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!
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)