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."

29 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. It's called insurance, right? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Informative

    My company offers insurance benefits too, but they don't pay all of the cost.

    1. Re:It's called insurance, right? by vandelais · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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'.
    2. Re:It's called insurance, right? by quarkscat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I worked for a time for a multinational company that offered free health insurance. The company was so cash-rich that they self-insured for that coverage, with an umbrella policy for outside insurance for catastrophic (major medical) coverage. The other nations that they had a corporate presence in had socialized medicine (Canada & Britain), and they wanted all their employees to share similar benefits. It made it rather simple accounting-wise to shift employees from one country to another for short & longish term projects. I rather doubt that they have the same benefit package today - that was nearly 20 years ago, and in the USA medical costs have skyrocketed by over 1,000 percent. Self-insurance saved this company a lot of money.

      This is basically what Google is doing with term life insurance, except that the $20 per month they charge sounds rather stingy in comparison, actuarially speaking, considering the average age of Google's employees.

    3. Re:It's called insurance, right? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Please, god, does this mean we've reached the low ebb of the benefit-slashing trend?

      Of course not silly.

      "Remember, when things are looking as dark as possible, they usually get considerably worse"

      (RAH paraphrased)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:It's called insurance, right? by Surt · · Score: 2

      It means google is competing in the most intense job market in the world (silicon valley), where benefits and pay are both on a steady upward spiral that has most of the people in the area earning 4 times the national average (~160K vs ~40k). They are boosting both to keep employees from defecting to startups or competitors. And so are the startups and competitors.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:It's called insurance, right? by symbolset · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How did I know that someone would be here hating on Google even for this.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    6. Re:It's called insurance, right? by edumacator · · Score: 2

      Let me get this straight. This is worse than insurance because you have to pay taxes on it right?

      So you only get a large portion of the generous benefit that is rarely offered by other employers.

      Those bastards.

    7. Re:It's called insurance, right? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:It's called insurance, right? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 2

      100$ taxable at even 50% is still more than 0$ non-taxable.

      So, what google is doing is amazing. This is ON TOP of any life insurance the employee might have afterall!

  2. mere life insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:mere life insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google also has a life insurance policy that's provided for free. This is in addition to that.

    2. Re:mere life insurance by canadian_right · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most life insurance is a one time payment. You can invest it, but generally it would not provide 50% of your salary for 10 years. I would call it a small pension.

      Typical company life insurance is double your current salary paid in one lump sum. Ten years at 50% is five times your salary.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  3. Term Life Insurance by Stickerboy · · Score: 2

    That's subsidized by the company. Is this really news? It's also not what most financial advisors tell you to get from full coverage if you purchase your own, either. Standard is 10 years of full salary - a Googler can always purchase more to make up the difference.

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Term Life Insurance by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is a big deal because it says 'Google' on it. I tried writing 'Google' on my garbage and people lined up to get a beta invitation.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  4. Sort of normal here in EU... by curious.corn · · Score: 3, Funny

    and it's part of social security here (of course you get to pay a couple EURs a month for the privilege). But I guess this over-the-top socialist expropriation of financial assets doesn't resonate with the you folks across the ocean... but it does qualify for a good bullet point in the "benefits" employment contract section. Yep, us european are decadent spoilt brats... :P

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    1. Re:Sort of normal here in EU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:What about after that decade? by tomhath · · Score: 2

    This is life insurance. I assume Google also offers a retirement package, but that's different.

  6. "people related to Google employees" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Like many people, I too wonder what happens after death, even to Google employees. Do they go to Heaven or Hell? Do they get uploaded to the web? Do they just expire? Inquiring minds want to know.

    One thing is for sure, the dead people don't get money from Google because Google is giving that money to someone else.

    1. Re:"people related to Google employees" by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      Working at Google, their every thought and every move has been recorded and their precise physical appearance and capabilities have been recored from photographs. Once GoogleYou is perfected, they will be able to reconstruct the dead employees' personalities and download them into new robotic bodies. The GoogleYou replacement will be programmed to never even know you were dead.

  7. Self-insured, or employee life insurance policies by MDMurphy · · Score: 2

    Google could have this benefit in lieu of paying for policies that pay a multiple of the annual salary like some other companies have. Or they could have policies on the employees that pay Google 10x the salary and they're sharing 50% of that as the as the primary benefit, the remainder funding the benefits for children that carry on until they're 19 (or 23)

    What's interesting is that the article says the 50% pay benefit is for spouses or domestic partners, doesn't mentioned beneficiaries. If that's accurate then single employees don't have the same benefit paid out to anyone. That would be different than an insurance policy where you can designate the recipient. The article says that this company benefit would apply to most of their 34k employees, but that would only be the case if most of the employees had partners and/or children.

  8. That's a good benefit, but not unheard of... by TheRedSeven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's essentially a company-paid life insurance policy of 5x annual salary (slightly less, actually, since it's annuitized). When I worked as a call center grunt shortly out of college, we were given a 1x annual salary term life insurance policy paid for by the company. With an option of paying something like $0.35/month for 3x annual salary term life insurance.

    This is really not the crazy-off-the-wall benefit that it's being made out to be. It's good, to be sure, but not unheard of.

  9. What Happens To Google Employees When They Die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Recommended to the spirit in the sky...

  10. Re:Higher salaries would make more sense by tomhath · · Score: 2

    It makes sense for several reasons. First, group insurance rates are lower than what a person would get individually. Second, it's such a good idea for most people that it makes sense to ensure everyone has it. There might also be tax advantages, and apparently Google is trying to get some good PR too.

    Making healthcare and pension pre-tax encourages employers to offer them, which is good for society in the long run. I wouldn't call them subsidies, but I suppose if you think the government should provide everything cradle to grave you could view it that way.

  11. Re:Higher salaries would make more sense by just_a_monkey · · Score: 2

    Or rather they are cheaper for low-risk groups. And Google employees are young (but not too young), well-educated, eat healthy foods from the Google Cafeteria, work out on office time in the office gym, and never drive their Priuses over the speed limit. That's got to be one of the lowest risk groups in the world.

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  12. Average employee age by hierofalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Average employee age by swillden · · Score: 2

      You'd be surprised. One of the most pleasant discoveries I made when I joined Google (at age 41) was that I work with a lot of guys with gray hair. There are a fair number of kids straight out of school, but out of my 50-person extended team, there are at least a dozen of us in our 40s, a handful in their 50s and a couple of people in their 60s. The median age is probably in the late 30s.

      What is kind of odd is that most of the "senior" engineers in the company are people who joined the company early when it only hired straight out of school, nearly all of the senior technical people I work with are in their 30s. Further, since all engineering managers at Google are former engineers, nearly all of them are young as well. In fact, if you look up my management chain, I'm older than my manager, who is older than his manager, who may be older than her manager. I believe I'm older than every person above me, actually, including Larry Page. But nobody cares; Google is as close to a pure meritocracy as I've ever seen.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  13. Most Americans leave barey enough to be buried. by charnov · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/end-of-life-financial-study-0803.html

    Most Americans die with less than $10,000 in assets. Typical life insurance pays less than $250,000 and hardly anything outside of government employees get pensions anymore. Even then, pensions aren't safe as several have been wiped out due to the 2008 stock market crash or through bankruptcy. 401k personal retirement funds are the norm or most people and they have tax benefits along with 25% - 100% matching funds from your employer but more and more people either cannot afford to pay into them or are actively borrowing against them. After 2 years of unemployment, my 401k is empty.

    I am 40, employed with a very shaky job at $35k less than I was making before and no retirement, no health care, and am racking up debt to pay for more college as I try to get a masters degree to be more employable. My plan is to GTFO of the US and go some place where quality of life is the focus and not on corporate profits... Mars, maybe?

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  14. Re:Higher salaries would make more sense by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Making healthcare and pension pre-tax encourages employers to offer them, which is good for society in the long run.

    Is it really good for society? My company has a 401k pension plan with an employer match. Nearly all well-paid employees participate, and basically quadruple their money (the match doubles it, the tax break roughly doubles it again). But the warehouse crew and other low paid employees participate at a much lower rate, or participate for a while and then drop out and withdraw all their money so they can pay 75% in penalties and use the other 25% to buy a big screen TV or whatever. When they drop out, their unvested matching money is distributed to the other (mostly high salaried) participants. As far as I can see, our 401k plan is just a scheme for tax dollars to go into the pockets of relatively well-off people. The vesting requirement also coerces people into sticking with an unhappy job, instead of seeking other alternatives where they may be happier and more productive.

    I am not sure employer funded healthcare is good for society either. If individuals pay for their own care, they have a clear incentive to balance costs and benefits. If the government pays for healthcare, they have the incentive and power to control costs as well. But individual businesses have little power over insurance companies, and when an employee goes to a doctor, the employee has little concern for cost. So we get medical cost inflation that is double the CPI.

    During the communist days in China, each factory would run their own schools for the children of their workers. If you changed jobs, and started working at a different factory, your kids had to change schools. That seems insane to us, but does it really make any more sense for your employer to choose your doctor or life insurance?

  15. Yep by goldcd · · Score: 2

    I think my missus gets 3.5x my salary as a lump sum.
    Makes me wonder when I see she has "innocently" abandoned a pair of her shoes at the top of the stairs..