“Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office • Hacker News Board

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#101

Post by watwut » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 8:49 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #95

I'm someone who has mostly worked for startups, but I just came off a stint working for IBM (Canada), and the difference in the "office culture" at IBM from the startups I had worked at kind of blew me away. IBM's office culture was basically built around two ideas: 1. that everyone working on a team would be spread around the globe (not necessarily at first, but certainly as IBM had to send them around to do sales e…

I like everything about it except no perfume policy. People during summer smell.

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#102

Post by dudul » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 8:53 PM UTC

taternuts wrote: post #93

dudul wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also very surprised by this "perk" that seems to be so widespread in the US. I sometimes feel like "dog people" can't internalize the fact that just because they like dogs, not everybody does! :) Our office is "dog friendly", but we have some rooms where dogs are forbidden to make sure allergic employees have a space to go to. Still don't really like this policy.

That doesn't even make much sense, unless the dog-free rooms are on a different floor those with bad allergies will still suffer I imagine.

They're not. And yes, I agree. I don't see how it works TBH. I'm not allergic myself and I don't know who complained about dogs walking around so I can't ask them if they're still suffering.

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#103

Post by TylerE » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 8:53 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #94

TylerE wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perks have the advantage of being pre-tax. So if you get $10 worth of perk (assuming it's something you'd buy anyway), it only actually costs you somewhere between $5-8 depending on your tax bracket.

Why? That is, is there some specific social good that the authors of the tax code were intending to accomplish by allowing companies to pay for lunch for their employees pre-tax, or is this an unintended consequence ("loophole") of some other coherent goal? It seems to me like there isn't any reason for a tax code to allow not paying taxes if the company is calling a transfer of money to the employee for the purpose…

Nothing that high minded. You are simply taxed on income. Money the company spends isn't personal income.

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#104

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

balls187 wrote: post #68

kylec wrote: post #36

Thank you for not allowing pets. I both dislike and am allergic to dogs, and it annoys me when people think it's no big deal to bring their dog into the office. This is not your home, this is a professional workspace that we all share.

Tangentially unrelated, with all the kids with strong peanut alergies, what's going to happen in 10 years--will offices ban peanuts and peanut based foods? We informally had a dog policy at our old office, which was an offshoot location. I'd bring my dogs in, until we hired a woman who had grown up in an area of the world where wild dogs were a real problem, and was deathly afraid of them. My co-workers loved having…

> Tangentially unrelated, with all the kids with strong peanut alergies, what's going to happen in 10 years--will offices ban peanuts and peanut based foods?

Offices and other workplaces with sensitive individuals are already doing that.

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#105

Post by kafkaesq » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 9:00 PM UTC

Sammi wrote: post #96

kafkaesq wrote: post #69

Pet-friendly offices: I’m sure having a pet visit the office once would be a treat, but every day quickly can become a burden on the team. Disagree, given the observation that pets (provided they're well-behaved, are well-groomed etc) reduce stress and promote empathy. It's just a question of measure - somewhere between "once" and "every day" there are these notions of "once in a while" or "from time to time". Which…

Some people have allergies.

A very legitimate issue, of course. (I'm not saying there aren't solid arguments against pets - just that the original argument wasn't make those arguments).

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#106

Post by palimpsests » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 9:35 PM UTC

cjensen wrote: post #41

It's a good list with a lot of sense. My one minor nit is that they don't stock soda because it's not healthy. Let people be themselves and make their own decisions: you should provide something to drink and it should be what the employees want, not necessarily what you want.

Given how unhealthy soda is for an average human being when consumed regularly, stocking soda is similar to stocking cigarettes. Not stocking this shows a greater level of awareness around wellness, and also doesn't exclude employees who choose to not consume it.

I think it's a great policy to not provide free poison to your employees, let them pay for that themselves.

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#107

Post by geofft » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 9:42 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #103

geofft wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? That is, is there some specific social good that the authors of the tax code were intending to accomplish by allowing companies to pay for lunch for their employees pre-tax, or is this an unintended consequence ("loophole") of some other coherent goal? It seems to me like there isn't any reason for a tax code to allow not paying taxes if the company is calling a transfer of money to the employee for the purpose…

Nothing that high minded. You are simply taxed on income. Money the company spends isn't personal income.

But that interpretation has ridiculously easy loopholes - why not just reduce my salary by $10K and give me a $10K company-managed Amazon budget for personal expenses? Why not just let the company book my personal vacation travel via payroll deduction? Why not have the company rent my apartment and sublet it to me? etc.

I'm coming at this from the position that the law must say, if you're giving a person access to a cash spending account that lets them buy things for themselves but not giving them the cash directly, that still counts as income. Is that true? If it's not true, why isn't everyone taking advantage of the loophole? If it is, why is lunch a special case?

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#108

Post by civilian » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 10:08 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #76

civilian wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nice thing about perks is that they come out as company expenses--- so they don't get hit by payroll taxes or personal income taxes. Which potentially means that you get to double money spent on perks. You're right that it would be cool if we could customize it. Give people "perks cards", which come out of company expenses (takes advantage of the above avoiding-income-tax multiplier) and let them spend it on what…

There is history here that you may not be aware of, it is a constant battle between the IRS and companies. The IRS insists that companies 'break out' any such company provided services on a per employee basis and include the value of those services in the employee's W2 taxable income field. Once a company reaches a size where the amount of tax revenue crosses some threshold, the IRS starts bugging you. Apple, Google,…

Oh huh, I wasn't actually aware of that, but it makes sense! So I guess the loopholes aren't really there to begin with...

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#109

Post by scarface74 » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

bassman9000 wrote: post #89

itamarst wrote: post #44

Unfortunately, sounds like they fail at the minimum criteria for a sane workweek. In particular: "our team tends to work long days". Who cares about anti-perks or perks if you're expected to work crazy hours?

Sadly, there's no way around this for a new company. It's how the market works today, and competition is fierce. I think the idea is to add another opportunity to stretch, go out, socialize, and talk about something other than work, which is probably beneficial when working hard problems.

There is a war around it — employers can hire enough people to the job and workers can refuse to work long hours.

A consistent more than 40 hour work week is a deal breaker for me. I’ll work 50-60 hours on a project if I know I’m spending 20 hours trying to ramp up on a new technology or I’m trying to do something that’s new to me, but that feels different than management expecting you to get 60+ hours of work done

Re: “Anti-perks”: what our startup doesn't want in our office

#110

Post by scarface74 » Mon, Oct 02, 2017, 10:37 PM UTC

romanovcode wrote: post #91

Endy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a major perk in the US. Vacation time is basically reserved for management or C-Suite folks, especially if it's paid.

Wow unbelievable, I never knew that. For someone who works in EU this sounds ridiculous.

It’s not true for white collar work. For the most part, salaried and even non salaried full time workers get at least 20 days of paid time off a year.