[tivert]

> So probably a perk they decided was worth it or necessary for morale at some point

I always thought that stuff (along with the snacks) was a ploy to keep employees working longer hours. Needing to get food/coffee/whatever is a transition that can allow people to decide to disengage from work. A strategically placed coffee station can prevent a longer trip to the cafeteria or a coffee shop, and free food in the cafeteria can prevent a trip offsite to a restaurant or the worker's home for a meal. Plus it can seem like a plus to the employee, because people often pay a lot more attention to money than time.

[HDThoreaun]

Of course it is. That doesnt mean it isnt also a perk. I am happy that my office has coffee even though it also benefits my employer with the increased productivity. Same with lunch, its a win win for the company and the employee.

[tivert]

> Same with lunch, its a win win for the company and the employee.

I don't think it's that simple. Sure, on some level it's a win for you (free food) and a win for them (more time spent working), but on another level you might be winning more if the perk wasn't influencing your decision-making to take the employer-preferred path.

I think it's a little more clear when thinking about employer provided dinner, like Facebook apparently provides.

[dns_snek]

I don't think it's a win for the employee if they're getting $100 worth of extra labor out of you in exchange for $25 worth of food. And not just financially, I always thought that these "perks" make it harder to disconnect and relax from work which is likely to take a toll on mental health - I know it would for me.

[s1artibartfast]

It isnt an exchange of extra labor for food. They are demanding the work either way for the salary.