4 ms·

> US tech companies don’t offer childcare, which is probably the biggest constraint on employees’ time at the office. As a rule of thumb, US companies don't ca

> US tech companies don’t offer childcare, which is probably the biggest constraint on employees’ time at the office. As a rule of thumb, US companies don't care about workers. Employees are considered an expense to be tolerated. Before someone tries to present a contrarian view, I implore you to run a thought experiment with your employer - if share price/margin/profits drop tomorrow, what will they do? Layoffs/cuts or ask shareholders to accept lower returns for some time?

huijzer 2y ago
Costco is probably a counterexample. But yes counterexamples are hard to find so I agree with you.
Cumpiler69 2y ago
>As a rule of thumb, US companies don't care about workers. In which countries do you think companies actually care about workers? I live in Europe and none of the companies I worked for ever cared about the workers beyond the bare minimum they were mandated to by regulations and even there they were trying to weasel out of some (unpaid overtime, etc) because "the economy is bad" and "we're not competitive with cheaper countries". The moment I got a longer sickness I've been laid off. Sure, some companies have more perks like Kindergartens for employees and pension plans but that's because they want to attract more competitive workers, not because they actually care about those workers. Their care about you is limited to the amount of added value you bring in, not on some moral or ethical grounds. Otherwise those same companies wouldn't be using sweatshop workers in the far east. We're economic cannon fodder everywhere. The private sector exists only to provide innovations and return on investment to shareholders or owners, not to care about workers, that's the government's job.
xbmcuser 2y ago
This I believe is because shareholder return has become the be-all and end-all. So unlikely to change in current companies. And with the way current systems are if you try to build something different you are unlikely to be able to get much financing/funding to grow.
- supportengineer 2y ago
  The flip side of this is that it behooves everyone to be one of these greedy shareholders.
  - glompers 2y ago
    However, a person's retirement investment funds that go to those equity markets in search of bigger paydays are funds that're generally never going to be available to loan for local development in thousands of communities where such a person lives. Big US banks are federally required to provide local lending to some degree, but overall isn't the effect still a lot like brain drain?
  - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
    That's not a flip side: it's the prisoner's dilemma. Doing good things on principle is in dire need of being reinvented, perhaps on first principles again. Eventually the doing for yourself ruins the whole world. We keep sliding down these chutes, ever more convinced to do for ourselves first, as things get worse & worse socially. Even Ford understood he needed to not just create workers for his factory, but a society affluent enough & well paid enough to buy cars. We no longer have that basic sense.
    - Cumpiler69 2y ago
      >That's not a flip side: it's the prisoner's dilemma. True. Having the retirement funds of gen-pop tied to the wellbeing of some unscrupulous mega-corps, leads to a prisoner's dilemma where governments and gen-pop are incentivized to ignore or even support the exploitation, societal damage and misbehavior of such "too big to fail" entities. It becomes a form of mutually assured destruction: "you can regulate or fine us Uncle Sam, but you'll also be hurting the retirements of your citizens; are you sure you want to do that?"
      - Nasrudith 2y ago
        Where do you think the funding for public pensions comes from, fairy godmothers? Retirement depends upon the market economy to fund it either way. Your wellbeing was already tied from the start.
jjmarr 2y ago
As the original commenter said, it is cheaper to pay for childcare than it is to pay money to an employee, have that salary be taxed, and then have that employee pay for childcare with the after-tax salary. Said employee can also drop their child at the office in the morning. I would take a salary below the market rate if the job came with free childcare, because I'd still have to spend the money and I'd potentially save time on my commute. This idea that companies "don't care about workers" is absurd. If anything other than the TC for a job has ever mattered to you, the company offering the thing that mattered has probably saved money on your salary.
- tech132 2y ago
  Don't think I saw it so will bring up that wouldn't it be a gap between employees with kids and not? If paying below market, there would be little reason for a single person to pick it over another company that does, assuming confidence to change jobs if they become less single. Assuming companies don't want an entire workforce of parents for various reasons, paying at market and providing childcare benefits would be the only option. Then the whole shareholders win argument takes hold since income would go down. Most likely miniscule impact, but that satisfy some investor types. Otherwise, government just has to require it for all companies over certain thresholds. And that becomes the cultural issue. For countries with smaller governments, I guess competition becomes the only venue. We are seeing more public-benefit corporations, which should be able to provide company benefits more easily than shareholder companies. And if startup performance finally picks up in this AI age (well, probably not ;), big companies might be incentivized to retain by providing more benefits.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  Part of the issue is parents are picky about who watches their kids. I’m religious. I want my kids to have a religious daycare. A friend of mine isn’t religious, but is an immigrant and wants her kids watched after by someone who can teach the kid their parent’s language. Childcare is Gemeinschaft, not Gesellschaft.
WillAdams 2y ago
Powerful argument for profit sharing: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-one-company-levels-the-pay-slope-of-executives-and-workers/article15472738/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/h...

huijzer 2y ago

Costco is probably a counterexample. But yes counterexamples are hard to find so I agree with you.

Cumpiler69 2y ago

>As a rule of thumb, US companies don't care about workers. In which countries do you think companies actually care about workers? I live in Europe and none of the companies I worked for ever cared about the workers beyond the bare minimum they were mandated to by regulations and even there they were trying to weasel out of some (unpaid overtime, etc) because "the economy is bad" and "we're not competitive with cheaper countries". The moment I got a longer sickness I've been laid off. Sure, some companies have more perks like Kindergartens for employees and pension plans but that's because they want to attract more competitive workers, not because they actually care about those workers. Their care about you is limited to the amount of added value you bring in, not on some moral or ethical grounds. Otherwise those same companies wouldn't be using sweatshop workers in the far east. We're economic cannon fodder everywhere. The private sector exists only to provide innovations and return on investment to shareholders or owners, not to care about workers, that's the government's job.

xbmcuser 2y ago

This I believe is because shareholder return has become the be-all and end-all. So unlikely to change in current companies. And with the way current systems are if you try to build something different you are unlikely to be able to get much financing/funding to grow.

supportengineer 2y ago
The flip side of this is that it behooves everyone to be one of these greedy shareholders.
- glompers 2y ago
  However, a person's retirement investment funds that go to those equity markets in search of bigger paydays are funds that're generally never going to be available to loan for local development in thousands of communities where such a person lives. Big US banks are federally required to provide local lending to some degree, but overall isn't the effect still a lot like brain drain?
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  That's not a flip side: it's the prisoner's dilemma. Doing good things on principle is in dire need of being reinvented, perhaps on first principles again. Eventually the doing for yourself ruins the whole world. We keep sliding down these chutes, ever more convinced to do for ourselves first, as things get worse & worse socially. Even Ford understood he needed to not just create workers for his factory, but a society affluent enough & well paid enough to buy cars. We no longer have that basic sense.
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    >That's not a flip side: it's the prisoner's dilemma. True. Having the retirement funds of gen-pop tied to the wellbeing of some unscrupulous mega-corps, leads to a prisoner's dilemma where governments and gen-pop are incentivized to ignore or even support the exploitation, societal damage and misbehavior of such "too big to fail" entities. It becomes a form of mutually assured destruction: "you can regulate or fine us Uncle Sam, but you'll also be hurting the retirements of your citizens; are you sure you want to do that?"
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      Where do you think the funding for public pensions comes from, fairy godmothers? Retirement depends upon the market economy to fund it either way. Your wellbeing was already tied from the start.

jjmarr 2y ago

As the original commenter said, it is cheaper to pay for childcare than it is to pay money to an employee, have that salary be taxed, and then have that employee pay for childcare with the after-tax salary. Said employee can also drop their child at the office in the morning. I would take a salary below the market rate if the job came with free childcare, because I'd still have to spend the money and I'd potentially save time on my commute. This idea that companies "don't care about workers" is absurd. If anything other than the TC for a job has ever mattered to you, the company offering the thing that mattered has probably saved money on your salary.

tech132 2y ago
Don't think I saw it so will bring up that wouldn't it be a gap between employees with kids and not? If paying below market, there would be little reason for a single person to pick it over another company that does, assuming confidence to change jobs if they become less single. Assuming companies don't want an entire workforce of parents for various reasons, paying at market and providing childcare benefits would be the only option. Then the whole shareholders win argument takes hold since income would go down. Most likely miniscule impact, but that satisfy some investor types. Otherwise, government just has to require it for all companies over certain thresholds. And that becomes the cultural issue. For countries with smaller governments, I guess competition becomes the only venue. We are seeing more public-benefit corporations, which should be able to provide company benefits more easily than shareholder companies. And if startup performance finally picks up in this AI age (well, probably not ;), big companies might be incentivized to retain by providing more benefits.
pyuser583 2y ago
Part of the issue is parents are picky about who watches their kids. I’m religious. I want my kids to have a religious daycare. A friend of mine isn’t religious, but is an immigrant and wants her kids watched after by someone who can teach the kid their parent’s language. Childcare is Gemeinschaft, not Gesellschaft.

WillAdams 2y ago

Powerful argument for profit sharing: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-one-company-levels-the-pay-slope-of-executives-and-workers/article15472738/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/h...