In an attempt to delve deeper into the aspects of what I actually spend most of my time pretending to do, my job, I have stumbled across a question which I am thinking about. What is the difference between a perk and a bribe? Everyone knows that certain jobs carry certain perks. And all in all this is not completely unacceptable.

Take for instance, Google. By Google's own admission they give new moms and dads the option to expense up to $500 in take out during the first four weeks that they are home with the new baby. They have plans to include adoption assistance, as well as a Child Care Center, and free Back-up child care. Google offers a completely free shuttle service to mutiple locations, not to mentions a program which gives their employees to incentives towards purchasing Fuel Efficient vehicles. Plus they have a coin-free laundry room

The other classic example is Microsoft. Upon starting work at Microsoft as a developer rumor's have it that you are given thousands of dollars in software, multiple laptops. Some employees report being given cars.

But this is not limited to giant software monomaniacal companies. Even in my own place of work I see perks all the time. From a bonus for working late for a few days in a row to the ski trip that I recently went on, it is evident that these perks are a part of the job.

Even in a much smaller company some perks are taken for granted. How many people have gotten a cup or two of free coffee everyday? Or put a pen or notebook in your briefcase only to actually use it for something that is not work related? Most places that I have worked at have a break room loaded with these taken for granted perks. Whether it is a foose-ball table or a T.V. that you can watch your stories on, these perks are just a part of working where you do, and you probably don't think of them as being a part of your compensation package.

I would also argue that you shouldn't have to! Certain perks of working for companies are expected and demanded. I know that I would never even consider taking a job that did not include a benefits package that included at the bare minimum health insurance and some sort of retirement plan. This is not part of the salary that I take home, and probably not a result of whatever company I work for (i.e. working at a restaurant and being able to have free dinner from the left over food). However, the employers are required to budget for these benefits and for the perks that we take for granted. Companies that go around to different offices and supply water for the water cooler, coffee for the coffee maker, Tylenol for the first aid kit, make tons of money. It is a lucrative business. And the money that supports that business must be budgeted for and is just simply a part of running business.

But I can't help but look at other occupations and see things that are potential perks as transitioning to the evil word, bribe. The most ready example that flows to mind is that of the politician. We see kick-backs, we see campaign contributions, and we see trips, and instantly I have been trained to feel that something bad has occurred. It may have!

A politician is required to spend so much money on campaigning that they have to raise it somewhere. If they get it from a corporation that wants to support them, why is that wrong? Obviously, if that donation comes with some sort of obligation to modify potential legislation in the donating organization's favor then it is a different issue. But is that always the case? How do we monitor it? And can we prevent it?

Should we prevent a politician from awarding a contract to a company that they are familiar with? In business this happens everyday. If I am a CEO and I need to hire a company to do XYZ, I'm probably going to use a company that I have a vested interest in using if that option is available to me. If I need a painting, I'm calling John and Katie and telling them, I need a painting. If I own a construction company that makes office buildings, and I need an office building, I'm probably going to use the construction company I own. Is that wrong?

I will venture to keep this from being overtly political, by pointing out that the idea of corporate kick-backs as being a wrong doing is an established fact. The SEC looks for this very thing and several companies in the news are being accused of doing this very thing. But is that wrong? What is the difference between a signing bonus and a kick-back? To myself, I know that it is different but I have difficulty in labeling that difference. Why is the cup of coffee accepted and the kick-back not? The obvious answer is the size. But if a company spends thousands of dollars on coffee is it different?