Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
You're focusing too much on the specific perks listed.
Posted by andrew.nusca
25th Oct
Just
In
In
You're focusing too much on the specific perks listed.
Posted by andrew.nusca
25th Oct
Show:
0
Votes
Wow
I would never need to go home at all!
Posted by bb_apptix
23rd Oct
+1
Vote
Not fair at all to all employees
"additional funds for new parents, housecleaning, take-home dinners, short-notice child care services."
and
"pinch hit for you on dog walks"
My wife and I don't have any children, don't intend to have children, and will never have children. We also do not have a dog. So how is this fair for me? If I have a co-worker getting these perks and I'm not, then in essence, he's getting more than I am. Unless the company increases my pay to offset the services that other coworker is using, then it really isn't fair for me!
Tell you what...make it a voucher program where all employees are given a certain amount of redeamable vouchers for certain services (services *ALL* employees can use, not those stupid "health club" coupons or dry cleaning pickup...I mean real value services, like maid service, local restaurant take-home, or redeamable for cash...) and then allow employees to use the vouchers as needed...if an employee with children needs to redeem a child care voucher, AND a meal voucher, then that's what they will do. If I redeem a voucher for the equivalent in cash, then that's for me to do!
As for "additional funds for new parents" Uh, no! Again, not fair to those of us who will not have children (I hate kids, do you see a trend here?) If the company is going to give money to new parents, then they need to give money to everybody...just because someone squeezed a kid out of their body doesn't make them special...It demeans the value of employees who don't have kids, or *WON'T* ever have kids.
Treat employees fairly...
and
"pinch hit for you on dog walks"
My wife and I don't have any children, don't intend to have children, and will never have children. We also do not have a dog. So how is this fair for me? If I have a co-worker getting these perks and I'm not, then in essence, he's getting more than I am. Unless the company increases my pay to offset the services that other coworker is using, then it really isn't fair for me!
Tell you what...make it a voucher program where all employees are given a certain amount of redeamable vouchers for certain services (services *ALL* employees can use, not those stupid "health club" coupons or dry cleaning pickup...I mean real value services, like maid service, local restaurant take-home, or redeamable for cash...) and then allow employees to use the vouchers as needed...if an employee with children needs to redeem a child care voucher, AND a meal voucher, then that's what they will do. If I redeem a voucher for the equivalent in cash, then that's for me to do!
As for "additional funds for new parents" Uh, no! Again, not fair to those of us who will not have children (I hate kids, do you see a trend here?) If the company is going to give money to new parents, then they need to give money to everybody...just because someone squeezed a kid out of their body doesn't make them special...It demeans the value of employees who don't have kids, or *WON'T* ever have kids.
Treat employees fairly...
Posted by tech_ed@...
23rd Oct
+1
Vote
You're focusing too much on the specific perks listed.
Several of the services listed above are indeed "real value" ones per your definition. And several of the services listed above apply to folks who aren't like you. The point here is that, kids or no kids, people need help with the daily grind. That's about as fair as it gets.
Posted by andrew.nusca
25th Oct
0
Votes
Fariness?
Thanks for input, tech_ed.
I suppose that if companies only want employees who have no kids, dogs or anything else that matters, who complain at length on line at a perceived possible future injustice, then they don't need to consider such perks.
That said, I agree on principle on the issue of fairness. Us "socialists" would like to think that part of our job as good citizens (should we make that choice) is to raise the citizens of the future, in good shape to continue building the country the way we would like it to be. And for that service, I don't think it is terribly unfair that someone compensate us in small part for providing the taxpayers that will pay your (and our) retirement benefits.
Now the question would be whether companies, or citizens in general should pay for that valuable service. And I would have thought that Americans in partticular, and the right wing in general (and I strangely and perhaps wrongly assume that you would be one or the other or both) would not want the government to have their hand in anything like this.
Of course the alternative would be to import people. What is your opinion on that?
I suppose that if companies only want employees who have no kids, dogs or anything else that matters, who complain at length on line at a perceived possible future injustice, then they don't need to consider such perks.
That said, I agree on principle on the issue of fairness. Us "socialists" would like to think that part of our job as good citizens (should we make that choice) is to raise the citizens of the future, in good shape to continue building the country the way we would like it to be. And for that service, I don't think it is terribly unfair that someone compensate us in small part for providing the taxpayers that will pay your (and our) retirement benefits.
Now the question would be whether companies, or citizens in general should pay for that valuable service. And I would have thought that Americans in partticular, and the right wing in general (and I strangely and perhaps wrongly assume that you would be one or the other or both) would not want the government to have their hand in anything like this.
Of course the alternative would be to import people. What is your opinion on that?
Posted by dimonic
23rd Oct