k + $1k tax -> $2k in your pocket
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoIn the USA, you can get up to $5k or so without tax (it’s your money, but you can spend from a tax free account) to fund child care, which works out to almost half for one kid in a HCOL.
- consf 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- malfist 2y agoLook, I'm a DINK, don't have kids, never plan to have kids, don't even like kids. But child care is important to both the parents and society. Not subsidizing child care often means one parent has to leave the workforce, and that's almost always worse off for everyone than if they were able to afford child care and can contribute
- from-nibly 2y agoRight, because raising kids isn't contributing to society.
- 39896880 2y agoContributing to the household income. It takes 2 incomes to live anywhere but BFE in the US.
- QuarterReptile 2y ago[flagged]
- bombcar 2y agoIt usually takes two incomes to afford childcare! I know single-income families at various levels of income across the country; it is certainly possible almost anywhere - if you want it.
- refurb 2y agoYeah but a big part of that is because both parents work. You can buy double the house with 2 incomes instead of 1.
- CalRobert 2y agoSadly the main consequence of moving to two income families seems to be making everything cost twice as much.
- 2y ago
- amtamt 2y agoConsidered "valued" vs considered "useful" is probably the analogy that should be used here. Subsidizing childcare signals "we value you", while flat increae is signaling "you are useful to us", which can make a lot of impact on moral.
- KeplerBoy 2y agoIs there really a perceived difference on the employees side? If anything subsidized childcare feels like charity and I don't want charity, I want to be paid well for my work, so I can take care of my family.
- amtamt 2y agoFor some people there is no percieved differnce, some would think employer is trying to save on taxes, while for some (many?) there is a real percieved difference as being seen a member of family rather than a disposable hired hand. For an analogy, one can be given money instead of being invited to a social gathering. One might feel offended, while other may feel happier.
- RestlessMind 2y ago> Is there really a perceived difference on the employees side? Only if we could generalize all the employees! I am sure there are some who feel better to have holiday gifts, holiday parties, token recognition rewards etc. And there would be some who just evaluate everything on the basis of cold hard numbers. A good company should have policies to cater to as many employees as possible.
- HelloNurse 2y agoThe message of subsidized childcare is not generically "we value you", but "we want you to have children while you work for us", which for most employees is more important than money. Compare to companies that avoid hiring women to avoid dealing with maternity leave.
- itsoktocry 2y ago
- CalRobert 2y agoIt's weird, in some ways, that we offer benefits. Give people the money and let them use it how they like. When I lived in California I LOVED the parking cash-out law, it meant a few thousand more a year because I rode a bike to work and didn't need a parking spot. Although, one challenge with things like childcare is that if you applied this on a society-wide level you wind up with childless people having more money, thereby being better able to outbid parents for essentials like housing (this is why a housing scarcity is so insidious). Of course, whether that's a bad thing or not depends on perspective. I have two kids myself and despite living in Europe childcare was so expensive we dropped to one income.
- matsemann 2y agoYup, I don't have kids myself, but like that my company offers benefits to parents. It keeps the company more diverse and more enjoyable for me as well in a sense. > It's weird, in some ways, that we offer benefits. In some cases it also makes economical sense. It can cost a company $1000 to give you a benefit, but to buy it yourself would cost $2000 (and the difference is even greater if the benefit isn't taxed at the same rate as cash would be). Or the $200 the company spends on beers for me each year, many would perhaps say that they'd rather have the $200 to spend as they please. But in a sense, I get more value than $200 by getting to know my co-workers better and having a better time every day at work.
- CalRobert 2y agoInteresting, is this not taxed? In some places this sort of thing is taxed the same as "benefit in kind" or similar.
- bcrosby95 2y agoIf the childcare is on site, then it's not just money, but also time. When a place I worked at had on site child care it saved me 30 minutes per day.
- coldtea 2y ago>Subsidizing childcare is also "more money", but only for some workers. If the others don't notice or don't care that they're getting paid less for the same work that's great for the company. Such an american thing to say. No, we don't mind having the company pay colleagues' children childcare on top of our (equal to theirs) salary. We'd hate to be in a society where such a petty mindset would be common, that would be living in some kind of social hell.
- dredmorbius 2y agoHN has an 80 character title max length. The full original title is 157 characters, nearly double that. The alternatives generally suggested are to shorten the original title, omitting needless descriptives or words (e.g., counts, emotives, etc.) if possible, or barring that, to substitute alternative text, preferably from a subtitle or passage from the article (both to avoid editorialising): dang comment: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908533> Guidelines: <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> ("In Submissions", title guidance.) Something's got to give, though, and the submitted title is accurate so far as it goes. If HN's readers can't be trusted to read even the title of an article, well, the whole premise of a an article-based discussion site seems somewhat imperiled. This may well be the case, of course ...
- notpushkin 2y agoThis one is 75 characters: > IKEA solved ‘unhappy worker’ crisis by raising salaries, flexible schedules It's not really grammatically correct I think, but otherwise seems like a good compromise: we only leave out childcare subsidies, which is another monetary compensation, and do mention flexible work schedules which is a non-monetary benefit and might be crucial to IKEA's strategy.
- ricc 2y agoBut then there’s this rule to not editorialise headlines, so…
- notpushkin 2y agoI'd say just cutting out half of the headline is more editorializing than trying to edit it to fit more of it.
- dredmorbius 2y agoI'd give the submitter more credit than that. The title was cut for length, retaining the earlier (and presumably more significant) aspects of the original. As I noted in my other comment, wordsmithing title is a challenge, and most people probably aren't fully aware of HN's nuances and preferences in the practice. And you did do a better job of it, as I also indicated a few minutes ago.
- akira2501 2y ago> when in reality it is more nuanced than that. More money = happy workers, unless of course, you don't give them money, but also other economic benefits that are equivalent to money. I'm not seeing the nuance.
- idiliv 2y agoHow are flexible working hours equivalent to more money?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- akira2501 2y agoYou can manage things in your life when they occur instead of spending money to displace them or risk losing your job because of them. In another way, if you present a worker with the option between two jobs with the same hourly rate, one having flexible working hours and the other not, which would expect to be more likely choice? You can then measure the value of this choice by changing the hourly rates between the two until you see changes in outcome and you would be able to estimate exactly how much "more money" it appears to be "worth."
- dkdbejwi383 2y agoIf you don't have to pay for child care because you can just take off the time to pick up your kids from school, you are saving money your job otherwise forced you to spend. Being forced to commute at peak time costs more - on a retail salary the difference between a peak and off-peak ticket can mean that the first hour or two of working is essentially pointless, as you're just paying back the cost of getting there in the first place. Having to pay an extra surcharge to visit the dentist, because you can only go on a Saturday because you need to be at work other days. Flexible working would allow you to just take the Tuesday off no problem and go when it's cheaper. I'm sure there are lots of other examples that apply to different lifestyles.
- fragmede 2y ago
- consf 2y ago[dead]