4 ms·

I think it's already been discussed here, but perhaps some people are realizing that such perks are The Company's way of saying "see, you don't ever need to go

by bmj 17y ago

I think it's already been discussed here, but perhaps some people are realizing that such perks are The Company's way of saying "see, you don't ever need to go home." When you can eat, exercise, play, and get your laundry done at the office, suddenly you have four less reasons to leave the office at a reasonable hour.

brk 17y ago
Having worked at more than one place that has offered "free" food, beer, and other perks, this attitude is usually not the case. Many times, even in a down economy, these things are truly offered as perks to try to lure good employees away from other jobs. Often times you can only go so far with pure salary because if you start to get compensation packages that are too much above "market" then you get many questions from your board and stockholders. But, paying a 5% premium over market salary AND offering perks like freebies, you can attract good candidates without making your direct headcount numbers look so high.
- evgen 17y ago
  While the perks themselves are probably not offered specifically to keep employees in the office, you can be absolutely certain that the selection of perks offered were chosen because they are considered options that increase productivity (or at least keep people in the office.) Having participated in the selection of such freebies at two companies I can assure you that everyone involved knew which options cut down on the churn rate in the parking lot...
  - brk 17y ago
    you can be absolutely certain I would be careful with the declarative statements. My direct experience is quite different: Company U: late 90's/early 2K's startup. Free food was selected primarily on the basis of the cheapest stuff we could get for $1000/mo at the local discount club. If $50 steaks would have made developers work 24/7 they would have still been outside of the budget. Company H: Selection primarily based on what employees asked the Kitchen managers to stock. If you wanted free-range organic tofu breakfast bars, you got them (provided the price was at least semi-reasonable). Company S: (My wife is the director of finance here, I know enough about the selection criteria although I've never been a direct employee) Primarily cost/budget driven as well. None of my experiences have ever involved people who consciously plot after-hours retention ratios of various foods. It has pretty much always been a recognition along the lines of "if people want to stay at work, it's cheaper to feed them than pay them to make them feel valued". No one had ever been coerced into working more just because of these kinds of perks. --------------------------- BTW, to the comment below (HN seems to limit the level of replys), I just came across some unused TicketMaster gift certificates this weekend from another company. There was a monthly raffle for these tickets and other "out of the office" local goings-on...
    - ori_b 17y ago
      You're missing the point. If it comes to a question of "Do we give them free food" or "Do we (say) give them free theater tickets", free food would probably win even if the cost was the same, because it's more likely to keep the employees at work.
- bmj 17y ago
  I'm not saying free food/drinks/heck-even-beer is a Bad Thing, or necessarily evil. My current employer does the free snacks/free drinks thing, and I've worked for another start-up that did free lunch for a long time. At neither job was there any expectation that the employees needed to put in long hours in return for the perks. I don't think all of Google's perks are evil, either. Certainly a free lunch is a great perk, and reasonable, since you will be at the office over a lunch hour. Heck, I usually eat at my desk when I'm in the office. But when the perks begin to replace things I would do outside of the office, then I begin to wonder if it isn't an attempt to keep workers at the office for longer hours. The best perk for me would be management that set reasonable time lines and clear requirements for projects that didn't require engineering and QC to spend long hours in the office.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    I don't think this is unreasonable. It should be clear that a lot of the motivation for things like on-site cafeterias and such is that people won't go off-site for lunch. That's not necessarily evil, unless your company bans off-site lunches. The companies I've worked for who offered on-site, not-even-free lunches obviously did so because it increased productivity, but there was no issue if you wanted to go off-campus for lunch, and we did both with about the same frequency. If people leave for lunch, they'll almost take longer lunch hours. I would appreciate an on-site cafeteria right now, primarily _because_ it would keep the length of my lunches down and make things more convenient. This role is often filled by the McDonald's a couple hundred feet in front of our office now, which is terrible and sad.

by bmj 17y ago

brk 17y ago

Having worked at more than one place that has offered "free" food, beer, and other perks, this attitude is usually not the case. Many times, even in a down economy, these things are truly offered as perks to try to lure good employees away from other jobs. Often times you can only go so far with pure salary because if you start to get compensation packages that are too much above "market" then you get many questions from your board and stockholders. But, paying a 5% premium over market salary AND offering perks like freebies, you can attract good candidates without making your direct headcount numbers look so high.

evgen 17y ago
While the perks themselves are probably not offered specifically to keep employees in the office, you can be absolutely certain that the selection of perks offered were chosen because they are considered options that increase productivity (or at least keep people in the office.) Having participated in the selection of such freebies at two companies I can assure you that everyone involved knew which options cut down on the churn rate in the parking lot...
- brk 17y ago
  you can be absolutely certain I would be careful with the declarative statements. My direct experience is quite different: Company U: late 90's/early 2K's startup. Free food was selected primarily on the basis of the cheapest stuff we could get for $1000/mo at the local discount club. If $50 steaks would have made developers work 24/7 they would have still been outside of the budget. Company H: Selection primarily based on what employees asked the Kitchen managers to stock. If you wanted free-range organic tofu breakfast bars, you got them (provided the price was at least semi-reasonable). Company S: (My wife is the director of finance here, I know enough about the selection criteria although I've never been a direct employee) Primarily cost/budget driven as well. None of my experiences have ever involved people who consciously plot after-hours retention ratios of various foods. It has pretty much always been a recognition along the lines of "if people want to stay at work, it's cheaper to feed them than pay them to make them feel valued". No one had ever been coerced into working more just because of these kinds of perks. --------------------------- BTW, to the comment below (HN seems to limit the level of replys), I just came across some unused TicketMaster gift certificates this weekend from another company. There was a monthly raffle for these tickets and other "out of the office" local goings-on...
  - ori_b 17y ago
    You're missing the point. If it comes to a question of "Do we give them free food" or "Do we (say) give them free theater tickets", free food would probably win even if the cost was the same, because it's more likely to keep the employees at work.
bmj 17y ago
I'm not saying free food/drinks/heck-even-beer is a Bad Thing, or necessarily evil. My current employer does the free snacks/free drinks thing, and I've worked for another start-up that did free lunch for a long time. At neither job was there any expectation that the employees needed to put in long hours in return for the perks. I don't think all of Google's perks are evil, either. Certainly a free lunch is a great perk, and reasonable, since you will be at the office over a lunch hour. Heck, I usually eat at my desk when I'm in the office. But when the perks begin to replace things I would do outside of the office, then I begin to wonder if it isn't an attempt to keep workers at the office for longer hours. The best perk for me would be management that set reasonable time lines and clear requirements for projects that didn't require engineering and QC to spend long hours in the office.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  I don't think this is unreasonable. It should be clear that a lot of the motivation for things like on-site cafeterias and such is that people won't go off-site for lunch. That's not necessarily evil, unless your company bans off-site lunches. The companies I've worked for who offered on-site, not-even-free lunches obviously did so because it increased productivity, but there was no issue if you wanted to go off-campus for lunch, and we did both with about the same frequency. If people leave for lunch, they'll almost take longer lunch hours. I would appreciate an on-site cafeteria right now, primarily _because_ it would keep the length of my lunches down and make things more convenient. This role is often filled by the McDonald's a couple hundred feet in front of our office now, which is terrible and sad.