About Us  |  About Cheetah®  |  Contact Us

Survey finds American workers spend an average of $3000 a year on coffee and lunch at work

American workers spend an alarmingly high amount of their hard earned cash on somewhat average daily expenses, according to a new Workonomix survey by Accounting Principals. The survey found that 50 percent of the American workforce spends approximately $1000 a year on coffee, or a weekly coffee habit of more than $20. And the spending doesn’t stop there. Two thirds (66 percent) of working Americans buy their lunch instead of packing it, costing them an average of $37 per week — nearly $2,000 a year.

Despite these high costs, the survey suggests workers are unclear about the biggest drain to their wallet. When asked which work expense they most want to be reimbursed for by their employer, 42 percent of employees chose commuting costs and only 11 percent chose lunch expenses. However, the average American’s commuting cost is $123 a month or approximately $1500 a year, which is well below the average annual lunch tab of $2000.

“Small — but consistent — expenses add up quickly over time, and it can be difficult for consumers to realize it because they’re only spending a few dollars at a time. But, as our survey shows, those few dollars can quickly turn into a few thousand dollars,” said Jodi Chavez, senior vice president, Accounting Principals. “Additionally, when you look at it over a worker’s lifetime, that number grows exponentially. Consider the average American who works for about 40 years, starting their first job around age 22. By the time they retire at age 62 they would have spent at minimum $120,000 on coffee and lunch, not including inflation.”

This is especially true for young American workers. The survey found that younger professionals (ages 18-34) spend almost twice as much on coffee during the week than those ages 45+ ($24.74 vs. $14.15, respectively). They also shell out more for lunch, spending an average of $44.78 per week on lunch compared to their older colleagues who spend $31.80 per week. However, it seems American workers of all ages are starting to realize the effect this incremental spending has on their personal bottom line. According to the survey, one-third (35 percent) of employees have made it a financial goal to bring lunch instead of buying it in 2012.

Other survey findings include:

  • Better food and coffee in the office might help cut back personal spending. Perhaps because of how much they’re spending outside the office, American workers would like companies to invest in better food and drinks in the office. One-quarter (25 percent) of Americans wish their company would invest in better vending machine snacks and 22 percent of American workers would like their company to invest in better coffee in the office.
  • Employers should focus on the “simple pleasures” to keep employees happy. Although better food and drinks would be a plus, employees most want to see their companies invest in better office equipment (46 percent) and more comfortable office chairs (32 percent) in 2012.
  • Corporate discounts do not factor into employees’ purchase decisions. Companies looking to attract new candidates shouldn’t focus on corporate discounts as a selling point. The majority (82 percent) of employees say corporate discounts matter little or not at all when buying a new product or service.

“As the recovery gains momentum and companies look to attract and retain talent, they should consider worrying less about big-ticket discounts and focus instead on what will impact their employees’ happiness every day,” said Chavez. “Small improvements around the office, such as better equipment, food and drinks, can make a big difference in workers’ morale. After all it is often the little things in life that tend to make people the happiest.”

Source: Accounting Principals; www.accountingprincipals.com.

Philadelphia taxi drivers fail to revive antitrust claims against Uber

March 29th, 2018

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.
Philadelphia cab drivers who claimed that Uber attempted to monopolize the taxicab market when it burst onto the scene in the city were unable to revive their antitrust claims against the rideshare juggernaut. The Third Circuit agreed with the district court below that Uber’s alleged conduct fell short of what was [Read more...]


Admission of employee’s Facebook posts in sexual harassment trial was not prejudicial error

March 29th, 2018

By Lorene D. Park, J.D.
A jury heard conflicting evidence regarding an employee’s claim of unwanted severe and pervasive sexual harassment, and it duly made credibility assessments, concluded a federal district court in Pennsylvania, rejecting the employee’s argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and was a miscarriage of justice. She argued [Read more...]


NLRB determination that union unlawfully ran exclusive hiring hall stands

March 28th, 2018

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.
A union that petitioned for review of an NLRB finding that it had violated the NLRA through its hiring practices was denied relief on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, which upheld the determination that the union had run an exclusive hiring hall with regard to two employers and that it had [Read more...]


Openly gay female officer advances Title VII sexual orientation bias, gender stereotyping claims

March 28th, 2018

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.
The Title VII sex discrimination claims of an openly gay police officer, who alleged the department’s policies on transporting, supervising, and monitoring female prisoners failed to protect LGBTQ officers and placed her in compromising positions, survived her employer’s motion to dismiss, a federal district court in New York ruled, finding she could [Read more...]


Second Circuit vacates ARB ruling that railroad interfered with injured worker’s additional chiropractic care

March 27th, 2018

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.
In an appeal from a decision of the DOL’s Administrative Review Board (ARB), the Second Circuit has ruled that an injured employee’s Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) claim was unsupported by substantial evidence. The employer had refused to cover his chiropractic treatments after its contracted occupational health services department (OHS) concluded [Read more...]