Do Developers Need Free Perks To Thrive? 524
jammag writes "Free sodas, candy and energy bars can be surprisingly important to developers, says longtime coder Eric Spiegel. They need the perks, not to mention the caffeine boost. More important, free sodas from management are like the canary in the coal mine. If they get cut, then layoffs might be next. 'The sodas are just the wake-up call. If the culture changes to be focused more on cost-cutting than on innovation and creativity, then would you still want to work here? I wouldn't.' Are free perks really that important?"
rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Funny)
While you're at it, ditch this "high deductible" scam and get some real health insurance
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a scam, it depends on your own personal needs. Since I go to the doctor rarely, my premiums are next to nothing, and contributing to my HSA comes out of pre-tax money which lowers my taxable income. In my case, it'd be stupid not to.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Informative)
Just wait until you actually get sick. Then it will seem far less of a great deal.
These plans are a scam, they are attempting to move the cost of healthcare onto the worker while still claiming to provide coverage. I would rather get no coverage and a raise so I can buy my own. Mind you that raise would need to be $1000+/month.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A single illness can change that, or a single broken limb. Granted it depends on how high the deductible is and what your total out of pocket is. Never forget that many of these plans only pay 80% even after the deductible is reached until you have spent a good bit of change.
Re:rather have money (Score:4, Informative)
A single illness can change that, or a single broken limb. Granted it depends on how high the deductible is and what your total out of pocket is. Never forget that many of these plans only pay 80% even after the deductible is reached until you have spent a good bit of change.
This is absolutely untrue, when you buy an HSA policy the deductible, co-insurance %, and out of pocket maximum (deductible + co-insurance) are clearly defined. My out of pocket maximum, for example, is $7,500, which is fairly standard for HSA insurance. Sure, I do not want to have to pay this, but the reality is that this will not ruin anyone financially. The only real difference is that I have to pay to go to the doctor instead of having a copay, but the reality is that a doctor visit only costs me about $75 dollars (instead of $45 copay before HSA insurance). Also note that with insurance having a copay, you continue paying it after you reach the deductible. (Ouch if you get cancer and need 10, $1000 copay MRIs.)
If you really want to find *shitty* insurance, forget looking at the modest up front costs, and instead look at the yearly and lifetime coverage limits. This is where normal people meet financial ruin, because once the coverage runs out, you are stuck with the remaining hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills. These plans are sold and marketed to people that want the good feeling of insurance, but that are too stupid to see that they are not protected from a catastrophic event.
Re:rather have money (Score:4, Insightful)
You couldn't be more correct here.
I am a 30-something single white male and I pay less than $1500 for home and auto insurance combined and I get fairly decent coverage. If we allowed the same type of competition/options for health insurance, I bet we would see prices come in line.
Your point about charging a third party for routine visits. The insurance company gets charged $400 for a simple 15-minute visit. The analogue is getting your oil changed on your car - you don't charge your auto insurance for it and it costs $19.95.
Re: (Score:3)
On top of that why does your employer owe you health insurance in the first place? That also used to be something that was a fringe benefit that people then started to expect and demand like it was owed to them.
Your employer owes you nothing. And it will give you nothing unless you metaphorically put a gun to its head. It will take everything you've got, your time, yours skills, the best hours of your days, and the best days of your life, and give you *nothing* for it, if you let it. Oh, it's possible that an employer here or there has some notion of mutually assured advantage, that together all stakeholders can work together to everyone's mutual advantage, but even if such a philosophy isn't a smoke screen wit
Re: (Score:3)
On top of that why does your employer owe you health insurance in the first place? That also used to be something that was a fringe benefit that people then started to expect and demand like it was owed to them.
I don't remember details, but the original reason for employer-provided health insurance was, I believe, a tax dodge cooked up when other types of incentives were eliminated by the government. All well and good, actually, when employment was more or less for life, but absolutely horrible when employment has become almost exclusively short-term and there can be gaps of 1-2 years or more between jobs. For that, an employer-independent insurance program becomes necessary.
As long as employment was more or less
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that this conversation illuminates that you're not very good with money. When you take a high deductible plan, you don't use the savings on beer and video games (or whatever you're into), you save it. Then when you've saved enough, you can go in and start investing the money and make even more money. If you're one to want to spend everything you make or you get sick often, then it's a bad idea. But if you're responsible, don't smoke, take care of yourself, etc... it's a good way to earn more money.
You have this liberal conception that insurance companies have infinite money. They don't. They make their money by investing money paid by people like you and then earn off the interest. They expect that they will pay out every dollar that is put in, so they profit off of the investments. The scam is low deductible, high premium. Let me guess, you also have whole life insurance, right?
Re:rather have money (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. I only think for myself since I would rather keep the money I earned than to give it to someone who's unwise with their money. Greed in action. Caught me red handed.
Your words betray any sort of confidence that you know what you're talking about. Yes, they have two types of profits. One for when they collect more in premiums than they pay out (rare) or one in which they make a profit from their investments (more common). They are primarily interested in making investment income. I have first hand information regarding this.
See, you bought into this weird "rich people are evil" concept. It's okay to make money. It's okay to be wise with money. It's not greedy or thinking of only yourself. You seem passionate about helping others. Imagine how much more you can help others if you didn't squander your money. I've never quite understood this whole, "I'm not winning, so you can't either" type mentality. Try winning for a change and then help others with your winnings.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Informative)
Insurance companies have not paid out all dollars taken in for a long time. Investments are not needed for a great many to make huge profits.
Citation please. Here's mine: http://www.statefarm.com/aboutus/_pdf/2012_annual_report.pdf [statefarm.com]
2012 (in millions)
Premium Earned $33,210
Paid Claims $21,523
Claim Expenses $5,240
Service & Admin Fees $8,026
---
Underwriting Gain or Loss ($1,579)
So state farm, after paying out the claims, and overhead, lost $1.5 billion dollars in 2012. They made a profit because... "Investment Gain and Other Income" was $3,070, which covered the losses from paying out claims.
Gameboyhippo was correct, and your "theory" is false.
Re: (Score:3)
Your wage is multiple times the national average and you struggle with having a high deductible? Insurance is for the big stuff like cancer, it's not for the little stuff like a runny nose. I think there is a disconnect here.
Re:rather have money (Score:4, Insightful)
So, quit. The deal you had when you were hired is irrelevant to the deal you have now unless the contract still binds you and the other party. Salaries change, markets change, etc so I don't see why you even mentioned it.
Also, if the company initially paid P1 for your insurance with a deductible of D1 but the only way to cover you for P1 years later is with a higher deducible D2 (even in CPI adjusted dollars due to medical costs outstripping general inflation for some interval), why would you expect them to not raise the deductible to D2 and continue to pay P1 for your coverage.
Everyone "wants" more. Markets, in the long term, decide what everyone "gets".
Do you really "need" more? Are you not getting sufficient hydration and calories to sustain life? If not, you should probably spend the time and personal resources you spent responding to me and instead go for a walk and scavenge some discarded recyclables to sell. Few highly paid people in STEM fields really understand what people "need".
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
This is great, if you're a single male.
Women and babies get to be expensive, I hear.
Re: (Score:2)
>Just wait until you actually get sick. Then it will seem far less of a great deal.
No it won't. My HSA has amassed more than the deductible. The money I would have put into a low deductable plan has gone into the HSA, so it has cost me no more.
The danger period is the first 6 months where you may not have amassed more than the deductible and so you may find yourself out of pocket for up to 6 months.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly my only option was an FSA, which means they keep the money anyway so I might as well just pay for the more expensive insurance.
How that is legal I cannot understand.
On top of all that, this means only the young and well off can afford coverage and woe be to the underprivileged or the elderly.
The FSA is a stupid joke of a health care policy - how can anyone accurately predict their out of pocket medical expenses for the following year? Fixed expenses like medicines can be predicted, but I just paid for expensive dental work mostly out of pocket with no way to deduct it because I didn't have the forsight to predict that a dental condition would exhaust my meager Dental Insurance annnual cap.
Rather than an FSA where I have to lock up money in a bank account, I'd like to see medical expenses be fully deductible without having to reach the 7.5% AGI limit. Why should Jane get to deduct her $1200 of predictable $100/month medications, but John can't deduct his $2000 of unexpected dental work? John probably needs the deduction more since his was an unplanned expense.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Informative)
Just wait until you actually get sick. Then it will seem far less of a great deal.
These plans are a scam, they are attempting to move the cost of healthcare onto the worker while still claiming to provide coverage. I would rather get no coverage and a raise so I can buy my own. Mind you that raise would need to be $1000+/month.
Reading the above, I am *so* glad I live in a country with free healthcare for all.
Sure, it's paid for by my taxes, and sure maybe that means my taxes are a bit higher than yours, but:
1. If I lose my job and have no income, I'll still be covered.
2. If I get sick and need expensive medical assistance, I won't be hit with higher premiums or be uninsurable for any conditions.
3. If I'm in an accident and can't help myself my family won't need to dig through my files to find my insurance papers or pay up-front for anything.
4. If I feel unwell, I can make a judgement about seeing a doctor based on how I feel, not on whether I can afford it.
I honestly can't see how anyone who can make a sane argument against that.
Yep, there are issues -- some people do abuse the system -- but I'd rather have that than the alternatives any day of the week.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
People cannot make a sane argument against it.
They will however make greedy short sighted childish arguments against it.
Re:rather have money (Score:4, Informative)
And yet reality disagrees with you.
Look at outcomes and costs for other systems and see for yourself.
No charity could ever come close to funding the needs of what you claim are poor people. Try to remember that many poor people are only poor due to a medical issue. The medical industry creates a lot of bankruptcies.
If what you mean instead is that you are ok with people dying in the street to save yourself a couple tax dollars then just say that.
Re:rather have money (Score:4, Funny)
(sarcasm intended, if it wasn't already bloody obvious)
Re:rather have money (Score:4)
That's also the reason that startups are usually run by people in their 20's. Once you get above 40, life changes a bit, you begin to worry about heart attacks, prostate cancer and the like, and actually rely upon good medical insurance given by a company.
You need at least $250k in the bank if you have a heart attack and have no insurance. A 20-something doesn't worry about that.
Imagine if the US gets single payer healthcare. Startups won't be for just the 20-somethings anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets see a citation for that.
Sounds like BS, I say that as someone who lived in such a system in the past.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
My aunt has survived 5 bouts with (supposedly terminal) breast cancer on the Canadian public system.
My father survived 13 years longer than his original 6 month prognosis on the Canadian public system.
If I'm hit by a car my treatment is immediate and complete with no one worrying how it will be paid for.
Yeah, there are long waits sometimes and sometimes people die. But they die because of long waits, not just to save a corporation some money.
I once took my mother to the emergency room for chest constriction. Within 2 minutes through the door they gave her the initial "want's wrong" check-up and rushed her in for heart treatment. No waiting.
And people don't die "regularly". That is propaganda and the simple fact that our life expectancy is longer than USA hold light to that.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Informative)
How long will you have to wait to get it? Canada, NZ & UK have pretty long waiting lists for expensive procedures (don't know about other countries), and people regularly die waiting for them.
Funny, I live in Canada, and I never heard of that. You might want to call the local newspapers, they would certainly be interested in this. There must be a liberal conspiracy to hide it all. In all honesty, I think it's sad that you're willing to believe this crap. The truth is, there are people here who choose to pay for treatments in private healthcare facilities, but it's always for non life-threatening procedures when they don't want to wait.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
A shorter version that pretty much sums up all political discourse from the right in the USA is "Fuck you, I got mine!".
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is wrong with the NHS providing chronic care?
Insurance in nations with that sort of system is a whole different beast.
Re: (Score:3)
There's little evidence that "regular doctors visits" do anything except clog the system until you need a geriatric specialist for your primary care, if by that you mean annual visits even when you feel well. Remember, there are negative health consequences to false positives.
Re: (Score:2)
Just get health insurance with a lower deductible. You live in a free country, right?
Re: (Score:3)
get some real health insurance
Do you mean a 'real healthcare program'? Because a proper 'high deductible' plan is closer to actually being insurance(IE something you're not supposed to use all the time) than most health care plans offered today.
For example, my dad's HDIP* actually saved him oodles of money when he got cancer. Why? Once he hit the deductible he was covered 100%, and not responsible for $40 copays, $40 per visit, etc... A traditional 'low' deductible plan would have bled him more financially over the course of that.
Pl
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Informative)
While you're at it, ditch this "high deductible" scam and get some real health insurance
Health Plans are a scam. "High Deductible" is actually insurance. They had to give it a new name because hardly anybody provides insurance anymore, just health plans, so people have forgotten the true meaning of insurance.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Informative)
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
Cutting the sodas isn't going to make much difference to your paycheck.
It has a fair chance of lowering morale though.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for me. I rather buy my own favorite drink than having the choice between coke, diet coke, coke zero, sprite and soda water, and with that the occasional mention that the company provides 'all that' for you, one of their prized assets. Which feels similar to receiving a fumbled fiver after spending three hours to fix someone's computer problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you figure out who at your office does the perks purchasing, a birthday card and a phone call can go a long ways towards upgrading you from folgers to starbucks coffee grinds and generic to fanta brand orange soda, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask for the beverage you want. It's supposed to be there as a perk, not something they have to supply through gritted teeth. If they don't want to supply the beverage you want, well that's almost as much of a signal as removing them altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting fizzy sugar water may make a difference to one's waistline, perhaps.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather have a larger paycheck.
But in practice, a company that refuses to provide perks to developers is likely to pay them less, not more. Theoretically it could happen differently, but that's not the way to bet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have a larger paycheck.
I would take the 25c/day pay cut it would cost to have someone stock the fridge with sodas so that I didn't have to go to the bother. On one hand "perks" are about employers differentiating without paying more, on the other hand there are economies of scale that do your employees a lot of good, if you pick the things that a good portion of your employees partake in. Free coffee/tea is pretty standard for this reason, why shouldn't that apply to other (more modern) common consumables?
Of course, don't let yo
Diet sodas (Score:2)
Of course, don't let your company health care provider hear that you have a fridge of 240-calorie insulin-bombs stalking the corridor...
Then mention in passing to the insurer that Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Sprite Zero, Diet Mtn Dew, Pepsi Max, and Dr Pepper Ten aren't exactly "insulin bombs".
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
Spending $30/(month*employee) on candy bars can simply be written off as an expense. If the company wanted to pay the employees enough to buy their own candy bars, they would actually have to pay all their people $50/(mo*employee) or so that they have $30 left after income tax. And you won't get a group rate on candy.
All things being equal, perks are a better value. Hope you like going to the gym that your employer uses for its gym membership program, hope you enjoy the coffee they buy, the healthcare plan that they offer, and the groceries at the company store (not quite, but we are getting there).
Re: (Score:2)
However, with the government standing in the middle between your and your employer, you will never get a larger paycheck equal to the perks.
It's not just that, but the company is getting them in bulk at wholesale. Whilst individuals could do that, most won't and they'll pay retail. Then add the fact that the company is supplying a fridge and doing the stocking for you for convenience.
Even if it were an either perks OR the money situation the perks would make more sense. But it tends not to be. Employers that value their employees enough to give them the perks tend to pay more.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right that it's more cost efficient for the employer to do so. There's 2 major hindarences that prevent a lot of these perks from ever being fully implemented and that's people's different likes/dislikes... and people coming and going, while in 2011 you may have a culture that loves soda and candy, over time you may wind up hiring a bunch of health nuts of equal or greater skill and suddenly your perks work against you. With a dynamic and competent HR it's possible to shift with the winds... but ha
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Informative)
Most perks wouldn't make a huge impact on your pay. Take the coffee, soda and snack budget. Spread it out over all the employees and you get... what? Not very much. Now without the coffe, etc. right there in the office, what do you do? Go to the same boring shop on the first floor of the building every day? Get in your car and drive or (if you're lucky) walk someplace and buy snacks at retail prices. You're right back to square one. You saved nothing. The company lost. You lost. Everybody lost. Penny-wise and pound foolish.
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
For the price of free soda your paycheque may go up but a dollar a week. Once you take into account the overheads it's a lot more cost effective to just give someone soda. (Please no-one interperet that as big-government making it too expensive to employ people.)
Also, money is nice, but I place a high value on a nice place to work. I spend over half my waking hours at work, getting a soda and a cookie isn't much but it makes me feel a lot better about coming.
Re:rather have money (Score:4, Funny)
I'd rather have a larger paycheck.
I'd rather have a jet pack. But if the boss is cutting the free soda, we're both gonna be disappointed.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I'd rather have more healthy snacks like fresh fruits and nuts.
But either way, if upper management takes away free sodas (without the CEO having to make a similar sacrifice like giving up his corporate jet, or giving up his bonus), upper management and HR better brace themselves for an internal email shit storm that could take down its internal network for a couple of days, if not for a couple weeks, and that could potentially cost the company millions of dollars in loss of productivity and loss
Re: (Score:3)
When I'm here at 8 o'clock at night -- I would much prefer free soda (or a pizza) to an extra $100 in my bank account.
With $100, I'm pretty sure you could order a pizza and lots of soda sent to your office, give a generous tip to the delivery guy, and still have quite a few bucks left in your bank account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everything is about Math. Employees will feel more rewarded by a company supplied meal than they would with the equivalent (or substantially more) cash. Especially if the boss has stayed and joins in the meal too.
Equally, pick the wrong perk and do it in the wrong way and it'll be a demotivation. I was once given an envelope of vouchers with the entire office gathered around as if I was employee of the month. Ack. I left that place soon after.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, of course people only work late once per pay period... (I'm not against math, I'm just saying the assumptions used in this scenario are not realistic.)
Re: (Score:2)
When I'm here at 8 o'clock at night -- I would much prefer free soda (or a pizza) to an extra $100 in my bank account.
With $100, I'm pretty sure you could order a pizza and lots of soda sent to your office, give a generous tip to the delivery guy, and still have quite a few bucks left in your bank account.
Depends on how many nights he is there till 8. If your typical pizza delivery is say $15 after all the tips, etc, and he ends up having to work
late two days a week, its soon better to get the pizza free.
The last big employer I worked for offered nothing for free. We had to chip in for the coffee fund.
But we did have our own fridge, with our own lock, and management never asked what was in there, and we carried out our own empties, so....
Re: (Score:2)
With $100, I'm pretty sure you could order a pizza and lots of soda sent to your office
Two or three, maybe even four, times, perhaps — but if that's an extra $100 per year, or even per month, there would be a lot of days without the free pizza or soda?
Re:rather have money (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't. I'd rather not be there at 8 o'clock at night. This is a sure sign of poor management.
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely a sign (Score:5, Insightful)
...that something could be amiss. That said, quite often the perks come right back when the company does better.
It's not just coders that like free perks...project managers, HR people, and the people who run the business like them as well.
Good Idea, Bad Execution (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, while having these perks is nice, the narrative in this story makes the guy sound like an entitled twat.
The fact they're considered a "perk" is telling (Score:3, Insightful)
Creating a supportive and productive environment isn't just something restricted to businesses employing software developers, it's just the only industry left that actually gives even the slightest bit of a thought to the happiness of its employees.
It's all BS. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been in software development for 15 years now and I never had any of the stuff provided. And I'm glad they didn't. I'd be a fat turd now with diabetes. And the caffeine rush only lasts for about 15 minutes. So it's a myth. You'd be better off putting the money towards better tools, or a in-house better tools program (unassigned work time) so developers can pursue pet projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This was my comment exactly, except I've been doing this for 25 years rather than 15.
There was that one time my former (military contractor) employer got it in their collective heads that they'd start a commercial group. They got a lucrative deal for "technology transfer" from Intel, and got it in their heads that they could become a player in the commercial PC graphics market. However, they knew nothing much about the commercial world, so they just slavishly aped all the steriotypes about hip commercial
Being treated like they matter (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the free drinks or candy, although those things are nice. What developers want is to feel like they matter to the company. One of the ways a company can do that is to provide some small freebies. But freebies alone don't cut it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Being treated like they matter (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is a more appropriate way of looking at things. If you want to keep valuable employees happy, it helps to show them that they're appreciated. That might mean giving them free candy and soda, but there are many other options. It might mean that you let them leave a little early or have an extra day off. It might mean that you give them a more flexible schedule or let them work from home. It might mean that you give them more interesting and more challenging projects. It might mean that you make a point to say "Thank you. Job well done."
The ways of showing people that they're important and appreciated are varied, and part of how you show someone that you appreciate them is by bothering to figure out what makes them feel appreciated.
Soda and candy? That wouldn't make me feel appreciated, and I wouldn't worry about a company that cut those. I'd be more concerned about a company that treats its employees badly but hopes to buy them off with soda and candy.
Depends (Score:2)
If the pay is good then the extra perks offered are optionally consumed. Just because it's free doesn't mean you have to eat/drink it. I would rather drink water with a small amount of Mio added for flavor (I can't stand plain water). The primary perk(s) I want, being able to dress casually every day (shorts if I want) and listening to music without headphones.
BTW My company use to offer free soda but due to stupid employees opening cans then leaving them all over the office, soda is now 25 cents/can. P
Caffeine Yes... other perks maybe... (Score:3)
FWIW, most "free food" programs encourage workers to come in earlier (for breakfast) or stay later (work past dinner time) or to not spend a long time off the company property over lunch. The extra time at work usually pays for the food costs. When we have "crunch time" and are working late, my company orders food for people putting in extra hours. It's probably cheaper than overtime as well.
R.E.S.P.E.C.T. (Score:5, Insightful)
Aretha Franklin knows what we need.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously you'd like to get paid more (Score:3)
However, if you're dealing with really top talent people like to be in a nice work environment.
This isn't exclusive to developers. You see this in business management. Corporate headquarters are often very nice buildings. Senior management gets lots of perks.
The free sodas developers get is trickle down of that. Its not a free private jet. Its a cheap machine the company can maintain in your recreation room. If they company is so strapped for cash that they're scrapping that then yeah... layoffs are very likely.
The signaling aspect is more important (Score:5, Insightful)
The perks themselves may not be that important to many employees. What matters is that the existence of the perks sends a message: that the company values its employees and is willing to put some amount of effort into retaining them. As the original article pointed out, if a company isn't willing to spend a few bucks on free food and drinks that the employees value, how long will it be until the work environment deteriorates in other ways?
Things are different if you work for a nonprofit and/or government agency where there is less discretionary income. You know what you're getting into. But a for-profit company has the choice. If they cut out minor perks like free soda, they're saying that they are willing to piss off their employees to add a few bucks to the bottom line. Either that, or they really are on the verge of bankruptcy – and in both cases it's a good idea to be looking for the exits.
Re:The signaling aspect is more important (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The best perk (Score:5, Interesting)
The best perk for me has always been interesting work in a congenial environment. Everything else is secondary. It helps to be a senior person, so my tasks are usually along the lines of "Figure out $newtechnology. Find a way for the company to make money with it."
I've worked for a number of companies who did the "we pay less but we're such a great place to work!" thing. Someday I'd like to at least visit a "we pay lots but it sucks to work here" company, just to see what it's like.
...laura
Caffeine and Time (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just the caffeine that benefits the company by stimulating workers, but also that you don't have staff doing daily coffee runs for a half hour.
Biggest Perk (Score:3)
What? (Score:2, Informative)
As someone who doesn't want diabetes or to become overweight, I would prefer healthy food. I'm sick of the "candy, fast food, pizza" atmosphere in IT. I feel like a lot of companies who buy their employees food tend to focus solely on those which are bad for our health.
brb got to get my fix (Score:2)
The last thing people should worry about (Score:4, Insightful)
The real perks I want (Score:5, Insightful)
1) A decent ergonomic chair that works for people 2 meters tall
2) A door
3) A manager who will
a) go to the meetings on my behalf and send me the 3-line email with the one detail that I needed to be there for
b) find interesting work for me to do
4) A bonus program that has clear, achievable objectives that pay out at least something if I beat my goals -- don't pull the rug out from under my feet if I've been slaving, just because Sales can't get in the door
Re: (Score:3)
1) A decent ergonomic chair that works for people 2 meters tall 2) A door 3) A manager who will a) go to the meetings on my behalf and send me the 3-line email with the one detail that I needed to be there for b) find interesting work for me to do 4) A bonus program that has clear, achievable objectives that pay out at least something if I beat my goals -- don't pull the rug out from under my feet if I've been slaving, just because Sales can't get in the door
A place with all that probably has the free soda and snacks, too.
Eric Spiegel is an idiot (Score:2)
Not trying to be an ass here, but Eric Spiegel's self-agrandizing "columns" have been discussed on Slashdot before. Based on his past writings, he seems to think it's ok to treat people like cattle. (Give the cows a salt lick, they'll feel better. Give the developers their carbonated sugar water, they'll feel better.) He also doesn't miss an opportunity to point out how smart he thinks his decisions are, and his writings have an "I told you so" undertone. I can't help but get the feeling that he writes to h
worst place (Score:3)
One of the worst places I've worked had a well stocked break room. Sodas, chips, ice cream, everything short of a full meal. They patted themselves on the back about how well they treated their employees. And failed to treat them well in the areas that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree it's just one of many factors, and I've worked for bad companies with good freebies. But the well-stocked breakroom costs them so little money compared to everything else that when they do cut that cost it is a bad sign, i.e. the "canary in the coal mine" reference in the summary is accurate. I've seen it happen.
Showers (Score:2)
intrinsic motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
the head of NCR (way back in the first half of the 20th century) was asked about the generous "fringe benefits" the company provided (including a golf course). He pointed out that employees were move productive when provided with the benefits. In his opinion NCR wasn't "giving away" anything, just doing what was best for the company.
any "perks" (like free soda) only increase productivity if the employee is happy with their base compensation. If someone thinks they are drastically underpaid/unvalued then no amount of freebies will matter
if someone feels like they are valued and doing important work - then they will be more productive/loyal
my guess is that the return on investment for free soda/coffee (in increased productivity) is extremely high - but it isn't about the soda
There is actually quite a bit of research on this type of thing - I'd recommend "Drive" by Daniel Pink and "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely (he just did a coursera class as well) for anyone interested ...
A convenient canary... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do believe it is a canary in a coal mine. I'm amazed at companies that will have no problem spending $125,000 in salary on a high end programmer, which is probably $150,000 with benefits and all that but if they want a second monitor for $400 it's a big no-can-do. Soda/tea/coffee is $0.10-$0.30 a serving, even if someone were a major drinker at 5 servings a day of the expensive stuff that's $375/person/year, or about the same cost. Gives you an idea of what they are willing to spend on a happy, productive employee.
People don't need a lot to be happy, but basic respect and curtesy go a long way. If you went to someone's house to visit them one of the first things they are likely to offer is some sort of beverage. It's basic hospitality. And the company isn't just inviting the employees into their environment, but what about vendors, partners, or customers come to visit? There should be something to offer to them.
Lots of management types are under the impression that getting a paycheck is what makes people happy. It's a false logic, just because not getting a paycheck makes people unhappy doesn't mean it works the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, there's this nice video, RSA Animate:Drive, [youtube.com] about what actually motivates knowledge workers. I find it insightful and it helped me focus on being a better happier developer rather than chasing a bigger paycheck.
Re: (Score:3)
An example of negative perks (Score:5, Interesting)
One company I worked for not only didn't provide coffee and drinks, they didn't provide coffee machines or drink dispenser machines. Even worse, they forbid coffee machines at the desk.
Not because of power supply issues, no.
Because they gave the cafeteria company an exclusive contract to supply beverages to the entire staff.
So instead of having coffee clubs like I did at most places I worked over the years, I was expected to pay nearly $2 for a sixteen ounce shitty cafeteria coffee. And I wasn't supposed to have them any time except 10, 12, and 2.
I quit.
Narrow vs economy of scale 'perks' (Score:3)
The problem I see here is a narrow idea of what a 'perk' can be.
Typically office environments are over regulated, and antagonistic managers use things humans *naturally need*...random breaks, flexible hours, snack food, wearing hawaiian shirts, etc. and turn them into a *commodity for you to earn.*
Its part of the archaic business model we all struggle against.
As a former employee, I'd definitely take the *cash* over gamed-out 'perks'...
However, as a current employer, I'd like to defend the idea of a 'perk' from those who despise the notion....
See, businesses have **economy of scale**
We can buy things in bulk...including things our employees wouldn't otherwise be able to afford on their own.
To me, as a business owner, THIS is a perk....a non-compensatory benefit that you get b/c you work for me.
Food, drinks, etc. are all in this category, but that's really minor league perks. If a division leader has a budget for stuff to help employee morale, a wise use of it would maximize the economy of scale and wholesale access...not just get a discount on pizza (although that's nice too sometimes)
ex: when I was a snowboarding instructor, one of our 'perks' was that the managers would let us buy as much as we wanted off of their 'pro form' from their corporate sponsors. Which means snowboarding gear at 50% of *wholesale*....that was a fskign 'perk'...and it helped our performance as employees!
Most biz perks are just gaming out your needs and using it as a carrot/stick...
It is a good canary (Score:3)
I stopped drinking soda many months back, but I see such perks as signs of a company's financial health, just like the OP suggests.
Quality of life (Score:3)
Would I be willing to take a lower-paying job that I really loved when compared to a higher-paying job that I dreaded going to? Yes.
Having a flexible work environment is something that would keep me working for less of a paycheck and still be happy. On the other hand, a very restrictive work environment I'm really not going to like so I better have good pay.
"Free perks" do not mean that developers thrive, but a relaxed work environment (that costs next to nothing!) helps developers thrive. Flexible hours and a relaxed dress code (T-shirt, shorts and flip flops should be ok) cost nothing to implement but yet can really help tech-minded people thrive. The thing is, managers who understand how the "techie mind" work generally tend to go a bit overboard and include a bunch of other stuff too, which does help, but not to the same degree.
Bottom line, if you expect your IT people and developers to come in wearing suits from 9-5 and be "productive" for all those hours sitting quietly in a cubicle, you're going to have to pay your tech people a lot. On the other hand, if you can make going to work feel more like a hobby, more relaxed and more interesting, you can find people who will work for you for less.
100% dental (Score:5, Interesting)
What I have discovered with programmers is that the good ones are quite smart and don't take much crap. So a clear and fair salary system that is open works far better than the pretending that nobody blabs their and any other salaries that they know. If you want to quickly empty out a room of your best programmers reveal that some useless stump of a manger earns 3 times as much and blew at least one of their salaries on travel.
Or if you want them to quit after a few weeks of seething then just do a nepotism hire and put him in charge of "code reviews".
The key is not so much that perks make or break an environment but that they indicate a respect for the programmers. Often programmers are somewhat trapped in the office while the marketing and management get to travel and wine and dine clients. Thus throwing them some bones such as food and conference travel balances out the equation. But once management starts to act like the programmers are a bunch of undeserving brats it is game over.
One company that I particularly enjoyed quitting from would have the upper management basically give customer tours of the programmers like we were a zoo exhibit.
The best part of when they cut a perk and lose programmers is how many of the management seem to think that the pathetic losers quit because they took away the free drinks or some such. Then they get angry when they realize how development has screeched to a halt when the only 3 competent programmers just took off. I have even heard accusations of sabotage.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to work for a well-known company that had no perks except a very modest employee discount and was laser-focused on controlling costs. I used to joke that they probably had a profit target for the vending machines. Guess what? I didn't give a shit because business was great, therefore stock was going up and that provided me with a nice 50% income boost every year.
How would you have felt if you didn't have the stock options? Many employees hired later on may not have.
Re:No perks not always bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Options are a poor way of compensating employees. Just ask all the MS employees whose options are effectively worthless because the strike price is inappropriate for what the stock price will ever be. A better strategy would be to just do proper profit sharing or give them actual shares in the company.
Re: (Score:3)
That's more or less my thought. This is one of the few industries where the boss is expected to directly provide the snacks during the day.
As much as I am in favor of the employer taking care of the employees, that isn't what's going on here. And as you mention, in the long run it tends to exact a toll on the body. If the industry wants better work, it might make more sense to provide things that improve the work life balance and make it easier to stay for the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Coffee/soda being free does NOT mean you have to gulp it down till you burst!