Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Eureka! Keeping naked people off the streets since 1999.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                       

workplace housing

Centralized Company Offices/Apartments in High-Rise Buildings
  (+2, -3)
(+2, -3)
  [vote for,
against]

Many large companies own large parts of or own entire high-rise buildings. Of a building with 50 floors, for example, 5 floors could be used for restaurants, mail, lobby, etc., 20 floors could be used for working/offices and the like, 25 floors for medium sized apartments for employees of the company (starting at relatively bare- bones and getting better as the employee climbs the metaphorical "ladder of success"). Too often hard working employees of faceless companies have terrible housing just because they are low on the corporate ladder. Providing housing inside the building would eliminate this problem, as the employees manager/superior would be able to put the employee up for an "upgrade", so to speak, such as a nicer bed for free, or a computer for use in his/her apartment. It would also make employees more accountable, perhaps with an intercom to their immediate superior in each apartment. If an employee was sick, he could intercom to his superior, who would send someone down to make sure he/she was actually sick. If an employee was late, they would need a good reason and would be accountable, but would also not need to have a long or stressful commute every day, instead taking one of the high speed elevators on his/her floor. Traffic on the roads would be a non-issue, an lateness would be 10 minutes instead of an hour. In many facets, I personally believe that this could vastly increase the efficiency of many companies and increase the living conditions of workers.
duncanisgreat, Jun 15 2010

[link]






       "If an employee was sick, he could intercom to his superior, who would send someone down to make sure he/she was actually sick."   

       [-] for this portion of the idea, although it has some meritorious aspects.
gisho, Jun 15 2010
  

       Rebirth of the company town.
jurist, Jun 15 2010
  

       Welcome to China. Or an old mining town.
RayfordSteele, Jun 15 2010
  

       I dislike the paternalistic "company town" embelishements but I could go for a stripped-down version: Companies with "prestige" "flagship" "iconic" headquarters buildings whose square feet couldn't all be rented at a profit, might offer some floors as living space, as an employee perk: the equivalent monetary value to the employees would be greater than the monetary cost to the employer. A small step towards an arcology.
mouseposture, Jun 15 2010
  

       Is it a new idea though? Way back in time, people commanding large workforces have provided housing for them. What's new here?   

       It certainly makes sense to more efficiently situate your workforce close to their place of work - it saves in all that expensive mass-transit infrastructure - this much is pretty obvious - and has been done before - lots of times before - what's new here?   

       How do you overcome the company's natural reticence to be tied to their employees? If it's recession time, and a company wants to shed a few additional employees, how much more difficult would it be to, rather than just tell them not to come in tomorrow, but to also evict them aswell? Too much hassle. And so, the companies that provide all this employment have the luxury of letting their staff deal with the problem of getting in to work. Fair enough?
zen_tom, Jun 16 2010
  

       This just might work... and especially if the employees are paid in a company currency that is used to buy things at the stores, to send mail, and to pay rent in the apartments.
swimswim, Jun 16 2010
  

       [mouse], In the world of the unwritten rules of the corporate ladder, living in such an 'optional' apartment space would not truly be optional.
RayfordSteele, Jun 16 2010
  

       I could almost see this working as an _additional_ space for some employees, if a company was willing to switch from a five-day week to a four-day week (of ten hour days). Like the old 'bachelor apartments'. The empolyees wouldn't live there full-time; they would commute in on Monday morning, have a minimal sleeping/bathing space and use it to sleep on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday night, and then commute back to their regular home on Thursday evening.
gisho, Jun 16 2010
  

       This just might work... but spouses and children who do not work for the company might not appreciate it all that much.
swimswim, Jun 16 2010
  

       I used to live a bit like that, fly somewhere at 7am Monday morning, work during the week while staying somewhere conveniently around the corner, eat out every night, find other like-lifestyled folks and go drinking with them, then head back "home" on Friday night for an increasingly alienating experience with friends back home - it doesn't make for a happy/healthy life.
zen_tom, Jun 16 2010
  

       [RayfordSteele] I know so little about the unwritten rules of the corporate ladder. Thank God.
mouseposture, Jun 16 2010
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle