I have worked at both Google and Facebook and this was an annoyance for everyone. People would come into the job and be promised the normal salary+benefits and then be told about the unlimited Odwalla and Aldale being open all day and how the food is amazing and then suddenly the most profitable companies in the world "realize" that these things are expensive, cut back, and expect something other than to have their world class employees go somewhere where they are treated a bit better. I will never understand not continuously investing in your employees, especially at the best companies on earth.
Google's "free food" is not free
91–100 of 181 posts
Re: Google's "free food" is not free
#92I found it interesting that their claimed value of 15-20k a year went unquestioned. At ~300 days a year, that's $60 a day. I'd value free food at a quarter of that at most.
I dunno; with inflation, it seems that I can easily spend $10 per meal. Maybe $15, and if I eat generous portions, $20. Seriously-- in San Francisco, it's not unreasonable to expect someone to spend $20 for a meal. Now consider all the extra convenience fees... $60/day (or $50/day) is not unreasonable. Of course, since it's a corporate perk, it should get a discount rate applied... but all the same, it's still valuable: more than $15/day (come on, dude: $5 a meal? Get real, or move away from North Dakota).
Re: Google's "free food" is not free
#93One thing this article doesn't point out: it wasn't Google who argued that the supposedly lower salary was offset by food - it was a person (sure, an employee or contractor of Google). Perhaps this person was reading from a recruiting script sanctioned by management. But it wasn't the big overarching company that made this argument to the author - it was a person. Recruiters often have the wrong incentive structure.…
"One thing this article doesn't point out: it wasn't Google who argued that the supposedly lower salary was offset by food - it was a person (sure, an employee or contractor of Google)." I'm really intrigued at how often this "excuse" is trotted out, almost word-for-word, whenever "a person who works at Google" gets caught doing something sleazy. It's almost as predictable as the first-line call center staff asking y…
the same people, curiously, never want to attribute the good things to single people. no-one here is saying "it's not google that provides the perks, but the contractors that work in the kitchens". yet the same logic seems to suit them just fine when it's negative.
Re: Google's "free food" is not free
#94I'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…
Maybe this will help, it's more general:
http://www.korokithakis.net/posts/secrets-power-negotiating/
Re: Google's "free food" is not free
#95I'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…
Link? I am interested in salary negotiation techniques. Thank you.
I posted it above, but, since you're interested, I found this book helpful:
http://www.korokithakis.net/posts/secrets-power-negotiating/
Re: Google's "free food" is not free
#96I 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…
> 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.
Re: Google's "free food" is not free
#97Sure, go ahead and screw the employees while the economy is bad. They'll stay on and grumble about it, because they can't go anywhere. People got laid off and were unable to find work, possibly ending their careers, and you're complaining about bagels being cut? Seriously?
No. Not seriously. You missed the point of her article. The point is she got screwed over by Google. What she was promised she didn't receive.
Re: Google's "free food" is not free
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
"One thing this article doesn't point out: it wasn't Google who argued that the supposedly lower salary was offset by food - it was a person (sure, an employee or contractor of Google)." I'm really intrigued at how often this "excuse" is trotted out, almost word-for-word, whenever "a person who works at Google" gets caught doing something sleazy. It's almost as predictable as the first-line call center staff asking y…
How is it evil for a recruiter to say "Y'know, we offer a lower salary than you're looking for, but we make up for it in perks!" And then how is it evil for the food team or corporate finance team to say "We're wasting money in food - literally having every cafe open for breakfast and dinner but only running at 1/3 capacity - so let's cut down on the waste and suggest people walk to the adjacent building for the non-…
Sorry - I was going more for the meta-discussion about the seemingly identical responses seen whenever Google is accused of "do evil" rather than passing any judgement on this specific case.
I do note with interest though that you seem to have now changed the discussion framing from "It wasn't Google - it was a person (who did thing under discussion)" to "How is (thing under discussion) evil?"
And, FWIW, I'd consider a recruiter using "perks" as a salary lever, when said perks are out of both the recruiter's and the job applicant's control, and at the whim of "the food team" or "corporate finance", I'd call that at least "sleazy", though probably falling short of "evil".
Having said that, I'm sure the intended public understanding of the "Do no evil" catchphrase _isn't_ "Do anything and everything that's profitable - up to, but falling just short of a legal definition of 'evil' that we might be held accountable for."
Re: Google's "free food" is not free
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine her main gripe would be that the free food was treated as a component of her compensation, and then withdrawn for the perfectly rational (but unrelated) reason of cutting costs.If someone did that to my salary (and it's happened a few times, for various reasons), that would generate a certain amount of ill-will.
That was her fault. She acknowledges her naïveté in accepting this as part of her salary negotiation, but strangely clings to her outrage as well.
It's also their fault. They made an offer they weren't planning on keeping. And they lose the most - an irate employee is a dead loss to an organization, but still gets a paycheck (until they more on or get fired, which takes a long time).
Re: Google's "free food" is not free
#100I 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…
The article isn't about why Google cut costs like free cafeteria food. It's about an employee agreeing to work somewhere that is reputed to be "world class" because they were promised a benefit and then that benefit was taken away.