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

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

blog.even.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 120 posts

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

#21

Post by stefco_ »

> But as we grow in size, we also plan to grow in the diversity of our perspectives and backgrounds — which is even more reason not to add a bunch of extraneous or overly specific perks. Especially as our team diversifies, we can’t (and shouldn’t) strive to have a one-size-fits-all office or benefits package.

This is a great point about bringing in diverse hires. If you optimize your perks to appeal to you, then you're likely to bring in people with the same interests as you, and there are often strong correlations between interests and demographics. I would certainly rather work somewhere with neutral-seeming perks than a place where everyone was bonding over a bunch of perks I couldn't care less about.

One of my friends is in an office environment where they play Quake III for an hour a day. This perk is actually a mandatory bonding session. I love Quake III, but he doesn't, and he feels like it's both a waste of time and a reinforcement of a specific type of company culture that he doesn't really relate to. He doesn't really mind it, but he has specifically listed it as one of the reasons he is considering finding another job.

Having a more typically "professional" office setting, combined with some more flexible perks (like flex funds for wellness), strikes me as a good way to avoid filtering people out and inadvertently selecting for an overly specific company culture.

In particular, if you're worried that hackers who fall outside of the white/male/straight/cis gendered hacker stereotype are not coming to your company in sufficient numbers, you want to avoid sending implicit signals that your company is only into things that seem to appeal to this stereotype. Perks are one source of those implicit signals.

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

#22

Post by Avshalom »

whiddershins wrote: post #7

The one "perk" I think is uncommon but should be standard is nap rooms. There are just so many people who are happier, healthier, and do better work with a brief nap during the day. Unless you are walking distance from work, splitting your workday like that is infeasible without an office culture that supports it. And consequently unlike most perks, it can't be offset by a simple salary increase.

Offices (and at least one person with a hammock in their office) would negate that as a perk.

Offices also diminish the impact of bringing a dog/cat/chinchilla to work and the need for TV rooms (if you don't have everyone looking over your shoulder, watching netflix on during break from your computer isn't an issue)

Though offices also run contrary to "Start up" being some hyper growth focused company, if you plan on doubling the head count every year offices are completely unfeasible.

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

#23

Post by sparrish »

whipoodle wrote: post #3

I think the pet thing is more balanced than a straight up anti-perk, because in situations where everyone is happy with it, it can be very nice to have. But it's certainly not for everyone, and you don't want to make someone feel like they're the "spoiler" if everyone else is ok with it.

As someone with dog allergy issues, I appreciate this sentiment. I don't want to be 'that guy' (the spoiler as you call it) but dog dander is going to seriously hinder my ability to get any work done, with all the sneezing and itchy/watery eyes.

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

#25

Post by samfriedman »

whiddershins wrote: post #7

The one "perk" I think is uncommon but should be standard is nap rooms. There are just so many people who are happier, healthier, and do better work with a brief nap during the day. Unless you are walking distance from work, splitting your workday like that is infeasible without an office culture that supports it. And consequently unlike most perks, it can't be offset by a simple salary increase.

When I worked briefly in Switzerland during college, I remember being really impressed with how many workers would retreat to a lawn chair outside during lunch and take a nap for an hour or so. It seemed perfectly normal and accepted. And this was at a behemoth of a bank, not a tiny startup. Seems unimaginable in a comparatively sized business in the US.

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

#27

Post by hyperrail »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #13

Extremely surprised not to see "open-office" on the list. I guess they consider it a perk!

They say that they have moved away from a pure open office plan (thank goodness!):

> Based on learning that people needed room for more styles of work and levels of collaboration, we added private rooms, shared offices, and flex spaces to our existing open layout.

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

#28

Post by geofft »

spamlord wrote: post #9

this place sounds like a nightmare to work at. no drinking, anti dog policies, no thanks.

I can't tell if you're trolling / being sarcastic / something. If you're being serious, then I'm suddenly a lot more convinced that having no-drinks-at-the-office policy is a good recruiting technique (in the sense of making sure you recruit the right people).

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

#29

Post by sowbug »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #8
cwyers wrote: post #2

I'm not sure I've ever had whiplash as extreme as the point of this article where I thought to myself, "Well finally, someone pushing back against the excesses of VC-funded culture" and the line "we will compensate our employees for a dog-sitter (via a flexible health and wellness stipend)."

Actually, it could address an interesting issue depending on how it is implemented. If you gave team members a 'perks' stipend you could tax it appropriately, and you could have your employee spend it on the things that were important to them. Then create a way to scan your badge to access a perk and voila, custom perks. No, I don't actually think it is workable, the two arguments that will pop up immediately are : 1…

I think you already reached the same conclusion, but employee salary already behaves the way you describe: it's taxable, and they spend it as they wish.

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

#30

Post by geofft »

whiddershins wrote: post #14
whipoodle wrote: post #3

I think the pet thing is more balanced than a straight up anti-perk, because in situations where everyone is happy with it, it can be very nice to have. But it's certainly not for everyone, and you don't want to make someone feel like they're the "spoiler" if everyone else is ok with it.

If I were runnning a similar company I would try to find out if a balance could be struck with structured "pet days" and "no pet days" ... I wonder if even that would be too uncomfortable though, for people who really fear/despise pets.

It's not just "fear" or "despise" - if you're allergic to pets, you're mandating that some of your employees work from home on those days.

If you're okay with that, might as well let the pet owners work from home, no?

Post reply on HN