Slashdot Mirror


Google's Best Perk — Transport

Reverse Gear writes "The New York Times has an interesting article about how different kinds of fringe benefits are starting to count more in the fight for the best brains in Silicon Valley. The article mainly focuses on Google's high-tech shuttle-bus system, which is quite extensive, covering a majority of the San Fransisco Bay area. The article quotes a transportation expert opining that Google's may be the largest such private system anywhere. One-quarter of the headquarters employees are now using it. A Google software engineer said: 'They could either charge for the food or cut it altogether... If they cut the shuttle, it would be a disaster.'"

342 comments

  1. Why not Google Housing? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With the high costs and difficulty of real-estate, a Google Comune may be a good idea.

    1. Re:Why not Google Housing? by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Funny

      They would still need transportation. I mean who wants to live at the office? Oh, wait... This is slashdot. OK. Who ELSE wants to live at the office?

    2. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      All they have to do is build dual-use office/condo towers.

      Then people can start bitching about how long the commute takes in the morning when all the elevators start filling up.

    3. Re:Why not Google Housing? by fireduck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't necessarily such a bad idea. In Irvine, the big tech center of Southern California, the Irvine Company is building luxury apartment complexes adjacent to new office space. The best part is that it's also across the street from a large retail / entertainment center. So people literally live where they can work and play. I don't see anything wrong with this idea. At least for people who chose apartment living.

    4. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Goblez · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dont' know how wild most people are living quite so close to work. That day you *cough* call in sick *cough* and run down to get a soda or something and bump into a peer or worse yet a superior . . .

      --
      - Kal`Goblez
    5. Re:Why not Google Housing? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      This kind of development makes sense.
      It has been going on since communities began gathering together.

      Whether it is a mining town or a fishing town or a technology town, people appreciate not wasting half their day commuting.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    6. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you figure Google could crank out some nice housing for the employees. With the most bad ass internet connection ever. It would cut back on the transport if they are close to Google HQ. This would honestly reduce the cost of living for all Google employees so much that their paycheck would pretty much be spending money.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    7. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who is also supposed to be at work, so both of you do your best to pretend that you never saw each other.

    8. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I would live in a commune. Or rather, some sort of "corporate park". I have long wished that my employer owned and offered residential services on campus or at least near the campus with direct shuttles. In fact, I would rather have that than a raise at this point. And our company is not small. It has about 45,000 employees.

    9. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always liked this idea, having a facility where corporate housing is either very nearby or connected to the main office, by elevators or a monorail system.. but as I get older I'm more against the corporate culture.. So if you want your life to be dedicated to your employer then by all means go for it but it's not my cup of tea.

    10. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Servo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You see this type of idea in a lot of major metro areas that have very compact urban areas. It can be a win-win-win situation. Employees have less travel to work, so less stress. Less people driving/taking mass transit for long distances so the infrastructure costs become more manageable. Increased population density so there is a reduction in urban sprawl while still letting the local tax base grow.

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    11. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      More important, Google already has the facilities to zoom in on the housing units and monitor everything their employees are doing! They could call it "GoogleEarth-Employee Monitoring Edition"!

      I'm jealous of Google bastards. Son of a bitches. *pout*

    12. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I dont' know how wild most people are living quite so close to work. That day you *cough* call in sick *cough* and run down to get a soda or something and bump into a peer or worse yet a superior . . .

      Most companies are doing away with sick-only time and creating a hybrid sick/vacation day so that the employer doesn't have to verify or care whether it's an illness or the ski-bug. But, I supposse it is still an issue of you want to ditch for a ski trip during an important deadline.

    13. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military has been doing this for decades.

    14. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Giometrix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would really suck though, if you were to get laid off....now you're out of a job and a home.

      --
      Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
    15. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Nebulochaotic · · Score: 1

      This can be an excellent idea. Buying out a small apartment complex or building one could really improve comradery and living in a complex with a group of like-minded individuals would be generally better than most apartment situations.

    16. Re:Why not Google Housing? by eck011219 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Gotta be careful, though -- George Pullman did this for his railcar company here in the Chicago area in the mid- to late-1800's, and he overstepped his bounds. He ended up housing his employees in company-owned housing, paying them in company-honored chits, and basically taking people's freedoms away one at a time. I'm not suggesting that Google is doing this, but I must admit that it rings some bells. Separation from work is good, and housing owned by your company seems to put a lot of eggs in one basket. It's a one-stop shop -- get fired and evicted all in the same week!

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    17. Re:Why not Google Housing? by goraknotsteve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So the geek community not known for getting their fair share of exercise have no reason to walk/cycle 15 minutes to work anymore when they can just get the elevator/company transport. My bed is three miles away from my desk which makes for an enjoyable - if often cold and damp - 30 minute round trip to work each day. There needs to be some work/life balance here and not the unhealthy aspect of living where you work.

      --
      How much do you like toast?
    18. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there would be a rider allowing you to continue living there, at market value rent. Similair to being able to keep your health insurance when you are laid off, by taking over the payments.

      --
      We are all just people.
    19. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Our company has the usual vacation days based upon your years of service, but no sick days. If you're sick, you just don't come in. That removes the temptation of having to "use up" your sick days.

    20. Re:Why not Google Housing? by EugeneK · · Score: 0

      No no no...only French socialists surrender cheesemonkeys want to ride mass transit to work. If you a true American you will commute 3 hours each way from your McMansion to your corporate park and you will LIKE IT!

    21. Re:Why not Google Housing? by EugeneK · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, you will drive a Ford Expedition or larger, and you will have no one riding with you. Forgot that part, sorry.

    22. Re:Why not Google Housing? by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Toronto had those - an oversurplus of office space combined with a shortage of rental units led the city to relax the zoning laws. Most office blocks already had underground/ground floor shopping malls (supermarket, fitness centre, etc...) due to the extremes of hot and cold weather. Having rented apartments as well meant that anyone could just about live their entire weekly life without ever having to go outside..

      I knew some people who had a 2 minute bus commute - they bitched about how long it took to get downstairs to the bus stop.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    23. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Two minutes? That's insane...I'd just walk, at that point, and save the time waiting for the bus.

    24. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a BAD idea, a very very bad idea.

      When a job has more control over you than you have over it, things turn out badly. I prefer to say as far away from hive complexes as humanly possible; no doubt, they will turn bad quickly when they collapse due to poor planning and implementation.

    25. Re:Why not Google Housing? by mikael · · Score: 1

      I'd do that in Summer - even at 2am it was still warm enough to walk home in a T-shirt, but not in Winter when the winter temperature is -15C with a wind chill factor of -25C - To walk outside meant dressing up like the Chinese guy in Blade Runner.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    26. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Temperatures like that, my home town shuts down. We're used to normal winter temperatures of 10F, with a wind chill of -10F.

    27. Re:Why not Google Housing? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of a movie I once saw. Except that it was set in Calgary.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    28. Re:Why not Google Housing? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      How are you supposed to pay the rent if you get laid off your job?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    29. Re:Why not Google Housing? by geobeck · · Score: 1

      Toronto...extremes of hot and cold weather.

      How can you put those two thoughts in the same sentence?! Does this strike anyone else from the north, the prairies, or the great plains as just a bit ridiculous?

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    30. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      How are you supposed to pay the rent if you get laid off your job?

      How would this be any different if you were living in employee-owned apartments versus your own, rented from a leasing agency apartment?

      If you get laid off and have no income, you're screwed once you burn through your savings: that's true whether you're renting from your boss, from somebody else, or from a bank (via a mortgage).

      Bottom line: if you lose your job, unless you like the idea of living in a refrigerator box, you'd better get a new one quick, and if you can't get a new one where you are, it's time to toss your crap into a U-Haul and move to someplace with better prospects or lower costs.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    31. Re:Why not Google Housing? by xmundt · · Score: 1

      Greetings and Salutations...
                yea, we used to have EXACTLY this sort of arrangement in the South.
      A large campus, with onsite housing for the workers, and a centralized
      management and healthcare system that provided them with free or low-cost
      food, healthcare at least as good as most companies provide these days,
      and guaranteed employment.
                Some annoying sod screwed that up for us years ago, and, the
      South has not been the same since.
                Regards (while G.D. & R)
                Dave Mundt

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
    32. Re:Why not Google Housing? by mikael · · Score: 1

      During the Summer I was in Canada, there was an Indian summer - temperatures were at least 30C for over a month. My attic apartment thermometer measured 34C. Lake Ontario tends to increse the humidity - I'd consider the range from -25C to +34C fairly extreme. I once had the brilliant idea of sunbathing against the roof shingles beside the sundeck, then quickly changed my mind after painfully discovering they were made of metal coated with a plastic pattern.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    33. Re:Why not Google Housing? by geobeck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      -25C in Toronto? That must have been a pretty extreme year. The couple of Christmases I was there, it was above freezing, and my grandparents never usually saw more than a sprinkling of snow. Where I'm from (northern Manitoba), -30C is a normal daytime temperature in January, and +30C is normal in July. The extremes are -55C and +40C. That's 95C difference (over 200F). That's extreme. That's why advances in energy efficient housing come from the prairies (and the American great plains).

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    34. Re:Why not Google Housing? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      It didnt work for pullman, I doubt it'll work for google.

    35. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Benaiah · · Score: 1

      If I could use the Google internet tubes after hours... I would love to live into/next to the office. LAN up the quake after hours. Gives workers a reason to work a little later. Don't have to spend an hour in traffic each way... Makes people a little more appreciative. A massive apartment building next to any office building is a damn good idea.

      If only they built them in Perth. We don't even have 1.

    36. Re:Why not Google Housing? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I know you're screwed either way, but isn't it kind of a liability for the company to start renting places to people without jobs? Most places that you rent from, or if you get a loan from the bank, ensure that you have a steady job before renting to you. I don't think it would be a good idea for a company to start charging rent to those who just lost their job. Also, most people would probably want to move out after they found something new, making renting terms very short.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    37. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Lucivious · · Score: 1

      Wow lucky, in over here we've had a couple of weeks of -45C(-49 american), And it wasn't evn a bad winter.

      --
      /*Thus spaketh I, and spaketh I thus.*/
    38. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      I think I would be kind of nervous to ride the gbus (beta).

    39. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Malc · · Score: 1

      There are always -25 days in Toronto, every year. That's typically the lower range. An extreme year wouldn't have those cold snaps. Can't compete with Winterpeg though...

    40. Re:Why not Google Housing? by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      you should see waydowntown
        *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waydowntown
      It is exactly that concept only in Calgary.
      They have a network of overhead pathways, connecting the downtown core.
      Or so I hear.

      --
      --meh--
    41. Re:Why not Google Housing? by stderr_dk · · Score: 1

      -55C = -67F
      40C = 104F

      104-(-67) = 171, which is NOT "over 200".

      --
      alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" ; # https://pipedot.org/~stderr & http://soylentnews.org/~stderr
    42. Re:Why not Google Housing? by geobeck · · Score: 1

      Oops. Used the converter without subtracting 32.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    43. Re:Why not Google Housing? by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      Pullman was a piker compared to the mining companies. You ever hear this old song?

      Sixteen Tons
      Sang by Tennesse Ernie Ford

      Some people say a man is made outta mud
      A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
      Muscle and blood and skin and bones
      A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong

      You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
      Another day older and deeper in debt
      Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
      I owe my soul to the company store

      I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
      I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
      I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
      And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul"

      You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
      Another day older and deeper in debt
      Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
      I owe my soul to the company store

      I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain
      Fightin' and trouble are my middle name
      I was raised in the canebrake* by an ol' mama lion
      Cain't no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line

      You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
      Another day older and deeper in debt
      Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
      I owe my soul to the company store

      If you see me comin', better step aside
      A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
      One fist of iron, the other of steel
      If the right one don't a-get you, then the left one will

      You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
      Another day older and deeper in debt
      Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
      I owe my soul to the company store

      " This song could definately be the battle cry of the American Miner. Miners were usually paid monthly. By the end of the month, they owed the company for the company house they were living in, for the tools they used to mine, for groceries to feed their family, and for any doctor bills. Miners had no choice but to buy from the companies. They were paid in scrip, not real money and this could only be spent at the company store.

              Naturally this enabled the company to charge the miners whatever they wished. Most miners with families were constantly in debt to the company. When the miners did get paid at the end of the month, if there was any money left after they paid their employers, it was certainly not enough to last them another month. So it was a viscious cycle, and the next month, they again had to pay the company first and were lucky to have anything left for their families. "

      Taken from http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvcoal/sixteen.html

    44. Re:Why not Google Housing? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "George Pullman did this for his railcar company here in the Chicago area in the mid- to late-1800's, and he overstepped his bounds."

      I was just thinking that when I read this article. He rented employees houses and apartments and gave employees credit for items purchased at local company-owned stores. If I recall correctly he started with employee-only rented houses and apartments for dirt cheap which put other close landlords out of business and ended up slowly increasing rent until he was getting back entire paychecks plus interest from items purchased at company-owned local stores.

      Employees were stuck. They never made enough to fully pay off the rent and food, and they couldn't quit because they'd lose their house, etc.

      A better system might be what the U.S. Military does: either free housing on post (or in this case, close to google) or a credit to help pay rent or mortgage off post.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    45. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You forgot another part: you'll jack up your Expedition (or better, Excursion or Hummer or F-350 dually) by 3 feet with gigantic monster truck tires, so that you'll get 3 mpg. And you'll have a huge American flag in the back window.

    46. Re:Why not Google Housing? by mikael · · Score: 1

      At that time, we had a cold air mass come down from the Arctic - everyone seemed to rush off home when they heard this deep rumbling noise that didn't stop - I was told this was due to massive blob of cold air displacing the warmish air in the way. I made the mistake of trying to walk home without a winter anorak - by this time temperatures were -10C, and my only option was to create a hood out of a couple of plastic bags I had in my pocket - next day I went shopping for a thick padded duck feather anorak.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    47. Re:Why not Google Housing? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link to the movie - it definitely seems a movie that I'd like to see.

      Montreal also has an Underground city

      With over 32 km of tunnels spread over an area of twelve square kilometres, the 60 residential and commercial complexes comprise 3.6 square kilometres of floor space, including 80% of all office space and 35% of all commercial space in downtown Montreal. Services include shopping malls, hotels, banks, offices, museums, universities, seven metro stations, two commuter train stations, a bus terminal and the Bell Centre. There are more than 120 exterior access points to the underground city. Some 500,000 people use the underground city every day, especially to escape the traffic and/or Montreal's harsh winter or hot summer.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    48. Re:Why not Google Housing? by Destoo · · Score: 1

      I've been looking for the Réso map for a while just because it makes me think of a metroid or some other game's map.

      With a missile silo on 1250 Rene Levesque (IBM), the ice gun on McGill univ, and a boss on Phillips Square.

      The maps around montreal are have the areas a bit rounder, a bit more "videogame-like". Still.. Nice map.
      http://www.voyagezfute.ca/download/document/r%C3%A 9so.PDF
      The map covers from Atwater to St-Hubert on this map, to give an idea of the distance covered.
      http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&z=14&ll=45.50 1956,-73.563766&spn=0.028996,0.058365
      (about five kilometers wide.. westmount square to st-hubert street)

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    49. Re:Why not Google Housing? by mixmasta · · Score: 1

      2 minute? Why not walk?

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    50. Re: Why not Google Housing? by gidds · · Score: 1
      That's fine for you. What happens if you live 35 miles away from where you work? You'll forgive me if I don't cycle that distance twice a day...

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  2. My Work Is My Life by QuantumG · · Score: 0

    should be the geek mantra, and companies like Google know it.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:My Work Is My Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Horse shit. It shouldn't be anybody's mantra. To put it quite simply, I work to live. I don't live to work. Living to work just ain't healthy, hence the reason stuff like showers combined with cots and other "live in" amenities at work are frankly a bad idea.

      Go spend some time in the light of the daystar if you believe otherwise. You probably need it.

    2. Re:My Work Is My Life by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Go do a PhD, then you'll know what I'm talking about, and you'll know what being a Google hotshot is all about.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:My Work Is My Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's what it's like then you can keep it.

    4. Re:My Work Is My Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wait. Let me get this straight.

      These people are getting the opportunity to do exactly what they love and what they've always dreamed of, quite literally for the rest of their living days if they so choose, and you think that *they're* the suckers here?

      I... uh... don't get it, but okay. Whatever you say, chief.

    5. Re:My Work Is My Life by QuantumG · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, cause I called someone a sucker.. way to put words in my mouth.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:My Work Is My Life by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      nevermind, ACs and Slashdot reply hiding.. bleh.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:My Work Is My Life by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Go do a PhD... If a gal with a PhD would go steady with me, I'd be in heaven.
    8. Re:My Work Is My Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google hotshot... whoop-dee-fuckin-doo. Live in the Mission long enough and you're bound to come across a Google hotshot. I have. They work long hours, they don't read very many books, and after they've gotten past the obligatory "I work for Google," they have very little interesting to say. A job is a job is a job, something no amount of Lego cubicles and free sushi can change. At the end of the day you're still slaving away for The Man, whoever he may be. Doing something that neither makes the world a better nor a worse place, but simply makes money for someone else. Spending 50% of your adult life toiling at something that no one will care about in 30 years, let alone 300. Half-time, half measures, half fulfilling.

    9. Re:My Work Is My Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the whole, while I generally distrust large corporations that dominate their industries, I would say that Google's made the world a better place.

      No library is worthwhile without a librarian, after all.

    10. Re:My Work Is My Life by shplorb · · Score: 1

      I think showers are a good idea as some of us like to cycle to work and/or play sport at lunch.

      A half-decent kitchen is also good too - nice to be able to warm up left-overs and stuff.

    11. Re:My Work Is My Life by thorholiday · · Score: 1

      Why would you choose to work on something nobody will care about in 30 (or 300) years?

    12. Re:My Work Is My Life by si618 · · Score: 1

      I ride a bike to work, and I'm pretty sure that if there weren't any showers available my immediate co-workers would be the ones that suffer!

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion
  3. Cost Cutting by biocute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a listed company, what if Google is asked by shareholders to cut costs when the inevitable "down" periods start to kick in?

    1. Re:Cost Cutting by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given the Google owner's hold over 50% of the shares, can anyone do anything beyond simply asking them?

    2. Re:Cost Cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's always the possibility of a minority shareholder lawsuit. However my understanding is that this is really only viable for gross negligence and wouldn't be a way to reduce expensive but potentially useful employee perks. Otherwise, the founders basically run the show.

    3. Re:Cost Cutting by biocute · · Score: 1

      While they may have the majority, if a public company is seen as incapable of adjusting according to economic trends (ie still spending big in slow economy), the share price will drop as minority shareholders start abandoning the company.

    4. Re:Cost Cutting by thue · · Score: 1

      Not to be pedantic, but...

      Ok, to be really pedantic, Google's owners per definition own 100% of the shares. :)

      And it is "owners", not owner's. :)

    5. Re:Cost Cutting by Telvin_3d · · Score: 1

      How would this actually hurt Google? I may be mistaken, but as far as I know, their share price has no affect on their income. Is any part of Google's day-to-day operations connected to their stock price at all?

    6. Re:Cost Cutting by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if a public company is seen as incapable of adjusting according to economic trends (ie still spending big in slow economy), the share price will drop as minority shareholders start abandoning the company.
      What makes you think Google's founders care about share prices?

      Wall Street analysts have been pissed off with Google for a very long time.
      http://www.google.com/search?q=google+stock+"lack+ of+transparency"

      My basic point is that Google decided not to play Wall Street's short term game from the very beginning.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Cost Cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the Google owner's hold over 50% of the shares, can anyone do anything beyond simply asking them? Not to be pedantic, but...
      Notice the lack of a "that," as in "Given that the Google..." In the case of the GP, the word "hold" is a noun belonging to the Google owners.
      Therefore it should be owners', not owners, nor owner's.
    8. Re:Cost Cutting by synx · · Score: 1

      People are forgetting 2 things:

      - the IPO filing prospectus said this - we are after the long term, don't expect us to optimize for short term gains.
      - A/B class structure. Google insiders hold 95%+ of the voting power

    9. Re:Cost Cutting by maxume · · Score: 1

      It hurts their ability to acquire the next YouTube. What that means, don't ask me.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Cost Cutting by Big+Jojo · · Score: 1

      Consider the costs for one employee to own one car for 5 years. Ballpark figures: car at $30K, insurance $1K/year, maintainance and fuel $2K/year, $45K total, $9K/year. If that employee doesn't need to own that car, one could argue that his/her salary can be $9K less. Does that employee's shuttle service cost that much? No way ...

      Now, not ever employee can (finally) do without owning an automobile. But many can. And Google wouldn't need to spend as much supporting parking lots (they have a BIG parking problem anyway). So net costs to the company could easily go down because they stop externalizing transportation costs to employees, and into their salaries.

      Maybe that accounting is a bit of a pipe dream right now, but eventually people will start to account for costs that certain industries (oil, auto, steel, rubber, etc) would rather be scattered into individual paychecks ... and notice how much waste is factored into our current industrial structures. Google IS cutting those costs right now.

    11. Re:Cost Cutting by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      A thousand a year for insurance? Stop hitting things, man.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    12. Re:Cost Cutting by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      A thousand a year for insurance? Stop hitting things, man.

      Auto insurance is not based only on your record of "hitting things". Your zip code also comes into play. If you live in or near a high crime area where your car is likely to be stolen, your rates are higher. If you live in a nicer suburb, the "someone's gonna steal your car while it's parked in your driveway" penalty goes down. It's all based on your zip code. I learned this the hard way when I moved to Michigan and lived in one of the suburbs of Detroit. My zip code was close enough to Detroit that I had to pay higher rates than someone living a few miles further away from Hell, err, I mean the City of Detroit.

      There is also something crazy in Michigan called "No fault insurance" where you pay through the ass for auto insurance because in an accident, no one is at fault (or something like that). The auto insurance agent who explained all of this to me was highly amused when I told him my auto insurance used to be half of what he was quoting me before I moved to Michigan. I remember telling him, "That's what I'd pay back home if I got caught for DUI!!"

      So despite having a clean driving record, I paid a LOT more for auto insurance because I 1) moved to a state with a crazy insurance scheme and 2) my zip code was close to Detroit (but not in the city itself).

    13. Re:Cost Cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have my insurance bill right in front of me. $600ish for 6 months with a clean record. Granted, I'm a 25-year-old male, but then again, so are a good portion of the employees at Google.

    14. Re:Cost Cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I think you substituted the search page for 'Enron lack of transparency'.

      Oh wait, you didn't. Oh-oh.

    15. Re:Cost Cutting by ZlotyJelop · · Score: 1

      and the other 50% of the shares are held by non owners.

    16. Re:Cost Cutting by fupeg · · Score: 1

      This just in, Google offers stock options. Yes, it is true. So if their stock price tanks, the stock options of everyone, including senior management, could go underwater. So if you're in senior management, then you go from maybe having a six figure payout coming up in your future to nothing, all because the stock buying public is in some way unhappy. What are you going to do? Make them happy. Keep your stock up. Get paid. The only thing different at Google is that maybe there is more control from the top, i.e. the Sergey, Larry, and Eric triumvirate. Those guys have already made fortunes and are possibly less sensitive to a decrease in future payoffs from stock options. I wouldn't count on that. A lot of people in the valley are curious to see what would happen at Google if they had a bad quarter, but a lot of people are also afraid that such an event could cause Bubble 2.0 to start bursting.

  4. In saner parts of the world... by dkf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... there is real mass transit so that companies don't have to invest money in doing this for themselves. This leads me to ask a few rhetorical questions: How long before Google gets together with some of the other tech companies in the area to run a shared service? How long after that before it transforms into the sort of mass transit service that people elsewhere in the world take for granted?

    Welcome to the consequences of high-density living.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    1. Re:In saner parts of the world... by GregPK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just think of the engineering discussions and the kinds of networking that would go on if they shared the transportation system. Intel employees could bounce ideas off of google ones creating a rather good synergy for building up servers, etc.. Really I don't know what company wouldn't want thier employees on that bus especially if google was a potential customer for them.

    2. Re:In saner parts of the world... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      While ever they're only one of the few companies doing it, Google will want to keep the price of doing it as high as possible as it will be a perk. However once it becomes a standard feature of employment, then you'll see Google and other companies banding together and most likely eventually opening it to the public.

    3. Re:In saner parts of the world... by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is *NOT* simply a mass transit system though. These busses are much more posh then you'd see in any public transit system, and are equipped with things like WiFi.

      And considering the paranoid security climate around the valley, there's a good chance that no two companies would agree to share a shuttle service like that simply because they'd be too worried about company secrets leaking. And Google isn't the only company that has services like this, Apple has some shuttles available for employees that live in the Santa Cruz area and I'm sure there's a couple I don't know about. Those shuttles are usually organized by the employees though, which makes Google's system unique.

    4. Re:In saner parts of the world... by j-pimp · · Score: 0, Troll

      ... there is real mass transit so that companies don't have to invest money in doing this for themselves. This leads me to ask a few rhetorical questions: How long before Google gets together with some of the other tech companies in the area to run a shared service? How long after that before it transforms into the sort of mass transit service that people elsewhere in the world take for granted?

      Welcome to the consequences of high-density living. Are you predicting the free market will deliver a better mass transportation system than a government monopoly? Surely you jest? Next you'll suggest private education and people paying for there own healthcare!
      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    5. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Welcome to the consequences of high-density living.

      Not quite. Welcome to the consequences of badly-planned high-density living, with not-so-competent city governments...

    6. Re:In saner parts of the world... by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Define better.

      For example, Google's shuttles don't run between 11am and 3:30pm.

    7. Re:In saner parts of the world... by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Define better.

      For example, Google's shuttles don't run between 11am and 3:30pm. You have a valid point. However, there is no demand for this for the market eligible for this transportation system. This is also not a very free market. It's a corporate subsidy as opposed to a government subsidy in this case.

      However, assuming this grows beyond google, and a few San Fransisco companies get together and form a bus company they could eventually allow the general public to get on the bus if they pay a per ride fare.

      Yes I am just speculating here. However, that is what the parent of my original reply was doing.
      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    8. Re:In saner parts of the world... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Shhhh...stop trying to inject common sense into the growing climate of creeping socialism in the US. You'll just confuse things if you keep talking about sensible approaches.

    9. Re:In saner parts of the world... by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In saner parts of the world, private companies aren't asked to provide health insurance for their employees.

      Here in the US, we expect private companies to provide health insurance, which has a host of evil effects on employees and employers. Employees get stuck in a job if they get sick, for fear of losing insurance. Employers end up fighting with employees over health benefits. More often than not when there is a big labor dispute, it's over health insurance.

      In a global economy, when you produce in the US and sell overseas, you pay your employee's health care here, then through taxes pay for your competitors' employees health care over there.

      We're big on talking about rugged individualism here, but what's the point of it if we don't use our brains? We act as if the world would come to the end if for once we admitted that everyone else in the world has got it right.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:In saner parts of the world... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Qualcomm would not want their employees on this bus. Any company that considers their intellectual property to be their most valuable asset (as Qualcomm does) would not want ideas traded on the bus.

      --
      Qxe4
    11. Re:In saner parts of the world... by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oddly enough, the San Francisco Bay Area probably has one of the better mass transit systems in the country. It is far, far from perfect, though, and is designed primarily to shuttle people into San Francisco. It's easy for people like me, in the East Bay, to commute to downtown San Francisco by train. But it'd be near impossible for me to do that to Silicon Valley as it'd require changing from one train to another, with the stations being two miles apart.

      The other interesting thing is that what Google is doing only differs by scale from what others in the area are doing. Lots of companies run shuttles in downtown San Francisco to and from the local mass transit points.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    12. Re:In saner parts of the world... by GregPK · · Score: 1

      Who says they have to give out the ideas. Many times you can be talking about a concept or parts of an idea with someone and they can use thier experience to help you get past troubles in the proccess sometimes you can be talking about one idea already patented and come up with another to improve it. Most of these guys are not really money hogs they are people who just want to achieve the next thing on thier minds. Its not like intel, google, qualcomm all patent the same things but they do work with similar ideas. Say google IT department guy sitting next to the intel guy on the bus telling him I wish we had processors that fit this specific need. What if that intel engineer worked on a proccessor previously that already fit that specific need but didn't produce it because it didn't fit needs xyz for everyone else. Information gets passed on Intel makes a move and makes a proccessor that fits a specific need of googles and they order 10,000 of them for thier servers. Something casual such as that can easily lead to deals between companies for products each needs. It just creates more cooperation and innovation among both companies. Thus, I say keep the execs and managers out of it because they ruin the whole thought process with control.

    13. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Are you predicting the free market will deliver a better mass transportation system than a government monopoly? Yes.
      e.g.
      http://www.atsltd.co.uk/

      --
      Deleted
    14. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      How long 'til non-employees can purchase a monthly transit pass? Mega-Corps offering programs that would traditionally be taken care of by local government remind me of the idea put forth in Stephenson's "Diamond Age" . Where corps have become city-states that you work for/subscribe to.

      --
      We are all just people.
    15. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suppose it would be flamebait on Slashdot to point out that Microsoft does exactly this.

      They have a simple shuttle system for employees to move around the campus (and servicing some off-campus business parks, as well), and they give FTEs passes to the local public transit system. Moreover, they've been doing this for longer than Google's even been around. Of course, Microsoft isn't as trendy, so they don't get breathless news stories pretending that it's something new.

    16. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As does Amazon (shuttles between its various locations in Seattle, FTEs get a FlexPass to ride any of the local transit agencies for free, etc). It's great...I take the bus to work daily, and ever since I wrecked my car a couple months ago, I've been using the bus for everything else (and occasionally bumming rides off friends if I need to make a big trip somewhere), too.. so much so I'm not in a hurry to get my car replaced, and I'm even considering not replacing it at all. Seattle has a pretty good mass transit system.

    17. Re:In saner parts of the world... by mikael · · Score: 1

      How long before Google gets together with some of the other tech companies in the area to run a shared service?

      There are various public transport systems available. These include Caltrain - a train service which runs all the way from San Francisco to San Jose in around 3 hours. Caltrain also provides various shuttle services, but the problem with this service was that so many people used to crowd into each shuttle that it became near impossible to get out when it was your stop. I was told that attempts to extend the service to cover more company offices were cancelled due to the overwhelming demand (ie. the employees from one company would completely fill the shuttle before anyone else from other companies could get on).

      There was also the VTA tram system which ran from Mountain View to the Convention Centre and out to Diridon.

      VTA also operates a good number of bus services, but you really need to know the exact timetable of each service to be able to make long distance journeys. However, they did have rendezvous points beside Caltrain stations, so you could get from the suburb of one city to another with some effort.

      Consequently, company funded shuttle services remain the best choice.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    18. Re:In saner parts of the world... by natrius · · Score: 1

      That isn't the same. Lots of companies do that, but it isn't as useful. To take public transportation from the middle of San Francisco to Google, you would need at least two tickets from different transit agencies, then a shuttle from the train station in Mountain View to the campus itself. That would take next to forever. (I'd give you a link to the trip planned out, but Google Transit isn't available in the Bay Area yet. What's up with that anyway?) With Google's bus system, I assume they have enough demand to hit a couple of neighborhoods and go straight to Google, which takes far less time and hassle.

      Free bus passes are commonplace, which is why you don't see articles about it. A private bus system isn't commonplace, which makes it newsworthy. Google is a media darling, but that doesn't mean every story written about them is void of substance.

    19. Re:In saner parts of the world... by mikael · · Score: 1

      ... who are constantly looking at ways of gaining property taxes from new office blocks and shopping malls, but unwilling to allocate land for housing and schools. They will build a new business park on the border with one of their neighbours, and leave it up to the neighbour to upgrade/widen the roads to provide access.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    20. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Neither do a number of public buses in the Bay Area, the system (even the public one in some ways) is there to get you from home to work on most days. Otherwise you just take your car or if you're unlucky enough to not have one a taxi.

      If you really want to you can take public transportation between 11am and 3:30pm but it just takes (in some cases a lot) longer. On the plus side soon CalTrain will have fast internet access so at least that's good.

      Google and other companies (Yahoo is another that has shuttle to SF) aren't making a public transportation system, they're making a home-to-work shuttle and thats it. How often do you get into work after 11am or leave before 3:30pm anyway?

    21. Re:In saner parts of the world... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The real question is then, is why is SF's transit system so messed up that to go from one end of the city to the other, you can't just buy 1 ticket?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    22. Re:In saner parts of the world... by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      re:"But it'd be near impossible for me to do that to Silicon Valley as it'd require changing from one train to another, with the stations being two miles apart."

      Caltrain now connects to BART. At Millbrae.

    23. Re:In saner parts of the world... by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the route BART takes to get there is at least 20 minutes out of the way.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    24. Re:In saner parts of the world... by zanderredux · · Score: 1
      And then Google could spin off the mass transportation company. At that point Google is already a holding company - or even a Japanese-style conglomerate (zaibatsu) - and has investments spanning from their basic search engine to stuff like oil extraction and shipyards.

      Truly, necessity is the mother of invention, and Google cannot stop from making money!

    25. Re:In saner parts of the world... by putaro · · Score: 1

      Apple used to share a shuttle bus from the Caltrain station to other companies in Cupertino. The biggest problem with it was that the shuttle bus ran on 9-5 type hours. Used to be a great way to get out of meetings, though. "Oh, look at the time - I've gotta go or one of you is going to have to drive me back up to the City."

    26. Re:In saner parts of the world... by QuantumET · · Score: 1

      No, you can get from one end of SF to the other with a single ticket. Google's in mountain view, about 35 miles and ~8-10 cities away.

    27. Re:In saner parts of the world... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Synergy, networking, bouncing ideas, you mean this bus would just be filled with people spouting buzzwords? Better to walk...

    28. Re:In saner parts of the world... by GregPK · · Score: 1

      Nah, I'm using those buzzwords to create the idea of what it could be like. Think about it. If you put people in a place and make them comftorable enough to talk to one another they will. As to what will happen is really anyones guess. But I'd like to think that many a great connection would be made allowing for more tech jobs to be filled.

    29. Re:In saner parts of the world... by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      ... there is real mass transit so that companies don't have to invest money in doing this for themselves.

      Not entirely. The Netherlands has a pretty good public transportation system, but I know of several companies that run their own bus services (Nedcar, Thales). These typically are large factories that are located on industrial estates. Industrial areas are often served badly by public transportation, even over here.

    30. Re:In saner parts of the world... by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Is the the Altamont Express train station close enough to your job that your employer wouldn't mind as much paying for a shuttle from that point? Is there an express bus from Fremont BART that heads down Mowry to 880 and doesn't stop until it reaches downtown San Jose? Might that generate enough additional ridership for smaller companies to offer shuttles?

    31. Re:In saner parts of the world... by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      The card that will simplify most Bay Area transit agencies is called Translink. It is being rolled out on BART this year.

    32. Re:In saner parts of the world... by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Since you and the grandparent both said "mass transit" I think the appropriate comparison is would the free market deliver a better transportation system for the masses? I just went for the first and easiest difference/disadvantage.

      Okay, we can limit the definition of the masses to those commuting to and from work in the mornings and evenings.

      I was writing why it still wouldn't work, and then as I continued my train of thought I realized there is a chance in hell this is a viable idea. The riders will want speed, comfort, safety, and employers to pick up the approximately $5-15 one-way cost.

      If the bus makes a minimum of stops or no stops before dropping passengers off in downtown SF or SJ to waiting company shuttles, it just might work. If the buses make too many stops the diminishing time savings over BART will be a problem. But only people close to pick-up locations will likely use the service.

      Some stops doing Berkeley to SJ would need many shuttles. Other stops won't have enough riders to fill the bus for a direct run to downtown. Then the bus could make one, or at most two other stops along the way.

      There are some serious costs though. For the middle of the day the buses won't be earning money, but drivers need to get paid. People who want a seat on BART at rush hour will be more likely to take this service, but that's a more narrow window of increased ridership, which means adding more buses just for those times will be especially costly. If this service doesn't offer enough buses for riders to get a seat and some have to wait another five, ten, or twenty minutes for the next bus, that will hurt ridership.

    33. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      In the USA, riding a (public) bus is considered a sad act of a desperate person. It's in our culture. The thought of highly-educated professionals sharing ideas on the way to work in public bus is almost inconceivable. The last time I rode the bus, I was surrounded by people who were obviously on drugs, didn't bathe, had every manner of severe neurological disorder...

      It would be nice if that could change, but I can't imagine it happening any time soon.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    34. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Malc · · Score: 1

      Have you been to Silicon Valley? It's hardly high-density living. It's one big sprawling suburbia from South San Francisco to San Jose. There was an article in the Economist a week or two ago - it talked of San Jose's new tram system... that hardly anybody is using. There are also some train services that make it possible for many people to commute in the valley that way.

    35. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IThe last time I rode the bus, I was surrounded by people who were obviously on drugs, didn't bathe, had every manner of severe neurological disorder... I can't comment on where you live, obviously, but the times that I've used the light rail in and out of San jose (just a few miles down the road from Google) this wasn't obviously the case. You do notice that the people on the bus are drawn from a fairly wide ethnic mix - but it's probably pretty typical of that part of the valley. The idea of there being a "nutter on the bus" is also something that's common in the UK (where I'm from) but doesn't seem any more true in the valley than elsewhere (unless they thought that I was the nutter, of course!).

    36. Re:In saner parts of the world... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I live in a big city, but it's not big enough to have any sort of rail.

      It seems to me that there is less of a stigma toward rail. And cities dense enough to support rail don't have as much stigma toward public transit in general, but it is still exists and is widespread.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    37. Re:In saner parts of the world... by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      Depends on the city. Some bus routes in New York, Washington DC, and San Francisco (to name three US cities I've lived in without a car) have very upscale white-collar crowds.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    38. Re:In saner parts of the world... by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      These include Caltrain - a train service which runs all the way from San Francisco to San Jose in around 3 hours.

      3 hours? About half that.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    39. Re:In saner parts of the world... by kchrist · · Score: 1

      It's easy to get into SF from the East Bay if you happen to live close to a BART station. Luckily, when I lived in Berkeley I did, but it's going to make buying a house over there in a few years difficult because proximity to BART is a requirement for me. This eliminates the majority of Berkeley and Oakland and leaves the areas that are likely too expensive (Rockridge) and or too unpleasant (much of the rest of Oakland).

  5. Smart move by 26199 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure lots of professionals feel the pain of a daily commute. Anything that improves it is a fairly major perk.

    Obviously the next step is to found the Googleopolis... or perhaps just purchase an existing city outright...

    1. Re:Smart move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      From the summary:


      Google's may be the largest such private system anywhere


      The author needs to get out more. In the poorer parts of Asia, many factories provide fleets of busses to haul workers to and from their villages. These people are often too poor to afford any sort of private transport. This is a very old idea that has been heavily embraced in many poorer parts of the world. Not everything at Google is the first/biggest/best/brightest.

      However, I'm sure that Google's staff crap bigger than the rest of us.

    2. Re:Smart move by JambisJubilee · · Score: 1

      I sure don't feel the pain of the daily commute, because I RIDE A BIKE! A while ago I invested in a bike with fenders and some nice rain gear, and I've never looked back. Seriously though, if you live within ten miles of your place of work a bicycle will make you look forward to your commute.

    3. Re:Smart move by 26199 · · Score: 1

      I live in London, a bicycle would make me deathly afraid of my daily commute ;)

      Actually I walk to work (takes me a little over half an hour). But I feel my coworkers' pain.

    4. Re:Smart move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously though, if you live within ten miles of your place of work a bicycle will make you look forward to your commute.

      Look forwards to? Yeah, I just love cooking myself in the summer heat, coming tired into work, hoping each that that my bike helmet investment won't pay off (and this place is relatively bike friendly, god forbid you live in say NYC), etc.

      The only thing my daily 1 to 6 mile bike commute did was make me look forward to finally getting a car.

    5. Re:Smart move by iNetRunner · · Score: 1

      Obviously the next step is to found the Googleopolis... or perhaps just purchase an existing city outright...

      Maybe Redmonton will be available after few more successful Google years.. =)

      --
      Store with salt
    6. Re:Smart move by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I live in Canada, so I can only bike to work about 7 months out of the year, but when I can, I do. There are people who bike year round, but there's also people who put spikes on their tires and bike on the canal, sorry, that just isn't for me. Anyway, I have to say, that I enjoy biking much more than the bus. I don't have a car, but between my bike and the bus, don't really feel the need for one. It's a great way to stay in shape. Cuts off time on the bus, cuts off time at the gym. More time for my family.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:Smart move by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      While now I am one of 7 people in LA that ride a bike to work, I was once one of hundreds of people that rode their bike to classes through the snow wearing Birkenstocks (you know... because they were cool...). With the right gear, you can always ride a bike, although comfortable distance does drop off pretty quickly.

      You can ride a bike to work no matter where you live, if you live a reasonable distance away.

    8. Re:Smart move by doom · · Score: 1

      The only thing my daily 1 to 6 mile bike commute did was make me look forward to finally getting a car.

      Yes, life is such a drag, I look forward to these little convieniences that are guaranteed to shave years off of it.

    9. Re:Smart move by snaz555 · · Score: 1

      Ten miles isn't really considered a commute in the SF Bay Area. 50-100 mi is more normal. I did it for 14 years up and down the peninsula (SF to SV). Now my commute is only 6mi since I work in the city, and yes, I ride a bicycle. I don't bother riding on the occasional rainy day though, I'll just hop on Muni since I live by a trolley stop and my job is at the other end.

  6. Can't beat the greeny angle by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google is quite good with this in how environmentally friendly it is. However company(s) in Australia not that long ago would pay for taxis to and from work that would go directly to your house. They were just normal taxis that were free for you. I don't know how wide-spread this practice was, I imagine it wasn't too widespread, but I do know of at least one Australian company that did it. So while its good that Google does it nowadays (as I believe the company has since stopped), its a shame services like this are unusual rather then the norm.

    1. Re:Can't beat the greeny angle by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      Back when I was 17 my mom hooked me up with a job at ScotiaBank ($10/hr writing perl scripts for some old AIX servers). They had a contract with a local taxi company and they gave out taxi slips to anyone who needed a ride, it was a pretty sweet perk. They also ran shuttle buses between the local office and the main ScotiaBank plaza downtown for employees that had meetings downtown, etc..

  7. For the rest of us... by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dear Employee,

    You were late again today. You're fired. Report to HR immediately. Remeber, you are being watched.

    Sincerely,

    The Big Boss

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  8. Whatever happened to telecommuting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So apparently, IT jobs in the United States can easily be outsourced to Bangalore, India, because the Internet makes it possible to do work remotely (across the world, across entire oceans) without skipping a beat.

    But a bus needs to be run to transport workers 45 minutes away from work?

    WTF?

    1. Re:Whatever happened to telecommuting? by ccgr · · Score: 1

      if they telecommute than they miss out on free food, checkups, and an opportunity to show off their pets

      --
      http://www.bookforce.net
    2. Re:Whatever happened to telecommuting? by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 1

      Obviously a large percentage of Google's workers work at Google's offices because there are some corporate goals not easily achieved through telecommuting.

      --
      Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    3. Re:Whatever happened to telecommuting? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So apparently, IT jobs in the United States can easily be outsourced to Bangalore, India, because the Internet makes it possible to do work remotely (across the world, across entire oceans) without skipping a beat. But a bus needs to be run to transport workers 45 minutes away from work?

      Cutting-edge work generally needs close-knit collaboration and understanding of local culture. The stuff easiest to offshore are things that are fairly easy to define clearly up-front. I suspect that some of Google's maintenance work will eventually go there when they face a budget crunch in the future (and cut back on R&D).

    4. Re:Whatever happened to telecommuting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever been to Microsoft's campus? Most of their employees are from Bangalore already.

    5. Re:Whatever happened to telecommuting? by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      It's because only mediocre companies outsource to Bangalore.

      What the best companies realize is that to get the best people, be they in Mountain View or Bangalore, you need to pay top wages. That's an attitude diametrically opposed to outsourcing.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    6. Re:Whatever happened to telecommuting? by flanktwo · · Score: 1

      It's because only mediocre companies outsource to Bangalore.

      Yep. Other companies go to Hyderbad, including Google.

    7. Re:Whatever happened to telecommuting? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Ever been to Microsoft's campus? Most of their employees are from Bangalore already.

      And Gates keeps lobbying for more and more.

  9. Trimming the verge by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google will do what all companies do: Identify the largest portion of the employee population, usually those making less than $80k/year, and will initiate a program of attrition. Yearly raises will be slashed, performance reviews will be capped, and the incoming salary offers for non-priveleged candidates (ie. everyday technological associates) will be levelled off. Middle and lower managers will receive bonuses based upon how flat they can keep their budgets and not based upon any real technological performance--maybe a more preferred stock offering will be available to managers whose budgets increase by only justified amounts. In order to maintain a good image Google, as a corporate entity, will remind incoming candidates that "We may not be able to offer the same compensation as our competitors but we do offer transportation to and from work which we see as a valuable fringe benefit which both enhances the employee paycheck and works to preserve the environment."

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:Trimming the verge by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      Mod him up to a high 5 insightful. This is a great way to make sure everyone gets to work on time, not to mention some shenanigans, maybe even some tom-foolery. Yay google!

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    2. Re:Trimming the verge by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      "We may not be able to offer the same compensation as our competitors but we do offer transportation to and from work which we see as a valuable fringe benefit which both enhances the employee paycheck and works to preserve the environment." What kind of compensation does Google offer? I've heard over this line and over that Google doesn't pay as well as their competitors, relying instead on these intangible perks, but how does that translate into dollars and cents?
    3. Re:Trimming the verge by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1
      Why do you think this? It sounds like pure speculation to me. Do you have any reason to think this is how they will behave?

      http://www.google.com/finance?client=ig&q=GOOG

      Last I checked Google is doing quite well with the business model they are using and they have already grown large enough that they would have moved in such a direction if they were going to.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    4. Re:Trimming the verge by Skreems · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only source readily available through a search claims $35k for a sysadmin. Sounds pretty damn low to me.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    5. Re:Trimming the verge by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

      I've heard over this line and over that Google doesn't pay as well as their competitors, relying instead on these intangible perks...

      I've never heard this... rather the opposite. I know a few people who went to Google, and their pay is very good, even after factoring in the high cost of living out there. In the few cases where I do know approximate numbers, Google starting salaries are (or at least were) well over Microsoft's...

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    6. Re:Trimming the verge by blackicye · · Score: 1

      Not to defend Google or anything, but FTFA in your link:
      " Google: Pays less than other Silicon Valley tech companies. A system administrator earns around $35,000, which in the San Francisco Bay Area, with its astronomical housing prices and cost of living, might as well be minimum wage."

      I don't know what minimum wage is in the Bay Area, but $35k sounds an order of magnitude higher. If you can't make do with $35k then you've either got some serious issues, or you need to contemplate moving out of San Francisco, say to the Mid-west.

    7. Re:Trimming the verge by putaro · · Score: 1

      I would say that a typical system admin in the Bay Area is making at least $50K. It's not a matter of moving to the Mid-west, you just need to get a job that pays properly. Different regions have different pay scales. It's kind of like saying "If you can't make it on $10K a year in the Mid-West you should be thinking about moving to Mexico".

    8. Re:Trimming the verge by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      And I don't suppose you care to spill the beans on those approximate numbers... This taboo in our culture about not talking about salaries only serves to create an uninformed market, to the benefit of the employer.

      Anyway, I heard starting salary for an SDE/SDET in Redmond was in the $70-80k range. Google is more than that?

    9. Re:Trimming the verge by Skreems · · Score: 1

      Minimum wage is the same as anywhere else... about 14k a year. So a Google sysadmin is making more than double. But remember, of $35k, at least 5 goes to federal and state taxes. Then another 12k (at LEAST) goes to housing costs. That leaves you with $1500 per month for food, clothing, travel, entertainment, and saving for retirement or whatever. If you keep an eye on how much you spend on fun things, one person can live relatively comfortably on that. Two people, or a family, not so much. And this is for a job that is typically relatively well-paid.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    10. Re:Trimming the verge by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

      Well, no, I don't care to spill the beans on other people's salaries on a public board without their permission, even if I don't give their names.

      I got an offer from MS that was in the range you give (though they also have a number of non-salary benefits) -- that was a few years ago, though, so it may have changed. But the Google offers I've heard of have been higher.

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    11. Re:Trimming the verge by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      I don't expect you to betray anyone's confidence, but I am a little peeved by this tendency in our society to treat salaries like grandma's meatloaf recipe. Even if I knew your friends' names and salaries, there's not much I could do with that information that would harm them. On the other hand, your employer knows exactly how much you make and probably has a better idea of how much you're worth on the open market than you do. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

    12. Re:Trimming the verge by Benley · · Score: 1

      That dollar figure quote is totally bogus. Wired got that from the wikipedia article on Google, which had that exact number in its text around April 2005, when the Wired article was written. It was probably true at one time - like 2003 or so, when people were getting tons of stock options instead of expecting a high salary. Nowadays, Google sysadmins can easily be paid twice that amount, and that doesn't even necessarily include income from things like stock bonuses.

    13. Re:Trimming the verge by Skreems · · Score: 1

      That's disgusting. Because now Wikipedia links to that article as the source that confirms the number in their article.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
  10. Transportation agreement by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

    In order to obtain your pass to ride the shared corporate transit system you will need to sign an NDA which amounts to "silence must be kept at all times". Video and audio recorders mounted within the bus will ensure that employees who have displeased their managers will be fired for saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes while employees who "give it up" to their management will be allowed to trade hot stock tips and infrastructure design improvements with their peers from other companies.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:Transportation agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      YEAH!

      AND: The impoverished outside the bus will smash bottles of gin and pick-me-up against the iron grill mesh on the side of the bus windows, while gigantic silhouettes against the acid rain clouds will give away the positions of robotic helicopters search for we three-- we three freedom fighters, who will be crouching along, beneath the ground, within the sewers, with only 5 mag-guns, 2 cheap laptops, and a crazy lost child known only as "Mic," who may-- JUST MAY-- hold the secrets to ending this nightmare, locked within... ...her broken mind.

      Google Corp, and all you other wretched Corps, ... you just watch your back.

    2. Re:Transportation agreement by GregPK · · Score: 1

      What is funnier is that all said employees who got fired would go start another company. Especially since they would probably be the prima donna's. Freedom promotes innovation. Fear promotes revolution. Take your pick which would you rather have. I think you should just outlaw any executives and managers from the bus. So you can keep the people who do most of the innovation on the bus together bouncing ideas off each other.

  11. Blow being a self-employed consultant! by BillGatesLoveChild · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want to work for Google!

    1. Re:Blow being a self-employed consultant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blow being a self-employed consultant! (Score:2) by BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) on Sunday March 11, @04:47PM (#18310304)

      I want to work for Google!

      Better not tell Daddy, or at least hone your ducking skills to survive being around Uncle Steve ;p

  12. Tax status? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm guessing that part of the reason is due to taxes. That is, employees don't have to count the "value" of the bus service as income, so it's not taxed. So if the bus service costs $500/employee-year and their effective marginal tax rate is 35% (state, local, fed, SS), as long as the bus service is better than $325/year in additional pay, it's a good deal.

    1. Re:Tax status? by hankwang · · Score: 1

      So if the bus service costs $500/employee-year

      It's probably way more expensive than that. In Europe, you would pay around EUR 1400 per year as an individual for a 30 km commute in ordinary public transport. (I checked Netherlands and Sweden) A quick check at the Caltrain website suggests that something equivalent in California would be $1200 per year. Now I don't know how the government subsidizes public transport and how exactly that would compare to Google setting up their own transport (roads are also government-subsidized), but I'm pretty sure that shuttles with on-board wifi, laptop connections, and leather seats would be considerably more expensive than ordinary public transport.

    2. Re:Tax status? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly, not really. Public transit involves a great deal of overhead in terms of planning and deployment and development of a reliable schedule. The vehicles themselves are extremely expensive (a single mass transit bus can cost upwards of $300,000), and because of their size, you need a large central garage to store them, along with massive maintenance bays with costly equipment. There are also insurance concerns and the need to build street-side stops (or terminals).

      A corporate fleet of vehicles operating a non-fixed route and serving a small and homogenous (everyone using it can be contacted via work email and they are all either going to or coming from the same location) community can be quite affordable in comparison. The daily cost to operate a van divided by the number of riders would probably work out below the daily fare of a public transit system in the end.

      Either way, take a typical 30 mile commute in peninsula traffic. That's going to amount to close to 3 gallons of fuel per day, and at $3/gallon, that's approaching $9 per day just to go to work and back. As long as the shuttle service costs less than this, it's cheaper than the equivalent raise, especially when you'd wind up paying taxes on that raise.

    3. Re:Tax status? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      That's funny...In Grand Rapids, MI, you can get a 31-day, unlimited-ride pass to the area busing system for $35. That works out to $420/year. Granted, the buses don't go everywhere; you might end up walking that last mile. Even better, the central bus station is jointly operated with Greyhound, so you can quite literally get anywhere in the country. (If you pay for the Greyhound ticket.)

      It's ironic, then, that everyone around here complains that Detroit's proximity kills any potential for a decent busing system. Yeah, it would be nice if the buses ran more frequently, and at nights. But it's still cheap enough that I haven't needed my own car since mine was wrecked last November.

    4. Re:Tax status? by ross.w · · Score: 1

      In Australia, this wouldn't happen, because the cost of providing the free transport would be subject to Fringe benefits Tax (FBT) at the highest marginal rate of 46.5%.

      Instead of this, companies offer cars on salary sacrifice arrangements that get taxed less the more you drive them. Hence lots more people drive their car to work, and the traffic and public transport systems both get worse.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    5. Re:Tax status? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Either way, take a typical 30 mile commute in peninsula traffic. That's going to amount to close to 3 gallons of fuel per day

      If your car is getting, even in peak hour stop-go traffic, 10mpg, I have two pieces of potential advice for you: ditch the Lincoln Navigator, or buy something newer than the 60s.

      In Seattle peak, in a 95 Civic, I got an average of 20mpg, including 14 miles on the hideous piece of road known as I-405, stop go, 45 miles sometimes taking 2.5 hours. (I since discovered ways to avoid that.) Of course, in my new Prius, I'm getting around 49mpg on a mix of highway-city cycles.

    6. Re:Tax status? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Remember: there are two trips to work each day. Once to work, and once back. The calculations assume 20mpg in rush hour traffic.

    7. Re:Tax status? by jon_anderson_ca · · Score: 1

      Ha... I recently got an amended T4 from a previous employer, and it seems as though the Canada Revenue Agency does classify company-provided bussing as income (even though we had to pay a nominal fee).

      Anybody know whether or not it's the same in the US?

    8. Re:Tax status? by hauntingthunder · · Score: 1

      Surprised the tax man hasn't tried to tax this as a benefit in kind.

      We got Free tea and Coffee Taken away in BT because of this

      --
      You will never get to heaven with an Ak 47... But A Zu 30 is good for Low Flying Cherubim
    9. Re:Tax status? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge, no. Company-provided perks are free to employees; that's why people like them, they don't have to pay taxes on them.

      If there is any obscure tax code that requires us to pay taxes on perks, I've never heard of it, and it's probably something that everyone ignores, just like paying sales tax on out-of-state purchases.

  13. moo by slothman32 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here in Rochester, where Kodak is located, we have Kodak Park.
    It's a huge area with it's own rail system.

    Today with digital they have less a presence but it still does alot of stuff.

    I don't know about the costs or perks of it though.

    --
    Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  14. Geeks never got a school bus ride by aiwarrior · · Score: 5, Funny

    Geeks never got the chance of enjoying a good school bus trip without beeing mocked or running after the bus(look at peter parker). Now they want to get that part of teenagehood they were denied. Google is also putting hot chicks that actually want to sit with a geek, and thats why it aint cheap! Hail google the shuttle overlord.

    1. Re:Geeks never got a school bus ride by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Geeks never got the chance of enjoying a good school bus trip without beeing mocked

      But the Google Bus will divide up into the BSD side and the Linux side, and all hell will break loose anyhow.

    2. Re:Geeks never got a school bus ride by Servo · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least they can all share in laughing at the SCO employees riding the short bus.

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
  15. Emery-Go-Round by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There's a free shuttle service in Emeryville, Ca (SFBay Area) that's funded by commercial property owners. Not only do the employees of the funders benefit but so does the surrounding community. Very nice!

  16. Other Google ideas by hack++slash · · Score: 1

    With all the stuff Google have gotten into, porn is probably the next logical venture, the service could be called Google Oogle.

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  17. Google is not the first to provide such perks. by andreyw · · Score: 1

    One word: Microsoft.

    1. Re:Google is not the first to provide such perks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Microsoft has shuttles for traveling between MS-owned buildings, but the shuttles will not take you home.

      (The Microsoft campus spans Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Issaquah. The shuttles are nessessary when you work with other teams.)

      - A MS employee

    2. Re:Google is not the first to provide such perks. by mindsuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here in Buenos Aires IBM does the same thing, as well as shuttles from and to some urban areas.

      I'm guessing similar services are available in other places as well

      --
      --- I w00t, therefore I'm l33t.
    3. Re:Google is not the first to provide such perks. by rasteroid · · Score: 1

      IT companies providing transportation has been a common thing in Bangalore for many years as well (decades in the case of establishments in other areas like aircraft maintenance, defense, etc), especially those located in Software Technology Parks. The same thing is true of major call centres. However the main difference in Bangalore is that the Parks tend to be located quite a distance outside the city, so the transportation helps bring commuters out of the city, whereas in the Bay Area the buses help bring employees into the Valley. Also different is in Bangalore you see both luxury buses as well as very ordinary buses bringing employees to work and back home, but not nearly the same level of "luxury" (wireless internet etc) as in the Bay Area. But yes, this concept is not new from Google, and while I don't have the numbers from Bangalore, I wouldn't be surprised to find a much larger scale of the implementation (in terms of number of people transported).

    4. Re:Google is not the first to provide such perks. by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1

      . Also different is in Bangalore you see both luxury buses as well as very ordinary buses bringing employees to work and back home, but not nearly the same level of "luxury" (wireless internet etc) as in the Bay Area.
      Yea, Google's luxury buses aren't pulled by donkeys either.
    5. Re:Google is not the first to provide such perks. by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Bah, Bangalore is fairly small in that respect. Mumbai's public transport system was designed to carry employees to factories. It carries a few million people more than all of Bangalore's transit. For the Americans, the trains in Mumbai alone carry more passengers than the total number of passengers travelling by mass transit in NYC.

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/11/12/MNG2P9PCR11.DTL

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    6. Re:Google is not the first to provide such perks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't paid a cent for a bus ride to anywhere since I got here seven years ago. All I do is flash my blue badge and the driver presses a button and waves me in. My guess is the button is used to keep track of numbers, to bill MS for all the rides at the end of the month. I bet that's a lot cheaper than keeping a fleet of buses, and the covered area is huge.

      -Another MS employee

  18. Great News by Cocoshimmy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hopefully this means what the author is suggesting: That in the future a shuttle service will become an essential part of the benefits package offered by large employers. Imagine if other major employers such as Microsoft, Boeing, AMD and others implemented such programs in areas with otherwise high traffic like Seattle, Austin, and of course the SF bay area? It would reduce stress for everyone, alleviate traffic, reduce the demand and price for gas, reduce air pollution (and as a result health care costs), and make people realize that mass transit is a viable option for North America.

    1. Re:Great News by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has done this for more years than Google has been around--sans trendy biodiesel.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    2. Re:Great News by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has a shuttle system that services their entire campus, including some buildings outside of the main campus. Plus they pay for the bus for employees. Same as the Google system, except not as snobby and exclusive.

    3. Re:Great News by p0tat03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Instead of everyone running their own private shuttles, hopefully what this means is that we will see collaboration to fund a comprehensive public transport system that is ubiquitous and truly competitive with private transport.

      In too many cities bus and rail service is so poor that it is mainly reserved for the poor and those with no other choice. I have lived and worked in many cities whose transit systems take after this model. It is incredibly discouraging and hypocritical - to harp about the environment and the virtues of public transit, but to maintain a system that is so slow, so unavailable, and so dirty and dangerous that no one with the income ability will choose to ride it.

      Hopefully if companies become serious about funding transport for employees we will see some *real* transit choices in cities.

      I live in Ottawa, Canada, and it has one of the better transit systems I've seen anywhere. There is a bus-only roadway that spans the entire city, which permits buses to go ludicrously fast with no traffic lights, and stops are designed hub-style, where extremely rapid buses come every 3 minutes and take you to the next hub, from which you can transfer onto local buses. It's not perfect, but it works remarkably well, and is MUCH better than the VAST majority of cities have.

  19. Obligatory by Limecron · · Score: 4, Funny

    We don't get French benefits?

    1. Re:Obligatory by Quzak · · Score: 1

      I would rather Soviet Russia benefits.

      --
      Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
  20. Oh my god, wow! by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 0

    Google is so perfect and environmentally sound. I mean, that one Party Jet probably uses more fuel than all the savings from the biodeisel busses.

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    1. Re:Oh my god, wow! by Dorceon · · Score: 1

      A used 767-200 outfitted to suit costs about half as much as a new Gulfstream G550, and in the 50 seat swank config is more fuel efficient per passenger mile.

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
  21. Telecommuting is still better by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The only hassle with Google is that you need to show up to make use of all their other perks.

    With a broadband connection you can work from home just as easily as from a cube. I've been doing that for years as an employee. As a moonlighting consultant I often work for people I have never seen in countries I have never been to.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Telecommuting is still better by pvera · · Score: 1

      I was trying to explain the same thing to a former boss, who was calling me to see if I was interested in a government contract more than 20 miles across town.

      I telecommute at least 80% of the week, and I get paid right on the median for my field and experience, plus quarterly bonuses based on billables, not on performance appraisals. What is my motivation to jump ship for the same amount of money but driving across the DC beltway almost 50 miles each day?

      Screw that.

      --
      Pedro
      ----
      The Insomniac Coder
  22. The company store by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whether it is a mining town or a fishing town or a technology town, people appreciate Not as much as the upper management appreciates knowing both your wages and how much it costs your family to eat every month. Think modern day companies with in-house bank branches and with the right to scrape your screen when you check your ledger balance or recent transactions online at work.

    What do you do when wages and cost of food begin to approach each other? At what point is the foul acknowledged when wages = CoF - 1 ?
    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:The company store by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Paranoid much? These are tech companies, not mining towns, and people can jump ship at a moment's notice. Also, squeezing people like that makes them dishonest, so it's not advisable even when you can get away with it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:The company store by maxume · · Score: 1

      Plus, they can't pay you in Google Store Dollars(Unless they are Walmart). The problem isn't when they charge too much for food, it is when they try to control what food you eat.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:The company store by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OTOH, when you get the baka that doesn't bother controlling his cholesterol, you'll wind up with a lawsuit against the company for negligence.

    4. Re:The company store by Will_Malverson · · Score: 1

      ...people can jump ship at a moment's notice.


      Can you jump ship at a moment's notice if you're living in company housing? If you quit, how long do you think it'd be before you'd have to move out, or start paying the (presumably) very high non-employee rent?

      Would we have to have a COBRA for employee housing? Do you think Google wants to become a landlord?

    5. Re:The company store by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Sure you can move out a moments notice or rather in whatever grace period you're given. Rent storage unit, rent a u-haul, put everything in said u-haul and the put everything in storage unit (optional: pay someone to help carry the heavy things). Temporary housing can be a hotel/motel at worst but other options exist, not perfect options but many do exist in any location especially when "closeness to work" is no longer a restriction.

      So at worst you can be out and be living somewhere else within a few days, then you get to worry about long term.

    6. Re:The company store by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Rent storage unit, rent a u-haul, put everything in said u-haul and the put everything in storage unit (optional: pay someone to help carry the heavy things). Temporary housing can be a hotel/motel at worst but other options exist, not perfect options but many do exist in any location especially when "closeness to work" is no longer a restriction.

      Just to sabotage my own comment: in the 2001 meltdown, the Bay area was out of uhauls for the entire summer. During the peak of the boom, there was no housing available. I mean zero. My boss lived there then and he had a decent job, but slept in the park while he looked for housing.

      But yeah, what you said most of the time.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  23. Owned by the corporate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it only I who is reminded of the works of Gibson. Where corporations *own* you, your family, your dog and your kitchensink.

    1. Re:Owned by the corporate by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      It's probably not only you. Slashdot is full of paranoid kneejerk anti-corporate types.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  24. At some point... by rindeee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...doesn't it become a better idea to simply move Googleplex to a new location that isn't overcrowded, overpriced, etc.? Perhaps (in all seriousness) Google could move the headquarters to a more rural location. Employees could afford to live in mansions? Could drive to work without rush hour, etc. COMMS shouldn't be an issue...just run some fiber. Shoot, Google owns half the dark fiber (exaggerating of course) in the country anyway. Anyway, just thinking out loud.

    1. Re:At some point... by ximenes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, that would be great for working. However, a large part of the allure of working somewhere like Silicon Valley is the non-work components of the area. Actual culture somewhere nearby, other businesses that you like to shop at (or go work at if your job sucks), and so on. Plus Google has a steady stream of employees they can steal from other nearby businesses, and they're near businesses that they want to work with.

      This is one reason why Gateway is not located in North Dakota anymore. This is why technology companies in particular all seem to clump together in a few locations. The companies themselves find value in it, and their employees (being generally well-educated and to a degree able to be more selective than some other industries) want to live in places that they actually like rather than, lets say, North Dakota.

    2. Re:At some point... by morgret · · Score: 1

      Would people move to a location that isn't overcrowded and overpriced? That location might have less favorable weather, fewer resources, no Fry's Electronics down the road, a lack of high-caliber universities, etc. Do you think Google would have as many people wanting to work for it if the headquarters were in North Dakota? From a green standpoint, Google is being kind to the community. They take people out of their individual cars, their buildings are re-used (old SGI buildings), they're putting in solar, etc. Moving headquarters to a new community that is not overcrowded and overpriced may mean building entirely new buildings, having many more people drive to work, and having a significant impact on the resources and environment. If the headquarters were to move, what impact would it have on the local economy? Already I wonder about the North Carolina deal, where Google will be paying significantly more than the average salary. I'm sure that will have an impact on housing prices. What happens when you bring thousands of workers into a new community? Will that community stay uncrowded and low-priced?

    3. Re:At some point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The genesis of the Google Shuttle was in a group of progressive-thinking employees living in the city of San Francisco who disliked the social costs and the personal frustration of driving vehicles all the way to Mountain View every day, but found the existing mass transit options inconvenient considering the nature and hours of their work.

      The program was later extended to other Bay Area communities. It is a way of coping with the downsides of commuting to work through metropolitan congestion, while still being able to maintain the benefits of living in vibrant, densely populated and creative city like San Francisco. Moving the company to a rural area would mean losing access to those creative people, which would be bad for the Google culture.

      Shuttle Rider.

    4. Re:At some point... by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Yes...and 80% of their employees would not follow, but would instead take jobs at Yahoo.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    5. Re:At some point... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Quick, let's play the low uid game!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:At some point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Gateway started in Sioux City, Iowa, then moved across the river to North Sioux City, South Dakota, because South Dakota had/has a more favorable tax climate.

      I guess we Midwesterners will have to do without your "culture" and pride ourselves on actually knowing our geography.

    7. Re:At some point... by ximenes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you sure showed me your midwestern know-how (I live in Cleveland).

    8. Re:At some point... by khallow · · Score: 1
      Actual culture somewhere nearby

      IMHO culture and Silicon Valley don't mix. There are some parts like San Francisco and the universities which are commonly thought to have culture, but those are oases of culture in a vast desert.

    9. Re:At some point... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      They could have moved to Alviso, if they could find it !

    10. Re:At some point... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      I know I'd rather live in Lancaster, PA than Silicon Valley. Even if it has a ton of culture, sitting in my car for years of my life to get to it and then waiting in long lines to see said culture isn't appealing.

      Thankfully, I found a job at a technology company near Lancaster.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    11. Re:At some point... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Google will consider moving there real soon. What with the huge local pool of tech savvy Amish they could hire, Lancaster would make a great location for any tech company.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    12. Re:At some point... by kchrist · · Score: 1

      Of course, the Google employees who see value in living in an area surrounded by culture don't live in Silicon Valley. They live in San Francisco and, you guessed it, take the shuttle to Mountain View.

    13. Re:At some point... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Yep. I better get back to plowing that field now before my Uncle Jacob sees me using this devil box.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    14. Re:At some point... by Lt_Kernal · · Score: 1

      Ironically, there's a large Microsoft development center in Fargo, North Dakota. It's the former home of Great Plains Software, which MS acquired to bolster their portfolio in accounting software.

      What's even more funny is that MS also has their corporate finance department there. When you expense something and the finance guys need an original reciept, you either send it through inter office mail, or snail mail it to ND.

      Fortunately, most finance related stuff is done online, so you only have to mail originals there.

      --
      My posts don't reflect the opinion of my employer, and my employer's opinion doesn't influence the content of my posts.
    15. Re:At some point... by bean123456789 · · Score: 1

      (being generally well-educated and to a degree able to be more selective than some other industries) want to live in places that they actually like rather than, lets say, North Dakota.

      Because we all want to live in a highly populated, polluted part of the country; sign me up!

  25. Interesting Side Note: Neil's Son by dancingmad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As an interesting side note, the Michael Gaiman they quote is the son of author Neil Gaiman (The Sandman, Neverwhere, American Gods, etc.). I read the article and was surprised, because Neil mentioned his son choosing Google over Apple a month or two back on his blog. Sure enough, visited his blog after reading it and it is indeed him.

    --
    "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
  26. Prima donnas by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

    I think you meant to say the people who create the groundbreaking ideas which the managers love to steal and present as their own. Innovators.

    Prima donnas are described by m-w.com: "a vain or undisciplined person who finds it difficult to work under direction or as part of a team". Those would be the ones who, with proper political support, are promoted to upper management. Those who are not promoted to upper management are shuffled into sales jobs.

    How does one tell the difference between an innovator and a prima donna? The innovators get fired when they ask for a raise. The prima donnas receive unemployment until they move to sales, HR, or PR.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:Prima donnas by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      I think the reasons for your homelessness are starting to become clear, my undermedicated friend.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  27. Paranoid by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1, Interesting

    These are tech companies Calling me paranoid doesn't mean that tech companies are philanthropic. They exist to make a profit.

    Naive much? Or just trolling? Don't be ashamed to admit it.
    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:Paranoid by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Calling me paranoid doesn't mean that tech companies are philanthropic. No, but no one claimed that, did they? What was said was that your paranoid vision of the old "owe my soul to the company store" system that worked when labor was cheap and replaceable showing up in the modern tech industry is ridiculous. We aren't 1000 okies clamoring for 300 jobs picking fruit, willing to live in company-owned shacks at high rents because we can't afford to look for a better job without starving ourselves and our families. Seriously, you really should look at the circumstances surrounding all those past "company town" situations so you might see that they didn't arise simply because the company happened to own all the local housing.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:Paranoid by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 1

      "Calling me paranoid doesn't mean that tech companies are philanthropic. They exist to make a profit."
      I believe his main point was that competition for employees will prevent this from becoming a real problem. You might want to get an adjustment to your medications - you went from 0 to asshole pretty quickly there.
    3. Re:Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We aren't 1000 okies clamoring for 300 jobs picking fruit

      No, there's just about a billion of us when you add in India, China, south america, and so on.

  28. Simpsons by istartedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not a whole town? They could even have a hammock district.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  29. Sanity? Don't need no stinkin' sanity! by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... there is real mass transit so that companies don't have to invest money in doing this for themselves.

    Amen to that. Alas, Americans think mass transit is evil.

    How long before Google gets together with some of the other tech companies in the area to run a shared service?

    Lots of SV companies sponsor shuttles, either jointly or on their own. Google's is the first one I've heard of that is so popular. The other shuttles are less ambitious; mostly they bridge the gap between the local train station and the workplace. Only a small percentage of the employees use them.

    Why is Google's shuttle program so much more popular? Probably because they can afford to throw a lot of money at the problem. Providing decent transit in a sprawl is expensive. It takes a lot of vehicles to cover all those little neighborhoods. Google can afford it, but most other companies cannot.

    And even a company that's rolling in dough is not likely to spend that kind of money on perks. If they did, they'd take heat from their shareholders for not "controlling costs". Google is exempt from that problem because because they've managed to lock out their Class B shareholders from any effective voice in the company.

    1. Re:Sanity? Don't need no stinkin' sanity! by unboring · · Score: 1

      What's the big deal about this story? eBay has its own shuttle as well from San Francisco to San Jose... that wasn't newsworthy, but when Google does it, its news suddenly?
      Bye, Bye Karma!

    2. Re:Sanity? Don't need no stinkin' sanity! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Ebay doesn't have a huge percentage of its employees using its shuttle service.

    3. Re:Sanity? Don't need no stinkin' sanity! by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      What about the ones living in SF? If the percentage still isn't high, why not? The allure of beating rush-hour traffic down 101 or 280 should be high. Is the service inferior? Are the employees not committed enough to eBay to move within walking or biking distance of the shuttle stops? Are they mentally less inclined to be ecologically friendly?

  30. stock options? by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

    You don't think the best perk might be say... the hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock options employees received pre-IPO? If you gave some employs the choice between these additional perks vs. the true cost in cash, I bet you'd find many people choosing the cash instead. Besides, my guess is some Google employees use these services disproportionately to others.

  31. MSFT just pays for the bus by melted · · Score: 1

    Any MSFT employee can ride Metro Transit buses for free. There's a "Flex Pass" thing that FTEs get every year from the receptionist. The buses are just regular buses, nothing fancy and in 6 years that I've spent at Microsoft I haven't used one once. Traffic isn't really that bad around there, and I lived 15 minutes away anyway.

    1. Re:MSFT just pays for the bus by synx · · Score: 1

      "traffic isn't really that bad around [here]"

      That is a damn lie and you know it. 15 minutes away = 2 miles away in redmond - the traffic is not good, also once you hit the freeways you are fucked. Ever heard of the 520 bridge? I405? I5 north, I5 south?

      Seattle has very crappy rush hour traffic, so much so that the WSDOT has built one of the most sophisticated road monitoring networks and displays in the country: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/seattle/

    2. Re:MSFT just pays for the bus by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I don't have to suffer 520, but I did have to put up with 405 (ye fucking gods, that thing is horrible), all 14 miles of it from I-5 exit 154 to exit 14. I managed to figure out a way to avoid 405 (Newport Hills, Newcastle, Coal Creek Parkway, Renton), and as bad as 5 can be, it holds not a candle to 405.

    3. Re:MSFT just pays for the bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the time I tried that (last November) it ended up taking me longer than the crawl down 405. I'm just glad I live in Redmond and don't need to use a freeway to get the the MS campus.

      According to WSDOT the trip on 405 between Tukwila and Factoria is now the most congested in the entire state, even including the horrid backups on 5 south into downtown Seattle. It's not just you: 5.5 hours of congestion in the afternoon rush.

  32. Sick/Vacation - The Good and the Bad by SRA8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I used to work for a company that had combination sick/vacation days. The downside was that when people were slightly to moderately sick, they still came to work, hoping not to lose a day of vacation. Their productivity wasnt great and they got other people sick. On the positive side, they usually ended up with 25 vacation days a year, which was great, esp if you can cash out some of it.

    1. Re:Sick/Vacation - The Good and the Bad by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      But then you also get those who figure, that since they have the sick days, they might as well use them. If they have 10 sick days, then they are going to use the 10 sick days, whether they're sick or not. Which leads a lot of companies to have a very low number of sick days. People can't get sick days when they need them, because the people who don't need them make it expensive for the entire company. My way of looking at it is, if you're actually sick, please take the day off. If you aren't sick, then take it as a vacation.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  33. I don't want perks by jlarocco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only person who doesn't want perks? I want three things from work: the ability to do my job, more pay, and less time there. If an employer wants to show their appreciation, they can increase my pay, let me work fewer hours, or both.

    I expect an adequate computer, comfortable chair, comfortable desk, and a private cubicle/office. Those are things that help me focus on getting my job done. I don't consider them perks, I consider them mandatory for getting work done.

    Besides that, I want to have as little to do with my employer as possible. I don't want a company car, I don't want a company shuttle, I don't want a company apartment, I don't want free food, I don't want free beverages. I want to work my 40-45 hours a week, then go home and forget about work completely.

    1. Re:I don't want perks by ximenes · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Exactly.

      Some of the perks these companies provide might be useful; but I don't want to live my life as some have suggested: living in a corporate apartment, getting to work with corporate transportation, eating at the corporate cafeteria three times a day. From there its a short step in my mind to the return of the company store and the sort of employee dependencies upon that particular company that can easily change into a very bad thing.

      Pay me enough to make my own way in the world when I'm not at work. Thats all I want.

    2. Re:I don't want perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I guess you don't want to work at Google? So should people moderate your post as Flamebait, Troll, or Informative?

    3. Re:I don't want perks by hankwang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't want a company car, I don't want a company shuttle, I don't want a company apartment, I don't want free food, I don't want free beverages.

      If you value money more than perks, how about this? You have a commuting distance of 20 mi. By using the shuttle you save about $1000/year on fuel and 200 hours/year on driving. The shuttle might be comparable in time to driving yourself since it uses the carpool lanes. And rather than just stare at the car in front of you, you can check your email, surf the web, read a book, or take a nap. Of course, some people love to drive, but for others using the commuting time for other purposes might be worth $10 per hour (or whatever). For this example, a shuttle service that costs the employer $2000 per year could have a value of $3000 per year for certain employees, while the alternative was that the employer paid $2000 extra salary (minus taxes).

      Similar for the food. You have to eat anyway. If they raise your salary and cut the free meals so that you can buy your own lunch you might very well end up with the same money in your wallet but with a tray of fast food rather than a decent meal.

      Finally, it is in the interest of the employer to create an atmosphere where the employees feel part of a big happy family rather than that everyone is just minding their own business.

    4. Re:I don't want perks by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who doesn't want perks? I want three things from work: the ability to do my job, more pay, and less time there. If an employer wants to show their appreciation, they can increase my pay, let me work fewer hours, or both.

      I'm mostly the same way. I don't mind the perks, but push it even slightly too far and it becomes more of a negative than a positive. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but often I regard perks as an attempt to buy my loyalty with trinkets. At best, perks are usually something I could buy for myself at a similar cost to what the company pays. At worst, the company is spending money on something I don't want and won't use and I'd rather have the money given to me as a slight increase in salary or used to improve benefits (like lowering the deductible on the health insurance) or even invested in the long-term future of the company (like increasing the R&D budget).

      On the other hand, there are some perks that can be a win-win situation. As another person mentioned here, shuttles are a win-win because in the SF Bay area, they get to use carpool lanes and thus save the employees time. That saved time can be split between home (more personal time) and work (more productivity), so it makes sense. But now we're talking about something which is almost not a perk anymore; instead, it's a way to make more efficient use of time.

    5. Re:I don't want perks by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From there its a short step in my mind to the return of the company store and the sort of employee dependencies upon that particular company that can easily change into a very bad thing. You're just paranoid, I mean this is like a perfect example of using a slippery slope argument badly (and stupidly). If any company did that, guess what? All those employees would move to another company.

      Unlike you many people do like convenience. They don't like wasting their time commuting, cooking or going out to eat (which in the Bay Area isn't always as trivial as in NYC with 10 places on every square block). Yahoo for example also offers an ATM (with no surcharge), dry cleaning, car tuneups, a gym and a few other things I don't remember. All those would usually take a lot more time to do otherwise.
    6. Re:I don't want perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will let us know when you find this fantasy job, right?

    7. Re:I don't want perks by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't want you.

      Google wants people who are passionate about their work, people who care about what they're doing. They want going to work to be something you want to do, not something that you have to do. This is why you get 20% of your time for personal projects, this is why they have awesome perks. It's all very well and good for you to say 'this won't work on me,' but they don't care if this works on you or not.

      That is all.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    8. Re:I don't want perks by sholden · · Score: 1

      Some other people prefer those expenses to come out of their pretax income, so that their take home income is higher at the same cost to their employer. You know tax evasion, the entire reason for perks in the first place.

    9. Re:I don't want perks by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      If an employer wants to show their appreciation, they can increase my pay, let me work fewer hours, or both.

      If you drive your personal car to work, and every other other employee does, too, then as the company gets bigger the parking lot is so large that you spend 15 minutes, twice a day, just getting to your car and driving out of the parking lot.

      That's 2.5 hours per week right there, for which you're not getting paid.

      But if that's you're choice, then that's you're choice.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    10. Re:I don't want perks by SkeptiNerd75 · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who doesn't want perks? I want three things from work: the ability to do my job, more pay, and less time there

      Woah now. Let's take an example like health coverage. You're going to get it whether or not your employer gives it to you as a perk. However, if they buy it they can take advantage of the economies of scale and get you a plan that would cost you $10k but only costs them $5k. It's a win for both parties, because you might be willing to be paid $93k+health plan instead of $100k without a health plan---you're basically getting something that's worth $103k to you. Meanwhile, that compensation package that's worth $103k to you is only costing them $98k. Lots of other perks work this same way.

    11. Re:I don't want perks by smcdow · · Score: 1

      I want to work my 40-45 hours a week, then go home and forget about work completely. You'd never get a job at my company, ever.

      --
      In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
    12. Re:I don't want perks by bjprice · · Score: 1

      Maybe he works in a developed country - with free healthcare.

      --
      v4sw6HPU$hw5ln6pr5$ck4ma8u7LMO$w2m6l7DL$i2e3t4MWb9AHKMRTen5a29s0r1p-5.88/-8.36g5CST
    13. Re:I don't want perks by khallow · · Score: 1

      Mandatory health insurance through the employer is IMHO the driver behind inflated health costs in the US (malpractice and medicare/medicaid is IMHO a relatively minor contributor). So it might cost employers $5k to get the policy, but the employee would probably spend considerably less if they had to buy the policy themselves, medical prices would be considerably lower as well, and the employee could switch healthcare providers. Also, this makes the employee cheaper to employ and vastly improves US competitiveness. A lot of other perks just aren't that useful. You can say that the dollar value is more than if you got it yourself, but what's the point of the employer spending $5k to buy benefits that would cost you $10k but are only worth $1k to you?

    14. Re:I don't want perks by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      You'd never get a job at my company, ever.

      If working for your company means I can't have a life, I don't want to work for them, ever.

      Actually, that's not entirely true. Everything has a price, so let me put it this way: If working for your company means I can't have a life, they probably can't afford me.

      I'm fine with occasional overtime to meet a deadline, or because of some extraneous circumstances. But if it happens all the time then management is incompetent.

      I only work so that I can afford the things I want in the rest of my life. If I have to work so much that I can't enjoy any of it, then what's the point?

    15. Re:I don't want perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of course, the freedom of having your own car is hard to not deny.

      With all this 'forced' shuttling. So much for the afternoon trips to see the wifey, goto the doctor, the bank, or something personal. And of course to Frys in the afternoon [for research of course!].

      Google is basically extending the college mentality & environment to the real world: what College has, Google has--and it fits naturally for young superstar grads and college professors. Interesting experiment, but people goto college for a couple of purposes (party, escapism, or a good education) where as in the real world, there many more variables and purposes.

      Just because I think programming is fun, doesn't mean not-working is fun.

    16. Re:I don't want perks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "... big happy family"

      So much for diversity then...

      Of course, they can just rely on slashdot for new technology ideas...

    17. Re:I don't want perks by badman99 · · Score: 0

      Hmmm I live in Australia, everybody is "covered" by Medicare. The government takes 1.5% of your income as the medicare levy and an additional 2.5% medicare levy surcharge if you earn over 50k both levies are compulsary. It's a crappy system, because you still end up paying for the gaps yourself (and there are ALOT of them) or pay a private health insurance premium to cover them. It's not a good idea to not have private health insurance, as you will only ever get a graduate doctor or you end up dying on a 2 year+ waiting list.

    18. Re:I don't want perks by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      it's more correclty tax avoidance, as it's not a criminal offence then ;)

      company cars were first brought in in the UK to get around the Salary cap imposed by the then government. They now get taxed so much it is now generally better to not get one, and provide a car yourself instead....

    19. Re:I don't want perks by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to imagine how a bus would save time over driving... Maybe under unusual conditions... maybe. Around here, I can either drive directly to work (which takes 15 minutes) or ride the bus, which stops at every bus stop and would take me 40 minutes for the same trip.

      Driving takes far less time in the majority of situations.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    20. Re:I don't want perks by peteMG · · Score: 1

      If you enjoyed your job at google, and lived more than 45 minutes away from it by car in the bay area, you'd want the company shuttle - unless you cherish sitting in stop-and-go for an hour and a half each day, angrily watching your precious time waste away.

    21. Re:I don't want perks by kchrist · · Score: 1

      Google shuttles only make a few stops though, they aren't comparable to a municipal bus line at all. If you get on mid-route, you'll only have two or three stops at most in SF before getting on the freeway non-stop to Mountain View. When you then consider that the bus can take the carpool lane and you can't (assuming you're driving alone), it doesn't actually take much longer at all.

    22. Re:I don't want perks by sholden · · Score: 1

      It's only tax avoidance if you don't do it enough...

    23. Re:I don't want perks by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Just because I think programming is fun, doesn't mean not-working is fun.

      Personally, I find technical work more interesting when it isn't job-related. At work, you have to deal with supervisors, cow-orkers, and various other annoyances which get in the way of getting work done. Plus, their projects aren't usually of the most interest to me. At home, you get to pick projects you're most interested in, and you can work on them at your own pace, and without any corporate BS distracting you.

    24. Re:I don't want perks by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to imagine how a bus would save time over driving...

      These are company shuttles, they don't make that many stops. They are able to use dedicated bus lanes. And most importantly, you get all the time back, since rather than sitting in a car for 45 minutes, you can read, work, or sleep on the bus.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    25. Re:I don't want perks by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Interesting... I'm to sensitive to sleep in a chair, and I get sick reading while moving, but someone with neither of those problems could make good use of bus time.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    26. Re:I don't want perks by bean123456789 · · Score: 1

      Amen!

      The second I leave work, I'm done. I'm only an employee when I'm in the building, I work to live, not vice-versa.

    27. Re:I don't want perks by Neoncow · · Score: 1

      Plus this is Google we're talking about. I'm pretty sure one of the first things the program manager did was plot all of the commuters' address and ask some Googler to run a heuristic TSP algorithm to get a 99% optimal path. From what I've read one of the first things new Googlers do is come up with some fun map-reduce algorithm and run it though any number of their massive clusters. At least, that's what I'd try if they hired me.

  34. This could attract some extra talent by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    There are people (I knw this is unbelievable to the average american) that can't drive a car, for example I can't. For that reason I avoided seeking a job in the USA. Well, looks like Google could be a potential employer.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:This could attract some extra talent by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

      There are people (I knw this is unbelievable to the average american) that can't drive a car, for example I can't. For that reason I avoided seeking a job in the USA.

      There are some cities and parts of certain cities in the US where you can get around with a car pretty well. Just because there are many places where you can't doesn't mean it's impossible to find a place where you can. The thing about the US is that the pedestrian-friendly areas tend to be more expensive to live in.

    2. Re:This could attract some extra talent by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, most US cities offer door-to-door shuttle service for disabled people who cannot reach or use the normal bus or rail lines by themselves. More information is available from the transit authority for Santa Clara County, which covers most of Silicon Valley. Similar programs are available throughout the Bay Area and nearly all major cities.

    3. Re:This could attract some extra talent by doom · · Score: 1

      The thing about the US is that the pedestrian-friendly areas tend to be more expensive to live in.

      Right. Because after World War II, it became illegal to build them... the country went totally bonkers over a dream of car-based sprawl, and nearly everywhere zoning regulations were changed to demand low-density development. So there's a shortage of places like San Francisco, with an urban density that was grandfathered in, and because no-one can build more of them, the prices are getting bid up.

      This is one of those things that's pretty well known by anyone who cares to know it, but it refuses to sink-in to the mass consciousness.

    4. Re:This could attract some extra talent by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

      Right. Because after World War II, it became illegal to build them... the country went totally bonkers over a dream of car-based sprawl, and nearly everywhere zoning regulations were changed to demand low-density development. So there's a shortage of places like San Francisco, with an urban density that was grandfathered in, and because no-one can build more of them, the prices are getting bid up.

      I'm not sure how you get that it's illegal to build pedestrian-friendly areas. I think it's just an economic thing: most people (i.e. potential customers) expect things to be convenient for driving, so developers build things that way. It's not impossible to make things both pedestrian-friendly and car-friendly, but it's not easy, so if they have to choose, developers will choose car-friendly.

      For what it's worth, the mayor of the City of Austin (Texas) has declared that it his goal to redevelop downtown to radically increase the residential usage. Presently there are about 5000 people living in downtown Austin and his goal is 25,000 residents over the next decade or so. Apparently as a result of this (maybe through changes to zoning laws, or through some kind of incentives), there are condos going in everywhere. There are so many projects going on at once you can't keep track of them. High-rise, low-rise, whatever -- you name it, and it's going in.

      And, there has been a general trend towards mixed-use development in the last several years. It doesn't automatically make things pedestrian-friendly, but it helps. At least you have some chance of having corner shops you can easily walk to.

    5. Re:This could attract some extra talent by doom · · Score: 1

      adrianmonk wrote:

      Right. Because after World War II, it became illegal to build them... the country went totally bonkers over a dream of car-based sprawl, and nearly everywhere zoning regulations were changed to demand low-density development. So there's a shortage of places like San Francisco, with an urban density that was grandfathered in, and because no-one can build more of them, the prices are getting bid up.
      I'm not sure how you get that it's illegal to build pedestrian-friendly areas. I think it's just an economic thing: most people (i.e. potential customers) expect things to be convenient for driving, so developers build things that way. It's not impossible to make things both pedestrian-friendly and car-friendly, but it's not easy, so if they have to choose, developers will choose car-friendly.

      I get it because it's true, and you need to look into this a little further if you think that suburbia is solely the result of economic choices in a free market. For example, in most places, new buildings require a certain amount of parking space so the buildings get pushed further apart to allow for parking (or you can house fewer people in the construction to make room for the rather expensive stacked parking garages), and it gets much less-friendly to walk between them, and much harder to provide any kind of public transit cover the area.

      For what it's worth, the mayor of the City of Austin (Texas) has declared that it his goal to redevelop downtown to radically increase the residential usage. Presently there are about 5000 people living in downtown Austin and his goal is 25,000 residents [austinchronicle.com] over the next decade or so. Apparently as a result of this (maybe through changes to zoning laws, or through some kind of incentives),

      This is great news, but there's no "maybe" about the changes to the zoning laws. Post-war, nearly everywhere in the United States embraced a rigid seperation of functions: residential over here, commerce over there, offices down the road, and industrial areas confined to the west New Jersey of your choice.

      there are condos going in everywhere. There are so many projects going on at once you can't keep track of them. High-rise, low-rise, whatever -- you name it, and it's going in.
      And, there has been a general trend towards mixed-use development in the last several years. It doesn't automatically make things pedestrian-friendly, but it helps. At least you have some chance of having corner shops you can easily walk to.

      Yes, exactly. This is the kind of stone-cold-obvious idea that's been coming out of the "New Urbanism" crowd, and it really is taking forever to sink in. Remember Austin is a relatively enlightened place (despite the state of it's State).

      If you care the place to start reading up on this sort of thing is Jane Jacobs "Death and Life of Great American Cities". Some of James Howard Kunstler's immoderate rants aren't too bad: "Geography of Nowhere", "Home from Nowhere".

  35. This is normal in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been the norm in Europe for large companies for many decades. They have their own buses that provide free transportation to their employees. Actually, they also have free food in many cases. I can think several car and household manufacturers that have been doing this for more than 50 years. But for some reason everything that google does seems to attract all the good press.

  36. Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1, Troll

    ... there is real mass transit so that companies don't have to invest money in doing this for themselves. Right, so of course, the rest of the population should subsidise business transport instead? Public transport is useless for 85%-90% or so of journeys, it's a bad deal for the vast majority of the population.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Public transport is useless for 85%-90% or so of journeys, it's a bad deal for the vast majority of the population.

      And you base this on what, exactly ? Your utter ignorance of any remotely well-implemented public transport systems ?

    2. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, so of course, the rest of the population should subsidise business transport instead? Public transport is useless for 85%-90% or so of journeys, it's a bad deal for the vast majority of the population.

      New York City will disagree with you. As will most of Europe probably. Much of the US may not but then again they have shit for public transportation, even the Bay Area which has a decent system by US standards is barely usable for a lot of trips.

    3. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      NYC's transit system makes me think that having a car is just a waste of money. Not only does it drop you off near where you want to, if you manage to get a seat, it's great downtime. If you happen to need to go someplace that is far from your stop, you get some exercise out of the deal. GOOD public transit is amazing. I've been to other cities and they have things like one rail line and sparse bus routes. If you don't have a car, it's amazingly hard to get around. More cities should copy NYC's model.

    4. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      If you don't include UK, then it's pretty much all of Europe.

      Somehow, here in the UK, they think that the way to get 'greener' is to impose differential rode pricing, and congestion charges. Which would be irritating if there were an alternative form of transport that was a reasonable sane way to get about. Outside London (and arguably, even within) there's not. People suck up congestion charges and road pricing because there is no alternative. You'll suffer an extra £5/day, because it's less hassle than finding a new job, that's both closer and sufficiently similar in pay.

      The depressing thing is, I know mass transit networks can work, and be good. I have seen it done, germany in particular has a splendid system going.

      Sigh, I'd love to combo bicycle and train, to get to work. But I'm not prepared to do so if it takes me significantly longer to get to work (once walking/waiting times are included, I've found that for commutes, public transport tends to take about twice as long), I'm not prepared to do so if it costs me more (train fares are way over operating costs of a car, even when you do include tax/milage etc.), and I'm not prepared to do so if I can't _reliably_ get into work on time. (No, getting the train a half hour earlier just in case services are running late isn't an option).

      I'd settle for an employer having shower facilities and a changing room though, that would get me to cycle to my current place - I wear a suit, this is fairly incompatible to cycling to work, and arriving hot and sweaty and wanting to a hard day's work.

    5. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      I understand why the NY subway seats aren't padded and face sideways, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Being from the Bay Area, I'm not used to the busses being more comfortable than the subway.

    6. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      85-90% of my journeys are me going alone to pick up a small, hand-carried item and returning home. I tend to wait until I have more than one errand before I go because of my car. But if the mass transit system was well-implemented I could do these trips fairly easily.

      Thankfully, I live in a town where my main form of transportation is my own two feet, and my secondary form is my scooter.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    7. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I can't detect any sarcasm, but I really hope you're kidding. Some 7 million people take the bus or subway in New York City every day. You're going to tell me that the daily commute of 88% of the population of NYC falls into that 10-15% of the journeys? These are MTA stats, so it doesn't even count NJ Transit. Unfortunately, I couldn't find NJ Transit stats for NYC commuters.

      Maybe in suburbia, you're right. But any city will have a large percentage of people riding mass transit, be it rail or bus, and regardless of how crappy the system might be. They're just not necessarily the people you're used to.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      BART seats are gross. I always get this sticky feeling from the fabric. I much prefer New York's easily-cleaned seating, even if it doesn't coddle my butt.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    9. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      More cities should copy NYC's model.

      Good luck with that. For any typical city in the southern half of the US, this basically means bulldozing the entire city and starting over. Once a city is laid out a certain way, you can't really go back and implement subways. Here in Phoenix, the city sprawls over a huge area, far larger than NYC. While it's possible to dig subways after-the-fact (after all, NYC's subways are actually fairly recent compared to how long Manhattan has been a city), there's no point if everything is so spread out in different directions.

      One thing many people seem to forget is that Manhattan is geographically small, densely populated, and (very importantly) long and narrow. When most of the destinations are arranged in a line, it's easy to use rail to service those destinations. It's not easy to set up rail to service destinations spread over a few hundred square miles in all directions.

    10. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Etyenne · · Score: 1

      (train fares are way over operating costs of a car, even when you do include tax/milage etc.)

      Wow. Train fare must be insanely expensive in your place. By my own napkin figures, a car cannot cost less than 300$ CAD per month in my area (multiply by 0.85 for USD$). More precisely :

      Per km charges

      • Amortizing : 0.08$/km (a 20k$ car would be worth close to 0$ at 200 000 km)
      • Maintenance : 0.015$/km (tire, oil, etc)
      • Gas : 0.07$/km (1$/litre)

      Total perm km : 0.165$

      Averaging 1500 km/month (18000/km yearly) : 247,50$/month.

      Monthly recurring charge

      • License : ~20$ (230$/year)
      • Insurance : 75$ (900$/year; could be cheaper if I only get responsability)

      Monthly recurring total : about 95$, but could be as low as about 50$ if I would cheap out on insurance.

      And these are very conservative figure for my area. And I do not even factor in the cost parking (which would be steep in my case, as I work downtown). By comparison, my bus/subway monthly pass cost me 65$. And using public transport is actually faster than driving to work.

      --
      :wq
    11. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      And you base this on what, exactly ? Your utter ignorance of any remotely well-implemented public transport systems ?

      Nope. Simply the statistics, have you ever investigated them? They're pretty consistent, around 85% to 90% of journeys are made by other means, even with mass transit systems subsidised to the tune of 50% of turnover. There are a couple of exceptions with extremely high density areas, specifically London, Tokyo and New York city centres where it reaches a massive 30% or so of journeys. But for everywhere else, rail is a very bad deal for the population. Hell, it's a bad deal in the high density areas too.

      e.g.
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/353365538624

      Basically, our existing mass transit systems, the world over, including Germany, France with "integrated" mass transit systems are essentially expensive white elephants. Generally around 90% of journeys simply cannot be made by rail.

      There are physical limitations... The more stations there are, the slower the journey must be, the fewer the stations, the further you have to travel to a station. Trains have to run to a schedule and along a corridor which makes them highly inconvenient when you want to go elsewhere.

      Rail just sucks unless you:

      A: Happen to live near a station.
      B: Want to travel to a point near another station.

      And from the stats, around 90% of people don't.
       
      --
      Deleted
    12. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      As will most of Europe probably. Nope. It's the same across Europe. France, Germany, UK, the big three in the EU with "integrated" transport, huge subsidies for rail only about 10% of journeys are made by rail.

      --
      Deleted
    13. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass Transit != Rail

      Try arguing the right thing.

    14. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Basically, our existing mass transit systems, the world over, including Germany, France with "integrated" mass transit systems are essentially expensive white elephants. Generally around 90% of journeys simply cannot be made by rail.

      Your link doesn't even come close to supporting your claim. For starters, it's reporting distances travelled, not number of trips. Further, it makes no indication (nor attempts to) as to _why_ greater distances are covered in private vehicles.

      Your link says nothing about the why, it merely reports the how.

      And from the stats, around 90% of people don't.

      Which does nothing to support your assertion about *why* they don't.

      I live in Sydney, which has an adequate public transport system. About 18 months ago my fiance and I got rid of our car after running the numbers and seeing that the saving in fuel costs _alone_ would cover our public transport costs for ~80% of our journeys (to and from work, to and from the shops) - and that's without counting the subsequent fuel price increases (not to mention volatility - although we don't really need to budget strictly so it's a minor issue). Adding in registration, insurance, maintenance and depreciation easily covers the cost of the occasional taxi or car hire for those times that require something trains, buses, trams/light rail or ferries can't provide. For those it applies to, financing expenses and "housing costs" (an off-street park in Sydney adds about as much to your rent as another bedroom - and you'd be mad to leave any remotely valuable vehicle parked on the street if you had a choice) swing the numbers even further.

      However, most people *won't* run those figures (although I have done it for a few people who asked why we got rid of the car and they were amazed at how much money they'd save - though they continued to keep their cars), because they love the "freedom" of a car. It never seems to get through that they use 90%+ of that "freedom" going to locations (well) serviced by public transport and, typically, taking more time (and, importantly, unproductive time) to do it than public transport would.

      Now, I do have a motorcycle, which I use primarily for leisure (weekend rides). I'd cover ca. 300km most weekends, which is probably about 2x the distance I used to cover on public transport every week. Nowadays (I started riding my pushbike to and from work) it would represent probably 10x the distance I cover on public transport in a week, which lines up very roughly with the figures in that spreadsheet - but the important point here is that's got _zero_ to do with whether or not public transport is suitable for most of the journeys I want to do and everything to do with the type of journey it's used for. Of the 15 - 20 average "trips" I make a week, only one or two could not be easily undertaken on public transport, but they represent ~80%+ of the weekly "distance travelled".

      I would find it difficult to believe a significant majority of people living in most cities are not in exactly the same situation I am, assuming it has at least an adequate public transport system (and, as I said, Sydney's is nothing especially flash - at least not compared to my experiences in places like London, Paris and Zurich). Further, given the mass-migration of people to major population centres in recent decades (>50% of Australia's population is located in the 10 largest cities and I'd expect most developed countries to be in a similar state), I'd have to argue that for the majority of the population, public transport is a very good deal, even though they frequently choose not to take advantage of it.

      While you can certainly argue that people *don't use public transport*, your suggestion that public transport isn't suitable for "85% - 90%" of journeys, when it is *specifically designed* to service the places people spend "85 - 90%" of their time moving between (home, work, shops, school, etc) is ridiculous on its face, as is an attempt to "prove" that point by using statistics referring to passenger miles covered.

    15. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Your link doesn't even come close to supporting your claim. For starters, it's reporting distances travelled, not number of trips. Further, it makes no indication (nor attempts to) as to _why_ greater distances are covered in private vehicles. The link quoted was simply the only table which includes all of the countries passenger mile journeys in the one place. If you want journeys instead, you'll have to hunt down the individual country statistics. They are largely similar (as one might expect) to the table you've already seen.

      Why are massively greater distances covered in private vehicles? Because private vehicles provide a service which rail simply cannot for the overwhelming majority.

      Instead of spouting transport dogma at me perhaps you might want to actually find out the real stats, hell, look at the numbers for Sidney. You'll find that yes, like elsewhere 85% to 90% of passenger miles and journeys are made by private vehicles and you'll find that there are very good reasons that 85% to 90% of journeys and passenger miles are not and cannot be made by rail.

      I've done the research for myself and am satisfied that I'm right, I frankly can't be arsed doing the research again for you, you have been pointed in the right direction. Feel free to continue with your delusion, or enlighten yourself, I care not.
      --
      Deleted
    16. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      The link quoted was simply the only table which includes all of the countries passenger mile journeys in the one place.

      That's not the point. The point is that the data doesn't offer even a shred of support for your assertion about *why* people don't use public transport. It only supports the assertion that they don't (something I have not disagreed with).

      Why are massively greater distances covered in private vehicles?

      Because they get used more. That wasn't the issue under discussion. I haven't disagreed that people use private vehicles more than public transport, merely with your assertion that public transport doesn't cover "85 - 90%" of destinations when it's patently ridiculous given at least half of the typical person's journeys are going to be between home and work, home and a shopping centre or home and school.

      Because private vehicles provide a service which rail simply cannot for the overwhelming majority.

      Firstly, public transport isn't just rail - at the very least it's buses as well (and I'd also include taxis, personally). While it may be true that public transport cannot deliver a service for the majority - although I find it hard to believe in light of the evidence - your evidence doesn't offer any support for that opinion.

      Instead of spouting transport dogma at me perhaps you might want to actually find out the real stats, hell, look at the numbers for Sidney. You'll find that yes, like elsewhere 85% to 90% of passenger miles and journeys are made by private vehicles and you'll find that there are very good reasons that 85% to 90% of journeys and passenger miles are not and cannot be made by rail.

      Great. What is that reason ? It's certainly not because public transport doesn't have decent coverage of the most common destinations, as any set of route maps will tell you. Heck, in somewhere like Paris the typical distance from any given point to a Metro station is less than 500 metres, so the "coverage" argument is a non-starter.

      I'd hazard a guess it's because people are irrational (but a car gives me teh freedoms) and lazy (500m to the nearest bus stop and another 500m at the other end ? When the garage and work car park are 20m away ?).

      I've done the research for myself and am satisfied that I'm right, I frankly can't be arsed doing the research again for you, you have been pointed in the right direction. Feel free to continue with your delusion, or enlighten yourself, I care not.

      I've done the maths for both myself and other people. Public transport (+ car rental when required) is easily the cheaper transport option to a private vehicle for the average person living and working within about a 30km radius from the centre of Sydney. My decision to start regularly using public transport was purely one of economics (it's cheaper) and productivity (I can actually do something useful and/or interesting while I'm on the train or bus for half an hour), it had nothing to do with "dogma" and it certainly isn't "delusional". While I have no doubt they exist, I haven't met anyone else for which the same maths don't apply.

      Data about passenger miles travelled isn't even close to "the right direction" for determining _why_ people don't use public transport. It merely tells you that they aren't, it doesn't have anything to say about the reasons.

    17. Re:Mass transit is useless for 90% of journeys by ccp · · Score: 1

      The link quoted was simply the only table which includes all of the countries passenger mile journeys in the one place.

      That's not the point. The point is that the data doesn't offer even a shred of support for your assertion about *why* people don't use public transport. It only supports the assertion that they don't (something I have not disagreed with).

      Exactly. You're right, and the other guy is just dancing around your point, being left without a coherent argument.
      TKO, I'd say.

      Cheers,
      CC
  37. Dear kdawson, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Em dashes are NOT drop-in replacements for colons. You should be using a COLON, not an EM DASH, in the title. Please stop making this mistake. Thanks.

  38. Samsung does something similar by sangmin · · Score: 1

    they don't have as high-tech a system as Google but they do provide transportation.
    Samsung's research centers are mostly based in Suwon, which is about an hour south from Seoul.
    so, they provide buses in the mornings for people coming to work and in the evenings
    for those leaving for not just Seoul, but other places near Suwon as well..

    i should also say that this practice is also common with the other big companies in
    Korea (e.g. LG and Hyundai).

    1. Re:Samsung does something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is wireless connectivity available in those buses? that's of huge important point here. :-)

  39. Uhm, who said it was... by vio · · Score: 1

    No one said it was the first, article simply talks about how popular this service in particular seems to be at Google (and how it may very well be the biggest service of its type anywhere, but no proof is offered).

    Sheesh, someone is defensive :-)

  40. Re:Cost Cutting - Business Judgment Rule by triclipse · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Google is a corporation. The corporation is run by its Board of Directors. The decision to use transport such as this is protected by the Business Judgment Rule. In other words, unless the Board Members are violating their duty of care or duty of loyalty to Google's owners (shareholders), then no, the shareholders can't do anything beyond suggesting to the Board that this is not he best way to run the company. A "court "will not substitute its own notions of what is or is not sound business judgment."

    As someone else note, Google's owners own 100% of the company - I believe you meant "founders" or perhaps "directors."

    --
    No Inflation Taxation without Representation
  41. In My Country by xrayspx · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is problem...

    Sorry.

  42. It's the way shared transit should be by squarooticus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the way shared transit should be: discriminatory.

    Part of the reason I hate public transit is the other people on the bus/train/plane with me: there are the ones who smell, the ones who talk to themselves, the ones who start ranting, the ones who panhandle, and the ones who won't fucking shut up and let me read.

    If you discriminate on the basis of employment, you are likely to eliminate most of these bad behaviors, maybe with the exception of the ones who talk to themselves. Oh, and maybe smelling, depending on how many engineers there are on the bus. :)

    In all seriousness, though, this makes the concept of shared transit palatable. I stopped taking the commuter rail after an incident in which a strung-out druggie was "escorted" off the train at the cost of over an hour. And you know what? Because it's public transit, that same person can get back on the train and cause problems the very next time she is freed from jail/rehab again.

    Forget how you've been brainwashed. Discrimination on some criteria is good.

    Finally, I should throw in a point about how this transit is entirely voluntary. There is no robbery (i.e., taxation) involved in paying for it. Google does it because they have determined that it is probably making them more profitable. If the experiment succeeds, other tech companies will probably start doing the same thing, perhaps even combining efforts. And it doesn't cost me a penny that I don't choose to spend. Contrast this with public transit in Boston, for instance, where the fare pays only 1/4 of the actual cost of the system, the rest being stolen from the taxpayers of Boston, Massachusetts, and the rest of the US (in decreasing degrees) at the point of a gun.

    --
    [ home ]
    1. Re:It's the way shared transit should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for allowing to see clearly through my brainwashing! I see now that as a society, we should try to restrict people who smell, use illegal drugs or talk to themselves as much as possible, even to the point of disallowing them access to public transit, effectively making it very difficult for them to move around.

      This system - when extrapolated to everyday life as a whole - makes life quite pleasant for people of high social class by allowing them to entirely avoid seeing strange and disturbing people from the lower rungs of the ladder. Let's immediately start having certain kinds of people gently nudged towards appropriately separated seating in, say, the back of the buses: an explicitly classist society is the future! Curiously, it is somewhat reminiscent of the past.

    2. Re:It's the way shared transit should be by squarooticus · · Score: 1

      If discrimination isn't backed up by the threat of force---which of course Jim Crow laws were---then those discriminated against have no standing to complain. Just because I don't let you play in my private sandbox doesn't give you the right to force your way in. That's what private property is for, and what freedom of association means.

      --
      [ home ]
    3. Re:It's the way shared transit should be by lorcha · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason I hate public transit is the other people on the bus/train/plane with me: there are the ones who smell, the ones who talk to themselves, the ones who start ranting, the ones who panhandle, and the ones who won't fucking shut up and let me read.
      I dunno, I ride the DC Metro to and from work each day, and I have never had anybody disturb me in the ways you mentioned.

      I did the same in San Jose as well as New York and also was never disturbed. Actually, I take that back, every so often, someone would panhandle on the New York subway, but never agressively.

      If you have such issues, perhaps you should just discontinue bathing and begin speaking to yourself. People should leave you alone. Or you could just be honest with people: "You know, it's truly fascinating to hear how your cat Jameson licked his left testicle last night instead of his usual right testicle, but it turns out I have to read this book by Friday for a class, so I'm going to have to get back to it now. I'm truly very sorry."
      --
      "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
    4. Re:It's the way shared transit should be by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Here's discrimination for ya... if you fuck with the people on the Google shuttle, chances are you won't be working for Google tomorrow.

      I don't know how you'd get the same kind of effect from a public transport system.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:It's the way shared transit should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I agree. The first fuckers we should discriminate against are stupid cunts who put dancing bananas on their fucking web pages. Second group we should discriminate against are fucking Volvo drivers. Go lick Ayn Rand's dessicated cunt.

    6. Re:It's the way shared transit should be by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to uphold your end of the social contract "at the point of a gun," have fun living in a shack in the middle of the woods with no human contact.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    7. Re:It's the way shared transit should be by squarooticus · · Score: 1
      --
      [ home ]
  43. Layoffs . . . Re:Why not Google Housing? by mrs+clear+plastic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This reminds me of a dream that I had one night soon after starting a job in a large company. . .

    I dreamt that I was working for a company that had a beautiful campus high on a mountain overlooking this really beautiful city.

    We each had a nice room, but we spent the vast majority of our time in the large and wonderfully appointed community rooms such as the dining room, the living rooms, the outside pool and tennis courts, and the very well appointed basement workshop.

    We lived like a large family with the same people whom we worked with and it was very cozy and harmonious.

    Then I started to feel very lonely. No one wanted to talk with me and they moved to the other side of the huge dining room table during the community dinner. The treated me like a leper.

    In the workshop, my projects were being sabotaged and people started to get very mean to me and blaming me for lost tools and broken equipment.

    Then I found myself alone in this large forlorn place on a gloomy day with no one else at all around except for the house staff, who were treating me as a tresspasser rather than a member of the community.

    I remember walking out of the huge castle and turning around and finding the castle gone; nothing but a barren hilltop on a cold, nasty day.

    A soggy newspaper lay on the broken sidewalk in front of me. One word.

    Layoffs.

    I awoke sweating and in tears. It took me a while to realize where I was.

    Yes, I work for a large company.

    But I also maintain a strong community that has nothing to do with work. If I lose my job. I only lose my job. I still have my community.

    This dream has tought me to be very carefull and not let myself get to 'entrenched' with work. Sure, we have clubs and recreational facilities, but I have refrained from joining them. I keep my work and my social life separate.

    When I got laid off from Boeing, this practice paid off very well. I only lost my job. I did not lose my 'mansion in the sky'.

    Most respectfully years . . .

    --
    Cleara
  44. Tired of google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people is tired of reading trivial and irrelevant news about every single thing that google does.

  45. If they only paid more... by bangzilla · · Score: 1

    Google engineers have to bus to work because they can't afford housing close to their offices. (yes - I'm sure some choose to live in the city for the nightlife etc). For those that would love to walk to work that option is not on the table. Google doesn't pay their staff well enough to live close to their offices if they so choose. House prices in the valley contine to bloat. Living in communities where the housing is much less expensive is a reality for many Google and indeed other, high tech workers.

    --
    Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
  46. I get motion sick when using my laptop on shuttles by cshay · · Score: 1

    .... but not on the train. So it is Caltrain for me. Now if Caltrain could just enforce a "quiet car" to keep the cell phone yackers in their own ghetto, I would be home free.

  47. Wow, I guess I'm the only one by truth_revealed · · Score: 1

    who does not give a shit about how Google employees go to work, are fed or have their asses wiped for them. I thought this Slashdot was a tech blog, not Entertainment Tonight. All this Google gushing is getting tedious.

    Maybe people just want to be reminded that some vestiges of March 2000 still exist?

    Offtopic - my slashdot posting image confirmation word was "offshore" - should I be concerned?

    1. Re:Wow, I guess I'm the only one by putaro · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm still trying to figure out what all those people at Google are *doing*. There seems to be an awful lot of people working there and not much to show for it. For what they're showing right now 500 people would be more than enough.

    2. Re:Wow, I guess I'm the only one by Melfina · · Score: 1
      --
      :3 rawr.
    3. Re:Wow, I guess I'm the only one by putaro · · Score: 1

      So on the "more" page there's a total of 39 things listed, half of which are re-uses of the search engine and most of which don't make any money. Google is currently employing about 8000 people. So, 200 people per product? Google is seriously bloated. Just wait until they hit a cash crunch and watch the heads start to fly.

    4. Re:Wow, I guess I'm the only one by Melfina · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm sure some of those 8,000 are in development, marketing, administration... Then you have to worry about in-house techs, people to manage their servers, handle the media, ect. Granted, most of the stuff listed in the labs are all side projects started by one or two employees, but it does take a lot of people to manage all those projects...

      8,000 sounds like a bit much, but I don't run a billion dollar company so maybe it's the right amount...

      --
      :3 rawr.
  48. Some expert. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

    If one bothers to check, Disney World, Rutgers University, Ohio State, several of the Six Flags and several industrial parks all have larger private transportation systems. What, was he guessing?

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  49. then employers don't want you by chrwei · · Score: 1

    I want to work my 40-45 hours a week, then go home and forget about work completely.

    That attitude might be fine for a factory job where you push a button a couple hundred times a day and just make sure the machine you operate keeps doing its thing, but in the tech field employers want your brain. They want you to love working for them, to love what you do, to think about it as much as possible. Your boss wants to hear things like "when I was trying to go to sleep last night I had a great idea for the project" and they at least want to think they are giving you something more than just a paycheck so that you won't leave for some other slightly larger paycheck. They want you to like being there and to look forward to coming back. Even if you do an adequate job, if you are a clock puncher then you are first to go when times get tough.

    --
    - Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
  50. Also obligatory by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

    That's freedom benefits, terrorist.

  51. Why "Americans" hate public transport. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Amen to that. Alas, Americans think mass transit is evil.

    Here's the thing with mass transit. I've lived in a variety of areas, from honestly rural (and I don't mean exurban, I mean rural), to highrise ferret cages, and most of the opposition to mass transit is in the suburbs or low-density urban areas.

    The objection is pretty simple: if you bring mass transit into an area, it decreases the cost of living, because it no longer means you need to own a car. That means more people, particularly low-income people who might consume more services than they pay in (local) taxes, and thus it's a Bad Thing. There's also a lot of latent racism tied up in it, too, particularly if you have predominantly white suburbs lying outside urban areas with substantial non-white populations. But in my experience the racial influence is somewhat overstated; I'd say the single biggest factor that really scares suburbanites is that public transport will bring out young, low-income families who will overtax the public school systems (which as anyone who's lived in one of these places can attest to, are the centers of political and social power). Any proposal that might somehow negatively impact schools is a No-Go.

    I've seen suburban and exurban 'bedroom communities' fight absolutely tooth and nail to keep out bus services, in particular. (Rail services seem to engender less opposition -- perhaps because you generally still need a car in order to get to the train station, so therefore it's less offensive.) Until you've seen one of these disputes in person, it's tough to appreciate the tenacity with which people will fight what seems at first glance to be a common-sense, win-win proposal. I've seen people pitch absolutely brilliant transportation schemes at local town council meetings, without realizing the minefield they were walking into, and that they were doomed from the beginning by factors essentially outside their control.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Why "Americans" hate public transport. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is why "Americans" hate mass transit and public transport, it is social engineering at its worst. Transit social engineering by overlords

  52. Anyone have a link to a Google Shuttle route map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep hearing about all these "stops" in SF. But have never seen a map and can't find one when I use Google to search.....

  53. They're not helping by The+Man · · Score: 1

    While I understand the desire (and business need) to offer your employees perks and benefits in a competitive marketplace, Google could do a lot more for the world without hurting themselves at all by instead encouraging the development of self-funding and self-sustaining public transit. Every Google shuttle adds unnecessary pollution and congestion; its employees ought to be on Caltrain instead. If that's not meeting their needs, Google should be pressing for improvements, not building its own less efficient system instead. And let's not forget that the quest for cheap real estate that has so many companies on bay-adjacent fill instead of in city centers has made existing transit networks that much less efficient (and thus raised other costs for those same real-estate savers and clogged hwy 101 with their employees' cars). It's certainly better for everyone that Google offers buses instead of insisting that everyone drive a car, but the real answer is denser cities and superior public transit. Anything that delays achievement of those objectives by papering over the problem will only make the eventual adjustments that much more painful.

    1. Re:They're not helping by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Google could do a lot more for the world without hurting themselves at all by instead encouraging the development of self-funding and self-sustaining public transit.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most or all public transit systems subsidized, and thus not self-sustaining?

      If that's not meeting their needs, Google should be pressing for improvements, not building its own less efficient system instead.

      What makes you think their system is less efficient? When you think efficiency, who wins: government, or Google? :)

      but the real answer is denser cities and superior public transit.

      When they have alternatives, people don't want to live in dense cities and use public transit. So, you want to force them to?

    2. Re:They're not helping by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Hasn't he heard the Weird Al song "Another One Rides the Bus"? That song was so funny because it's so true. I don't want to ride next to a bunch of smelly freaks every day. Hell, if I had my way (which I may in 5-10 years), I'd live in the boonies, do contract jobs at home, and order all my stuff from Amazon and Newegg instead of dealing with retail stores.

  54. No lie by melted · · Score: 1

    Just come to work at 10AM and leave after 7PM like I did. You'll experience much lighter traffic. Folks who complain about traffic are the ones who leave at 5PM. Certainly this doesn't compare to the gridlock they have in California.

    1. Re:No lie by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Leave after 7pm? No, I'll pass - not with my being in Tacoma for now. I don't think my wife would appreciate. I leave work at 5 (well, actually, at MSFT I get in around 9-9.30, and am first in my team there, and leave around 4, 4.30), so I have a life I can bitch about traffic on.

    2. Re:No lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about that...my experiences driving the San Diego Freeway in and around rush hour have been uniformly more pleasant than my trips down the south half of the Renton Freeway (I-405 in Seattle). Though I'll say I avoided the worst bits of the SDF on the Westside like the plague: in Orange County, however, it's not that bad.

      However, SoCal has at least made an honest effort to fix their freeways: in Washington the people preaching the anti-freeway litany managed to get WSDOT compelled to sell the right-of-way on exactly that part of Seattle's roads. So work they could have started on 10 years ago will not be done for another 15 and at grossly inflated cost.

  55. Resurrecting what you used to have? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Providing parallel services to the public sector - now that's interesting. I wonder if one day it will become the de facto public bus service? Like the ones you guys used to have until the big oil companies put pressure on them to get you all into individual autos?

  56. nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    free transport for employees is nothing new. india's IT companies like Infosys, Syntel, TCS, Wipro etc have been doing this for long time..

  57. An example of penny wise pound foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you come in to work with a cold. You're not 100%. Maybe 90%.

    You now infect twenty other people directly. Who then turn out to be no longer 100% but maybe 90%.

    Your company now lost more than if they'd told you to stay at home until you're better.

    The only thing your company should be doing is working out if someone is gaming the system and if it's worth the cost: it may be better to just fire them, give them severance pay and stick with that occasional loss than the smaller but continuous drain of policing illness (or letting the minority game the system without consequences).

    1. Re:An example of penny wise pound foolish by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this isn't fair either. If I'm a healthy person who doesn't get sick often, why should I have to go to work more than someone else who has poor health? If I'm allowed 10 sick days per year, why shouldn't I get to take them even if I don't get sick? Of course, if we did that, we might as well just call them vacation days. And then people will want to save those for a real vacation, and come to work sick.

      Face it, there is no good solution to this problem, other than to have combined sick/vacation days and suffer with mildly sick people coming to work. This seems to be what most companies are doing these days, for good reason.

  58. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's independent then they won't necessarily do what Google needs doing. By paying for their own transit, they get to run the busses when needed for work (staggered shifts) and leave them parked when not (night or midday).

  59. Throw the jew down the well! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my country there is problem
    And that problem is transport

  60. Well said by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

    I'm J. W. Booth and I approve this message.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  61. Google Arcology (IKEA?) by StCredZero · · Score: 1

    Googarcology?

    Arcology As in the Niven/Pournelle novel Oath of Fealty.

    Other companies and organizations are going this way -- putting more and more things onsite because of traffic problems. The Houston IKEA has daycare and a cafe. Churches are getting exercise facilities and cafeterias.

    How about an IKEA Arcology? IKEAcology?

  62. Organized stalking by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

    http://slashdot.org/~The+PS3+Will+Fail
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226086&cid=183 10776

    http://slashdot.org/~heinousjay
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226086&cid=183 12804

    Both of you reference medication presumptuously--as if to create a public image that is tarnished by a need for medication. What's your connection together? Are the two of you butt-banging homo friends?

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:Organized stalking by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      I presume that whatever mental incapacity is causing these paranoid delusions would be fixed by proper medication. My sex life doesn't have much to do with it, I'm afraid.

      Fortunately, I don't attach a stigma to mental illness. That doesn't mean I like seeing it untreated, however.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  63. Lake Effect by McNally · · Score: 1

    Like other cities near the Great Lakes, Toronto's temperatures are affected substantially by the large body of water sitting nearby, which absorbs heat in the summertime and sheds it in the winter..

    In this case, in the first part of the winter season (which includes Christmas) while the lake is still cooling, temperatures are warmer than they would otherwise be. The effect is quite noticeable, and tends to diminish rapidly with distance from the lakefront. If/when the temperature drops low enough and the water cools enough that ice forms on Lake Ontario, the moderating affect of the water is pretty much negated, at which point temperatures drop considerably.

    -25C would be unusually cold for Toronto, but not at all farfetched during a cold snap in the latter half of the winter. I guess what I'm saying is: don't judge Great Lakes winters by Christmastime weather, as the lakes have a noticeable effect on warming and cooling and at that point in the season the lakes are still shedding heat.

    That said, northern Manitoba wins the winter pissing contest (note: actual pissing not recommended outdoors in -55C weather.)

    1. Re:Lake Effect by geobeck · · Score: 1

      (note: actual pissing not recommended outdoors in -55C weather.)

      Been there, done that, got the rather painful frostbite. When your sanitary plumbing consists of an outhouse, you have little choice. Just remember to think warm thoughts to avoid freezing your butt to the seat.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  64. This shouldn't be needed... by bensch128 · · Score: 1

    If they ever finish BART and actually circulled the bay area with high-speed rail service.
    But considering the price of real estate now, I doubt that any of the super-rich
    "I don't believe in giving a single cent to the common good" types that live in 50% of the bay area will go for it.
    I mean, Richmond opposed letting BART run over the top of the Bay and now it's very difficult+expensive to drive there and back.
    I got shit of the driving (even carpooling sucked) from SF to Cupertino and back each day. I maynot move back until there's a couple of funding bills for decent rail service in Bay Area.

    Ben

  65. Obnoxious, sure, but "social engineering"? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Here is why "Americans" hate mass transit and public transport, it is social engineering at its worst. Transit social engineering by overlords [umn.edu]


    I don't get it. Okay, so bus-wrapping is annoying, in that it blocks riders' views out the window, but I'm not quite sure how it counts as "social engineering."

    There are certainly examples of situations where public-transport has been used as social engineering -- I know of a few places where public transportation was brought into select areas primarily as a way of getting low-wage employees to politically powerful businesses that didn't want to pay the prevailing wages in that area (which was high due to the requirement that everyone have a car). This isn't anything terribly new, though; it's your basic political-manipulation-for-profit-maximization that's gone on in various forms probably since the dawn of 'politics.'

    Various forced-"diversification" via school-busing arrangements would also qualify, in my mind, as 'social engineering,' although school buses aren't 'public transport' as most people would define it.

    Either way, I'm not sure I understand the advertising angle. Most places that I've heard of, which have tried bus- or train-wrap advertising, are doing it as an additional revenue generator, in order to supplement tax dollars and maintain mandated artificially-low ticket prices.
    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."