Some day people will look back and pinpoint that the day the free snacks were taken away was the day that Google started to be just like every other company...
Wages are rarely a source of satisfaction in a job. Employees consider them simply the fair exchange for their time.
The perks on the job and the company culture count for much more. I suspect that is everyone was given a 5% paycut, but the perks kept, they would be happier than they are now.
(I refer in general to all employees - not just the engineers)
I don't know if you were making a direct reference to Salesforce.com's "Employees have fun in the office, participating in foundation/volunteer activities with their peers and wearing Hawaiian shirts on Aloha Fridays." (http://www.salesforce.com/company/careers/culture/)
I consider the whole Hawaiian shirt thing to be a "gateway" perk. If the company promotes wearing fun attire, then you can be sure to expect other more exciting perks. I don't know of any Silicon Valley software companies that advertise Hawaiian shirts as their one and only perk...
I also think Salesforce.com's volunteering perk is very enjoyable and worthwhile. You essentially get paid to do a workday of community service each month. Didn't sound very exciting or interesting at first, but it turned out to be extremely rewarding. I'd love to see more software companies adopting similar programs and following suit.
Wear a different shirt day doesn't cost anything and isn't a perk in the sense we are discussing here. It's a conscious attempt at influencing company culture. Nothing wrong with it (unless its a Hawaiian shirt) but it isn't a perk.
My employer doesn't provide many Google-style perks (we get free coffee and other drinks, quarterly lunches, and snacks, sometimes), but they do offer a very flexible working schedule. They could take away the coffee and the snacks, and I wouldn't mind one bit, but the flex time and the facilities for working remotely? I'd seriously consider a change of scenery.
The problem with perks is that not everyone wants the same thing. I worked for Google, and while the annual ski trip was an amazing perk, I never really enjoyed it. I just don't like group travel very much. I'd probably feel the same way about a Europe trip.
I also found that the longer I worked there, the less the food perks mattered. Right out of college they were unbelievable, but after a few years I wanted to go home and eat dinner with my friends, without feeling like I was wasting the perk benefit.
It is not often a primary factor largely because it is hard to know in advance. Also because of the above. Given a choice between salary and other things, people choose salary.
However, the "choice" is made in other ways. People stay in or leave jobs or even industries for non salary factors. Perks, culture, coworkers, pressure, interest in work etc.
While it may be hard to find cases that people choose a job because of good co workers, it's probably easy to find cases where people leave for the reverse reason.
I knew a company like that - terrible pay, but amazing perks. They really did do stuff like fly the entire company somewhere for a film premiere. Ultimately it's about control. The aim is to make employees utterly dependent on the company in a very basic, primal way, almost literally to the extent of "we clothe, feed and house you" - like a cult. I will always take salary given the choice, it's an honest trade, my time for their money.
your boss flies the whole company to Europe for a week?
I actually worked for a company that chartered the Concord for its 25th anniversary. That happened before I worked there. A decade or so after that, we all find out how unsafe that actually was!
In the end, it was inevitable. It was part of my reason to turn down their full-time offer and accept another company's. Last summer when I was an intern at Google, free cookies at 3pm were discontinued. By the time I got back in June 2009, we didn't even have a Tech Stop in my building anymore. No dance party, etc. Still, to me at least, this is not yet the time when Google became just another company. The stuff you learn there, the technology at your fingertips, and the capable co-workers are still amazing.
But it's headed that way. In the next 5-10 years, I predict the following will happen to Google. Most of it is quite obvious:
a. a major PR disaster, such as significant cloud data loss, or poor availability numbers for a day or week, something like that
b. stock will not have the same phenomenal growth
c. loss of search market share (of which a big deal will be made, but really, soon it will have nowhere to go, but down)
For me the deciding factors in choosing another offer were:
a. bigger company size => little chance to "change the world" like Eric Schmidt still likes to say
b. much better stock packages from my other options (Facebook's was essentially 4 times Google's at the latest valuation, and I do understand that's because of the higher risk, but for a college grad, that should be a no-brainer).
c. bonus perk I believe Google never had: 21 business days of vacation.
Article's rather disingenuous. Google's perks list is still Extensive - trimming services out of fiscal concern isn't the same thing as switching to a minimalistic "be glad we give you anything at all" approach.
And how much of it's just PR from Schmidt to avoid looking like they're out of touch with the current economic situation?
And there you have it. Given that Pocky is decidedly overpriced and overhyped, the fact that Google's serving it is proof that they're still perk-happy!
"we decided to, for example, we significantly cut down all the snacks that had been available. [laughter]"
Sounds more like a joke to me. Are google perks like the gourmet food really being cut? (I heard about the child care changes. It sounded like a reasonable change to me but not being a Googler I wouldn't know and the details are hazy).
The head line seems sensationalistic and gives the impression that the folks at the top have made a actual decision to move more towards a "grey corporation".
I had also assumed(wrongly?) that the layoffs got rid of some dubious people who were hired. I personally know some not so great people who somehow got hired.
Do any quotes or facts bear this out? The linked article seemed hyperbolic and twisting some quotes out of proportion. I sthere any difference "on the ground"? People don't get free food now? Sounds insane!
From the end of the quoted excerpt, Schmidt speaking:
The tightening that [CFO] Patrick [Pichette] in particular did, who I think is the current Google hero, really did change the culture in a much more pragmatic way: “We’re happy to work here. We’re happy to be employed. We love what we’re doing. Our freinds, you know, have been laid off.” It’s been a maturing process. And I think a generally good one.
Tea time has gone the way of the dinosaur. (Well, technically not, since the dinosaur is still standing out in the courtyard, but tea time is just gone, but you know what I mean.)
Also, Charlie's Cafe now serves hamburgers and fries. Rumor has it that when Charlie was here, he banned the use of ketchup as a disincentive to the serving of foods that require it. Googlers are better than that!
About a year ago the New York microkitchens were shrunk. A lot of variety was removed, though they remained well-stocked and high-quality. Since then they've bounced back a bit.
AFAIK, no perks have been cut recently. I had to triple-check the publication date on the article -- it seemed so old.
Full quote: "I think it’s important to reset the culture from time to time. And I think several years ago we did that. Clearly, people had extrapolated from our past practices what the vision might be. And having actually been there, and knowing the rationale…we decided to, for example, we significantly cut down all the snacks that had been available."
It sounds like he's talking about a change that's already been in place for years.
interestingly, google's offered pay rates for system administrators when they've tried to recruit me have been industry standard--for Austin, TX. but the jobs were in silicon valley. maybe other roles have higher pay scales, but i turned them down because i didn't think they were paying well, and i am only used to salaries from state jobs, which have tended to be very nearly median for the industry.
last time they tried to recruit me was 3-4 years ago. perhaps they've changed. but it held true for at least 4 years before that as well.
The risk of instituting a new perk isn't the cost over the first N months -- it's the impact on morale, PR, etc. if you ever decide to take it away. Restaurants have "special pricing promotions" to set the expectation that the "lower price" perk won't be around forever (and to motivate people by through the creation of temporal scarcity). During the perk period, the restaurant gets more people in the door by offering a better deal. Google's perk cycle is opposite that of a restaurant. During good times, they have to make working there really attractive. But, right now, they don't have to give away so much, so they can scale back. The problem is that the expectation was explicitly set high (think about the IPO owner's manual).
My favorite shark-jump moment was when someone in HR sent out a blast email announcing a new HR initiative for a "wear pajamas to work day" highlighting Google culture. When HR has to manufacture culture and call it a perk, things are on their way downhill...
A previous software company I worked for had its offices in what used to be nun's quarters. The rooms were small for living space, but very nice for an office, I hear. Apparently, the founder/CEO let the nuns come around once a year and talk to the employees about issues like their "salvation."
I'm surprised people thought the perks would last. Every company goes through that phase, where employees are showered with perks (of bizarre variety - everything from free laundry to day care for kids to free pop soda). The company either grows to the point where many of the perks are no longer sustainable (employees grow older, have kids -> company spends a LOT more on day care etc.), and/or hits an economic recession where belts need to be tightened. These things don't last. The stuff that lasts are the quality of the people, the culture of the employees (and hence the company) and the products that they ship.
Lots of people I know are too busy on their main project to even think of 20% time. It's nice to know that you have 2 months of 20% time booked but it's not feasible for most people to bank it and then use it later.
I'd say that unless your 20% project is a pet management project then the chances of you working on it 20% of your time is pretty small:(
Most of the people that I knew who had 20% projects, it was something like getting unit test coverage up for their main project. Mine was maintaining my previous project for years. Some people do have cool ones, but it wasn't common.
That level of old, but not HP. It was actually the first company to exist off of 100% software sales/licensing revenue. (Not hardware sales, with accompanying software, like IBM in those days.)
Does anyone know whether HP had anything like 20% time in its earlier days? I've never heard that they did, but now that you mention it it does seem like the kind of thing that HP might have done.
Old-school HP was so awesome it would have made Google look like a Communist labor camp. As long as you did what they paid you to do, your time basically was your own, along with a key to the company stockroom.
I remember reading that Woz used his time at HP to invent the first Apple computer. (Then HP decided that microcomputers were a silly waste of time so they gave Woz back the rights to it.)
I'm pretty sure the major factor is your project manager; some are very liberal with how their managees spend their time, others require 20% can only be used for approved projects and set the bar higher than one would hope.
To be honest, the child-care cuts were on the cards for over a year. Having less of a choice when it comes to food is only natural, I can only imagine the amount of wasted food that was produced every day...
Google provide better perks then most of the companies out there. Have to admit that all perks they provide make you feel more like being a start up by offering you chose of projects, freedom of actions and creative expression and corresponding intensives. It might be a perfect place for the once who love start up culture and want to create new things without corporate pressure but are willing to sacrifice true perks of starting one for stability and relative luck of risk. I still would go for perks of own start up that Google can not provide me.
The free snacks, drinks, food are most definitely NOT gone. Have there been some cut-backs? Sure. So now the perks are merely incredible instead of ridiculous-verging-on-embarassingly-good.
So yeah, the micro-kitchens now have ~75 types of snacks instead of 100+ and we are now limited to 40-ish types of free drinks in the cooler instead of twice that. And now we drink filtered water instead of Smart-Water. Life is hard ;-)
Also there are still fresh-made sandwiches, sushi and salads delivered to the kitchen every day and I can still walk to one of the dozen-plus cafes and get three hot meals, prepared fresh each day by talented chefs.
Oh - the article neglected to mention the fact that Patrick's cost-cutting measured resulted in the annual bonus being paid out at over 100% this year, instead of the much lower amount that we were on target for before he showed up. So yeah - I would say a lot of people would consider Patrick to be a bit of a hero.
Would have to strongly disagree on the snacks. In 47, our snacks disappear very quickly, and there's definitely not 75 different types. There's maybe 10. Tech Stops have disappeared, they run out of bikes for interns, don't even get me started on how crowded the gyms have become, it's definitely worse than before. Perhaps I'm bitter because I got no annual bonus as an intern :)
Umm... nobody talking about the social contract aspect of this?
Salary is soon forgotten, once it's regular, if you're not focused on it all the time.
But when a company provides so many perks, people feel like it's out of a social contract. Company X is my friend, Company X gives me free stuff, gives me time to work on my own things, takes me on vacations. I don't just work here for a salary -- look at this, they really treat us right. They care. They know that we are addicted to Pocky / need childcare / are too into working to drive out of Mtn View and find a burger.
Take them away and it's like your friend just revealed that they were only into you for your money. Or to find a way to get to your sister.
People feel betrayed.
Betrayal is a nasty, nasty feeling that leads people to do backlashy things.
The perks were meant to keep people in, to keep them working. I think it's a good thing that they're cutting this crap out.
That said, having worked as an intern at a place where they decided to get rid of free soda makes me positive that I won't do that again, though. IMHO, it's a "screw you" to developers.
