Someone making 400,000 a year who has no need to risk their job for 25 dollars mentioned it off hand to HR. One could infer that the policies were unclear and the reaction was overkill.
Why should someone get more of a benefit because they spend more on food? Why does the person who brought a tasty snack and doesn’t wolf down cold McDonalds not get to take advantage of a monetary benefit provided to other workers?
And I ask again, did they make sure the people that took the vouchers spent all of it on food, or are they only picking on people who weren’t smart enough to keep quiet about spending it on other things?
There’s a lot of context we’re missing here. For example this happens with my company and the reason is tax implications - if they provided “free money” that would be additional salary and taxed as such, whereas “free meals” are taxed completely differently. There could be completely legitimate reasons. Maybe if they let people use it for whatever purpose, the $25 would turn into $15 due to tax.
What I won’t defend is firing people for this reason. I don’t see how that can be ethically acceptable…
Yes, i though this, too, but usually companies address this by issueing vouchers that can be only be used for certain businesses or products. This makes sure, the expense shows up as food on the invoice. Nobody cares if employees find a loophole to buy non-food. The company issued food vouchers. That will do.
Every company I’ve worked for either gave us digital gift cards or, when I was a manager, let us charge meals specifically to our business credit card for a certain amount per month (team outings) without prior approval.
And with a normal org, they’d simply revoke the benefit and maybe take a penalty from the employee’s future paychecks. Firing someone over such a small benefit is ridiculous and only makes sense if they’re actively looking for ways to cut headcount w/o paying severance or unemployment.
This was for sites that didn’t have a cafeteria. They offered this as a way to provide food, while on-site, if the employee would like to. This childish notion that “sOmBoDy GoT mOrE tHaN mE!” is ridiculous. This wasn’t supposed to be for personal monetary gain. Employees with sites that had cafeteria are not handed cash or allowed to select household goods if they choose not to eat at the cafeteria. This isn’t something that should really have to be explained to grown-ass adults making 400k a year. This is just an extreme level of entitlement and I can’t believe people are making me defend a company who’s products I refuse to use.
I can’t believe people are making me defend a company who’s products I refuse to use.
Exactly!
People abusing a benefit for marginal gain is wrong. It’s not “you’re fired” wrong, it’s “you don’t get this benefit anymore” wrong.
We can absolutely call out the empolyees for abusing the benefit while also calling out the company for overreacting, and we should be calling it what it is: Meta looking for ways to cull their workforce w/o having to pay out severance or dealing with wrongful termination.
I’ll give you that, but that other commenter seemed to think it wouldn’t be “fair” if another employee used it, and they didn’t, which is a very childish notion. Depending on severity and duration, I could even see it being a talking to. I do also see not being able to find this employee suitable for a position of trust, which they may have been in given their salary. If the employer can’t trust you to self-regulate on something as simple as a meal voucher, I don’t see how they could trust you at large.
Absolutely! My kids make this argument all the time (they got a half centimeter more juice than me!! waaah!!), and if they complain, I take it away. I was always taught, “you get what you get and you don’t get upset,” which works fantastically when divvying up things like this. I’m not going to make a stink over a $25 food voucher or whatever, it’s just a way to replace not having a benefit available elsewhere (a cafeteria), and if you’re whining about someone else using the whole $25 when you don’t, then you’re a super selfish person who I wouldn’t want to work with anyway.
If I was a manager in this situation, I’d deal with it exactly as I do with my kids: I’d take away the voucher. No disciplinary action, just removing the benefit if it’s causing problems. I would probably also not want to recommend them for promotion because this type of behavior often indicates other issues, but I wouldn’t do that just because of this stupid benefit violation.
I’m just explaining how the real world works. For instance, I supervise other employees. Their hourly rate is lower than mine, however, the real cost of many of the employees I supervise far exceeds my real cost. How? Well, some have dependants and they are included on their health insurance. Beyond that, some have chosen different providers or higher option plans than I have. There are other benefits that can increase their real cost to the employer. Does that mean my employer owes me the difference in cash or other tangible rewards based on how I choose to take advantage of the benefits offered? What if I chose not to contribute to my retirement, do they owe me that match percentage, even though that’s not his it’s outlined? This is absurd. There are problems with capitalism and corporations in this country, but expecting people to follow simple guidelines regarding a meal voucher isn’t one of them, especially for well compensated employees. Realistically, meta could probably refer this to the local police as fraud if they chose to.
Travel meal vouchers are common and rarely require receipts because they are provided with the onus on the employees to use them as intended. There is zero liability on Meta for a voucher given as a condition of being in the office, because if it was that important they would have been collecting receiots and reimbursing employees or having them order on a company account or something like that.
This is grade A after the fact petty shit to dismiss employees.
There’s plenty of precedent for that though. HSA money, personal mobile device usage, credit for using mass transit… they are compensating specific things. Food is a bit odd to be honest; I’m not sure why they don’t just pay you cash.
The severity of punishment does not match the severity of violating the policy. We’ve already figured this idea out in real life and across numerous genres of fiction that at this point is a common trope. It’s literally a sci-fi trope at this point of the paradise planet that everyone loves but the biggest flaw is that any infraction against the law however minor is tje death penalty. The concept of fair punishments is literally baked into the constitution through the bill of rights with the 8th amendment, no cruel and unusual punishments, no excessive bail or excessive fines.
Oh ho ho, looks like we got a haaaaard worker over here. Yeah dude, I’m a trust fund baby 10 million dollar loan from my father to open my professional esport beenie baby collection company that I hired someone else to run and yet still have an adversity to bootlicking bosses.
Or, I’m a regular guy who also still hates bootlicking abused of power.
Lick lick slurp slurp but it sounds to me like you moved on from the boot ifyouknowwhatimsayin.
I was mostly implying you’re a lazy slob. Kind of interesting you apparently think you come across as rich. Says a lot about the type of person you are.
Here’s your argument then. The very nature of the relationship between worker and boss under current capitalist economics is inherently exploitative. To further use that leveraged position as a cudgel when a worker does not use a gift you give them in the exact way you wanted is morally evil. The money is budgeted, the intent is irrelevant.
Defending this is a defense of a evil action in an inherently oppressive and exploitative situation already. Only someone who has done similar, or someone who feels the need to become the devils advocate would defend it. Neither of those people deserve to have their opinion respected, just as they, you, don’t respect the workers position or the scummyness of the action itself.
This argument will not convince you, because you have already sided with the boot and your tongue is glued to it.
If it was made clear that it was only to be used for food and to only use while you were at the office, then fine. Harsh, but whatever.
Stupid policy is stupid.
Are they requiring receipts from those that follow the directions to make sure they spend all $25 on lunch?
It’s for food.
It’s the rules for receiving the funds. Don’t like it, don’t accept the funds.
Someone making 400,000 a year who has no need to risk their job for 25 dollars mentioned it off hand to HR. One could infer that the policies were unclear and the reaction was overkill.
What a load of crap.
Why should someone get more of a benefit because they spend more on food? Why does the person who brought a tasty snack and doesn’t wolf down cold McDonalds not get to take advantage of a monetary benefit provided to other workers?
And I ask again, did they make sure the people that took the vouchers spent all of it on food, or are they only picking on people who weren’t smart enough to keep quiet about spending it on other things?
There’s a lot of context we’re missing here. For example this happens with my company and the reason is tax implications - if they provided “free money” that would be additional salary and taxed as such, whereas “free meals” are taxed completely differently. There could be completely legitimate reasons. Maybe if they let people use it for whatever purpose, the $25 would turn into $15 due to tax.
What I won’t defend is firing people for this reason. I don’t see how that can be ethically acceptable…
Yes, i though this, too, but usually companies address this by issueing vouchers that can be only be used for certain businesses or products. This makes sure, the expense shows up as food on the invoice. Nobody cares if employees find a loophole to buy non-food. The company issued food vouchers. That will do.
Every company I’ve worked for either gave us digital gift cards or, when I was a manager, let us charge meals specifically to our business credit card for a certain amount per month (team outings) without prior approval.
Exactly. If they abuse the benefit, withdraw the benefit.
If that is the case the Meta set themselves up for failure for some tax breaks and is taking it out on their employees.
No, they’re using this as an excuse to cull the workforce.
In most orgs, this would merely result in losing access to the benefit.
It can be both, since the vouchers have existed for years and are only now getting scrutiny.
And with a normal org, they’d simply revoke the benefit and maybe take a penalty from the employee’s future paychecks. Firing someone over such a small benefit is ridiculous and only makes sense if they’re actively looking for ways to cut headcount w/o paying severance or unemployment.
This was for sites that didn’t have a cafeteria. They offered this as a way to provide food, while on-site, if the employee would like to. This childish notion that “sOmBoDy GoT mOrE tHaN mE!” is ridiculous. This wasn’t supposed to be for personal monetary gain. Employees with sites that had cafeteria are not handed cash or allowed to select household goods if they choose not to eat at the cafeteria. This isn’t something that should really have to be explained to grown-ass adults making 400k a year. This is just an extreme level of entitlement and I can’t believe people are making me defend a company who’s products I refuse to use.
Exactly!
People abusing a benefit for marginal gain is wrong. It’s not “you’re fired” wrong, it’s “you don’t get this benefit anymore” wrong.
We can absolutely call out the empolyees for abusing the benefit while also calling out the company for overreacting, and we should be calling it what it is: Meta looking for ways to cull their workforce w/o having to pay out severance or dealing with wrongful termination.
I’ll give you that, but that other commenter seemed to think it wouldn’t be “fair” if another employee used it, and they didn’t, which is a very childish notion. Depending on severity and duration, I could even see it being a talking to. I do also see not being able to find this employee suitable for a position of trust, which they may have been in given their salary. If the employer can’t trust you to self-regulate on something as simple as a meal voucher, I don’t see how they could trust you at large.
Absolutely! My kids make this argument all the time (they got a half centimeter more juice than me!! waaah!!), and if they complain, I take it away. I was always taught, “you get what you get and you don’t get upset,” which works fantastically when divvying up things like this. I’m not going to make a stink over a $25 food voucher or whatever, it’s just a way to replace not having a benefit available elsewhere (a cafeteria), and if you’re whining about someone else using the whole $25 when you don’t, then you’re a super selfish person who I wouldn’t want to work with anyway.
If I was a manager in this situation, I’d deal with it exactly as I do with my kids: I’d take away the voucher. No disciplinary action, just removing the benefit if it’s causing problems. I would probably also not want to recommend them for promotion because this type of behavior often indicates other issues, but I wouldn’t do that just because of this stupid benefit violation.
It is either wrong to use it for something else or it isn’t.
Should the employees who spent less than the dollar amount of the voucher on that day’s meal be fired too?
??
There’s no requirement to use up the whole voucher, the only requirement is that if you choose to use the voucher, you only use it on food. That’s it.
No, this is the company treating their employees like children over a benefit they chose to provide.
You don’t have to defend them, they have lawyers. You are choosing to defend them.
I’m just explaining how the real world works. For instance, I supervise other employees. Their hourly rate is lower than mine, however, the real cost of many of the employees I supervise far exceeds my real cost. How? Well, some have dependants and they are included on their health insurance. Beyond that, some have chosen different providers or higher option plans than I have. There are other benefits that can increase their real cost to the employer. Does that mean my employer owes me the difference in cash or other tangible rewards based on how I choose to take advantage of the benefits offered? What if I chose not to contribute to my retirement, do they owe me that match percentage, even though that’s not his it’s outlined? This is absurd. There are problems with capitalism and corporations in this country, but expecting people to follow simple guidelines regarding a meal voucher isn’t one of them, especially for well compensated employees. Realistically, meta could probably refer this to the local police as fraud if they chose to.
That isn’t the same thing by a mile.
Travel meal vouchers are common and rarely require receipts because they are provided with the onus on the employees to use them as intended. There is zero liability on Meta for a voucher given as a condition of being in the office, because if it was that important they would have been collecting receiots and reimbursing employees or having them order on a company account or something like that.
This is grade A after the fact petty shit to dismiss employees.
what horseshit. it’s money out of your pocket, who cares, fuck off and don’t micromanage people’s lives.
There’s plenty of precedent for that though. HSA money, personal mobile device usage, credit for using mass transit… they are compensating specific things. Food is a bit odd to be honest; I’m not sure why they don’t just pay you cash.
We posted notice that your house was going to be destroyed, Mr. Dent.
Why does it matter if you’re doing it out of genuine care for your employees? This is just virtue signaling bullshit by Meta
The severity of punishment does not match the severity of violating the policy. We’ve already figured this idea out in real life and across numerous genres of fiction that at this point is a common trope. It’s literally a sci-fi trope at this point of the paradise planet that everyone loves but the biggest flaw is that any infraction against the law however minor is tje death penalty. The concept of fair punishments is literally baked into the constitution through the bill of rights with the 8th amendment, no cruel and unusual punishments, no excessive bail or excessive fines.
Lick lick lick slurp is all I see with this comment.
“I have no idea what income taxes are because I’ve never worked in my life” is what I see here.
Oh ho ho, looks like we got a haaaaard worker over here. Yeah dude, I’m a trust fund baby 10 million dollar loan from my father to open my professional esport beenie baby collection company that I hired someone else to run and yet still have an adversity to bootlicking bosses.
Or, I’m a regular guy who also still hates bootlicking abused of power.
Lick lick slurp slurp but it sounds to me like you moved on from the boot ifyouknowwhatimsayin.
Good arguments.
I was mostly implying you’re a lazy slob. Kind of interesting you apparently think you come across as rich. Says a lot about the type of person you are.
Here’s your argument then. The very nature of the relationship between worker and boss under current capitalist economics is inherently exploitative. To further use that leveraged position as a cudgel when a worker does not use a gift you give them in the exact way you wanted is morally evil. The money is budgeted, the intent is irrelevant.
Defending this is a defense of a evil action in an inherently oppressive and exploitative situation already. Only someone who has done similar, or someone who feels the need to become the devils advocate would defend it. Neither of those people deserve to have their opinion respected, just as they, you, don’t respect the workers position or the scummyness of the action itself.
This argument will not convince you, because you have already sided with the boot and your tongue is glued to it.