> stealing from the company

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.

Something along the lines of "they could've said the company that amount of money, instead they've spent it on themselves!"

I get my salary every month. I hope they don't find out or else I'll be fired for not saving the company that amount of money.

Meta gave a voucher for lunch. If you don’t buy lunch you don’t get to use the voucher for whatever else you want, that is theft.

Right, so then the most optimal outcome is always buying food even if you don't need it, and perhaps even throwing the food away immediately. If your total comes out 22.00, then go ahead and buy 6 ranch dips and bring it up to 25.00.

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.

If I was meta I wouldnt want to employ people who are interested in stealing from me, especially when I pay them $400,000. The fact that the theft wasnt that bad or that the policy doesnt make the most sense is irrelevant. The company trusts employees to use benefits with responsibility and this dude used your logic of "leaving money on the table" even though hes being paid 400,000

> dude used your logic of "leaving money on the table"

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.

What you describe is functionally no different from an employee who goes to the office taking food from the cafeteria home with them to feed the family so they can avoid buying groceries themselves. Surely you can see how that's stealing?

That's not stealing if the food is free. Don't want people taking free food? Don't make the food free.

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.

I worked at a company who, occasionally during a busy time, would order 5 or so boxes of pizza and set it out in the break room for the team, in case anyone needed to stay late and got a little hungry.

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)

> 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.

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

No, this doesn't solve the problem, because:

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.

these arent mistakes. why do you think they are?

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.

How is it optimal for me to buy food and throw it away?

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.