> “Well, good for you,” Mr. Tremblay says he thought at the time. He could understand wanting a vacation, but felt “you’re also screwing our business,” leaving the company short-staffed at a busy time.
Turned around that becomes "You're laying me off, in exchange for higher corporate profits, when I have bills due".
> Secondly, it means that non-giant companies could be competitive in making job offers, whereas perhaps in a more free labor market they might not be able to compete salarywise with Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. Thus, as seen from say, a startup's vantage point, this check on the upward price pressure actually kept the supply of affordable engineers up.
Amazingly short-sited argument. It forces people to either accept a low paying job in a field they love, or find another field just to make ends meet.
"Todd Carlisle, director of staffing at Google, told a panel at the Inforum conference...that no job applicants ask about work perks, and no one turns down a job based on what perks are available."
That's not true at all. I terminated my interview process with Google because they would not commit to very simple benefit requirements (ie: would I keep my same level of benefits if I change product teams; am I required to use the doctor office closest to the job site or am I free to choose my own; who pays for the hardware/software to do the job; can I roll a 401k into the company provided 401k and does the company 401k allow to be transferred if I leave Google).
As for Google "gourmet" food - nobody in their right mind cares if HR hands out vending machine token for muffins with "gourmet" on the wrapper. But show me a company that can successfully respond to the above issues and they'll have no problem hiring - and no one terminating the process.
Perhaps something in the fast food industry.