Google loses best workplace crown to NetApp

January 24, 2009

A view of the headquarters of the internet search engine company Google in Mountain View, California. California technology firm NetApp has taken Google's crown as best company to work for in 2009, according to an annual Top 100 list published by Fortune Magazine.

California technology firm NetApp has taken Google's crown as best company to work for in 2009, according to an annual Top 100 list published by Fortune Magazine.

---

Content from AFP expires 1 month after original publication date. For more information about AFP, please visit www.afp.com .

---

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

GE, Vivendi talks over NBC Universal stretch on

Nov 20, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

Military experiment seeks to predict PTSD

Nov 20, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

Projections of savings from health IT are baseless, researchers say

Nov 20, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

Yahoo jumps on Twitter bandwagon to improve search

Nov 19, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

AOL offers buyouts to over a third of work force

Nov 19, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

• paulthebassguy - Jan 24, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
  I think that surveys like this are just PR stunts for large companies - there are usually still condescending attitudes by managers towards staff members, and an implicit expectation for employees to work longer hours than usual.
  
  The actual best places to work are smaller companies who are owned by down-to-earth entrepreneurs who are competent in business and also truly trust & respect their staff members, and don't brag about how good of an employer they are.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• docknowledge - Jan 24, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  Good point, paulthebassguy. What they mean is "best big business you have some reasonable chance of working, some day". But I do like one very honest part of the article, which is that...hey...if you give away free ski trips to employees, everybody is going to think it's "great" to work there. I worked in a company where I rarely paid for my own lunches, and where there was a keg of beer in the aisle. We all thought we were going to be rich. Did we think it was a great company? Heck, yeah! Did we care that investors couldn't possibly earn their money back, over the long term? Uh...long term? You mean after I cash in my stock options? Great for employees does not necessarily mean "good business".
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• ontheinternets - Jan 25, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  If a company trims $5000 off the salary and puts that into conspicuous perks, it comes off as being a better place to work. The hours in practice tend to end up higher as well, since you've got to be at work to take advantage of them.
  
  (in case it's not clear-- my experience working for 'good employers' has made me skeptical of the metrics they use to judge these things.. and I've learned that money and free time are more valuable)
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5