I partially agree with one of the changes introduced in the recent Basecamp change: I don’t think it’s the company’s business to decide how employees spend their money, so I’m not a fan of non-monetary benefits unless people explicitly opt in

Apr 27, 2021 · 5:19 AM UTC

5
30
Replying to @stilkov
In Belgium, these things are usually done because it avoids high taxes compared to giving the same amount as salary.
1
2
Same reason here in Germany (though they tax savings are usually very modest)
Replying to @stilkov
I second that. We do provide a weekly fitness coach for a run at lunch break and yoga in the evening as an unobtrusive offer (in non-pandemic times). Those who participate feel good and the majority won‘t get bugged. And it’s not too expensive to be an unfair spending.
1
Replying to @stilkov
Agree. And the rest: I’m as much surprised as many other people and I want to believe that’s just a badly written essay but then, they seem to be too smart for that. I’m not even annoyed by their management approach but that neutral stance. Neutral isn’t gonna cut it anymore.
2
11
Replying to @stilkov
I started that way, but the more I think about... Mostly it's done like this as the employer pays less negotiating a deal for many staff, it may have tax breaks on both sides as well. Where is the line - maternity benefits? It's likely disproportionately favouring white males.
Replying to @stilkov
My general policy is to be happy to work towards anything that includes tax breaks (to make it easily accessible), but yeah, same. Lazy implementation, though - we may make people aware and then set it up on actual need.
1
This tweet is unavailable
I think you’re right, but it still strikes me as irrational
1
2