Hacker News Reader

Comment by jiggy2011 | Hacker News Reader

jiggy2011

I've turned down jobs that promote "monthly massages", "beer fridays", "gaming evenings", and other perks like the article mentions because when you step back and look at it they're trying to replace your life outside of work with excuses why you shouldn't leave work. Bind your job to your necessities and leaving becomes so much harder.

This isn't always the case, especially in larger companies. Sometimes perks are just perks.

View on HN

I shouldn't make it sound like I dislike creative perks, but I definitely have a problem when the company tried using those as selling points in lieu of more traditional job perks that I was looking for. Perks that I like are spending accounts, flexible hours, pension, additional work holidays. The company I moved to after turning down those types had ones like: 1 paid day off per year to use volunteering; 0% interest loan on tech purchases (with certain stipulations), 1% yearly salary towards a spending account of my choice. 1 year into the company and I had 30 days of paid time off to use whenever I wanted (within reason... I couldn't go jet away mid launch for 5 weeks)

I'm just trying to say that the fact that they thought going against the grain and being creative in an attempt to match the stories you hear out of Google or the like rubbed me the wrong way.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, then. The article specifically points out that playing the "perk war" is a bad idea, and people who are swayed by things like laundry service are likely not the people you want.

Companies are in the business of making money. They only provide perks because they believe that it makes you a happier employee and that way you will work better and/or more hours. Perks aren't just perks. They are an incentive that either complements or replaces higher pay/better conditions. Never believe that they are giving you free drinks, lunch, gym membership and laundry services because, well, why not?

Once a company goes beyond a certain scale these perks can be delivered quite cheaply, at a much lower per employee cost than the employee would ever be able to get for themselves. This is one of the things a big company can use to entice people away from small startups where they might not get similar perks.

Having say a small fund to use for sporting activities can improve interpersonal relationships between employees and provide a way for new employees who might have relocated for the job a way to meet new people. The dividends this can pay can be well in excess of the costs.

> Once a company goes beyond a certain scale these perks can be delivered quite cheaply, at a much lower per employee cost than the employee would ever be able to get for themselves. This is one of the things a big company can use to entice people away from small startups where they might not get similar perks.

Or you could just, you know, pay them more.

I think you missed a critical piece about economies of scale.

A larger company would likely be able to negotiate a lower per-instance cost for a "perk" than an employee would be able to get themselves. Hence if you "just paid them more" with the idea that they would be going to get that same perk, it would cost some multiple more given that they don't have the same purchasing power as the company.

You can disagree that they would go and choose the same perk, but this line of reasoning assumes that there is no consistency of preferences eg. Gourmet coffee or good food is fungible as a perk regardless of the provider.

The extra that you have to pay somebody to compensate for the lack of say gym services could well be substantially more than it costs a larger company to deliver gym services themselves.

Consider that a gym membership might cost $50/month at a private gym because the gym needs to make a profit. There is also dead loss because of time travelling between work and the gym.

A company might well be able to provide on site gym services to employees at a much cheaper rate, especially if they already have space that is underutilised, they don't need it to be profitable and the facilities are so close that employees can just work out during their lunch break.

So with everything factored in you might be comparing $60/month to compensate an employee for a private gym vs $15-20/month with an employer provided gym.

The net result is healthier employees because more of them are likely to use the gym than if it was not provided and it's also a more efficient way to provide gym services if it is used by more than X% of employees.

I do somewhat believe this, but this ignores the fact that people will trade money for time and convenience. Things like not having to worry about doing laundry, or cook, or pick a place to eat, etc. are often things people will "pay for" via a slightly lower salary.

I'd say perks are never just perks, especially in larger companies.

Every perk is a line on a balance sheet that someone is justifying. If that person wants to keep their job, that justification isn't "just perks".

The only place where perks are just perks is small companies that aren't startups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com