Shared publicly  - 
 
Humane Companies: Google provides death benefits

Chief People Officer Laszlo Bock told Forbes that the company had just last year announced a new perk for staff. If you pass away while employed by Google, your spouse will get 50 percent of your salary for a decade. Google will also give your children a $1,000 monthly payment until they reach 19 (longer if they are a full-time student), and all stocks will be vested immediately.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Google-Death-Benefits-Spouse-Children-Payments,news-16034.html

Sure, Google is doing well, but it doesn't have to do this kind of stuff. This seems to fall into the category of "don't be evil" - and though I seriously doubt this is a huge recruiting play (think young, seemingly immortal fresh college grads), it contributes to the sense that Google takes care of its own.

Is this just the come-back of good ol' fashioned company loyalty, or is this something slightly different?  Why does Google do this? Seriously. I'm asking...
18
6
Jan Mercl's profile photoTom Jeffries's profile photoGideon Rosenblatt's profile photoMatt Cooper's profile photo
15 comments
 
Google does their best to get it right.  No person and certainly no company is perfect, but Google is inspiring in the way they approach things.
 
I don't care what you call it ... from my perspective, THAT is called valuing your employees and their families.  I applaud Google! 
 
When we look at ways to reconcile the profit-motive pressures of capitalism and the needs dictated by a real social business Google appears to be leading the way. Great share +Gideon Rosenblatt   +Gregory Esau this may be of interest.
 
It's part of the fight for talented people. Demand is big, supply less so. For example: the big companies buy other companies not for their product but because of the people.
 
+Nico Nieuwendijk, to an extent you're right, but before you think that's all this is, look at the history of Microsoft and Apple over the last 25-30 years.  They had piles of money at various times, but they never took an unselfish approach towards their employees.  Both companies used (and still use) ego and prestige more than really trying to benefit their employees.
 
I wonder if they are covering this by taking out insurance on the employee
 
Agreed, +Tom Jeffries. I was at Microsoft when what was previously quite generous ESPP programs started getting rolled back due to fears of stock dilution by shareholders. In public companies, there is tremendous pressure there to think short-term, and in ways that ultimately work against employees and the long-term interests of the firm. 
 
People usually love to work at Google and it has lot to do with the benefits. However, there is also something less tangible, a certain kind of spirit, they were able to develop, despite the usual bureaucratic problems you are facing being a public company. At Google they seem to know that their most valuable asset is their people. 
 
Anyone not understanding this perk doesn't have to ask "why?" as he/she has already proved the inability to comprehend the answer. No words play, no kidding. Sorry.
 
I had already previously started thinking Google could do the world a favour and buy it out. Now I have realized that is probably what they are going to do. They are going to save the world. At least that's what it looks like. Perhaps someone had a master plan, and it worked. Go all the way, Google. Just do it.
 
Nice, +Jan Mercl, real nice. Glad you've got me completely figured out.

+Walter H Groth and +Sakari Maaranen, I agree. There really does seem to be something about this company that runs a little differently...especially given its size. That's sort of why I keep probing...to understand it a bit better. No company (or person, for that matter) is perfect, but something good does seem to be happening here and I think it's important to understand it. 
 
+Gideon Rosenblatt Did I mention anyone specifically? It's my opinion about this QA schema, nothing personal.
 
+Jan Mercl We help others learn and grow by sharing our views and our understanding. Sharing self-congratulations for supposedly outsmarting an imaginary inferior reference group appears to be the view that you wanted to share, isn't it? You teached me that you like to think you are smart, and people should either be as smart or at least smart enough not to discuss the matter further. Please enlighten me if I misunderstood your opinion.
 
Hmm, another way how to artificially insert a specific person in the middle of a anyone-specific orthogonal thought about questions void their own answers, in its concrete version discussed.
Add a comment...