While I don't disagree, it still seems rather crass to immediately fire people for it. Surely you'd first tell people to knock it off before firing them?

Of course that sort of assumes that the firing wasn't the end goal.

My understanding is that some people were fired, others were warned. This was most likely done by number of times they exploited the system. Say tens of infractions compared to a few.

There likely was some threshold which some went over and everyone fired should have known based on written policy.

> should have known based on written policy

Ah yes, it was in the EULA. Which everyone always reads.

If you've got an otherwise good employee it's incredibly dumb to lose them over this. Clearly they can see when people are abusing the system, so why not warn them before they go over the threshold for getting fired?

Your terms of employment matter more than a EULA, and at the pay scale in question they can be expected to be literate or hire a lawyer. I’d be quite surprised if they weren’t given clear instructions the first time they used the system at a company big enough to have had lawsuits before.

“Incredibly good” is a value judgement we don’t have evidence to assess but I don’t think you could support that claim here in any case: people who break ethics rules on small things are pretty likely to break them on big things. No mstter what else they’re bringing to the table, that’s a risk.

Isn't this the difference between a voucher benefit and an expense claim though?

Let's say you make employee of the month and receive an amazon voucher to be spent "treating yourself" but instead use it to buy a gift for your spouse.

Is this fraud? You made no false claim about how you would use the money. You did receive it with a specified use though.

What if your employer gives you a £500 a year raise and states it is to cover the additional costs of work from home. But you already have a nice chair so you but groceries. Is that fraud?

Seems borderline.

Your “what if” scenarios are changing the situation in material ways. This case sounds pretty straightforward: they were told the rules, chose not to follow them, and are unlikely to get anywhere legally unless they can demonstrate that management knew and approved of their actions.

When I go travel with work I get some money per day to cover meals. I can use that to only buy acne pads if I want as long as someone else is not paying for my food.

I think it is fair to assume Meta lead by example. Is this black and white thinking something you would expect of Zuckerberg?

It's not up to Zuckerberg.

Expensing food is tax deductible. Allowing people to buy whatever they want is taxable income.

The only companies that would allow their employees to buy whatever they want are those that aren't worried about getting audited.

I assume so, but the difference here is the people who want to buy services from Zuckerberg want to buy them a lot more than they don’t want to buy them, and in this case, Meta does not want to buy services from this employee a lot more than they do want to buy services from this employee.

Money is fungible. I will not accept an employer controlling what an employee does with compensation period. That opens too many doors for top-down systemic abuse. There is only an objective, ill defined by the company, and likely so extremely creepy like "we get higher productivity numbers when you eat at the company cafeteria, so we want to nudge you there."

No. No. No. No. Go to hell. Seen the company store thing before. Not doing it. Not inviting that back into the world. Take the fetish of programmable cash/scrip and shove it.

And until we talk about wage theft seriously, I am not willing to even budge that most employers have an actionable harm committed against them. Again, the collective/corporation cannot resist the urge to conspire against the individual any more than the individual is known to get the most out of the machinations of the collective. No one at the table has clean hands, but the collective through scale has far dirtier hands than by average the individual does.

the reason can also be laws, taxes etc. some incentives can be deducted. however if it is being deducted and the irs finds out, the company can get in trouble. this is speculation as I don't know what it's like in the usa, but is true for some countries in europe.

Publication 15-B (2024), Employer's Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b

The section on de minimis meals covers what is allowed. Buying toothpaste and groceries doesn't fall under that exclusion. Employees doing this were inadvertently causing Meta to commit tax fraud with unreported fringe benefits.

If they were really that concerned and it really was that critical, they should have limited it in some way or have been auditing it and issuing warnings before it got to the point of termination. When an employer offers a perk like this, it’s their responsibility to ensure it’s used properly and to monitor its usage, not the employee.

More likely what happened is this was a reason to fire someone they didn’t want anyways. The fact the enforcement is uneven also exposes them to additional liability. It’s likely any one of these employees could sue for wrongful termination, if they were not given a written notice of the proper usage of the perk.