[jasode]

>i.e. employees implicitly would rather have 300$ of free lunches paid by the company every month than +300$ on their salary.

I agree that companies sometimes spend money on questionable so-called "benefits" (e.g. company-paid bowling party or motivational speakers) -- that employees would rather have as extra cash in their pocket.

That said, I think company-paid lunch is an advantageous financial deal for employees since it's not taxed as income[0][1] and employees have to eat anyway.

I also hate having to get into a 150-degree hot car in the summer or fight freezing snow in the winter just to go buy a lunch. The alternative of bringing my own brown-bag lunch also has hassles because of the extra prep & planning at home. Sure, an on-site catered lunch benefits the employer -- but it also benefits the employees. It's a win-win.

[0] https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/08/14/exclusiv...

[1] daily free meals may be a gray-area tax loophole (it's not "occasional") but IRS isn't enforcing a strict interpretation of the law: https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-...

[albi_lander]

I think you misunderstood what I meant, as my overall point is indeed that having good perks is most of the time a win-win for both the company and the employees.