this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
901 points (99.5% liked)
Not The Onion
21934 readers
1570 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lolz. Public corporations don't care about your well being. If there is an ROI on any action, it's worth taking and if that means no cookies because it ensure the shareholders get a fraction of a percent return, then no cookies for you.
I'm working hard to leave my current corpo. They're down to the "bring the dry pen back to get a new one" stage of bean counting. That's a sinking ship to disembark from ASAP.
Last two companies I worked for treat their workers to a lot of goodies, like food, after work parties, stuff like that. Not everyone is that stingy. But of course, they only care in order to make workers happy to make more money for the company.
In the end, it's all about the moolah.
Why doesn't UAW pay for this with their dues?
GM alone pays $17M a year for Viagra.
thats pretty much with tech, all these conferences they go to are AI, and they get all these goodie bags, and free "ice cream", so they dont end up rebelling or "kicking and screaming out the door" when they are laid off.
Kinda curious about the quotes around "ice cream" tbh
My current company pantry has a lot of snacks, because they are bought by employees using company money. Angry employees buy a lot.
It's fine for companies to be motivated by money, what matters is that they make the right decisions. Regulations help with that, but this very post is a clear example of how a money-motivated company can instead try to squeeze their employees for more money instead of spending money on them to hopefully increase productivity.
Definitely.
If large company needs to count bullshit like that, they are not in a healthy position.
Craziest shit is that has to cost way more than just buying an extra box of fucking pens
FIFY.
Their actions are not even competent by their own worldview - this kind of corporate management invariably sacrifice long term hard to measure yet large positive outcomes for the company (such as the gains from keeping highly trained personnel who stuck around because of goodwill towards the company rather than having the constant hiring and training costs as well as lower productivity from high turnaround) for miniscule but easy to measure immediate gains (like saving the equivalent of 1% of a single average worker's salary by not providing free cookies).
There really is no point in penny pinching if its going to increase employee turnaround in a domain were experience makes a significant difference.
Loss of experience isn't a trackable metric, you can't put it in a spreadsheet, so it doesn't exist to the company.
You can absolutelly put it on to spreadsheet. Its just that its not a metric companies calculate normally.
I recommend everybody who is training new employees to track the time the training really takes, how much it takes away from your normal work effiency and how long it takes until newbies are ready to work shift solo. Do it enough times and you get average for new employers and you can calculate real life cost for new hires.
Then compare that to numbers the experienced guy would get during that time and how much money the employees training newbies would make. You get clear monetary difference between training new vs. keeping the old. If the experienced guy is competent they will always get better numbers on short term.
Then calculate median time people work in that position.
Now you can show a number that says: Hey, fire this guy and on average you loose this amount of money for new hire and if you want new employee who stays in the house as long as this guy you are firing has stayed, you need to go trough the training process this many times on average.
The cost of hiring and training a new employee is something a company of that size should know, and it's definitely more than the cost of a $2 cookie.
Most companies i have worked in have just decited in a meeting a number for how much they think new hire costs.
That number rarely is even close the real number.
Exactly.