Slashdot Mirror
What Happens To Google Employees When They Die?
Hugh Pickens writes "Forbes Magazine reports that employee benefits of Google are among the best in the land—free haircuts, gourmet food, on-site doctors and high-tech "cleansing" toilets are among the most talked-about but the latest perk for Googlers extends into the afterlife. 'This might sound ridiculous,' says Google's Chief People Officer Laszlo Bock, 'But we've announced death benefits at Google.' Should a U.S. Googler pass away while under the employ of the 14-year old search giant, their surviving spouse or domestic partner will receive a check for 50% of their salary every year for the next decade. Even more surprising, a Google spokesperson confirms that there's 'no tenure requirement' for this benefit, meaning most of their 34 thousand Google employees qualify."
This is mere marketroid speak for life insurance.
My company, in the finanacial sector, subsidizes almost-free life insurance (~$20/month) that pays out 5x my salary - which is more or less 50% over tens years.
Had they need of attracting talent, they could swallow that lously $20 and just market it as FREE MONEY.
No, it's worse than insurance. The company pays, so it's taxable to the recipient.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
I'd suspect that the average age of an employee at Google or most tech companies is so low compared to the rest of the business world that they expect to rarely pay out anything. If most of their workforce were expected to stick around till retirement age and it would actually cost them significant bucks due to natural causes versus accidental causes, I doubt they would be offering this benefit.
Just my cynical 2c worth
Why should he not be proud? He has made the same promise to them, if they die he will contribute to the welfare of their husband or wife that is the deal they have made as a country, that is democracy what the people have decided.
Your system is only fair if life itself is already fair, IT IS NOT. Any system based on the assumption that people automatically get more if they are more talented and work harder is not only wrong but unjust and childish. There is a correlation but it is not exact, luck, privilege, crime, injury, and illness among others all play their part in ensuring this.
The question is not whether the system is perfect or fair but whether it is better and less unfair than the alternatives, how many good people on hard times will you let die to line your own pocket and keep the lazy from getting your support? How many lazy ass-holes is it worth supporting in order to support those who deserve it and how do we minimize the first without also minimizing the second?
If you want to argue that no support is more just than support payment in taxes then you need to understand the cost and justify it. Until you have an answer for the cost in dead children, dead hard working but unlucky adults, and starving grannies, as well as the wasted potential of those thousands who could have been more but were not allowed to be, AND a justification to match you should go argue somewhere with a more stupid audience.
How did I know that someone would be here hating on Google even for this.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It isn't google-hating to say that their shit smells. I admire a lot of what Google does, and I particularly admire their desire to innovate bleeding edge tech all over the place. But I also get tired of some of the stupid shit they pull. And although it doesn't affect me, this idea of offering glorified insurance to their employees strikes me as particularly dumb.
I'm into Android, and I am duly grateful that Google has created the only really open phone platform out there. But I'm pessimistic about its success because they keep totally redesigning the whole thing, because the development tools are barely beta quality, and because market fragmentation means you have to code for 2-year-old versions of the platform.
I'm grateful that Google exists, but I do wish they'd grow up already.