> Employees who had only occasionally broken the rules were reprimanded, but were able to keep their jobs, the newspaper reported.

It sounds like the fired employee’s abuse was especially egregious and most Meta employees doing this got off with a warning.

Do you imply the person didn't eat that day or what? The company compensates employees food expenses. The employee's partner made the food and thus the food can't be expended, so they bought something else at the equivalent price to compensate for what would otherwise be covered by the company.

I can't find a logic by which this is "stealing". Please clarify.

Now, it's not stealing. Does this outcome feel more morally correct to you? I think, if you answer "no", then your logic on how this stealing works is faulty.

But my logic is correct. If he had just spent it on food he didn't need, he would be in the clear. So then the conclusion must be the policy doesn't work.

The policy is very relevant, in fact it's the only relevant piece of information. You want to prevent stealing? Don't offer your employees stipends. Problem solved, I'll send everyone my invoice.

This is a simple case of having their cake and eating it too. You cannot simultaneously be "generous" and be stingy. Meta intends to keep a certain image, while they maintain actions that contradict that image.

> The company trusts employees to use benefits with responsibility

Correct, the company is being incredibly stupid and naive. They maintain a purely transactional relationship with their employees, and it's in their own best interest to keep that kind of relationship. Such a relationship is not, and will never be, one of "trust" or "morals". The company seemingly forgot what they are.

You're describing exactly the problem. The company wants to appear generous, but they're not actually generous. A generous person doesn't care if that food is meant to feed a family.

This hurts the employees, but it also hurts the company. Naturally this erodes trust. If I worked at Meta, I would be scared to submit an expense report.

It's the same reason a lot of companies have "unlimited PTO" but the employees are shivering in their boots when they take off. Because they don't trust their employer. This strategy works, kind of, but the long-term effects is the erosion of culture and inevitably performance.

Either be nice, or don't be. There's nothing wrong with not being nice - companies aren't people, they have no concept of morals. So who cares.

Well, it wasn't long before someone decided to just grab a few entire boxes of pizza and go home with them, abusing the perk so they could get a free meal for their family.

After a few times that happened, the pizza perk ended, because one guy ruined it for everyone.

Now we all know it was you!

EDIT: (sarcasm alert, I'm obviously not saying it was literally you, just someone with the same justifications)

Another way to solve the problem is to fire employees who abuse the perk.

1. You're bleeding money. Saving a buck or two because you fire someone who bought toothpaste is nothing compared to rehiring and knowledge transfer.

2. You're eroding trust. If I was an innocent and honest employee, I would now be scared to submit an expense report. Please, don't bother with "you have nothing to fear" bullshit. You see someone get fired for an expense mistake and naturally you don't think it's worth it for a 10 dollar meal. Same reason a ton of employees don't take time off.

In actuality, they made the problem much worse. Objectively. If their goal was to save money they absolutely aren't doing that.

Saving money ISNT the goal. If they caught an employee stealing $20 from another employee's purse, it it would be cheaper to simply reimburse the victim $20, but obviously there is more to it. You dont want to employ thieves and condone theft.

I gain literally nothing and waste my time?

I can't fathom how this makes sense unless the value you are trying to optimize is waste.

My assumption is that this is an excuse to get rid of some employees they didn't want anyway.

the message is that it didnt matter how much you're paid, you still are under our thumbs, and we can use any excuse to fire you.

A company isn't paying you X amount of money because it "values you", they pay you that because of the market forces that force them to pay you that amount of money. They'd gladly pay you nothing and crack a whip on your back if they could get away with it.

"Valuing you" is something your family will do, but rarely a company, especially a publicly traded one.

>be careful what message you want to send.

The message was exactly the one they wanted to send: "Everyone is expendable".

It isn’t clear that they fired the employees to send a message. From the article, it doesn’t look like Meta told other employees, “we fired people who abused the free meal service,” so I don’t know how others would get the message. Instead it was posted on Blind and picked up by news which seems like a poor way to send a message from a PR perspective.

did you not read the article?

the message was, quite reasonably, "don't take the fucking piss, if we give you food vouchers to buy your dinner, then use it for buying yourself dinner".

That's obviously not a serious question, so it doesn't deserve a response.

> if we give you food vouchers to buy your dinner, then use it for buying yourself dinner

I don't know whether there even is a "message", but if I worked for a company that just fired a bunch of people for discrepancies in really minor expense reports I would simply avoid submitting an expense report for something like a meal ever again. They're clearly looking for an excuse to fire people, and it's better to not make oneself a target.

Imagine if your boss has a stack of gift cards on their desk in case people need a taxi home, and some employees start using it as their personal expense fund.

If I was looking to fire someone, the thieves would be at the top of the list.

I guess the net result is the same? It seems accepting the digital voucher comes with a huge risk--what if they decide to object to the establishment or your food choice? So just.. bring a sandwich for lunch instead or pay with your own money...

Some companies will have a app or web page where you can click to submit a request certifying that you are working late and request a meal voucher code. Sometimes there is an "I self certify I qualify and am following the rules.." checkbox

Using the code in the app sends the food bill and receipt to your company account, presumably with an identifier of who made the purchase.

>It seems accepting the digital voucher comes with a huge risk--what if they decide to object to the establishment or your food choice?

Seems like no risk to me, provided you are following the clear rules and aren't willfully scamming the system. I have never heard of a company objecting to a good faith food choice or establishment, and that doesnt seem to be the case here either.

That's genuinely interesting. I'd probably be so much happier in general if I was ever able to trust an employer's intentions that much. Experience has (repeatedly) taught me otherwise, though, so I fear that's not possible barring major changes in U.S. employment laws.

There are lots of areas where I dont trust employers, but following published expense policies is not one I lose sleep over.

I have never once had a problem, or heard of anyone else having a problem in real life. I have used corporate expenses for decades, and know tons of people doing the same across dozens of companies.

That said, I don't overtly steal from the company. I'm smart enough to realize people are touchy about that.

We've had broadly the same experience but drawn very different conclusions here. This is very interesting and I'll definitely think long and hard about it.

EDIT: I have had (accidentally) improperly reported expenses rejected before. That's normal procedure. It would be quite shocking if my employer instead just fired me... Albeit given U.S. employment law it would not be surprising

This makes perfect sense. There is a difference between a good faith mistake, and intentional theft. I imagine your employer would be less forgiving if you fabricated your report or try to fly under the radar with personal purchases

Is periodically firing employees not part of the process too?

If these people are habitually and willfully lying and stealing from the company for $20, what could that mean for the rest of their work and interactions.

Several thousand dollars of stolen meals is a bargain to identify these individuals and get them out of the company. Who knows what else they are stealing and lying about. opportunities about

Because if the employees were using some kind of non-monetary compensation that was allowed to be accepted in an uncontrolled manner that's a process problem. When they swiped their decoder ring or what the fuck ever it should have errored out.

> habitually and willfully lying and stealing

Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and i'll listen.

24/70,000 employees seemed to have a problem with theft. The process worked for 99.97% of employees who weren't thieves abusing the system.

>Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and i'll listen.

Not even the fired employees are contesting what they did. They are just saying they didnt think it was a big deal

What a sad and scared worldview. Interactions with your employer are also grounds for promotion, recognition, and advancement. Instead of hiding from life, you can engage with it. There are risks, but competent humans can asses those risks and proceed in a thoughtful way to achieve their goals.

>ANOTHER EDIT: which restaurants or food trucks accept these "digital vouchers"? Are these some kind of apple wallet type thing on your phone? So it only works at places with certain payment equipment? Many places I like to eat only take cash..

Per the article, they are codes you put in to apps like grubhub and ubereats. Yes, there are practical limitations on the perk. If you want to eat at a cash only place, you probably arent in the office working, and you can pay it out of your own pocket with your 400k Meta salary.

As a competent human, here's how I approach these risks. There's simply nothing an employer can possibly do to me that matters significantly. Firing is an opportunity--I can collect unemployment and apply to better jobs and probably get a raise. Failing that, I'm confident in my skills to survive and thrive in any north american climate and--with a small amount of luck and some learning curve--by extension just about anywhere else on the planet. So I'm not actually super worried about the worst case scenario. But I'm not super confident it won't happen, because to be so i'd have to trust employers which is a known mistake.

> grubhub and ubereats

Ah ok, i've never used apps like that. I'm probably not the demographic who'd be caught in this sting.

Or have we just forgotten reasonableness? We can just... extrapolate anything to anything?

Imagine if your boss has a stack of gift cards on their desk in case people need a taxi home, and some employees start using it as their personal Amazon shopping.

The vouchers had a specific purpose.

If I was looking to fire someone, the thieves would be at the top of the list.

But that's worse, right? Okay, then the conclusion is that this basis doesn't work, and you need some leniency. Simply sticking to rules, especially if they're stupid, almost always backfires.

We have to do cost analysis. Is it really worth it spending 100,000+ dollars to rehire and knowledge transfer over a few bucks? Do we really want to set the precedent that we are anal dictators? What affects does that have on other employees in our company?

It's very tempting to be technically right, and then believe that means you can do whatever you want. I mean, you can, but as a company that can bite you. Being correct is not a hall pass from human perception. If you're an asshole, you will still be treated as such, regardless of how correct you may be. Naturally, I'm sure this move eroded much employer trust at Meta - almost all of it being in innocent employees. Collateral damage, but somehow, I doubt anybody sat down and did the cost analysis on if it's worth it.

Tax and legal implications can be worse than having to fire some people and formal warning showing you did something for others.

However, once an employee starts putting expenses that won't pass the smell test, it could threaten the perk.

Not really, having a hole in the rules doesn’t mean the rules should be loosened. I don’t even understand how you came to that conclusion.

The rule is „this credit is for you to buy food as a meal“. That means you shouldn’t order stuff to only take home and eat later, and it also means that you shouldn’t order stuff that’s not a meal. I don’t see why this is so hard to understand from the perspective of the employer. If the employer hands out fuel credits for the drive to work, would you say it’s fine to use that to drive to your holiday because hey, I could have used it to needlessly drive circles before coming to work, too, and that would have been even worse?

I think the meal credit thing is a simple concept and if you can’t follow the simple rules and have to order other stuff, you deserve to be fired. It’s not hard to understand.

From the employer standpoint it makes absolutely no difference if you got to a cheap place or an expensive place, because the rule is X amount. So you'd be stupid to go to a cheap place.

And the concept of having to eat it is stupid on the surface.

What happens if you get full, and you have to take some home? Are you now fired? No, right? But you broke the rules?

You require some amount of leniency. If you follow rules hard and fast, it will backfire. It also creates perverse incentives. Like I said, I'm incentivized to buy as much food as possible and as expensive as possible.

I agree some of these employees probably did deserve to be fired. I don't think Meta handled it well though, and I do think this ultimately hurts them orders of magnitude more than anyone else. Often, we justify self-destruction because we're right. Nobody really cares how right you are when you hurt yourself.

Only if you don't eat it yourself later ;)

> The rule is „this credit is for you to buy food as a meal“.

You said:

> That's not what the rule is. The rule is you get X amount of money, maximally, to spend on a meal.

What’s the difference?

You would be stupid to go to a cheap place, so you are free to spend your credit on whatever food you want, as long as it’s your meal. If you don’t finish, you can take the rest, but even going somewhere and ordering stuff just to take home without eating anything is already technically not allowed. I don’t know if you seriously don’t understand the rule or if you’re just trying to argue.

Imagine if someone invited you to dinner and you order 10 plates and tell the waiter that you want to take the excess home. Is that fine because you were invited, so you can order whatever you want? You can’t tell me that you think ordering wine glasses and laundry detergent from your food credit is fine.

Bad companies do this. They are so conflict-avoidant they would rather end useful programs instead of addressing the few bad-apples.

Good on Meta.