Sometimes, I read posts from US languishites where they refer to "eating a sandwich" as lunch at work. I've also read 'Dilbert' cartoons where employees also seem to eat their meals inside the company building, which they refer to as 'brown bags'.
This puzzles me. Is that something you do on a regular basis? Is it even allowed by companies? Do you do it to pocket your entire meal allowance? Or have I failed to grasp something?
(In Portugal, it is a severe social stigma attached to eating at the workplace. The normal portuguese, no matter how low his/her salary is, *always* eats his/her lunch at a restaurant, even if it's a cheap fast food one; they would not be caught dead eating in their companies' premises. And I have noticed Spaniards do the same, too).
Meal allowance?
I eat lunch at work like 90% of my co-workers. I got 30mins to do it, going to a restaurant takes too much time.
Sometimes I even have it at my desks.
Also Meal allowance? Time or Money?
I generally eat at my desk so I can keep on posting on Lan...er...working. But yeah I have to pay out of my own pocket so I eat really cheap crap.
I bring my lunch to work every day. In fact, I pack my breakfast, lunch, and two snacks every morning for what I eat while at the office. Today I had cranberry apple oatmeal, a banana, spinach sweet potato soup, a whole wheat roll, and microwave popcorn. :)
Around here, no one really pays much attention to what people are doing, though if someone ate out every day, it would likely bring on a conversation about how much money they must be spending and why do they not weigh 500 pounds. It is definitely considered a virtue around here to be frugal and healthy by bringing a packed lunch.
There is a government cafeteria in the building so I do on occasion eat there, but the majority of the time I eat at my desk. It's cheaper and healthier. :)
Where I work there is no on-site restaurant and no food storage or preparation facilities so you either bring in a packed lunch, often a sandwich, or buy a hot or cold meal from a cafe or supermarket. There's nowhere other than your desk to eat. Besides, the less time you spend at lunch the less likely you are to need to work late or at home to meet your deadlines.
Eating out is expensive in London, so we may go out for a team lunch four times a year as a celebration.
What is this food allowance of which you speak?
The wide-eyed naivety of the question makes me wonder if Martim's trolling :unsure:
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2012, 11:59:35 AM
The wide-eyed naivety of the question makes me wonder if Martim's trolling :unsure:
Probably just setting us up for him to tell us how uncivilized and uncouth we all are since we don't do as his nation does. :pope:
Meal allowance? From who, Mom?
40 minutes of my clocked time at work is not counted against my contractual work time and meant for lunch.
The place I work has a "restaurant" that is subsidized by the company. That's where I eat my lunch most of the time. If I am in a hurry and need to meet a deadline, I might just grab a sandwich or so and eat it at my desk. Some colleagues always eat at their desks. I don't know if it is allowed per se, but it is certainly tolerated. Unless you spill something on your computer I guess.
I will also often have a croissant or so at my desk at work for breakfast while having a pot of coffee, reading my mails from the night before and organizing my day.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2012, 11:59:35 AM
The wide-eyed naivety of the question makes me wonder if Martim's trolling :unsure:
Probably just setting us up for him to tell us how uncivilized and uncouth we all are since we don't do as his nation does. :pope:
They work, like, 3 hours a day over there, and I'm sure their lunch siesta is about 3 hours long or something. Meal allowance must be from the government.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 11:57:24 AM
I bring my lunch to work every day. In fact, I pack my breakfast, lunch, and two snacks every morning for what I eat while at the office. Today I had cranberry apple oatmeal, a banana, spinach sweet potato soup, a whole wheat roll, and microwave popcorn. :)
That's right, I forgot about Breakfast. I always have it at work. Today was an unheralded PB&Banana sandwich.
I have breakfast at my desk, and I'll eat a few sandwiches there throughout the day. Usually I have lunch in the office restaurant, unless I'm too busy.
Unlike southern Europe, we don't take two hours off to have lunch in a restaurant and get wasted on pasta and wine, drunkenly drive back to the office and take a nap. :P
And what's a meal allowance?
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: Brazen on November 08, 2012, 11:59:35 AM
The wide-eyed naivety of the question makes me wonder if Martim's trolling :unsure:
Probably just setting us up for him to tell us how uncivilized and uncouth we all are since we don't do as his nation does. :pope:
Precisely. He was trolling for:
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 11:52:56 AM
Meal allowance?
At which time he could castigate all those who live in countries so uncivilized that "severe social stigma" does not come from choosing for yourself how to eat lunch.
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 11:52:56 AM
Meal allowance?
Since all employees have to eat (at a restaurant), companies are forced by law to pay everybody a meal allowance ['subsídio de refeição', in portuguese] to cover the cost, or at least part of the cost, of a meal at a restaurant.
It is an extra added to the wage and not considered taxable income.
This is the law:
http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/stap/infoPage.cfm?objid=56233dbb-79d5-4613-bfcc-90d8a58b6ea4&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=520 (http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/stap/infoPage.cfm?objid=56233dbb-79d5-4613-bfcc-90d8a58b6ea4&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=520)
translate with google, or something.
And you want China to subsidize your debts? Employers there don't even let their employees leave the site!
I've discovered that, the higher up the food chain you are, pardon the pun, the more flexibility you have regarding lunch.
Punch clock worker bee, it's 30 minutes in the break room with a brown bag and a crushed sandwich.
Supervision, it's at your desk with the door closed, so you can get some fucking peace and quiet away from the groundlings for a bit and cruise Languish.
Leadership, it's an hour and a half or so a few miles away with some buddies at the local rib joint or chain restaurant, with time to hit Best Buy or something on the way back to the office.
Ah, hierarchy.
Mono just cried.
I'm actually surprised... the general idea is that, since you have to work through the day, the company is forcing you to eat away from home. So they have to compensate the workers for it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2012, 12:03:19 PM
They work, like, 3 hours a day over there, and I'm sure their lunch siesta is about 3 hours long or something. Meal allowance must be from the government.
The spaniards do the Siesta (two hours per day). We don't do that since the 60s.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 12:01:13 PM
Probably just setting us up for him to tell us how uncivilized and uncouth we all are since we don't do as his nation does. :pope:
It's hardly my nation... Spain does it too, and they get paid on average twice the amount the portuguese to eat at restaurants.
These are our lowest amounts for 2012 (most people get more):
http://www.online24.pt/valor-do-subsidio-de-alimentacao-em-2012/
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2012, 12:17:57 PM
I've discovered that, the higher up the food chain you are, pardon the pun, the more flexibility you have regarding lunch.
Punch clock worker bee, it's 30 minutes in the break room with a brown bag and a crushed sandwich.
Supervision, it's at your desk with the door closed, so you can get some fucking peace and quiet away from the groundlings for a bit and cruise Languish.
Leadership, it's an hour and a half or so a few miles away with some buddies at the local rib joint or chain restaurant, with time to hit Best Buy or something on the way back to the office.
Ah, hierarchy.
I used to cruise the mall in summer to watch the jailbait. Grab a chicken sand which and hang near the. hot topic. Or the Gap/old navy. Whichever mood I was in.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 08, 2012, 12:20:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2012, 12:17:57 PM
I've discovered that, the higher up the food chain you are, pardon the pun, the more flexibility you have regarding lunch.
Punch clock worker bee, it's 30 minutes in the break room with a brown bag and a crushed sandwich.
Supervision, it's at your desk with the door closed, so you can get some fucking peace and quiet away from the groundlings for a bit and cruise Languish.
Leadership, it's an hour and a half or so a few miles away with some buddies at the local rib joint or chain restaurant, with time to hit Best Buy or something on the way back to the office.
Ah, hierarchy.
I used to cruise the mall in summer to watch the jailbait. Grab a chicken sand which and hang near the. hot topic. Or the Gap/old navy. Whichever mood I was in.
I forgot one more:
Self-employed/unemployed, it's however long you want, in your bathrobe and underwear.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
It's hardly my nation... Spain does it too, and they get paid on average twice the amount the portuguese to eat at restaurants.
And look where that's gotten them.
The point is that your way isn't the standard for which all others should be measured. Your way is just that: your way. Quit trying to act as though all others are beneath you because they think - and act - differently. It's annoying and makes you look ignorant and provincial.
All Yanks should heed that warning, especially to affairs that concern Education.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 11:52:56 AM
Meal allowance?
Since all employees have to eat (at a restaurant), companies are forced by law to pay everybody a meal allowance ['subsídio de refeição', in portuguese] to cover the cost, or at least part of the cost, of a meal at a restaurant.
It is an extra added to the wage and not considered taxable income.
This is the law:
http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/stap/infoPage.cfm?objid=56233dbb-79d5-4613-bfcc-90d8a58b6ea4&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=520 (http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/stap/infoPage.cfm?objid=56233dbb-79d5-4613-bfcc-90d8a58b6ea4&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=520)
translate with google, or something.
Called it. :cool:
I'll forward this to Ms Merkel so she can abolish it. :P
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
I'll forward this to Ms Merkel so she can abolish it. :P
I bet that does fire up your kraut blood a bit, right? :P
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 12:02:56 PM
40 minutes of my clocked time at work is not counted against my contractual work time and meant for lunch.
The place I work has a "restaurant" that is subsidized by the company. That's where I eat my lunch most of the time. If I am in a hurry and need to meet a deadline, I might just grab a sandwich or so and eat it at my desk. Some colleagues always eat at their desks. I don't know if it is allowed per se, but it is certainly tolerated. Unless you spill something on your computer I guess.
How much of it is subsidized by the company?
I was kind of half-expecting the Americans to let their employers walk all over them, but your case is special, Zanza. After all, we are getting a lot of German money to allow our banks to lend to our companies, so that these companies can pay us to eat at restaurants.
It just seems... odd that you have to do that while effectively paying the Portuguese so that they can keep eating at restaurants for almost nothing (or for free, depending on the meal).
No, I don't give a shit. Wages in Portugal are so low that having such a meal allowance is probably necessary.
By the way, I get a meal allowance as well when I am on business trips. 24 Euro per day in Germany, 36 Euro e.g. in Portugal or rural USA, 48 Euro in New York City or 72 Euro in Sweden. Often times our local legal entitites will invite you for lunch or dinner and breakfast is often included in the hotel and on the travel days you just eat stuff in the business lounge so it's a tax-free extra too. :)
Americans don't receive subsidies or allowances for lunch. They deduct it.
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 12:35:32 PM
No, I don't give a shit. Wages in Portugal are so low that having such a meal allowance is probably necessary.
True. It's basically akin to welfare. :(
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 12:23:31 PM
Quit trying to act as though all others are beneath you because they think - and act - differently. It's annoying and makes you look ignorant and provincial.
Actually, I was trying to see it what I'd thought was true, and if so to wonder why do you let your employers do that to you. Can you do the math on how much money you've been forced to spend to do your work?
If we could make our bosses yield, why can't you?
I don't see it as "acting differently". That would be just a culture thing. I've noticed that Americans are often terrified of offending their employers, and that they don't stand up to their rights. Come on - it's the nation of the free and the brave! Stand up for your rights. If they demand you be there all day, than THEY have to pay for your meals.
Oh lord. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:32:30 PMHow much of it is subsidized by the company?
I was kind of half-expecting the Americans to let their employers walk all over them, but your case is special, Zanza. After all, we are getting a lot of German money to allow our banks to lend to our companies, so that these companies can pay us to eat at restaurants.
It just seems... odd that you have to do that while effectively paying the Portuguese so that they can keep eating at restaurants for almost nothing (or for free, depending on the meal).
No idea. I think employees from other companies that eat in our restaurant have to pay a 60% or 70% premium over what we pay, so I guess that's about the amount that is subsidized. But it is not a fixed amount per day or so. If I never eat there, I don't get subsidized either.
People in my company will on median earn way more than the median Portuguese salary, so I don't think many would begrudge you guys for your small extra.
Testify brother!
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:37:05 PM
Actually, I was trying to see it what I'd thought was true, and if so to wonder why do you let your employers do that to you. Can you do the math on how much money you've been forced to spend to do your work?
If we could make our bosses yield, why can't you?
I don't see it as "acting differently". That would be just a culture thing. I've noticed that Americans are often terrified of offending their employers, and that they don't stand up to their rights. Come on - it's the nation of the free and the brave! Stand up for your rights. If they demand you be there all day, than THEY have to pay for your meals.
Ah, so it's not just that you LOOK ignorant and provincial. You actually ARE ignorant and provincial.
It's okay. One day you'll get paid a real wage and be able to buy your own food. :console:
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:37:05 PM
Come on - it's the nation of the free and the brave! Stand up for your rights. If they demand you be there all day, than THEY have to pay for your meals.
What are you, a diabetic black woman in municipal government?
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 12:36:19 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 12:35:32 PM
No, I don't give a shit. Wages in Portugal are so low that having such a meal allowance is probably necessary.
True. It's basically akin to welfare. :(
Sadly that is true for the majority of the workers, yes. But the allowances are also paid to all, irrespective of where they are in the social scale - and while Portuguese workers have low wages, Portuguese managers are among the best paid (20% more on average than their spanish counterparts in basic management; a Spanish CEO usually makes half of what a similar Portuguese CEO does).
And Meal Allowances are far higher at the top than at the bottom, of course... one has to eat at fancier restaurants.
Quote from: Zanza
No idea. I think employees from other companies that eat in our restaurant have to pay a 60% or 70% premium over what we pay, so I guess that's about the amount that is subsidized. But it is not a fixed amount per day or so. If I never eat there, I don't get subsidized either.
Well, that's not as bad. The company is living up to its social responsability, and maybe trying to make something extra is the food is attractive to others.
Merkel will be here by Monday, to broker deals between German and Portuguese companies, and to try to get us to adopt several German models, like the KfW and mimick German education. Your company's eating model might be one other to consider.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 11:52:56 AM
Meal allowance?
Since all employees have to eat (at a restaurant), companies are forced by law to pay everybody a meal allowance ['subsídio de refeição', in portuguese] to cover the cost, or at least part of the cost, of a meal at a restaurant.
It is an extra added to the wage and not considered taxable income.
This is the law:
http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/stap/infoPage.cfm?objid=56233dbb-79d5-4613-bfcc-90d8a58b6ea4&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=520 (http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/stap/infoPage.cfm?objid=56233dbb-79d5-4613-bfcc-90d8a58b6ea4&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=520)
translate with google, or something.
Sometimes even I believe that socialism goes too far.
Some companies here offer subsidized restaurants or meal vouchers. My old company gave us a EUR 4.40 voucher per day. My new company doesn't have that - you're responsible for what you have for lunch (half an hour). Most people either have a sandwich or salad, pick up something from the restaurant on the ground floor or microwave something. I usually have my "proper" meal in the evening.
Once or twice a month we order in something on company dime to have lunch together.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:44:16 PM
Sadly that is true for the majority of the workers, yes. But the allowances are also paid to all, irrespective of where they are in the social scale - and while Portuguese workers have low wages, Portuguese managers are among the best paid (20% more on average than their spanish counterparts in basic management; a Spanish CEO usually makes half of what a similar Portuguese CEO does).
And Meal Allowances are far higher at the top than at the bottom, of course... one has to eat at fancier restaurants.
:secret: Might want to try to use countries other than Spain as a comparison if you want us to believe that it's not welfare. :secret:
It's not like it matters. Meal allowance is a form of compensation, whatever it's called. If it wasn't there some other form would take its place as the labour market demanded. The difference is you'd be able to do with it as you wanted. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, there's something to be said for supporting restauranteurs.
Of course martim's trolling, but what the hell, I'll play along.
There are all manner of expenses that might theoretically be tied to your job. I have to wear a suit - I suppose I could argue that makes it a job requirement. I obviously have to eat, as you say. I have to travel in to go to work.
The way it works here though is many of those expenses are tied in to personal decisions. It is theoretically possible for me to live within walking distance of my office - here are a number of downtown condos (plus some slum neighborhoods). A colleague of mine does live downtown, and does go home at lunch to let his dog out. Because it was a personal choice to live further away, I am responsible for those expenses.
Same goes for my suits. I could theoretically go down to the second hand store and get suits for dirt cheap. The fact that I choose not to means I have to pay for that expense.
However sometimes I don't have a choice. For Court of Queen's Bench I am required to wear a specific set of robes. There is no personal choice involved. As a result government pays for my robes.
In the course of my employment I may have to go out of town. Now, suddenly government will pay me a meal allowance, because I have no choice in the matter.
But you will suffer severe social stigma if you make the wrong choice!
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:44:16 PMWell, that's not as bad. The company is living up to its social responsability
The blue-collar workers in the big plants would not have a chance to go offsite to eat something in the brief shift breaks, so having the restaurant onsite is necessary. The employee's council/union makes sure that the food is affordable, so they negotiate the subsidy with the company.
Quote, and maybe trying to make something extra is the food is attractive to others.
Not really, our premises are only accessible with a chipcard (which is also the only way to pay for the food in the restaurant), so only people affiliated with our company will be able to go to these restaurants. But our suppliers often work on our premises and thus have no real choice unless they want to take rather long lunch breaks. But a lot of them will not go to the restaurants and bring lunch instead. I think, some big suppliers have deals with the company that operates our restaurant (it's outsourced of course) to get a similar deal for their employees as we do.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
The spaniards do the Siesta (two hours per day).
Two hours is awfully long. Those few who still observe siestas take ten or fifteen minutes.
Quote
It's hardly my nation... Spain does it too, and they get paid on average twice the amount the portuguese to eat at restaurants.
I'm not aware of any such law in Spain. Some employers, especially in big cities where you cannot get back home for lunch, will give employees coupons as an extra. Bigger firms (for example Siemens or BSH) often have a place to eat within the facilities instead.
The only thing that would look weird about eating at the workplace (I've done it frequently) would be doing it on your own if your workmates are in the same schedule.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 08, 2012, 01:02:41 PM
The only thing that would look weird about eating at the workplace (I've done it frequently) would be doing it on your own if your workmates are in the same schedule.
Actually the most likely case when I'll not go to the restaurant is when none of my team members is around. I never go there alone and would then just grab a sandwich and eat it at my desk.
What I meant is that it would look weird to spend alone the lunch break at your desk instead of eating your bocata with the guys somewhere else in the building. Unless you are on a deadline or something, of course.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
I'm actually surprised... the general idea is that, since you have to work through the day, the company is forcing you to eat away from home. So they have to compensate the workers for it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2012, 12:03:19 PM
They work, like, 3 hours a day over there, and I'm sure their lunch siesta is about 3 hours long or something. Meal allowance must be from the government.
The spaniards do the Siesta (two hours per day). We don't do that since the 60s.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 12:01:13 PM
Probably just setting us up for him to tell us how uncivilized and uncouth we all are since we don't do as his nation does. :pope:
It's hardly my nation... Spain does it too, and they get paid on average twice the amount the portuguese to eat at restaurants.
These are our lowest amounts for 2012 (most people get more):
http://www.online24.pt/valor-do-subsidio-de-alimentacao-em-2012/
The "two hour meal break at a restaurant outside the office" is, in my experience, a dying fashion, and is only kept at extremely old fashion workplaces. Standard office time still keeps that two hour break, which is extremely retarded IMO. More progressive workplaces have break rooms with a microwave and a fridge for employees to have lunch at. We still have our differences with the anglos and instead of sandwiches people normally bring a tupperware with a real meal, or leftovers from dinner, or something like that. Some people still do the "go back home for lunch and then back to the office" thingie, but IMO that's extremely retarded unless you work really close to home. That's only realistic in smaller cities, though.
Some companies do give their employees food voucheurs for them to eat out in nearby places, which might be similar to the food allowance thingie, but it's not at all mandatory, and it's actually convenient to the companies because it allows them to throw a perk to employees that doesn't count towards payroll taxes instead of a better salary.
Quote from: The Larch on November 08, 2012, 01:13:16 PM
The "two hour meal break at a restaurant outside the office" is, in my experience, a dying fashion, and is only kept at extremely old fashion workplaces. Standard office time still keeps that two hour break, which is extremely retarded IMO. More progressive workplaces have break rooms with a microwave and a fridge for employees to have lunch at. We still have our differences with the anglos and instead of sandwiches people normally bring a tupperware with a real meal, or leftovers from dinner, or something like that. Some people still do the "go back home for lunch and then back to the office" thingie, but IMO that's extremely retarded unless you work really close to home. That's only realistic in smaller cities, though.
Some companies do give their employees food voucheurs for them to eat out in nearby places, which might be similar to the food allowance thingie, but it's not at all mandatory, and it's actually convenient to the companies because it allows them to throw a perk to employees that doesn't count towards payroll taxes instead of a better salary.
The bolded part is almost exactly the same as here. I rarely have a sandwich, mostly because I don't care for them. I usually have leftovers - or I'll make a batch of different foods on Sunday to box up and take for lunch during the week.
If I would get a food voucher (or company car/telephone/etc. for private use) that can be construed as a financial advantage, I have to pay income tax and social security on that.
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
If I would get a food voucher (or company car/telephone/etc. for private use) that can be construed as a financial advantage, I have to pay income tax and social security on that.
What I was told is that for companies it was more convenient for them to give food voucheurs to employees instead of an equivalent salary raise because of payroll taxes, but I don't know exactly what kind of taxes they'd have to pay for the voucheurs.
Quote from: The Larch on November 08, 2012, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
If I would get a food voucher (or company car/telephone/etc. for private use) that can be construed as a financial advantage, I have to pay income tax and social security on that.
What I was told is that for companies it was more convenient for them to give food voucheurs to employees instead of an equivalent salary raise because of payroll taxes, but I don't know exactly what kind of taxes they'd have to pay for the voucheurs.
In the US, that would be considered a "perk" and not included in the regular employee taxes. The employee would be expected to claim it as part of their income when they file their income taxes, though, and would be taxed on it.
At least, that's how I understood it when I did the taxes for the Coffee Lady.
Seeing how gas is exempt from some taxes (up to 19 cents per km IIRC) I guess it is quite likely food vouchers are the same.
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
If I would get a food voucher (or company car/telephone/etc. for private use) that can be construed as a financial advantage, I have to pay income tax and social security on that.
In Austria, there's a maximum that the employer could give to their employees tax free. As said, it was 4.40 for us.
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 01:22:44 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 08, 2012, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
If I would get a food voucher (or company car/telephone/etc. for private use) that can be construed as a financial advantage, I have to pay income tax and social security on that.
What I was told is that for companies it was more convenient for them to give food voucheurs to employees instead of an equivalent salary raise because of payroll taxes, but I don't know exactly what kind of taxes they'd have to pay for the voucheurs.
In the US, that would be considered a "perk" and not included in the regular employee taxes. The employee would be expected to claim it as part of their income when they file their income taxes, though, and would be taxed on it.
At least, that's how I understood it when I did the taxes for the Coffee Lady.
Payment for expenses is most definitely not taxable in Canada. Back when I had to do circuit court all the time it was a nice little perk because I'd get, whatever, $10-$12 for lunch but brown-bag it so I could just pocket that money.
Except when stuck in a meeting, I always try to have a normal meal (hot dish, a salad etc.) for lunch. I try to go out to one of a nearby restaurants but when I am busy or the weather is awful I order in. It's never just a sandwich if I can help it.
I don't get the sandwich hate. I love a good sandwich. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
I don't get the sandwich hate. I love a good sandwich. :cool:
I prefer a hot meal.
I just had my lunch at my desk (leftovers) while I read how all you other 'tards eat lunch.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
I don't get the sandwich hate. I love a good sandwich. :cool:
I have a sandwich for breakfast, so I prefer not to have one for lunch.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 01:39:26 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 01:22:44 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 08, 2012, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
If I would get a food voucher (or company car/telephone/etc. for private use) that can be construed as a financial advantage, I have to pay income tax and social security on that.
What I was told is that for companies it was more convenient for them to give food voucheurs to employees instead of an equivalent salary raise because of payroll taxes, but I don't know exactly what kind of taxes they'd have to pay for the voucheurs.
In the US, that would be considered a "perk" and not included in the regular employee taxes. The employee would be expected to claim it as part of their income when they file their income taxes, though, and would be taxed on it.
At least, that's how I understood it when I did the taxes for the Coffee Lady.
Payment for expenses is most definitely not taxable in Canada. Back when I had to do circuit court all the time it was a nice little perk because I'd get, whatever, $10-$12 for lunch but brown-bag it so I could just pocket that money.
Isnt taking money to pay for an expense you did not incur a bit dodgy counsel?
Quote from: Maximus on November 08, 2012, 12:27:17 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 11:52:56 AM
Meal allowance?
Since all employees have to eat (at a restaurant), companies are forced by law to pay everybody a meal allowance ['subsídio de refeição', in portuguese] to cover the cost, or at least part of the cost, of a meal at a restaurant.
It is an extra added to the wage and not considered taxable income.
This is the law:
http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/stap/infoPage.cfm?objid=56233dbb-79d5-4613-bfcc-90d8a58b6ea4&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=520 (http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/stap/infoPage.cfm?objid=56233dbb-79d5-4613-bfcc-90d8a58b6ea4&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=520)
translate with google, or something.
Called it. :cool:
:yes: You're the Nate Silver of Martim's trolling.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2012, 02:06:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 01:39:26 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 01:22:44 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 08, 2012, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
If I would get a food voucher (or company car/telephone/etc. for private use) that can be construed as a financial advantage, I have to pay income tax and social security on that.
What I was told is that for companies it was more convenient for them to give food voucheurs to employees instead of an equivalent salary raise because of payroll taxes, but I don't know exactly what kind of taxes they'd have to pay for the voucheurs.
In the US, that would be considered a "perk" and not included in the regular employee taxes. The employee would be expected to claim it as part of their income when they file their income taxes, though, and would be taxed on it.
At least, that's how I understood it when I did the taxes for the Coffee Lady.
Payment for expenses is most definitely not taxable in Canada. Back when I had to do circuit court all the time it was a nice little perk because I'd get, whatever, $10-$12 for lunch but brown-bag it so I could just pocket that money.
Isnt taking money to pay for an expense you did not incur a bit dodgy counsel?
You tell me. I've never heard of being taxed on a
per diem meal allowance.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
I don't get the sandwich hate. I love a good sandwich. :cool:
:cool:
I just cant stand prepared sandwhiches. It has to be fresh. So I bring everything separately.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
I don't get the sandwich hate. I love a good sandwich. :cool:
It's hard to keep it in peak condition until lunch time. It's easy for it to get either too crusty, or too soggy.
The bakery in the subway station sells a great sandwich, about a footlong: prosciutto, Italian salami, olives, dried pepper, parmegian cheese, thick tomato sauce in soft Italian bread. :mmm:
Does anyone really need that much?
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 01:49:24 PM
I don't get the sandwich hate. I love a good sandwich. :cool:
I prefer a hot meal.
Which is why I combine the two. Soup and sandwich.
I have no set time or length.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 02:17:41 PM
You tell me. I've never heard of being taxed on a per diem meal allowance.
It all depends on how it is structured.
If you actually purchase food while on business and your employer has a policy of reimbursing you for that sort of a thing then it is generally considered to be non taxable as a straight reimbursement for an expense incurred. Normally the tax man requires proof of actual expense though otherwise its becomes an obvious tax dodge.
The key there is that expense is actually incurred. Per Diems are a short cut to reduce the amount of paperwork required to keep track of actual expenses. That is why they can be abused in exactly the way you did it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2012, 04:05:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 02:17:41 PM
You tell me. I've never heard of being taxed on a per diem meal allowance.
It all depends on how it is structured.
If you actually purchase food while on business and your employer has a policy of reimbursing you for that sort of a thing then it is generally considered to be non taxable as a straight reimbursement for an expense incurred. Normally the tax man requires proof of actual expense though otherwise its becomes an obvious tax dodge.
The key there is that expense is actually incurred. Per Diems are a short cut to reduce the amount of paperwork required to keep track of actual expenses. That is why they can be abused in exactly the way you did it.
Lock him up, CC. :mad:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2012, 04:05:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2012, 02:17:41 PM
You tell me. I've never heard of being taxed on a per diem meal allowance.
It all depends on how it is structured.
If you actually purchase food while on business and your employer has a policy of reimbursing you for that sort of a thing then it is generally considered to be non taxable as a straight reimbursement for an expense incurred. Normally the tax man requires proof of actual expense though otherwise its becomes an obvious tax dodge.
The key there is that expense is actually incurred. Per Diems are a short cut to reduce the amount of paperwork required to keep track of actual expenses. That is why they can be abused in exactly the way you did it.
How is that abuse?
I would be required to travel to various communities to conduct court. Sometimes I would purchase a lunch, but most days I never actually had any time to do that, so I would just bring a lunch. I still had the expense of buying that lunch - I just bought it earlier.
As long as the amount of the
per diem is reasonable (and trust me, being government it was adequate but certainly not generous) it's not a tax dodge.
I normally take about four hours off for lunch. I like a cooked meal with a salad, then I have a nap.
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:37:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 08, 2012, 12:23:31 PM
Quit trying to act as though all others are beneath you because they think - and act - differently. It's annoying and makes you look ignorant and provincial.
Actually, I was trying to see it what I'd thought was true, and if so to wonder why do you let your employers do that to you. Can you do the math on how much money you've been forced to spend to do your work?
think about it like this: can you imagine how much these people invested in the economy while you've been a drain on it?
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 08, 2012, 12:18:46 PM
I'm actually surprised... the general idea is that, since you have to work through the day, the company is forcing you to eat away from home. So they have to compensate the workers for it.
I've always preferred to be compensated in cash rather than food coupons.
Martim, this may blow your mind, but it isn't uncommon in the US for workers to pay to park at their workplace (usually if they are at a large building in a metro area).
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but unless there's additional tax implications involved or something, then from the employer's standpoint, a "meal allowance" is pretty much just part of the salary you're paid. Both are simply cash he pays out.
So if your salary would be 50,000 without a meal allowance, presumably he'll just pay you slightly less and then include the meal bonus as part of the salary, so that it adds up to 50,000 anyway.
Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 12:02:56 PM
40 minutes of my clocked time at work is not counted against my contractual work time and meant for lunch.
Oh that is just so preciously European.
I eat at my desk and work while I am doing so, so I can continue to be paid.
I do usually get something to eat. If not, it's a box of cookies or something. Today it was both. -_- 14 Kroger bakery cookies out of an 18-count box and 2 egg-and-cheese biscuits from Bojangles, which I think may be fried in murder.
I am not really paid by the hour. I am supposed to work seven hours per day on average, but it doesn't matter whether the month has 18 or 22 workdays. I always get paid the same salary. So it makes no difference whether I eat at my desk or not as that time is not counted anyway.
I'm banned from eating outside. I think I'm probally being a bit naughty by going out to buy it most days even.
By the way, when you travel for work, you can only claim expenses for meals you'd normally eat at home, i.e. breakfast and dinner. The place I currently work at has a top limit of £12 a day :glare:
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 08, 2012, 06:44:39 PM
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but unless there's additional tax implications involved or something, then from the employer's standpoint, a "meal allowance" is pretty much just part of the salary you're paid. Both are simply cash he pays out.
So if your salary would be 50,000 without a meal allowance, presumably he'll just pay you slightly less and then include the meal bonus as part of the salary, so that it adds up to 50,000 anyway.
Correct. But the system sure sucks from a tax payors point of view since that meal allowance is not a taxable benefit. It also sucks from the point of view of someone who is not employed. Its seems a bit silly to subsidize the food of those who are employed. My guess is Portugual has an overly strong restaruant lobby.
Mind you in Canada its not much better given that "business lunches get a tax deduction (although that has been cut) whereas my secretary never gets to take advantage of such a deduction.
To be fair, the places I've worked that did have canteens tended to be subsidised so it was a bit cheaper than going out.
I had a great lunch deal when I worked for Big Oil. You ordered a packed lunch by 10.30, and by 12 it would turn up in the fridge made to order in a brown bag with your name. You could choose from a sandwich or roll with the filling of your choice with weekly specials, a piece of fruit and a packet of crisps or an apple.
The first place I worked had a subsidised on-site bar.
Quote from: Brazen on November 09, 2012, 11:28:47 AM
I had a great lunch deal when I worked for Big Oil. You ordered a packed lunch by 10.30, and by 12 it would turn up in the fridge made to order in a brown bag with your name.
That's kinda cool there.
Quote from: Brazen on November 09, 2012, 11:28:47 AM
To be fair, the places I've worked that did have canteens tended to be subsidised so it was a bit cheaper than going out.
I had a great lunch deal when I worked for Big Oil. You ordered a packed lunch by 10.30, and by 12 it would turn up in the fridge made to order in a brown bag with your name. You could choose from a sandwich or roll with the filling of your choice with weekly specials, a piece of fruit and a packet of crisps or an apple.
The first place I worked had a subsidised on-site bar.
all good things for an employer to do for their employees. All bad things for tax payors to have to subsidize directly or for governments to mandate for all employers.
I eat wherever the fuck I want to. I get to do that.
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2012, 01:42:56 PM
I eat wherever the fuck I want to. I get to do that.
And you don't need a microwave to nuke your lunch.
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2012, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 09, 2012, 01:42:56 PM
I eat wherever the fuck I want to. I get to do that.
And you don't need a microwave to nuke your lunch.
I like to taste the gamma.
Quote from: Brazen on November 09, 2012, 06:11:33 AM
By the way, when you travel for work, you can only claim expenses for meals you'd normally eat at home, i.e. breakfast and dinner. The place I currently work at has a top limit of £12 a day :glare:
<_<?
Thats loads.
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2012, 11:38:15 PM
Quote from: Brazen on November 09, 2012, 06:11:33 AM
By the way, when you travel for work, you can only claim expenses for meals you'd normally eat at home, i.e. breakfast and dinner. The place I currently work at has a top limit of £12 a day :glare:
<_<?
Thats loads.
No that isn't. :huh:
For a day's food? Yes it is, more than enough, can eat pretty well on that.
Are you thinking she'd be going to the grocery store while traveling for work?
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2012, 11:51:46 PM
Are you thinking she'd be going to the grocery store while traveling for work?
No.
But getting food from somewhere reasonable should only cost about 5 quid a time at the most (that would be a big spend for me).
Well B is a grown woman so I doubt she just wants to grab some chips for a meal.
May want to eat more than twice a day too.
Do restaurants/eateries in NYC/London have lunch time specials?
Quote from: Syt on November 10, 2012, 12:50:48 AM
Do restaurants/eateries in NYC/London have lunch time specials?
Can't speak for London, but NYC, sure.
That said, lunch specials are still way less cost-effective than bringing lunch. I find it helps to think of it in terms of getting the car fixed. If you've got the know-how, you're only going to pay for parts. If you take it to a mechanic, you're going to pay for parts plus labor.
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2012, 11:55:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2012, 11:51:46 PM
Are you thinking she'd be going to the grocery store while traveling for work?
No.
But getting food from somewhere reasonable should only cost about 5 quid a time at the most (that would be a big spend for me).
:wacko:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 11:12:00 AMMy guess is Portugual has an overly strong restaruant lobby.
Don't think so. If I were to bet my lunch money on it, I would say this comes from the paternalistic tradition of Salazar. This seems a lot like what we had during the communist era (where there was no overly strong restaurant lobby) and seems a type of thing Catholic "socialist" paternalists would come up with.
This tradition does not view an employee as merely a contractor of the employer, but someone the employer should care for and protect (and someone who, like a feudal client or, in more paternalistic and "benevolent" interpretations, a slave, is simply less smart than the employer, and as such should be guided and have some decisions taken for him).
Ultimately, this is pseudo-feudal and such fringe benefits (other allowances include often stuff like clothes you need for work - even if it is just a suit - or a holiday allowance, a special allowance granted on the birth of children, or marriage, or funeral in the family and so on and so forth) that are not seen as a "real pay" (and thus are not taxed or are taxed differently) are a perfect example of this mentality.
To a free market capitalist mind these make no sense, as the employee is perceived as an autonomous economic actor who engages in a transaction of pure exchange of work for pay, but to a paternalistic mind these are all part of a social contract.
The only thing that surprises me is that, on a forum so full of educated people with broader horizons, noone seems to be able to grasp these cultural differences and all we get instead is Martim Silva being puzzled at the Anglosaxons and the Anglosaxons being puzzled at Martim Silva.
So that my post does not get ignored as being too reasonable and balanced (aka the PDH's Curse), here's the executive summary: I'm smart and you are all stupid. :showoff:
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2012, 11:44:44 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2012, 11:38:15 PM
Quote from: Brazen on November 09, 2012, 06:11:33 AM
By the way, when you travel for work, you can only claim expenses for meals you'd normally eat at home, i.e. breakfast and dinner. The place I currently work at has a top limit of £12 a day :glare:
<_<?
Thats loads.
No that isn't. :huh:
You don't think 12 pounds is a lot of food? :D
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2012, 11:55:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2012, 11:51:46 PM
Are you thinking she'd be going to the grocery store while traveling for work?
No.
But getting food from somewhere reasonable should only cost about 5 quid a time at the most (that would be a big spend for me).
:wacko:
In Britain anyway. In Scandiweenia you have to remortgage your house to eat.
Well, in Vienna lunch time specials are between 6 and 9 EUR on average. If you go for, say a 7 EUR meal (soup + main course, usually), that leaves you with 5 EUR for breakfast/dinner. With that money you could go to a deli counter in the supermarket and get maybe, two, three basic sandwiches (i.e. a roll + some lunch meat on it). And then you haven't had anything to drink yet. 12 EUR would cover "normal" breakfast in a café plus an average lunch I suppose, but then you've had no dinner yet.
Quote from: Syt on November 10, 2012, 07:39:01 AM
Well, in Vienna lunch time specials are between 6 and 9 EUR on average. If you go for, say a 7 EUR meal (soup + main course, usually), that leaves you with 5 EUR for breakfast/dinner. With that money you could go to a deli counter in the supermarket and get maybe, two, three basic sandwiches (i.e. a roll + some lunch meat on it). And then you haven't had anything to drink yet. 12 EUR would cover "normal" breakfast in a café plus an average lunch I suppose, but then you've had no dinner yet.
Lunch special would help her considering that isn't a meal that qualifies (she only gets breakfast and dinner covered).
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2012, 03:34:07 AM
The only thing that surprises me is that, on a forum so full of educated people with broader horizons, noone seems to be able to grasp these cultural differences and all we get instead is Martim Silva being puzzled at the Anglosaxons and the Anglosaxons being puzzled at Martim Silva.
Good thing we have the oh so wise and experienced Mart to help us out. :)
We couldn't put a sign on the forum that said "No Portuguese". But, no Portuguese.
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2012, 03:53:04 AM
So that my post does not get ignored as being too reasonable and balanced (aka the PDH's Curse), here's the executive summary: I'm smart and you are all stupid. :showoff:
Tldr
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:13:03 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 10, 2012, 07:39:01 AM
Well, in Vienna lunch time specials are between 6 and 9 EUR on average. If you go for, say a 7 EUR meal (soup + main course, usually), that leaves you with 5 EUR for breakfast/dinner. With that money you could go to a deli counter in the supermarket and get maybe, two, three basic sandwiches (i.e. a roll + some lunch meat on it). And then you haven't had anything to drink yet. 12 EUR would cover "normal" breakfast in a café plus an average lunch I suppose, but then you've had no dinner yet.
Lunch special would help her considering that isn't a meal that qualifies (she only gets breakfast and dinner covered).
Oh, overlooked that. In that case it's breakfast at a café and dinner at BK. :P
Quote from: Syt on November 10, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
Oh, overlooked that. In that case it's breakfast at a café and dinner at BK. :P
Exactly. :D
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2012, 03:53:04 AM
So that my post does not get ignored as being too reasonable and balanced (aka the PDH's Curse), here's the executive summary: I'm smart and you are all stupid. :showoff:
I don't think that anyone was puzzled. MS was doing the same thing with his post that you were with yours: Being a passive aggressive douchebag.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:13:03 AM
Lunch special would help her considering that isn't a meal that qualifies (she only gets breakfast and dinner covered).
Gah, hate that southern classification of lunch and dinner as seperate things.
Dinner is the biggest meal of the day. For most people, that's supper.
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2012, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:13:03 AM
Lunch special would help her considering that isn't a meal that qualifies (she only gets breakfast and dinner covered).
Gah, hate that southern classification of lunch and dinner as seperate things.
:huh:
Quote from: Habbaku on November 10, 2012, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2012, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:13:03 AM
Lunch special would help her considering that isn't a meal that qualifies (she only gets breakfast and dinner covered).
Gah, hate that southern classification of lunch and dinner as seperate things.
:huh:
"Dinner" was supposed to be the term for the larger meal of the day. If it's the mid-day meal, then the evening meal is "supper". If the evening meal is the larger of the 2, then the mid-day meal is "lunch". In popular usage, this has mostly been forgotten. In the US, using "dinner" and "supper" considered rural and southern because the mid-day was usually the larger of the 2. In more urban areas, "lunch" and "dinner" are more generally used because the mid-day meal was often a quick bite grabbed on a short work break, and the larger meal was eaten in the evening after you got home to your family.
Of course that's rather irrelevant unless Jos thought B was saying a mid-day meal is typically taken at home.
Things have morphed even more in the north of Britain with dinner nearly always meaning a mid-day meal; though there is a bit of a distinction of dinner being something heavy (generally reserved for Sunday) and lunch something light, not everyone always uses this of course and dinner to many just means a midday meal in general. The idea of having dinner at tea time just tend not to come into play, except of course on Sunday.
Quote
Of course that's rather irrelevant unless Jos thought B was saying a mid-day meal is typically taken at home.
Not at all.
If it was a lunch special at a restaurant then surely under the original meanings that would count as a dinner as opposed to a more standard lunch of just a few sandwiches or whathaveyou.
Yeah, you're an idiot.
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2012, 03:34:07 AM
Don't think so. If I were to bet my lunch money on it, I would say this comes from the paternalistic tradition of Salazar. This seems a lot like what we had during the communist era (where there was no overly strong restaurant lobby) and seems a type of thing Catholic "socialist" paternalists would come up with.
This tradition does not view an employee as merely a contractor of the employer, but someone the employer should care for and protect (and someone who, like a feudal client or, in more paternalistic and "benevolent" interpretations, a slave, is simply less smart than the employer, and as such should be guided and have some decisions taken for him).
Ultimately, this is pseudo-feudal and such fringe benefits (other allowances include often stuff like clothes you need for work - even if it is just a suit - or a holiday allowance, a special allowance granted on the birth of children, or marriage, or funeral in the family and so on and so forth) that are not seen as a "real pay" (and thus are not taxed or are taxed differently) are a perfect example of this mentality.
To a free market capitalist mind these make no sense, as the employee is perceived as an autonomous economic actor who engages in a transaction of pure exchange of work for pay, but to a paternalistic mind these are all part of a social contract.
The only thing that surprises me is that, on a forum so full of educated people with broader horizons, noone seems to be able to grasp these cultural differences and all we get instead is Martim Silva being puzzled at the Anglosaxons and the Anglosaxons being puzzled at Martim Silva.
Agree 100%. 400 years later and Yuros still act like serfs, waiting for a barrel of mead and a couple sheep from their liege to celebrate the solstice.
Has anyone read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom?" I haven't, but it does seem logical that that the reason this mentality has been able to survive is that it was given an intellectual patina by socialists and unionists.
You know, I was just told to read that the other day.
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2012, 12:12:35 AM
You know, I was just told to read that the other day.
I enjoyed it (well as much as you can enjoy a text on economics).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2012, 11:54:52 PMAgree 100%. 400 years later and Yuros still act like serfs, waiting for a barrel of mead and a couple sheep from their liege to celebrate the solstice.
Has anyone read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom?" I haven't, but it does seem logical that that the reason this mentality has been able to survive is that it was given an intellectual patina by socialists and unionists.
Because no cutting-edge, admired American company would ever pamper their employees like that, right? I bet that if you look up those "best companies to work for" lists, you will find a lot of those free perks and services among these very top employers in America.
QuoteGoogle's Ginormous Free Food Budget: $7,530 Per Googler, $72 Million A Year*
Sick of hearing about the great, free, food at Google? Skip this post. Want to know how much it costs Google to pay for all that grub? Read on.
Here's the math: Googlers in the U.S. get two meals a day free, according to the jobs page, but people we talk to at the Mountain View Googleplex tell us employees there are often chowing down three times a day. Google is open 251 days a year. So let's say that Google is providing about 600 meals per year, per employee.
By its own count, Google has about 8,000 workers at the Googleplex in Mountain View, and another 700 at the office on Ninth Ave. in New York City. Buying DoubleClick netted Google 900 more U.S. employees (after laying off 300). So that's a total of about 9,600 employees in Mountain View, New York, and from DoubleClick.
The rest of Google's American employees get fed, but Google doesn't break down employment for its other offices. Internationally, benefits vary -- employees in Australia get a free lunch, whereas employees in Ireland get a fully subsidized canteen.
Cost per employee? San Jose-based caterer Abe Caterman (really!) guesses it would cost Google about $15 per day, per employee, for breakfast and lunch. But Prentiss Hall, a helpful exec at Aramark Business Dining Services, thinks Google could be spending closer to $30 a day, based on the quality and level of service the company provides.*
So we multiplied the $30/day by the 9,600 employees in Mountain View and New York by the 251 days Google is open every year. Remember that Google probably spends a lot more than this, because there are employees outside those offices, and because visitors are there all the time eating. (One friend at Google tells us that a number of Mozilla employees treat the cafeteria as their own.)
The grand total: By our guesstimate, Larry and Sergey are spending at least $72,288,000 per year to fill their workers' pie-holes. How can they afford to do that? Easy, of course: Last year Google (GOOG) earned $4.2 billion.
*UPDATE: A knowledgeable source puts Google's actual per-head food cost closer to $20/day, with Google's amazing snack/coffee/fruit/power-bar/drink bars accounting for a significant chunk of that (no surprise here--we'd abscond with at least $20-a-day worth from the bars alone). Since our original calculation didn't include any of the free grub Google doles out to its international employees, however, the overall estimate is probably reasonable. - HB
http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/4/googles-ginormous-food-budget-7530-per-googler
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:56:15 PM
Yeah, you're an idiot.
Nope, you're just hopelessly provincial.
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2012, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:56:15 PM
Yeah, you're an idiot.
Nope, you're just hopelessly provincial.
Haha. Now that's ironic. I do believe you were the one insisting 12 pounds is more than sufficient and on your definition of dinner from your little speck in England being better.
Quote from: Zanza on November 11, 2012, 02:49:01 AM
Because no cutting-edge, admired American company would ever pamper their employees like that, right? I bet that if you look up those "best companies to work for" lists, you will find a lot of those free perks and services among these very top employers in America.
As far as I know that comes with the dreadful bit that they'd like to spend more time than the average individual working (not scuttling about running your own errands) and then on positive - as a morale booster.
My old company gave me bagels once a week - it wasn't because they wanted to take care of but rather it made them look nice (as well as getting us straight in without a stop to pickup breakfast on Monday mornings).
Quote from: Zanza on November 11, 2012, 02:49:01 AM
Because no cutting-edge, admired American company would ever pamper their employees like that, right? I bet that if you look up those "best companies to work for" lists, you will find a lot of those free perks and services among these very top employers in America.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that perks don't exist in American work places at all.
But I still think a generalization can be made about differing mentalities. Any politician who proposed legally mandated lunch money in the States would be laughed at. People who think that the absence of lunch money is proof of the lack of testicular fortitude among American workers are in the distinct minority. I think most folks in the US realize that any freebies you get at work come out of the cash portion of your compensation. Whereas Martim seems to be expressing the notion that free lunch is just "found money." The only thing holding everyone in the world from getting free lunch is greedy owners and unequal power. It's not all that different from the mentality you see with austerity protesters in Greece and elsewhere.
Verrrry tangentially related, read a good quote in The Economist from some former Luxembourgois finance minister: "We all know the right thing to do, the problem is none of us know how to get re-elected after doing the right thing."
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2012, 11:55:22 PM
No.
But getting food from somewhere reasonable should only cost about 5 quid a time at the most (that would be a big spend for me).
You've never lived in a city centre with a high cost of living. My last two trips were to Paris (on an industrial estate) and Brussels (city centre) and breakfast wasn't included in the hotel. With 7am starts I was hardly going to catch the Metro to the nearest 7-11 to grab a bite. One day I only ate free exhibition food from the expo stands then peanut M&Ms from the machine for dinner with warm mineral water from the bottle I'd brought from home as there was no restaurant near my hotel within budget. Not good.
On Fridays when I don't bring a packed lunch to work, yeah, even in central London I can eat well for £5.
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2012, 09:58:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2012, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:56:15 PM
Yeah, you're an idiot.
Nope, you're just hopelessly provincial.
Haha. Now that's ironic. I do believe you were the one insisting 12 pounds is more than sufficient and on your definition of dinner from your little speck in England being better.
:lol:
Not at all. I recognise the interesting routes of the word and that it has different meanings in different places.
You however come over "Oh mah gawd, to some folks dinner don't mean dinner? You're stupid"
Quote from: Tyr on November 12, 2012, 05:56:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2012, 09:58:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2012, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:56:15 PM
Yeah, you're an idiot.
Nope, you're just hopelessly provincial.
Haha. Now that's ironic. I do believe you were the one insisting 12 pounds is more than sufficient and on your definition of dinner from your little speck in England being better.
:lol:
Not at all. I recognise the interesting routes of the word and that it has different meanings in different places.
You however come over "Oh mah gawd, to some folks dinner don't mean dinner? You're stupid"
You were the one confused by the definition of the term, "dinner", not Garbon. While that may not make you an idiot, knowing the definition certainly doesn't make him provincial.
Quote from: Brazen on November 11, 2012, 02:16:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 09, 2012, 11:55:22 PM
No.
But getting food from somewhere reasonable should only cost about 5 quid a time at the most (that would be a big spend for me).
You've never lived in a city centre with a high cost of living. My last two trips were to Paris (on an industrial estate) and Brussels (city centre) and breakfast wasn't included in the hotel. With 7am starts I was hardly going to catch the Metro to the nearest 7-11 to grab a bite. One day I only ate free exhibition food from the expo stands then peanut M&Ms from the machine for dinner with warm mineral water from the bottle I'd brought from home as there was no restaurant near my hotel within budget. Not good.
On Fridays when I don't bring a packed lunch to work, yeah, even in central London I can eat well for £5.
Oh I fully agree that special rules should apply when the expenses are incurred by an employee in connection with a business trip. Whenever we travel anywhere on business, we get the costs of our meals reimbursed to us by the firm - even if someone could make an argument that we would have to eat anyway if we stayed home, the firm recognizes that there are a lot of practicalities involved that make such reimbursement sensible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2012, 10:26:24 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 11, 2012, 02:49:01 AM
Because no cutting-edge, admired American company would ever pamper their employees like that, right? I bet that if you look up those "best companies to work for" lists, you will find a lot of those free perks and services among these very top employers in America.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that perks don't exist in American work places at all.
But I still think a generalization can be made about differing mentalities. Any politician who proposed legally mandated lunch money in the States would be laughed at. People who think that the absence of lunch money is proof of the lack of testicular fortitude among American workers are in the distinct minority. I think most folks in the US realize that any freebies you get at work come out of the cash portion of your compensation. Whereas Martim seems to be expressing the notion that free lunch is just "found money." The only thing holding everyone in the world from getting free lunch is greedy owners and unequal power. It's not all that different from the mentality you see with austerity protesters in Greece and elsewhere.
Verrrry tangentially related, read a good quote in The Economist from some former Luxembourgois finance minister: "We all know the right thing to do, the problem is none of us know how to get re-elected after doing the right thing."
This is why I can never be a Dem. While the growing irrationality of the GOP has forced a lot of rational economic conservatives and moderates into the Democratic party, there is still far too much of a vein of belief in "found money" and "free lunches" when it comes to the Democrats. Too many people that think you can raise taxes on corporations and the only people who pay are the billionaires.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 12, 2012, 10:07:10 PM
Too many people that think you can raise taxes on corporations and the only people who pay are the billionaires.
There's a difference between the government taking it out on corporations and billionaires, and the corporations and billionaires subsequently taking their angst out on their employees.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 12, 2012, 10:07:10 PM
Too many people that think you can raise taxes on corporations and the only people who pay are the billionaires.
It takes a bigger chunk from them than raising a similar amount via income tax.
The corporate tax rate is a little more complicated than that, though. On the one hand, corporate ownership is muddled. Lots of corporations have large employee ownership positions for example. Other corporations have various mutual funds that hold large stakes in them, the various owners of the mutual fund often include thousands if not millions of middle class people not to mention entities like public pension funds that invest in mutual funds that hold ownership in corporations.
So even if the pain for corporate taxes were felt by the ownership, that ownership is not necessarily who you think it is (sometimes it is, of course.) In addition, at least some economists like Harvard's Mankiw, have argued that functionally corporate taxes in reality tend to work like an excise tax on that company's business which means (while it may hurt the business) the ultimate payer is always the customer of that business.
The fairest way to do taxes has nothing to do with rates and all these different points of collection. We should start with figuring out what share of the tax burden each quintile of tax payers should be responsible for, and then figuring out from there how to make it happen. That gets heavily obfuscated by all the deductions we have, which should be capped at some absolute amount. Corporate taxes in particular are particularly retarded, with deductions that massively favor certain types of business to the detriment of others. Many corporations, very large Fortune 500 ones, pay no tax because they are eligible for tons of deductions. Other corporations are lucky to get much if any deductions. Many "new industry" type corporations like IT companies often are ones paying almost the maximum statutory rate, as most of the deductions are geared towards manufacturing or resource extraction. It'd probably make a lot more sense to have lower corporate tax rates (ours are the highest in the world) and significantly limited or simply removed corporate tax rate deductions--which would move our "effective corporate tax rate" more in line with global standards. [Our statutory rate is typically cited as the world's highest, but our corporations actually pay, as a share of total corporate revenue, among the lowest in the world...so our statutory rates are both too high and essentially meaningless, they should be lower and more indicative of what corporations will actually pay.]
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2012, 03:34:07 AM
This tradition does not view an employee as merely a contractor of the employer, but someone the employer should care for and protect (and someone who, like a feudal client or, in more paternalistic and "benevolent" interpretations, a slave, is simply less smart than the employer, and as such should be guided and have some decisions taken for him).
Ultimately, this is pseudo-feudal and such fringe benefits (other allowances include often stuff like clothes you need for work - even if it is just a suit - or a holiday allowance, a special allowance granted on the birth of children, or marriage, or funeral in the family and so on and so forth) that are not seen as a "real pay" (and thus are not taxed or are taxed differently) are a perfect example of this mentality.
To a free market capitalist mind these make no sense, as the employee is perceived as an autonomous economic actor who engages in a transaction of pure exchange of work for pay, but to a paternalistic mind these are all part of a social contract.
On the other hand, America seems to be the only country where health insurance is quite regularly provided by the employer. Pension plans paid for by the employer seem to be fairly common too. I think both of these are not taxed like regular salaries too. So American employees seem to expect some fringe benefits from their employers as well.
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2012, 03:53:25 AM
So American employees seem to expect some fringe benefits from their employers as well.
That's only because our lives depend on it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2012, 03:34:07 AM
Don't think so. If I were to bet my lunch money on it, I would say this comes from the paternalistic tradition of Salazar. This seems a lot like what we had during the communist era (where there was no overly strong restaurant lobby) and seems a type of thing Catholic "socialist" paternalists would come up with.
Interesting reasoning, Martinus. Completely wrong, but still quite an interesting attempt at thinking about the causes of something.
But no, sorry - the Meal Allowance ('Alimentation Subsidy', as it is its technical term here), was introduced in 1976 as part of the workers' conquests after the overthrow of the dictatorship. Of course under Salazar wokers had no right to this.
In fact, the work ethics of the dictatorship followed very closly those that seem to be favoured by many Americans here: no Meal Allowance, no Vacation Subsidy, no Christmas Subsidy, only 2-3 weeks' worth of vacation, easy firing, tiny severance payments (if at all), small and short-lasting unemployment benefits.
People back then were scared slaves to their employers, who could fire at will and thus demanded insane hours of work (often with no compensation) and did not allow for virtually no private life (the day she gave birth to me, my mom got a call from her job, asking when was she coming back).
Those who accept these practices as good are just one tiny step away from enslavement.
This seems especially true of the Americans: the majority are very afraid to speak their minds to their bosses, they do not fight for their rights, and are willing to sacrifice their personal time to an insane level just to avoid being fired.
Anecdotally, the US and UK versions of Gordon Ramsay's 'Kitchen Nightmares' aired here recently. The American version is not only edited to create sensationalism (making Ramsay appear far more aggressive than he really is), but also in the US version, whenever he asks the employees what is wrong with the place in front of their employer, there is a general unwillingness to say what is (clearly) wrong. It not only seemed not very brave of them, but it also gave the impression that the only thing those people would be free to be is fired after the show for speaking their minds against the boss.
Some may speak of Europeans as 'serfs'. I fail to see where.
Europeans fought to get their benefits (and today we have an European strike), while Americans just bow their heads to their employers, afraid to get fired.
The level of understanding Silva has about how things work in America is truly impressive.
Europeans are lazy and entitled, Americans are scared sheep. See, you can both be right :D
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2012, 09:09:48 PM
The level of understanding Silva has about how things work in America is truly impressive.
He's got some right ideas. He hasn't written any of them out, but I'm sure he has to have some.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2012, 09:09:48 PM
The level of understanding Silva has about how things work in America is truly impressive.
I'll say this, I remember back in the EUOT days when I'd see mind-boggling Euro-comments like his it'd be good for me spending a long time either trying to rigorously debunk the nonsense or me just bursting into a troll-laden fit that resulted in a warning from the mods. Nowadays when I see stuff like that I have to conclude it is just blatant trolling and thus not worth comment, or that the Silva is so stupid there is simply no line of rational argument that would explain anything to him.
While Silva is actually dumber from what I can tell, he reminds me of Black Dragon who was always saying ludicrous things about America and painted this rosy picture of Italy as a paradise except for the "dark-skinned south."
"Sins are forgiven, stupid is forever."
Nice sensationalism, Martim. The flaw in your analogy is that several of the things you mentioned are outlawed, "even" here in the US.
- Maternity leave is protected at both the state and federal level. Your lovely little anecdote could very well result in an American business owner losing that business.
- Work without compensation is off the table. Pretty much every full-time employee is going to have some kind of system for accruing paid time off, and plenty of medical emergencies have federal protection so that employees have a job to come back to.
The editorialism in Kitchen Nightmares is well documented, but you're refusing to consider there's another viewpoint.
Rather than see their employers simply as a lifeline, a lot of American employees are trained to see themselves as part of a team. We're all too conscious that the business needs to exist for our jobs to exist. We're going to be reluctant to point out a small business owner as the problem, because that opens up the option that our job will go away.
On top of that, it's simply counter-productive and bad manners to criticize your boss in public, since you undermine their authority and make them all defensive.
On the maternity leave, at least, you guys have an insanely short term.
Quote from: HVC on November 13, 2012, 11:06:59 PM
On the maternity leave, at least, you guys have an insanely short term.
Completely ridiculous that my French Canadian colleague is going to be gone for a year.
Quote from: DGuller on November 13, 2012, 10:59:10 PM
On top of that, it's simply counter-productive and bad manners to criticize your boss in public, since you undermine their authority and make them all defensive.
And a lot of workers aren't going to bother pointing out what's wrong because they just don't give a shit.
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2012, 11:14:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 13, 2012, 11:06:59 PM
On the maternity leave, at least, you guys have an insanely short term.
Completely ridiculous that my French Canadian colleague is going to be gone for a year.
How about a teacher with almost two years back-to-back maternity leave? She's worked one semester out of the last four, and she's collected a salary for both years. I kind of hope she gets pregnant again, just to see if the school board's going to develop the balls to fire her.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 13, 2012, 11:28:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2012, 11:14:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 13, 2012, 11:06:59 PM
On the maternity leave, at least, you guys have an insanely short term.
Completely ridiculous that my French Canadian colleague is going to be gone for a year.
How about a teacher with almost two years back-to-back maternity leave? She's worked one semester out of the last four, and she's collected a salary for both years. I kind of hope she gets pregnant again, just to see if the school board's going to develop the balls to fire her.
your standard leave is 3 weeks. that's less then most african countries :P
We evolved such that women after giving birth didn't require a year of inactivity. Hunter-gatherer women mostly resume their regular duties within a day or two of childbirth.
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2012, 11:14:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 13, 2012, 11:06:59 PM
On the maternity leave, at least, you guys have an insanely short term.
Completely ridiculous that my French Canadian colleague is going to be gone for a year.
Why? It's not like as if we don't pay for it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 14, 2012, 07:29:13 AM
We evolved such that women after giving birth didn't require a year of inactivity. Hunter-gatherer women mostly resume their regular duties within a day or two of childbirth.
ya, but they strap the baby on and carry it along, I don't see many babies in offices. Which I'm glad for, cause that would suck.
Moms are annoying as shit.
Can't come to work because Junior has the sniffles. Well, he's 13 now, he'll live.
Parents are the vector for office illnesses :contract:
I was always easier on the workers with kids.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 14, 2012, 08:35:39 AM
I was always easier on the workers with kids.
Assholes like you made me work Christmas on my day off because Dave's got kids, and well, it's Christmas, so you don't mind, do you?
WELL MY PARENTS HAVE KIDS TOO
Quote from: HVC on November 14, 2012, 08:35:34 AM
Parents are the vector for office illnesses :contract:
Junior doesn't work for me, you do. Get your ass in to work.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 14, 2012, 08:37:57 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 14, 2012, 08:35:39 AM
I was always easier on the workers with kids.
Assholes like you made me work Christmas on my day off because Dave's got kids, and well, it's Christmas, so you don't mind, do you?
WELL MY PARENTS HAVE KIDS TOO
Testify!
Parents should have to work Christmas to teach their little brat kids some important life-lessons about how their Mommy and Daddy will fail them later in life when they REALLY need them.
Breeders rule, singles drool.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 14, 2012, 08:37:57 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 14, 2012, 08:35:39 AM
I was always easier on the workers with kids.
Assholes like you made me work Christmas on my day off because Dave's got kids, and well, it's Christmas, so you don't mind, do you?
WELL MY PARENTS HAVE KIDS TOO
breeder rage, excessive grooming... Tell me, how do you feel about feet? :hmm:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 14, 2012, 08:43:00 AM
Breeders rule, singles drool.
Hey! It is a genetic thing.
You all are making me miss the day to day management of people.
Almost
You're all a bunch of suckers with soft nougat centers. No wonder the American workplace fails.