Hacker News Reader

Comment by regnerba | Hacker News Reader

But why? Aren't most of their employees going to still be making their salary anyways? What do they need the extra money for?

The people in the economy that really need the money are not the people working at Facebook.

I mean, congrats to Facebook employees, I just don't understand why.

View on HN

Because working from home with kids unable to leave house produces extra expenses for child care (switching from daycare to babysitter will be expensive) etc.

If you do not do that, you need to cut hours, which reduce your income.

What FB does here is to comfort their worried employees with some money, push the overall moral and mitigate some of the impacts ppl feel.

You can replace babysitting with caregiving, being sick, etc.

Is babysitting even legal with the shelter in place order?

Childcare is explicitly listed as an essential service :/

That kind of defeats the purpose of "shelter in place", doesn't it? With so many asymptomatic carriers and children being germ magnets, those babysitters are going to become a very effective vector for spreading the virus.

Not everyone is capable of going without babysitters though. I see nothing wrong with it for exceptional cases.

Then you either have people whose situation worsens due to coronavirus illness or people whose situation worsens since they can't earn money and instead need to focus on child care. Pick your poison.

The latter doesn’t put the entire population at risk.

I assume that this is exactly why Facebook gives that money to its people. The fewer childcare workers are required to help around while also spreading the virus, the better.

I'll pick the one that isn't self-replicating and rapidly spreading undetected.

In fact, we've already cancelled our babysitter's visits. She's a nurse-in-training, so she understands.

I think the Bay Area order mandates small and unchanging groups of kids.

In SF it's actually a bit more nuanced than that:

https://sf.gov/stay-home-except-essential-needs "Are nannies permitted to be used? What about other in-home child care? In some instances. If the nanny provides medical/health care for the child, then yes. If the nanny lives with you, then yes. Otherwise, nannies not necessary for medical care are not permitted. Also, parents required to work away from home for essential services may need in-home child care, which is permitted."

The actual text of the law seems to contradict this though. From: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/alerts/files/HealthOrderC19-07-%20...

f. For the purposes of this Order, “Essential Businesses” means: xviii. Home-based care for seniors, adults, or children;

h. For the purposes of this Order, “Essential Travel” includes travel for any of the following purposes. ii. Travel to care for elderly, minors, dependents, persons with disabilities, or other vulnerable persons.

The Santa Clara(?) one that I read had some other specifics about daycare. IIRC the kids have to be in groups of 12 or fewer that aren't mixed around from day to day, and anyone in contact with one group can't be in contact with any other groups.

I have been following this and the wording here appears to have changed in the last couple of days. The wording you quoted has been removed.

I just checked in on this and noticed that it seemed like the FAQ language changed as well. I can't find the old wording anymore, and the new wording has done a 180

In Bay Area, you’re no longer allowed to have a baby-sitter who doesn’t live with you while current covid-19 measures are in place.

This is untrue - please don't spread misinformation. The order explicitly lists "Home-based care for seniors, adults, or children" as a permitted essential business.

In SF it's actually a bit more nuanced, and in most situations nannies are not allowed:

Each county issued the same order. The page you cite is explanatory, but not part of an official order. Any of it that is enforceable in SF is also enforceable in the other counties.

That's not the actual text of the law. The actual text says:

f. For the purposes of this Order, “Essential Businesses” means: xviii. Home-based care for seniors, adults, or children;

It says nothing about limitations to this based on need for medical care only.

That’s not my understanding. Child care professionals are considered ‘essential’.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22609375

>If you do not do that, you need to cut hours, which reduce your income.

Are Facebook employees paid by the hour?

They have a lot of contractors, who are. And there is (used to be) a caste like energy on how contractors were viewed as opposed to actual FTEs.

As far as I can tell, contractors aren't included in this initiative.

As far as I can tell, they are included.

Well, when you only work 50% they surely will pay you less. And that is what parents face. When eliminating private life, maybe you can work 75%.

>Because working from home with kids unable to leave house produces extra expenses for child care

Why on earth would you need childcare if you work from home? Oh such hard work at FB.

Let me rephrase your comment for you: "I don't have kids."

So instead of reducing hours without cutting pay, or even just finding ways to give parents more flexibility in their work arrangements, we increase the demand and thereby the cost of those services so those employed in less cushy/flexible industries have no recourse.

True. But that would imply less work done for them. Not their interest.

$1,000 pays for maybe two days of childcare at home. I don't see $1,000 making much difference for them if their interest is to free up resources for working at home.

Facebook should be doing this for their contractors. (not the software development ones).. the guys who clean the office, maintain the landscape, cook the food, clean the dishes in their cafeterias, etc.

I don't work at FB, but I think they're continuing to pay contractors and hourly workers while shut down. It sounds like they're generally doing the right thing for their people?

Haha I'm a contractor at my current job and while my job is extremely secure, all those benefits and assurances my company is sending out don't apply to me.

Its great that none of the employees at my company have to show up sick and will still get paid, but what about us temps and contractors? The temps and contractors are the ones that will be spreading covid-19 due to our circumstances.

I've commented about my situation elsewhere, but I'm in a very similar situation. I've spent quite a bit of money I can't really afford right now to allow me to not need to leave my home for a couple of months if need be. I've also had to buy extra cleaning supplies and ppe as my employer either can't acquire or afford ppe for all their staff. I hope I don't get sick before I get laid off, but I have to leave my house to work in a very high traffic area. My employer also isn't making any statements about being paid while at home on leave. It'd probably kill the business. The owners taken on loads of debt and spent it rather frivolously over the past few years.

Isn't that a call you make when you sign on as a contractor though? At least at my company, contractors make a boatload more money, with the provision that you don't get any of the normal benefits provided by the company.

I make less than everyone around me because all that extra money goes to my agency. This is the the main entryway for the poor man to get into a company these days. After a year or 6 months I'm eligible for becoming a real employee if the bosses feel like it and maybe then I can get health insurance too!

Ah that sounds rough! The contractors at my company aren't from agencies, they get paid more in place of getting company benefits. Didn't realise there were other kinds - Thanks for explaining!

>Facebook should be doing this for their contractors. (not the software development ones).. the guys who clean the office, maintain the landscape, cook the food, clean the dishes in their cafeterias, etc.

AFAIK, the company is continuing to pay these folks, even when the offices are closed.

I don't work for Facebook but here's my thinking:

not everyone is making a software engineer salary at Facebook.

personally, i never had a proper work from home setup so i would spend it on an ergonomic chair, keyboard, mouse, noise cancelling headphone, dual monitor etc.

Shopify did it too, mostly it was to help with buying monitor, desk, chair, etc. to set up a home office.

Not sure if that’s the intent here, but makes sense.

1. That was shopify

2. It's an expenses budget for home working equipment, not just cash in their paychecks, and not with max performance rating for max bonus

1. My bad, fixed in edit (originally said Spotify).

2. Does that matter? Paycheck stipend is easier to process for everyone and just makes it the same amount for everyone so policy is easier.

Seems like a nice thing to do for employees that might have extra expenses during the lockdown (higher grocery cost, etc.)

It may matter quite a bit for tax purposes.

Yes, but in the Bay Area it's not uncommon to have household workers – cleaners, nannies, etc. Something like this would allow people to continue to pay those folks who are not working now, and have no other form of income or assistance. It would help the FB workers, because they're going to be doing that work on top of their normal jobs.

Not saying that's what people will use the money for, but it ups the odds at least.

If you're a tech worker and you have savings to weather a crisis: consider your plans for all the people who rely on you, who are waiting for something and not sure when and if its coming.

So the classic argument of 'trickle down economics'. I"d wager that that $1k will just go into their bank account, like their bonus would.

Facebook is not the government.

They are doing something positive in their locus of control. And of course people are upset about it because... reasons.

Are they giving their content moderation contractors $1k? I’m guessing not.

Why would they need it? They are still coming into work.

</sarcasm>

I think the main reason I'm personally cynical about these types of 'good deeds' - whether it's Facebook giving $1K to their already well-paid employees or Bill Gates giving billions to charities - is that, in a perfect world, these ultra wealthy do-gooders probably shouldn't have so much fun money to give away in the first place. Our system should be much more balanced, where employees and researchers and charities don't need trickle down handouts.

Bill Gates became (one of) the world's richest individuals via a monopoly and predatory capitalism, and destroyed many companies and individuals on their path to riches. Facebook's wealth derives from selling users' personal information that they should have never been allowed to obtain in the first place.

I realize someone like Gates or a company like Facebook is going to be damned if they do and damned if they don't, but it doesn't change the fact that our system is not even close to as fair as we're constantly told it is.

> charities don't need trickle down handouts.

How do you define a charity?

Well, certainly not “the clinton foundation” for starters...

(fb employee here) fwiw I've heard of a ton of people continuing to pay housekeepers, nannies, etc. - I was going to pay our house cleaner to stay home anyway, but this removes any hesitation/excuse not to. I agree it's unnecessary, but it's a nice gesture and these FANG companies have the cash in the bank to help the Bay Area weather the storm safely.

Thanks for the response. That sure helps it make more sense. That extra bit to help make sure people like nannies are still employed but not working.

I'm confused on this. Are FB workers getting laid off?

Scenario: 1 month ago, you're an FB employee, and working, and you pay a nanny.

Today: you're an FB employee, and working, and you pay a nanny.

How is FB giving the FB employee changing anything at all? There's something I'm missing in this.

Because people are going to have to keep paying for services they no longer get value from. Someone has to clean the house, watch and educate the kids, etc.

because.... they're working from home? if that's the case, that was a piece of info I was missing.

I suspect even if they're working from home, having a nanny/cleaner/etc at home isn't "no value" just "less value".

But I still don't know why - if this is the case - why people who are still employed/working full time, getting their regular paycheck, just working from home, would feel the need to stop whatever domestic services they had in place.

>But I still don't know why - if this is the case - why people who are still employed/working full time, getting their regular paycheck, just working from home, would feel the need to stop whatever domestic services they had in place.

Because there's a pandemic going on and they don't want outside people in their house? Also, some of these services are now illegal in many cities including SF (Child/adult/senior care is still allowed. I'm assuming cleaners aren't.)

This is just employer giving money to an employee, not a national charity. I’m not sure where the moral derision is coming from. Are you a FB stakeholder who thinks the money is going to waste?

Do you have a notion of who owes whom how much? Then please share.

Nothing like extra cash to buy when market is low.

I’m making a direct appeal to the people receiving this money — people who frequent this very website — to consider the people who work for their households.

I’m not making a policy argument, nor am I a proponent of trickle down economics.

This is about a specific, local situation in the midst of a crisis.

The stock market has dropped significantly and a large part of employee compensation at FAANG companies is RSU. This could be seen as making up for lost stock value.

If you earn 300k$ a year then $1k is a rounding error to their megabucks employees.

Maybe, but earning $300K a year really tells us little about someone's financial situation. I'm sure you can imagine a world in which many things - eg: Mortgage, medical costs, loan payments, family needs - can make $300K gross income disappear very quickly.

Also remember that that 300k really translates to $130-$180 (guestimate numbers) base and the rest if stock which has also been falling

Yeah, the stock is down about 25% last time I checked.

I'm a current shareholder, and will be a larger one if the price keeps going down :)

income from RSUs will be down 30%

Not every FB employee is a highly paid software engineer who has savings to weather a multi-month public health crisis.

then not everyone should get it

That’s certainly a valid opinion. Nonetheless, giving the bonus to everyone does no harm, looks better in terms of PR, doesn’t foster an “us and them” mentality, and is probably easier to administer than just giving it to select employees. The difference on the bottom line is a rounding error.

Means testing is a strategy but not really expected of a private corporation, e.g. you're just asking the company to do more work to accomplish less.

Why is it bothering you so much that other people are getting a thousand dollar bonus? I'm happy for them, and I'd love for it to happen to me too.

Facebook is not short of money. I'm glad they're doing something extra for their employees in these times.

Based on public data, I'd say most are. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Facebook-Salaries-E40772.ht...

Right. This isn't charity, this is just another perk/bonus like free food or bean bag chairs.

Cause they can and the decided to do it. Adjusting to remote work does have a cost or two

Maybe they think all their employees will spend an extra $1000 they wouldn't have otherwise. Some of it might be spent keeping local business running for a week? I don't know.

I don’t work at FB, but I’ve definitely spent a few hundred these past couple of weeks preparing for the current situation.

arent local businesses closing?

Not sure about the Bay Area but a lot of restaurants are switching to delivery only (inc. the kind of places that never did delivery in the first place) so this money could go to them. Money can also be spent buying things in advance - for example concert tickets for late in the year. This will help performers/venues remain afloat in the meantime. Also - for local businesses that weather the storm, these people now have an extra $1k + extra bonus that they can spend to help get them back to black sooner.

Yes. In washington and california, which isn't surprising. Some businesses can't cope with the shutdown, some were barely getting by and have just pulled the trigger (eg The Stranger in Washington State, bakeries, restaurants, gyms, etc) to close or drastically reduce services. This will get more common, as the MONTHS drag on.

Trickle down of course. Those Facebook employees are expected to donate their bonuses to the others in society that aren't getting any help. Isn't that what other companies are asking? People to donate their sick days?

But if that's the goal, why doesn't Facebook just donate the money to an organization that can actually help these people?

I think the comment you are responding to was being cheeky :)

Because then you would be taking away the employee's bonus? Not every employee might be charitable. Probably giving everyone 1k is keeping them within budget.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com