Ask HN: Why don't tech companies build dorms on campus? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why don't tech companies build dorms on campus?

14 pointsFlopsy21 comments

There's a history surrounding the notion of company housing. During the industrial revolution, many factories and mills operated dormatories. The problem is that when you lose your job you lose your housing as well.

Zoning - in most places this is simply illegal.

Facebook is currently attempting to get some land re-zoned so they can do exactly this. Local NIMBYs are opposed.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27717752/facebook-flo...

I remember driving away from the Facebook campus -- having being creeped out by the degree to which it is designed to keep you from ever having to leave -- thinking "if they could build dormitories, they would".

It disturbs me, but doesn't surprise me, to learn that my joke isn't that funny.

They will probably also pay 85% of your salary in Facecoins which can only spend on campus.

Company towns ended in the early 20th century, for a good reason.

Imagine losing your job and housing at the same time.

It also doesn't get favorable tax treatment. The value of the housing winds up as taxable income for the employee anyway.

Because it's a really bad idea, and company towns are specifically something we've tried and found (as a society) to end badly, every time?

More usefully--consider the extra deal of personal bullshit that the company now has to take on. Think about the sorts of things that happen:

Does HR deal with two people, one who can't get to work because the other is having really loud sex into the wee hours of the morning?

If you have kids, and they fall over while horsing around, is the company liable?

Is the company harassment policy violated if somebody leaves the window open while having kinky sex?

How do renter's rights get invoked in the event of being fired?

It's just all a big headache.

One explanation may be: living in a golden cage is still living in a cage.

The other may be a society, people want or rather need to be part of society to be 'normal'.

One may argue that such dorm would be a society and that's kind of right, but it would be rather a mock of society. It would be super artificial.

FYI: some companies build apartments on campus.

And both the UK and USA have had issues with company towns - what next company police to keep the workers in check and to run out of town or kill those who make to much of a fuss

Because they could reasonably be expected to pay their staff enough for them to have their own home, and not expect them to work unreasonable hours?

Especially if they're well-established and wealthy enough to have a campus.

Don't they, though? I thought Qualcomm had dorms on campus in China.

Someone landed zoning issues, but I can only think of the deafening echo chamber this would create. Discrimination against people who are in a different stage in life and would much rather prefer to not be surrounded by the same type of environment at work and at home

Maybe they don't want to have to be good at, and compliant with, managing dorms.

Although it isn't on-campus (6 blocks away), the Internet Archive folks purchased a house in order to rent to employees at cost:

https://blog.archive.org/2015/03/17/open-source-housing-for-...

Is this asking why don't tech companies house their employees? Or why they don't sponsor dorms on college campuses?

This sounds like a nightmare.

Because they employ people who wouldn't live in a dorm.

insurance, zoning

Ask HN: Why don't tech companies put golden leg cuffs on their staff to chain them to their desk? Ask HN: How do these questions even end up on the front page?

Because it's a thought provoking question, also not everyone is aware of the second industrial revolution's profound influence on today's concept of work/life balance.

OP is challenging a commonly accepted belief that employees should keep some independence from their employers. While this is something I agree with wholeheartedly I think it's a good thing that some people on HN question the status-quo, especially if that's sparks an interesting discussion.

Great question! Gold is a very poor choice of materials for cuffs; it's soft, not very strong, and extremely expensive. Since cuffs made of gold would be easy to break, they would not only be ineffective restraints but would likely be stolen by escapees as well.

Most companies opt for the more conventional steel cuffs, typically one of the harder stainless alloys for resistance to corrosion and tool damage. However, some still swear by simple leg irons of a design little-changed for centuries. A few have experimented with "free range" employees, bound to their workstations only by personal debt and vesting schedules, but this approach has proven much less effective.

I think the market of employee retention is ripe for disruption with innovations like these.

Some accelerators do provide housing as part of the program.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com