No coffee = firm trouble?

March 9, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
If you came to work one morning to find out that your company no long provided free coffee because it wanted to save money, would you be angry, worried, or indifferent?

One Chicago firm has reportedly cut free coffee service in an attempt to save money. Some there look at it as a bad sign and that the firm is in trouble.

Yes, it’s just a perk to have coffee provided for free in your office, but it’s a nice perk that many people depend on and enjoy. The same goes for a water cooler, refrigerator to store your lunch, or vending machines. Do you have to have these to do your job? No, but it sure is nice to know your company is looking out for you and trying to make your hours on the job more comfortable.

Back to my original question: how would you feel if your firm started making cuts to small perks you enjoy? Would you be upset because you need to have your coffee to get through the day and now you’d have to bring it from home or buy it elsewhere? Would you be worried this was a sign the company was in trouble if it’s resorted to cutting coffee service? Perhaps you don’t drink coffee or you don’t care one way or another.

Have your firms started to cut costs in small areas? Does it bother you or would rather them cut coffee service or supplies than cut your job or freeze pay?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT