Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#111

Post by consteval »

Etheryte wrote: post #86
consteval wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 simp…

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.

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#112

Post by itronitron »

r00fus wrote: post #90
Rygian wrote: post #35

Meal money in France is credited (either as vouchers or as a separate credit card-like card) that can only be spent either in restaurants, or to spend in supermarkets. Supermarkets are only allowed to sell a limited list of goods that qualify as meal on that credit, the system is directly integrated in the cash register software.

Yeah, agreed - Meta and other corporations are trying to do what is probably best supported by a government program so obviously they run into limits. But trying anything like that here is "socialism".

And here I am wondering why Meta needs a 'government program' for it's employees

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#113

Post by consteval »

mvdtnz wrote: post #101
consteval wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 simp…

> 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.

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#114

Post by echoangle »

consteval wrote: post #109
echoangle wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it was a credit replacing the food that’s normally available. If the stated purpose is credit to get a meal while working there, it’s fraud to buy other stuff with the credit. I can see why an employer would want to terminate you, they have to trust you and your work.

Right, if you're looking at from a surface-level view. Using such a surface-level view means I could, instead, buy a meal and choose not to eat it. Because the credit is only for food. 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…

> But that's worse, right? Okay, then the conclusion is that this basis doesn't work, and you need some leniency

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.

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#115

Post by itronitron »

echoangle wrote: post #3

> That included one unnamed worker on a $400,000 salary, who said they had used their meal credits to buy household goods and groceries such as toothpaste and tea. I bet that was really worth it...

Maybe they have a unique set of dietary restrictions.

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#116

Post by Ekaros »

consteval wrote: post #109
echoangle wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it was a credit replacing the food that’s normally available. If the stated purpose is credit to get a meal while working there, it’s fraud to buy other stuff with the credit. I can see why an employer would want to terminate you, they have to trust you and your work.

Right, if you're looking at from a surface-level view. Using such a surface-level view means I could, instead, buy a meal and choose not to eat it. Because the credit is only for food. 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…

Million or two spend on retraining specially when it comes out of budget of teams might not be so bad compared to more oversight from say IRS. I am not sure how meals are handled, but very likely differently from other goods.

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

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#117

Post by echoangle »

itronitron wrote: post #115
echoangle wrote: post #3

> That included one unnamed worker on a $400,000 salary, who said they had used their meal credits to buy household goods and groceries such as toothpaste and tea. I bet that was really worth it...

Maybe they have a unique set of dietary restrictions.

A dietary restriction that makes them eat „toothpaste, laundry detergent and wine glasses“? Sure.

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#118

Post by itronitron »

SilverBirch wrote: post #93

We had this at my company (finance) during covid they had a generous Uber eats offer for food after work hours. Some employees (particularly new grads) realised they could pick the food up as they left or collect the food at the door as they left the office or redirect the order. remember at the time thinking this is stealing pennies when you’re paid incredibly well. Well it wasn’t pennies. HR filtered to find those…

They could have boosted morale by offering short cooking classes onsite after work hours. Better food and better interactions among coworkers.

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#119

Post by consteval »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #110
consteval wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People's supposed issue, and Meta's, is that this was not spent on food. We can fix that. > Zero sympathy for thieves I often find that those who process information in such absolute ways are typically simple-minded. I can come up with infinite examples where thievery is not only excused, but the most moral choice. There are much better ways Meta should have gone through this. And, ultimately, I put the blame on them…

Theft is a clear line and I wouldnt want to employ someone one who didnt respect. I dont see how Meta has any moral obligation to prevent exploit. They should all have more such policies and monitor them to better weed out thieves. >I can come up with infinite examples where thievery is not only excused, but the most moral choice. Can you explain the moral justification for someone with a 400k salary to steal from th…

> Theft is a clear line

Right, and clear lines are reactionary and emotional, in my opinion.

> I dont see how Meta has any moral obligation to prevent exploit

They don't, companies have no moral obligations to do anything because it's impossible for them to have morals, because they aren't people. Which is why I never give companies the benefit of the doubt - that's reserved for entities capable of morality, in my mind.

> Can you explain the moral justification for someone with a 400k salary to steal from their employer

Sure. There's a young boy dying of a rare illness. The employee cannot make or buy the drug, but he knows a company has access to it. They refuse to give it up. So he steals the drug, saving the young boys life. Saving a life is more important than keeping the drug, therefore the situation is moral.

Or imagine a company is evil in some way, and theft might prevent them from doing something evil. Again, moral. This is also the rationale behind why killing is sometimes moral. If I'm about to get killed and I defend myself, I therefore killed to prevent something evil happening.

If a bunch of members of the Nazi party stole and fled the country, we wouldn't have had a holocaust. If Oppenheimer stole the secrets to the atomic bomb, hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians wouldn't have been killed. If someone stole the guns from the Columbian killers, that tragedy would've never happened.

I'm not saying that theft is morally justified in this particular circumstance. What I am saying is that generally it could be. And Meta handled this in a piss poor way that hurts them much more than the employees.

Really, I'm looking out for Meta. So, you're welcome Mr. Zuckerburg.

Re: Meta fires staff for 'using free meal vouchers to buy household goods'

#120

Post by clutchdude »

Ekaros wrote: post #116
consteval wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, if you're looking at from a surface-level view. Using such a surface-level view means I could, instead, buy a meal and choose not to eat it. Because the credit is only for food. 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…

Million or two spend on retraining specially when it comes out of budget of teams might not be so bad compared to more oversight from say IRS. I am not sure how meals are handled, but very likely differently from other goods. Tax and legal implications can be worse than having to fire some people and formal warning showing you did something for others.

This is the likely real reason - employer provided meals are a big deductible and providing the proper documentation and management of expenses can be a good kickback on providing that perk.

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

Post reply on HN