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

71–80 of 166 posts

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

#71

Post by salawat »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #64
throwaway19972 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Have you seen the profit margins at these stingy-ass companies?

>Who cares? Have you seen the profit margins at these stingy-ass companies? Should stealing be excused just because you're doing it to some wealthy entity? The problem with the "it's OK to steal from them because they're in a position of privilege and I'm not" justification logic, is that then the poor/homeless guy around the block should also be ok to rob you or break into your car because "who cares, have you seen…

How convenient that that line of thinking's ultimate outcome is to solidify the security of the haves goods over the have nots access to what they need. Much like taking second servings before the children have had their fill.

Funny bit is no one ever seems to want to contemplate how to defang the power laws that yield winner takes all, fostering massive inequality at the expense of the majority of the population.

That'd make being rich harder though. No one wants that.

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

#72

Post by salawat »

bathtub365 wrote: post #57
jcgrillo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be even less administrative overhead to just give everyone the $18.2k/yr in their regular paycheck.

The idea is to keep them in the office by giving them free food they’re only supposed to eat while they’re there, without paying overtime.

IT people are overtime exempt. Overtime doesn't factor into the calculus.

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

#73

Post by lores »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #47

I found this behaviour at Google fascinating: > The company had also reportedly become more stringent on office supplies including staplers and tape, with staff having to borrow items from their reception desks instead. I’m sure Google can compute the cost of a $400,000/- a year employee traipsing down the hallway to borrow a stapler. Pretty sure the stapler will pay for itself in a few trips.

It happens often in very big companies. I remember multiple trips to different floors of a building to get the requisition form and authorization for a single notebook and pen that in the end cost the company ~$150. Someone has a KPI 'I cut down stationery costs by 12%', what the trade-off costs is someone else's problem entirely.

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

#74

Post by consteval »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #67
xnickb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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

#75

Post by consteval »

echoangle wrote: post #17
grugagag wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For accidentally bundling a toothpaste with some groceries? That seems excessive but again I don’t know the scale of it.

Where did you see "accidentally"?

It's an assumption, but groceries are food and I'm assuming the person just threw in toothpaste as well. And, apparently, that one dollar worth of toothpaste was too far.

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

#76

Post by consteval »

xghedrr wrote: post #44
Joker_vD wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really an abuse? Oh no, he used meal credits to buy toothpaste and tea instead of food, so... what? It really irks me that this level of pettiness comes from the corporation that itself uses every single tax "optimization" scheme on earth (and also probably invented a couple). Apparently, quod licet Metae non licet famulo. This really is just a small monetary enhancement to one's wage, not a "we ration out your…

“Is it really an abuse? Oh no, he used meal credits to buy toothpaste and tea instead of food” Yes. This is called fraud. Even if you feel mega corp X is bad, defrauding mega corp X is… also bad.

So then it must be a better outcome if you buy the maximum allowed amount of food, 70 dollars, and then throw it away? Better yet, buy that food, attempt to pawn it off, and then buy toothpaste.

To me, that feels like a much worse outcome, not a better one. I think this demonstrates you need some leniency in these things. Because pettiness breeds pettiness.

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

#77

Post by raincom »

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #63

There is quite a lot of missing context in this story. Meta provides a $25 meal delivery credit for employees in offices that do not serve catered dinner. It is valid only within a specific time window on weekdays, and meals can only be delivered to the office. The offense here is that employees were ordering items other than food, or not actually working at the time of delivery. Like they would order food to the off…

How does this whole thing works? Can they use the voucher for anything? When I get a grubhub voucher, I can not use it to purchase tooth paste, toilet paper, etc.

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

#78

Post by rsynnott »

jvanderbot wrote: post #8
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...

Why are people getting weird things like corporate food stamps when they are being paid 400,000 anyway?

Not sure how it works in the US, but at least here, if an employer wants to provide meals to some employees and not have it seemed to be a benefit in kind (and thus liable for income tax), they have to provide them to _all_ employees (or at least all employees working at a given site).

I'd wonder if that was part of the issue here, actually; are these sorts of meal vouchers treated specially for tax in the US?

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

#79

Post by archagon »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #64
throwaway19972 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Have you seen the profit margins at these stingy-ass companies?

>Who cares? Have you seen the profit margins at these stingy-ass companies? Should stealing be excused just because you're doing it to some wealthy entity? The problem with the "it's OK to steal from them because they're in a position of privilege and I'm not" justification logic, is that then the poor/homeless guy around the block should also be ok to rob you or break into your car because "who cares, have you seen…

How is this stealing?

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

#80

Post by HDThoreaun »

consteval wrote: post #74
HDThoreaun wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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
Post reply on HN