Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's "free food" is not free

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 181 posts

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#101

Post by ignoreme »

Hominem wrote: post #51
rdl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have probably quit sometime between spending limits and a "town hall meeting" about food being worth everyone's time.

It was a funny meeting. The CEO was a hell of a salesman, he came in with a nalgene bottle and made a big show of taking big gulps while touting his new health initiatives that just happened to include cutting a perk. By the time he left people were saying it was a good thing he was so concerned for our health. He did the same speech 5 times in one day to get all the employees, must have been pretty hydrated at the e…

Quite an amusing anecdote.

On one hand, it conjures up pictures of a real slimeball, the typical "snake oil salesman".

On the other, I get the impression he is a really charismatic individual. It certainly takes some skill to stand up in front of a bunch of people, take away something from them and convince them that they are better off.

Probably a great combination for a CEO.

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#102

Post by zeroboy »

StavrosK wrote: post #96
rdtsc wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Usually when I read things that I disagree with it doesn't really prod at me ... I saw nothing in that article as to /why/ google might have done what they did And then from the article: """ but enough people finally cornered them and got them to admit it was about the cost. """ From what I see, you really didn't read the article.

Of course it was about the cost. The article doesn't mention any reasons why they would have to cut costs, though.

No, it's not "of course it's because of the cost" because it could have been for another reason, and (thank God) the article wasn't about why Google would cut back on a perk. If it was, I wouldn't have read it.

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#103

Post by zeroboy »

lusr wrote: post #88
overgard wrote: post #30

I find myself in a weird situation, in that I find this writer's writing intriguing exactly because of how much I vehemently disagree with almost all of it. It's like somehow it manages to push all the wrong buttons, in a very precise way. Usually when I read things that I disagree with it doesn't really prod at me, but for some reason almost this entire blog does. The controversy this blog always digs up on really m…

I too find the writing style very distracting, but I can't quite place my finger on what it is exactly. It's very strange, though. That being said, I think the post makes a valuable point that anybody can learn about negotiating: what are they really giving you, did you expect to get that anyway (i.e. is it material to negotiations), can you reasonably claim it's not material even if it IS something special they're o…

Interesting how that is. I thought the writing was particularly good, and I make my living writing for the web.

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#104

Post by mjwalshe »

moocow01 wrote: post #64

Maybe Im just a calculating, cold, emotionless engineer but when it comes to pay packages Ive stopped caring about the fancy 'perks'. I only try to gauge how much Ill get paid, how much Ill enjoy the work and learn, and how many hours Ill be putting in. Ive seen perks too many times used against employees. (The following rant is nothing towards Google - never worked there.) - Free food and onsite amenities usually is…

And dont forget that the Taxman will want to tax you on benefits in kind - or they will be if they are doing their job right

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#105

Post by jaggederest »

moocow01 wrote: post #64

Maybe Im just a calculating, cold, emotionless engineer but when it comes to pay packages Ive stopped caring about the fancy 'perks'. I only try to gauge how much Ill get paid, how much Ill enjoy the work and learn, and how many hours Ill be putting in. Ive seen perks too many times used against employees. (The following rant is nothing towards Google - never worked there.) - Free food and onsite amenities usually is…

The most bitter pill from my previous job was hearing "we don't track vacation" right up until the day I noticed my pay was low from the last pay period and when I asked why, the answer was "you took too much vacation".

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#106

Post by _delirium »

moocow01 wrote: post #64

Maybe Im just a calculating, cold, emotionless engineer but when it comes to pay packages Ive stopped caring about the fancy 'perks'. I only try to gauge how much Ill get paid, how much Ill enjoy the work and learn, and how many hours Ill be putting in. Ive seen perks too many times used against employees. (The following rant is nothing towards Google - never worked there.) - Free food and onsite amenities usually is…

On the first one, Google seems at least a little less blatant about it; there are tech companies that offer free dinner, but only starting at a relatively late hour, like 7pm, which is pretty clearly a perk for people who stay late. Although someone I know works at a place with a policy like that, and just works his 8-hour day 10am-7pm (with an hour break for lunch), stopping by for dinner on the way out, so it works for some sleep schedules without actually putting in overtime.

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#107

Post by mjwalshe »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

Pretty much spot on of course, anyone who was at Google 'before' can trace the dots to today. One of the benefits of a generous set of perks is that management can adjust the expense once they get close to the end of the quarter so that the 'numbers come out right.' Google is losing that ability. It makes things like their Q4 'miss' [1] more likely. It is of course entirely Google's prerogative on how they spend thei…

Up to a point - if something has been going on for a long it can become an implied part of your contract (probably less so in the US but still a danger)

And removing these little perks to save 20$ a month can have an impact on Morale out of all proportion to the cash value.

I remember one case I dealt with where a senior manager ($200,000 pa level) was very upset over losing his business needs phone line which was worth £15 a month.

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#108

Post by jaggederest »

I always think it's interesting when companies try to negotiate compensation by perks... They're basically giving away more cash.

"Well our health benefits are worth $15,000 a year, you know. It's a very good plan."

My answer is always "Wow, I didn't know you guys thought I was worth X+$15,000, I'll take that in cash, thanks." My health plan is comparable and costs me $200 a month + $1500 a year in deductibles, tax free.

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#109

Post by its_so_on »

dlss wrote: post #17
patio11 wrote: post #9

I'm writing a post on salary negotiation today, so I zeroed in on two supporting details here that you should remember for later: when pressed on price, savvy negotiators said: 1) Give us some time to think about it. 2) We are going to re-focus the discussion on a different compensation lever where we can present something you're already going to get as if it were a new incentive justifying your concession on a lever…

Way to put a positive spin on the article :) Don't forget the lesson though -- if you use an extra-curricular in a negotiation it's no longer extra-curricular.

Nope, still extra-curricular, just like the food is still theirs to make available or take away as they see fit. This is a shady tactic you and the employer can both use. I wouldn't though.

let me elaborate. if someone looks me in the eye and says, "Don't forget that we never work weekends, how much is that worth?" then they are not my friend. That's a given, it's part of a 40-hour job not to work weekends. To put a price on it and have me concede part of my salary means they don't have my interests at heart.

Now, you might say that negotiators don't have to have the other guy's interests at heart. Then maybe you can read Getting to Yes ("the Harvard principle") or even the old How To Win Friends and Influence People.

the toughest negotiators usually end up having no one to talk with but mud with a stick in it. If all you want for an employee is a mud with a stick in it, by all means, harp on about how elephants do not trample around your premises, there are no monsoons in the area, and other employees don't use the outhouse or squat outside to potentially poop on them.

But if you want a quality employee, an actual human, then the negotiation that works on mud with a stick in it will not be very compelling. Or honest. Pretty soon you won't be negotiating with another human again.

Re: Google's "free food" is not free

#110

Post by mjwalshe »

noonespecial wrote: post #75

Google claims to want to hire smart people. Google claims to these ostensibly smart people during the hiring process that the 'free food' is worth (cough) 20 grand in salary?! I sense a disturbance in the force.

And if that perk then goes away - a smart person would have this in writing.

So boss wheres my pay rise to replace the free food "hr said" the free food was part of my compensation

Post reply on HN