Hacker News Reader

Comment by pizzetta | Hacker News Reader

Isn't the purpose of dinner to "feed" those who stay late knowing there is food and know that they won't have to go hunting outside to see what joint is still open (specially in the suburban campuses) rather than being a venue to feed staff on their way out (home, etc.)?

From that PoV 7-ish makes sense. I know I would not stay around till 7 just for a freebie dinner if I didn't have anything to do.

View on HN

Well, yes, I think "don't directly reward and incentivize staying too late at work" is the whole point of the recommendation. E.g. "signal the end of the work day."

One option that the company I currently work for does is to provide dinners in to-go that are either cold sandwiches or leftovers from lunch (which is free). That way, if one has to stay late, you aren't forced to have chips for dinner, while avoiding the signaling of having an actual dinner service.

I agree that providing dinners is kind of symbiotic. The worker gets free dinner and in return the employer gets outsized compensation in the form of work (symbiosis is not equal). That said, I never feel obliged to stay just because there is dinner served. I'm quite sure at places I've worked it's not even a tacit thing. I do know people who "hang out" just to get a free dinner and then leave --and again the company knows this and to my knowledge there is no frowning upon that (of course, if everyone did it, I'm sure it would become frowned upon).

This is a great idea. Especially if they're leftovers from lunch, to avoid waste.

At least at Google's NYC office, it was socially acceptable to work until dinner-time, have dinner at work, and then go home. (Or so it was reported to me.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com