Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet The Almighty Buck

Google Rewards Employees With Millions 384

Posted by CmdrTaco from the wish-my-boss-did-that dept.
iseff writes "According to News.com, the Google guys created a program in November which rewards employees for outstanding achievements. The program gives the possibility of millions of dollars of stock to teams who perform great work. The goal of the program, according to Brin, is two-fold. First, it allows the company to reward 'genius', or whatever they see as genius. And second, it allows them to continue to hire all sorts of employees. According to the article, they believe that a recent grad who would like to work in a start-up will still be attracted to them because of the opportunity to create something great and be rewarded with millions (and without much of the risk associated with startups)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Rewards Employees With Millions More

Google Rewards Employees With Millions

Comments Filter:

  • So does that make these (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:31PM (#11544773)
    The First Annual Google Awards for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence?

  • Project: Retirement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Godling ( 42833 ) <gshippey.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:33PM (#11544802) Homepage
    The question is, if the money is a motivation, then when you get your first multi-million dollar project bonus, you retire.

    Alternately, you're in it for the love of the game and no amount of money will make you quit. But then what's the motivation?

    • Re:Project: Retirement (Score:5, Funny)

      by evilmousse ( 798341 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:40PM (#11544903) Journal

      file that under 'problems i'd like to have'.
      what keeps hugh hefner hard?

    • Re:Project: Retirement (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:42PM (#11544924)
      Options don't become stock immediately. Really, we're talking retiring five years after your first multi-million dollar project bonus, so you can actually receive it (assuming the stock is still worth that then... of course, it could be worth even more... or nothing at all).

    • Re:Project: Retirement (Score:5, Insightful)

      by susano_otter ( 123650 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:44PM (#11544950) Homepage
      If I'm in it for the love of the game (and I am), then my motivation is to work for the company that rewards my love the most. Even lovers--especially lovers!--like to feel that their love is appreciated and requited. Google understands this. Rather than turning its high-performing lovers into bitter, cynical burnouts, Google is repaying their love every step of the way. And not just their love, but their hard work and long hours over many years--things that drain even the most devoted worker, and for which most companies give minimal compensation.

    • Re:Project: Retirement (Score:2, Informative)

      by Kombat ( 93720 )
      The question is, if the money is a motivation, then when you get your first multi-million dollar project bonus, you retire.

      RTFA.

      The first two Founders' Awards consisted of restricted stock that was worth $12 million when it was awarded in November to two teams of a dozen or so employees each.

      So $12 million was divided amongst roughly 24 people, or half a million each. That's not enough to retire on.

      The headline might imply that employees are getting "millions" each, but in actuality, a reward progr

      • Re:Project: Retirement (Score:5, Informative)

        by Skim123 ( 3322 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:50PM (#11545023) Homepage
        RTFA ... The headline might imply that employees are getting "millions" each, but in actuality, a reward program worht "millions" is being dispersed among dozens (hundreds?) of employees. I don't think any individual employees have been rewarded with an award worth "millions."

        RTFAATWT - that stands for RTFA All The Way Through. In fact, just read the first few paragraphs and you'd see [emphasis mine]:

        Brin ... said the shares were
        ****not**** divided evenly, but were distributed according to each individual's contribution. ****Some employees received millions of dollars in stock****, said Brin.
        • Dang! I even skimmed the rest of the article looking for mention of something like that. Oh well, I sit corrected. A few people (those who received multimillion dollar rewards) are set to retire, if they want.
    • The question is, if the money is a motivation, then when you get your first multi-million dollar project bonus, you retire.

      Alternately, you're in it for the love of the game and no amount of money will make you quit. But then what's the motivation?

      That's pretty Black and White. I am personally "in it for the love", and although money is not the end all, be all, it is still an incentive. Not implying that I am google employee.

    • Re:Project: Retirement (Score:4, Insightful)

      by daijo78 ( 783312 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:49PM (#11545010) Homepage
      Perhaps most are in it for the fun of it anyways. During the golden years the founder of one of the most successful startups here in Sweden said that once your employees get wealthy enough they will stop caring about the money and care more about where they can do the most interesting work. If it that benefits Google or not I have no idea:)
    • If you're a genius, are you able to retire? I've been labeled a genius several times- stock options are not worth the paper they are printed on no matter what the company is, and in the end, genius will get screwed by good liars in marketing EVERY time.

    • Re:Project: Retirement (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ehiris ( 214677 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @05:02PM (#11545193) Homepage
      People who have a million would want the second million.

      Consider that you work somewhere where you or a peer has never been rewarded with a high sum.
      Now consider that you work somewhere where you or a peer has been rewarded a high sum in the past.

      Where will the money reward motivate you more?

      I've never been motivated by money. The only motivation I have towards money is that if I don't make a certain sum, I can't pay my bills and I might have to live in the streets. So the motivation isn't the money, it is the fear that I would have to live in the street.

      Passion for what I do is what really motivates me and money is a reward which could probably be motivating but I know I will never make a high sum where I am now so why bother busting my ass for it?

    • Re:Project: Retirement (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 )
      Depends on who you hire.

      There is probably nobody who objects to being rewarded handsomely for their services.

      But there are some people people for whom geek karma is priceless.

      The trick is to find the people for whom the money simply validates the message.

  • Not fair I tell you. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:33PM (#11544804)
    This kind of thing unfairly punishes those of us who do a half assed job.

  • In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eln ( 21727 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:34PM (#11544814)
    Google swimming in post-IPO riches, doesn't know what to do with all that money.

    Seriously though, while giving such extravagant rewards is nice for those that get them, it can cause a lot of resentment among those who don't. It's one thing for someone whose idea is (in my mind) only marginally better, or maybe even worse, than mine to get a $2k bonus when I don't, but it's quite another for them to be suddenly set for life. The politics this sort of thing could create could get ugly.

    Also, there's the problem of attrition. Google is probably already going to be dealing with this issue soon, as many of their brightest engineers already have millions in stock options, but a company that has a lot of instant millionaires one day may end up with a lot of resignation letters the next.

    • Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tenareth ( 17013 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:40PM (#11544905) Homepage
      I love this in America... whatever you do don't reward the Great Performers, that's unfair because it makes me feel bad.

      Get over yourself, life will never be fair.

      Your post is exactly like the other guy that said it's unfair to those that do a half-assed job, the only difference is... he was actually making a joke, I'm very afraid you are being serious.

      • Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)

        by X43B ( 577258 )
        " I love this in America... whatever you do don't reward the Great Performers, that's unfair because it makes me feel bad."

        I agree with you that I'm sick of participation trophies and making everyone feel good about themselves, However, I think the original post had a point. They are giving awards out to teams. So say your job is to do some kind of support for one project and the guy next to you does the exact same job for some other project. His team has a genius on it and his idea becomes a major part
        • Do you come from some other planet? Don't be silly, the rewards will be for the development teams only. That doesn't include the desktop support guy, or the server support guy, or the guy who comes in to clean the toilets.

          • Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)

            by X43B ( 577258 )
            I don't want to get in a flame war with you, but by support I meant those who are not captain of the team, are not leadings its direction, and did not think of the idea. The world I come from is R&D where even in a development team of all PhD people there will be those that skate along doing little or the obligatory work that was not unique to why this project succeded.

      • Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jalefkowit ( 101585 )

        I love this in America... whatever you do don't reward the Great Performers, that's unfair because it makes me feel bad.

        Get over yourself, life will never be fair.

        It's not about whether life is "fair" or not. Showering vast riches on a small group of employees is just bad management, no matter how good their performance is.

        The reason is because you end up creating cliques within the company -- haves and have-nots. The have-nots resent the haves, so they spend their time plotting how to undermine

      • You're assuming managers reward fairly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by edremy ( 36408 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @05:08PM (#11545255) Journal
        At Google, this might actually be the case, but witness all the horror stories of bad management that get posted here.

        Try this scenario- you bust your ass 12 hours a day/7 days a week for a year to spec, design and code Wizzyfoo. It's awesome. It does some really neat things. Two weeks before it goes live, the company decides that Wizzyfoo just isn't compatible with the new direction the company is moving in. All your work is tossed in the bin and you're assigned to a new project. No bonus for you.

        Meanwhile, Bob across the aisle goofs off, posting meaningless replies at /. for most the day and goes golfing with the boss every weekend. Since he's got the ear of the boss, he manages to get a great looking demo before the suits, who decide to make it the new big thing. He gets the cash for the neat demo, even if there's nothing behind it and the product wouldn't work in reality.

        Would this happen at Google? Maybe not, but if you don't think similar happens everyday in industry you're blind. The suckups and losers get rewarded, the truly good get shuffled off since they're hard to deal with.

      • Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Yokaze ( 70883 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @05:50PM (#11545676)
        > I love this in America... whatever you do don't reward the Great Performers, that's unfair because it makes me feel bad.

        Actually, that isn't America. In comparison to other countries it awards Great Performers (whatever the market decides that is) quite outstandingly [huppi.com].
        Average CEO's pay as a multiple of an average
        worker's pay:

        United States 17.5
        United Kingdom 12.4
        Japan 11.6
        Canada 9.6
        Germany 6.5

        Size of Middle Class:

        Japan 90.0%
        Germany 70.1
        Canada 58.5
        United Kingdom 58.5
        United States 53.7
        Some people suggest, that there might be causal connection with the following table:
        Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)

        United States 221
        Canada 94
        United Kingdom 63
        Germany 47
        Japan 1
        Please note, before I am accused as communist, I don't want to force someone to pay someone less. I just want to suggest that the people think about it.

      • Re:In other news (Score:4, Interesting)

        by famebait ( 450028 ) on Wednesday February 02, 2005 @04:41AM (#11548963)
        I love this in America... whatever you do don't reward the Great Performers, that's unfair because it makes me feel bad.

        First of all, the parent didn't actually argue sypathy with the losers, it was a pragmatic argument about the net effect of such systems. There is some quite thorough research to show that the negative effects of bonus systems etc. can and often do more than offset the extra effort extracted (it may be possible to employ rewards well, but it is certainly not automatic). This may be less of a problem in this case though, since the stated goal was to attact startup-types, not to make your average office guy work harder. But ignoring the possibility as a matter of principle would be naïve and silly.

        Secondly: Umm, what planet do you live on, where democratic countries that spread the rewards less than America does are easy to find?

        You also, like many who argue laissez-faire capitalism, seem not to understand the concept of "degree". You make like it's either "winner takes all" or the straw man of not rewarding anything. I do understand the argument that if there is no reward people won't put in their best. I don't believe it's always quite that simple, but yeah, some dangling perks certainly can motivate at least some types of people. But sometimes it seems like you guys want me to believe that if the greatest realistic prospect was the get "just" a few thousand times richer than your neighbour, rather than, say, a billion times richer, everyone would just slack off all day. If you subscribe to that for even one second, you should be reminded in no uncertain terms that you are clearly working from conclusions and backwards, and not the other way around.
    • It would be like someone getting promoted and you not in any other job, but yes it would be a little more extreme. It may cause a few more hard feelings, however I don't think many people working there would want to go on a complaining rampage and danger any future million dollar possibilities. I think the chance of getting a million or more bucks would keep people in line.

      But yes, the problem of attrition is very real. If I just got out of engineering grad school and made a couple million in my first year

    • Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kindofblue ( 308225 )
      Totally agree. Not only that, but if you have one great idea and get millions, then you've got seed money to bankroll your next great idea. Then instead of getting a payoff of 10 more million, you could easily create another company and be worth 10x or 100x more. I think that if you're really smart, then you know how NOT smart your bosses are, i.e. the founders. If your founders are worth hundreds or thousands of millions (like the Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft founders), then you might still feel underva

  • Yay! But... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:35PM (#11544836)
    How long can they keep this up? They're a publically held company and eventually they're going to get entrenched like every other "smart" company. Then they quietly stop giving away millions and start selling their address lists...

    Even Ben and Jerry's had to drop its "no executive makes more than 10 times the lowest level employees salary" rule when Ben and Jerry looked for a new CEO.

    I'm all for stuff like this, but how do you sustain it over the long term?

  • Stock (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FullMetalAlchemist ( 811118 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:35PM (#11544837)
    Stock is actually a bit flakey, you can be rich as hell without having any money to buy food with; this happened to me a one point during the great boom.

    Sadly, now I got neither stock or money.

    Still, I bet it strengthen the employee commitment to the company, which is what they want.
  • Guess where all the 2010 dot-whatever venture capital is going to come from! This sounds so familiar - hope they keep it all connected to reality, and hire some financial consultants for their geniuses, who often turn out not to be when it involves things like stocks.
  • Google.. is there anything it can't do?

  • Set the Wayback Machine to 1999 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thparker ( 717240 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:37PM (#11544859) Homepage
    According to the article, they believe that a recent grad who would like to work in a start-up will still be attracted to them because of the opportunity to create something great and be rewarded with millions (and without much of the risk associated with startups).

    Without much of the risk because they're being paid "millions" -- on paper, in the form of Google stock? Some people never learn.

    (Oh, and kids, those "millions" are very likely to be taxable before you ever see a dime of cold hard cash. Enjoy!)

    • Yes, you would have to sell a percentage of them immediately to pay the taxes.

      That's why company's normally give options. They are not taxable until after you SELL the stock, and if you bought your options and were able to hold onto them for two years, you would then be able to sell them and only pay capital gains tax instead of income tax.

      I could be wrong about the two years, but It's something on that order.

      • From IRS.gov:
        Restricted stock is stock that you get from your employer for services you perform and that is nontransferable and subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. You do not have to include the value of the stock in your income when you receive it.
        You can elect to pay taxes on it, but who would?

        Me like tax. Tax laws fun.
    • Without much of the risk because they're being paid "millions" -- on paper, in the form of Google stock?

      I think he means "without the risk of the company evaporating". In other words, it's a stable job at a profitable company but you still have a shot at getting rich.

      • I think he means "without the risk of the company evaporating". In other words, it's a stable job at a profitable company but you still have a shot at getting rich.

        Thanks for the insight, but I understood what he meant. I just think the fact that a company that is less than 7 years old is considered an unsinkable behemoth whose good fortune is guaranteed is evidence that some folks are drinking the same Kool-Aid they were passing around in the late 90s.

        I'm not saying that Google is doomed, but to say th

  • What are the restrictions? (Score:4, Informative)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:37PM (#11544863) Homepage Journal
    It's restricted stock. Which probably means they can't sell before some point in the distant future. At that point, maybe it's worth millions, or maybe you can exchange it 1:1 for shares in Webvan. Who knows?
    • Who knows?

      Who knows indeed, I once saw a documentary about Apple. The guy who narated the show told a story of how he worked one summer for them when Jobs and Co. were still operating out of a garage. When he came for his pay at the end of the summer Jobs offered to pay him with shares in Apple but he held out for the money. I can only imagine how that guy is still kicking him self. The lesson is that sometimes Fortuna favors the bold.
      • Not really, that guy was paid the money he knew he'd be getting. Supposing Orange company tried that option. The guy working for Orange takes the stock, the stock crashes, and he winds up with a small fraction of the money he's owed.

        But that's really comparing apples and oranges.

        Sorry about that one.
      • or, that dude needed to pay rent and buy food. at the time, perhaps taking stocks as payment and risk not being able to pay the bills wasn't an option. the lesson is that sometimes, fortuna favors the bold, but, you still gotta' eat... so you do what you have to do.

        i'm just sayin'.

  • Just what we need (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ad0gg ( 594412 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:37PM (#11544868)
    More stock based incentives for employees. Didn't we learn from Enron, Worldcom or the dot com boom that stock base incentives causes people to do everything possible to raise the price of the stock including fraud and other dubious business practices. Why can't companies just give cash bonuses.

    • Re:Just what we need (Score:3, Informative)

      by jxyama ( 821091 )
      yeah, this is exactly what i thought. just because this is google doesn't make it immune from poisonous types who will do illegal things to satisfy their greed.
    • The issue at Enron was that the shell companies in which they hid their debt were collateralized with Enron stock. Therefore, they had to keep the stock propped up to keep the fraud going which necessitated additional fraud... Stock, per se, had nothing to do with it.

      Look at it this way -- do you think someone who would commit fraud to enhance the value of the options he received wouldn't commit fraud in order to get a cash bonus? I can tell you that the primary goal of all the financial misconduct I commit

    • on your balance sheet.

      Restricted stock shows up nowhere. CFO's like this a whole lot.

  • Firefox (Score:2, Interesting)

    by digitalgimpus ( 468277 )
    Now that Ben [slashdot.org] and Darin [slashdot.org] work for Google....

    doesn't firefox count as an "outstanding achievement" by any scope of the imagination?

  • Better than throwing it at execs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:37PM (#11544871)
    Hey, at least they are redirecting their hoarde of gold back at the people who generated it instead of the execs.

  • Stock, not stock options (Score:5, Informative)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:40PM (#11544900) Homepage Journal
    As I read the article, Google awarded *stock*, not stock options - and I find that significant.

    Rather than rewarding employees with paper that has no real value today (and which costs the company no real money today) and which might have value in the future, they are rewarding the employees with paper that has value today, and probably will have value in the future (as well as costing the company real money today).

    If that is the case, then kudos to Google.

    If the linked story is incorrect and this is nothing more than options - then I retract my kudos.

    • Re:Stock, not stock options (Score:5, Informative)

      by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:52PM (#11545056) Homepage Journal
      it's given out quarterly

      The stock vests in monthly increments over four years,

      FIRST LINE THIRD PARAGRAPH-from the linked story

    • I'm not certain of the details, but oftentimes when a company doles out restricted stock (the type mentioned in the article) there are rules about how long a time must pass before it can be sold. Remember when VA Linux went public? The initial founding folks got assloads of stock which was worth multiple millions when the stock took off on IPO day. However, they could not sell it for six months after the IPO. Well, by six months later [yahoo.com], the stock had gone from over $200/share to something around $25/shar

      • True, but you miss the point (Score:5, Informative)

        by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @05:13PM (#11545314) Homepage Journal
        True, a restricted stock may not be sold today. That is not my point.

        A stock option is normally issued at very nearly today's market price for a stock, and is nothing more than the guarantee that stock may be purchased at that price.

        If gasoline is $1.759 a gallon, and I offer you a piece of paper saying "I guarantee you can buy a gallon of gasoline from me for $1.759", how much is that paper worth right now.

        Nothing, as you can go to the gas station and buy that gas for that price without my paper.

        Now, if gas goes to $2.759 tomorrow, then that paper is worth $1.00.

        If the price of gas goes to $1.009 tomorrow (fat chance), then the paper has no value whatsoever.

        Now, if I give you a piece of paper that says "I guarantee you 1 gallon of gas" then that paper is worth $1.759 today. If gas goes to $1.00 a gallon, then it is STILL worth $1.00.

        And that is my point - that if Google is actually issuing stock, not options, then they are doing something unusual and worthy of respect.

  • Just when you thought... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:41PM (#11544915)
    Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the market...

    Bubble II

    Huge IPO.
    Massive employee benifits.
    Loads of hype.
    Money flowing all over the place.
    Zero profit.
    Unproven business strategy.

    Happy days are here again!

    When the next fake boom collapses sometime around 2009 or so, will we all blame President Hillary Clinton for it, the way we blamed Bush for the one in 2000? Will GWB strut around bragging about the "balanced budget" projections at the end of his term which were based on the overly-optimistic economic conditions in 2007? Will the SEC do all kinds of hand-waving, arrest a few dishonest accountants, and try to fool us all into thinking we are richer than we really are once again, while both government and personal debt continue to chronically swell up?

    Signs point to yes.
    • Zero profit at Google?

      Are you mad or just misinformed? [boston.com]
    • Of course, Google's been profitable for years... it was one of the first things they mentioned when they announced their intentions to go public.

    • Huge IPO.
      Massive employee benifits.
      Loads of hype.
      Money flowing all over the place.
      Zero profit.
      Unproven business strategy.

      Happy days are here again!

      When the next fake boom collapses sometime around 2009 or so...

      ...you learn from the last boom and when things are looking good you jump from "profitable company that isn't going anywhere" to "profitable company that isn't going anywhere" while they loose people to the start-ups and are trying to increase their salaries and benifits to match the start

      • Heh. Or you do like Mark Cuban, and ride the lightning just long enough to be filthy rich, then jump ship a year before everybody else does, buy whatever the worst basketball team in the NBA is at the moment, build them into winners while becoming enough of a celebrity to get your own reality show, and act like a total ass for the rest of your life.

        Hold that tiger! Hold that tiger! ...

    • A friend of mine, a fairly competent sales rep, started his own printing company a couple of years ago. I worked for him for a while doing pre-print and graphic design, but I couldn't hack it for very long, as he gave the reps he employed free rein. The company was a sales person paradise, perks, insanely high wages, they could say what they liked to whoever they liked. It was the kind of company my friend would have liked to work for, so thats what he built.

      Needless to say, that went under in about a yea

  • Thirdly.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:42PM (#11544922) Homepage Journal
    and most importantly, it will help these deserving geeks to attract beautiful women to themselves.

    • Re:Thirdly.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ralphclark ( 11346 )
      That is not just a funny remark. I find it extremely heartening that in a world still ruled by the ignorant, the warlike, the greedy, the hard-nosed etc - there will still be a few places where ordinary bright guys - who are *not* out to scam anyone - can make the bigtime and (most importantly) greatly improve their chances of reproductive success*. Maybe the human race won't die out just yet.

      *by reproductive success I mean (a) marry a more beautiful woman and thus have more beautful children which in turn

  • Help (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can someone help me forge my CV so that Google hire me?

  • What does this mean? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:48PM (#11545002) Homepage

    Is this anything new? At this point in time haven't most multi-billion dollar companies devised employee-incentive and bonus systems? Typically these systems are more downplayed though. It seems as if Google is doing a lot more waving of the carrot.

    This confuses me a little. Why wave the carrot more?

    Is the message that Google is prepared to pay *more* handsomely? Is employee retention difficult for Google? (Are they losing their good people to start-ups?) Is the message that Google is on the warpath for new ideas in the wake of Microsoft Search and therefore needs to wave the carrot more?

    Or could it be that there's a little post-IPO depression setting in over there? (Maybe the vibe is that the party is over and the payoffs that were going to happen, already did).

    Anyone?

    • Re:What does this mean? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ornil ( 33732 )
      My understanding is that they want more and better people (remember the billboard advertisements, google tests, contests, etc), not that they can't retain the ones they have already. They have high standards and the "very smart" employee pool is limited. So, I imagine, they want to poach from other big companies a little.

  • Buy Bricks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @04:56PM (#11545112) Homepage

    Google should learn from the past.

    The bubble taught us all a couple things: Internet companies are not inherently more profitable. They are certainly not a "new paradigm".

    Got cash in the bank? Ok, sure make acquisitions. But don't become a dot-bomb rollup. Buy brick and mortar companies too.

    Rewarding internal (essentially "dot-com") projects, is a bit like valuing dot com companies in an even *more* dangerous way: without the input of the marketplace.

    Seems a little scary.

    Lets hope they reward *profitable* internal projects. Not ones with "potential".

  • ...They make you jump through hoops and engage in pointless tests before they hire you to do some menial task.
    The genuinely talented people could potentially be turned off by these types of disrespectful hiring practices -- granted a lot of people want to work for google, but are the numerous interviews, tests, and other stupidity necessary?
    Either they want you- or they don't... why can't it be that simple?
    I guess it all makes sense when you aren't looking for employees- but people who will be comple
  • I like this idea better than the previous Belgian Waffle Card.

  • Ah the dotcom benefits (Score:3, Interesting)

    by snuf23 ( 182335 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @05:03PM (#11545199)
    During my stint at a dotcom we got some exciting perks! First off was free lunch. Now when the company was less than 20 employees the catered lunch was pretty damn good. Then the company grew and the lunch budget stayed the same, so it became cold cut sandwiches every day. And if you decided to venture out in the pursuit of something else to eat - you got dirty looks from management.
    Then there was the 3 month sabbatical program. Any employee who made their 5 year anniversary got to take a 3 month paid sabbatical. This was much hyped about in the local press - but then the company was only 2 years old at the time. I think one employee actually did get to take this - but the company exploded shortly after the five year mark.
    Or the basketball games on company time - much hyped again by the press as showing how the company cared about physical health of it's employees and didn't want them just sitting for 80 hours a week (how altruistic!). Well, those ended when someone mentioned that injuries while playing basketball on company time were a liability.
    On second thought, some Google stock doesn't sound too bad.
  • They're all true. But they're terminally depressing to those of us with bad jobs, or no job at all!
  • Makes me wish I was smart enough to work there.

Slashdot Top Deals

"...a most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!" -- _Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure_

Close