|
|
|
|
|
by skyyler
1305 days ago
|
|
Why are we assuming it would go to salaries? Do budget surpluses normally result in bonuses for rank-and-file employees? Aren't you still capable of eating something that isn't free? This line of reasoning makes any workplace perk into an act of infantilisation: 401(k) matching? You mean you let them remove that much agency from your investment planning? Healthcare? I would prefer to be a big girl and buy my healthcare plan on the open market. Free parking? I'll decide for myself where to park since I'm an adult. Nice toilet paper in the bathroom? Do you think I can't provide toiletries for myself? That money could have been salaries. |
|
Because companies generally budget for total compensation and then divide between salary and perks, and because employees generally compare offers using total compensation rather than just salary.
> This line of reasoning makes any workplace perk into an act of infantilisation
Of course it can, but it exists on a spectrum. Things like 401(k) matching and healthcare and toilet paper aren't infantilizing because they're cheaper or have tax benefits when provided through the company, and most people use them. So they're simply a win-win. On the other hand, if a company provides a lower salary but free housing, that can be extremely infantilizing since a big part of adult autonomy is balancing a lot of factors in choosing where to live.
Things like free meals, rec rooms, laundry, and haircuts are generally more on the infantilizing side of things, since a lot of employees would just prefer cash instead. Lunches provided at-cost can make a lot of sense though when restaurants are far away though -- it's not infantilizing because you still pay for lunch, but it's win-win because the company isn't making a profit off of you like restaurants do.