Perks vs. Salary

When I worked for ThoughtWorks I once got on a bus after work -- no ordinary bus, mind you, this was "Party Bus." On this "Party Bus" there were leather seats, flashing lights, a big screen TV with karaoke, and many bottles of Patron Silver and Grey Goose. We drank and sang like maniacs, then we got to the Casino where we ate a very fancy dinner (including some very pricey wine), did a little gambling, caused some trouble, and then back on the bus for more drinking and karaoke. The only thing I payed for was the gambling.

The next day I was pretty hung over but I still got to pair with some of the best programmers I've ever worked with.

I often think about this when people ask how ThoughtWorks is able to keep such excellent programmers when they could easily go somewhere else and make more money. If you took all that money that was spent on our night out, divided it by the 10 or so people that went, and added it to our salary, there's no way we would have valued it anywhere near as much. I now have a story I can tell for the rest of my life and that's worth something.

Which is why I was pretty happy when Obtiva (my new employer) took all of its employees and their wives, girlfriends, and children out for a 'booze cruise' (with good food too) on Lake Michigan during the Chicago Air and Water Show last weekend. Perks inspire loyalty and camaraderie far beyond their monetary value.

Not having to get on a plane twice a week is nice too.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Nice post, I think that sums up one big reason why it's good to work at TW. The other big one for me is the quality of the people that you work with - recruiting is definitely a big strength of TW. All the people I've worked with have been keen to learn, pretty much egoless, etc. All traits that lead to teams that are really cool to be a part of.
August 26, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What's a Good Flog Score?

I've been using Flog to measure the complexity of my Ruby code and I was wondering how others interpret Flog numbers. I'll go first with my opinions: Score of Means 0-10 Awesome 11-20 Good enough 21-40 Might need refactoring 41-60 Possible to justify 61-100 Danger 100-200 Whoop, whoop, whoop 200 + Someone please think of the children (note: these are scores for an individual method) The 20 - 60 range is interesting to me. Sometimes the complexity of what you're doing will justify the score and other times the method is in desperate need of refactoring. The highest Flog score I've seen in the wild was in the 300's. What's you're personal high and what do you think of my rankings? In other news, I've redesigned the look of my blog so if you only see my post through a reader you might want to stop on by, take a look, and tell me what you think.
Read more

SICP Wasn’t Written for You

The number of software luminaries who sing the praises of “ Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs ” (referred to as SICP) is such a long list that you might think only a crazy person would take issue with it. However, to ignore SICP’s problems and continue to blindly recommend it seems just as crazy. SICP was the textbook for MIT’s introductory programming class and was a bit of a departure from other into to computer science textbooks at the time.  Wikipedia sums it up nicely:  “Before SICP, the introductory courses were almost always filled with learning the details of some programming language, while SICP focuses on finding general patterns from specific problems and building software tools that embody each pattern.”  Which sounds awesome, but does essentially say that abstract principles will be introduced before the nuts and bolts of a language.  If you think about that for a minute, you may see where the problems will be. When I was training to be a teacher I took a b
Read more

Point Inside a Polygon in Ruby

Recently my team needed to find out if a point was inside a given polygon and, as usual, we found some code on the internet that did what we wanted. And, as usual, there wasn't much explanation as to what it was doing. Here's the code (after we converted it to Ruby): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 def contains_point? (point) c = false i = -1 j = self .size - 1 while (i += 1 ) < self .size if (( self [i].y <= point.y && point.y < self [j].y) || ( self [j].y <= point.y && point.y < self [i].y)) if (point.x < ( self [j].x - self [i].x) * (point.y - self [i].y) / ( self [j].y - self [i].y) + self [i].x) c = !c end end j = i end return c end end So, you know, it works and I'm grateful to somebody for posting it but we had no idea how it works. So we wrapped 2 tests around it (one where the point is not in the polygon and another where it is
Read more