21–30 of 72 posts
> Some had already been irritated when “professional” managers had been hired over their teams with reportedly more stock than the early engineers had That right there is a huge warning sign that they're not valued well and that they never were.
What? They quit the company because they no longer got free sodas? I'd rather have an extra 300$ of salary per year, than free cans of Sugar all year. And, if the best developers have so much bargaining power as to leave, just because of sodas, why aren't they leaving toxic work places like Amazon in droves? Other places are cutting cost in far more profound ways: laptops and computer equipment, etc.
If a company cuts costs of the little things, all of a sudden everything is put on the table. Stock options, salary, benefits, perks, headcount. It sends the message that the company cares about operating today more efficiently than it cares about growing (because no company would stop investing in employees if it could still grow, because good employees make good products).
Companies cut small costs because they believe that their product/market fit has reached the final destination and the only way to grow profits is by cutting. The best firms (and by extension, employees) realize that the best way to grow is always up.
As an accountant, I feel like employees are severely underpaid in highly-skilled markets (like tech, not accounting), and I think that companies don't actually capture the true cost of a single full time employee. 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 prof…
That model seems to assume:
- every employee who leaves will go to close competitors
- their work for that close competitor will be perfectly zero-sum to their work for your company
- the next best replacement employee your competitor would otherwise hire would be worth 0 to them
" It never ceases to amaze me how many startups make the mistake of killing off the free drinks. " (One of the comments on the page.) But wait a minute. Killing off the free drinks is just the signpost. The change is primarily in the size and the culture of the company itself. Charging for sodas might be the first, but it isn't the biggest change that the company is going to, and going to have to, make as it grows. D…
I would be shocked if Amazon, Facebook, and Google don't still give away free sodas.
As an accountant, I feel like employees are severely underpaid in highly-skilled markets (like tech, not accounting), and I think that companies don't actually capture the true cost of a single full time employee. 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 prof…
As an accountant, I feel like employees are severely underpaid in highly-skilled markets (like tech, not accounting), and I think that companies don't actually capture the true cost of a single full time employee. 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 prof…
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 $150k worth of value that isn't added to your next closest competitor. That model seems to assume: - every employee who leaves will go to close competitors - their work for that close competitor will be perfectly zero-sum to their work for your company - the next best…
It also assumes that you don't pay your employees well enough to retire immediately after leaving ;)
As an accountant, I feel like employees are severely underpaid in highly-skilled markets (like tech, not accounting), and I think that companies don't actually capture the true cost of a single full time employee. Most see a salary, benefits, fringe costs (like hiring HR and finance teams), lunches, etc. Some of the better firms add in the cost of hiring employees with intangibles, like communication, poise, and prof…
I don't think it was 10K per employee (that'd be a ridiculous amount of soda). It was 10K total.
What? They quit the company because they no longer got free sodas? I'd rather have an extra 300$ of salary per year, than free cans of Sugar all year. And, if the best developers have so much bargaining power as to leave, just because of sodas, why aren't they leaving toxic work places like Amazon in droves? Other places are cutting cost in far more profound ways: laptops and computer equipment, etc.
They are leaving Amazon. http://www.ibtimes.com/amazoncom-has-second-highest-employee...
The point here is that it wasn't the sodas that made them leave. The sodas were a tangible, visible thing that made them evaluate everything else, which also wasn't good.