11–20 of 72 posts
I still don't understand why companies would willingly serve free drinks (and snacks) that they know will only deteriorate the health of their employees. Free drinks, sure, but 290-calorie cans of sugar, and bags of fat? Say what you will about adults having free will to make bad choices, but your company doesn't give away free cigarettes.
I still don't understand why companies would willingly serve free drinks (and snacks) that they know will only deteriorate the health of their employees. Free drinks, sure, but 290-calorie cans of sugar, and bags of fat? Say what you will about adults having free will to make bad choices, but your company doesn't give away free cigarettes.
I still don't understand why companies would willingly serve free drinks (and snacks) that they know will only deteriorate the health of their employees. Free drinks, sure, but 290-calorie cans of sugar, and bags of fat? Say what you will about adults having free will to make bad choices, but your company doesn't give away free cigarettes.
Next to the chips and candy are the protein bars, trail mix, nuts, and fresh fruit.
Over in the cafeteria, next to the free pizza is the free salad bar.
With any luck you've got a range of employees. Some are concerned about their weight; some are concerned about getting enough vitamins; some really really want a boost of sugar and caffeine. It's possible to cater to all of them.
We're a seed funded company and provide free lunches to our employees. We also reimburse up to 100$ a month for fitness/gym memberships. Some of my friends working in large organizations don't get these perks, and point out that they're wasteful of a company that is cash flow negative and trying to conserve capital.
What most people with such mindset don't realize is how valuable inspired people can be. For employees to be inspired, they must do work they find meaningful and they must be appreciated and challenged. But they also must realize the company genuinely cares about them. Then they want to give back to the company; they want to exceed expectations because they love how the company cares about them.
Now you need to show care to employees on an everyday basis, but one amazing way to show it is with perks like these. 100$ a month for gym or 200$ a month for lunch per employee is not outrageous if you compare that with how much you pay them every month. It's almost miniscule. Also, in most startups at least, they're getting paid below market rate in exchange for equity etc. Not having to worry about lunch or gym everyday makes a huge difference psychologically.
The one situation where you can justify cutting perks is when the company is going through a genuine crisis, cutting the perk is critical to get through, and you let everyone know this is temporary and it's just something we all must do to get through this crisis. Otherwise, instead of trying to cut soda out, the management needs to focus on growing revenue and profits and ask themselves why they're not succeeding there as much as they'd like to. Hiding behind a soda cut isn't going to fix the issue.
PS: I used to worked at Salesforce where we got several days a year off just to go volunteer time at non-profits. You'd be amazed at how much employees love the company for allowing them to do things non-work related that they're passionate about just a few days a year while getting paid for it. It says that the company has a warm heart. The impact shows up in the company's relentless growth year after year. Same with companies like Costco. Showing care for employees has an outsized impact on the bottomline.
I still don't understand why companies would willingly serve free drinks (and snacks) that they know will only deteriorate the health of their employees. Free drinks, sure, but 290-calorie cans of sugar, and bags of fat? Say what you will about adults having free will to make bad choices, but your company doesn't give away free cigarettes.
In my company whenever they pay for lunch it's always bad food. Bad pizza, greasy sandwiches, junk food. I don't understand why can't order some decent food.
In my experience (Boston area), people will happily eat Middle Eastern, Chinese, good Italian, northern and southern Indian... and, in general, will be happier with something different from the last time.
This is well-worded. The problem for these execs wasn't that the company was no longer a good place for engineers. The problem was that the engineers noticed.
Don't be the engineer who doesn't notice their job sucks until they start charging for soda. By that point you've been working for a terrible company for a long time.
Other places are cutting cost in far more profound ways: laptops and computer equipment, etc.
Most see a salary, benefits, fringe costs (like hiring HR and finance teams), lunches, etc. Some of the better firms add in the cost of hiring employees with intangibles, like communication, poise, and professionalism, but the truly great see the largest potential cost - that they do better work at a competitor.
If you're paying an engineer $100k to add 150k worth of value to your product, the true value of their work is $300k: $150k worth of value to you, and $150k worth of value that isn't added to your next closest competitor.
It's the same reason football teams say "defense wins championships" - because Defense is the only position where you can simultaneously score points and stop your opponent from scoring. Offenses can only score.
Now, that employee shouldn't be paid $300k because that's the true value for the organization, rather, they should be paid as close to the marginal benefit they directly apply to the organization - in this case, $150k. Doing so may be a breakeven point from a cash perspective, but a billion dollar company that breaks even is worth more than a lemonade stand making $10 profit.
From an accounting perspective, this can be observed as employee expenses (temporary equity accounts) providing value to products (permanent asset). When the employee is terminated, the assets still remain, so for anyone with any equity stake in the firm, it is beneficial to pay as much as possible up to the point that the company a) doesn't run out of runway, b) retains talent to further grow the assets and c) doesn't grow competitor assets.
The CFO that cut soda costs by $10k also boosted the equity of all the competitors that hired the disgruntled employees - and most likely by a value greater than $10k, and multiplied by each employee that left.
Just my $.02
Edit: Cut soda costs by $10k total, not per employee