(Bloomberg)--To boost its bottom line, Sprint decided lastweek to end the era of free office snacks away from itsemployees.

Read: This is the most covetedperk

The move represents a tiny fraction of the struggling telecom'seffort to cut $2.5 billion from its total operating expenses.

Axing the free food will shave $600,000 from the budget.But at what cost?

"They would never have given the snacks to begin with if theydidn’t think it was helping boost productivity somehow,"said Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor,the job- review website.

Organizations eager to save money tend to getcreative, and gratis office treats can seem like just the kindof frivolous expense a company entering a phase of austerity shouldreconsider.

To curb expenses, for instance, Kraft earlier this summer yankedits free cheese sticks and Jell-O cups. But the economic case foroffering free snacks outweighs the relatively puny savings—and oncea workplace gets hooked on snack, it can't really goback.

Read: 4 simple ways to create an awesomeoffice

Only 22 percent of offices provide free snacks and beverages,according to the Society for Human Resource Management's 2015Employee Benefits Survey. (Bloomberg LP is counted among thefree-food employers—there's an ample snack pantry here stocked witheverything from fresh fruit and granola bars to potato chips.)

In the majority of the working world, employees have to fend forthemselves.

From the most cynical point of view, however, this isn't just acase of corporate largesse.

Snacks keep workers in the office working instead of outforaging for sustenance during working hours.

A 2011 study from Staples found that half of all workersleft the office to get snacks at least once a day, with some peoplemaking as many as five trips to get their munchie fix.

Snack runs account for 2.4 hours in productivity losses,according to the study. It should be noted, of course, thatStaples and your boss have a shared interest in keeping more peoplein the office.

"[If] people had food there, they are likely to stay longer—youhave higher productivity," said Ken Oehler of Aon Hewitt, anHR consulting firm that, among other things, specializes inemployee engagement policies.

The cost of shedding free snacks goes beyond lostproductivity.

Read: A chef, a sugar tax, and the epidemic ofobesity

An office that once had snacks puts itself at risk byeliminating the perk. "These small perks, they may be small indollar amount, but they can be highly symbolic," said Chamberlain."They have this image as a gift, pulling it away can have apsychological effect that far outstrips the dollar amount."

Snacks, like many perks, exist to boost "employee engagement," HRjargon for an employee's emotional investment in theirjob.

Many studies have linked high engagement with bottom-linesuccess, finding that employees work best when they care abouttheir job and their employer.

A 2012 Towers Watson study found work environmentsthat promote the physical, emotional, and social well-being ofemployees at the highest level had much higher one-year operatingmargins than those without engagement policies of anykind.

Employees accustomed to the perk can feel burned if it's takenaway. At one Aon Hewitt client, for example, taking away free lunch"greatly demotivated the staff," according to Oehler.

Read: Nutritional focus at work reduces employeeobesity

At another company, Aon Hewitt found that completely taking awayfree food would have caused a such big deterioration inengagement that the cost savings couldn't be justified. "Eventhough it might not be a lot of money," Oehler said, "the questionis are you getting the ROI [return on investment] on snacks."

Cutting something so visible can send a loud, shrill signalto employees. "There's an old saying where they say the goal is topluck the feathers from the bird with the least amount ofsquawking," said Chamberlain.

The less visible the cuts, the better—even if it means takingmoney out employee pockets. "Changes to contributions to employeeretirement plans," he suggested as a less disruptive cut thanemptying the snack larder. "These are highly obscure from a workerstandpoint."

You know what's not obscure? The daily hunger pangs that remindsnackless employees of what they once had.

Copyright 2018 Bloomberg. All rightsreserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,or redistributed.