Gotta get creative with your layoffs when you already did massive layoffs but still need to please wall street.
Staff are given daily allowances of $20 for breakfast, $25 for lunch, and $25 for dinner, with meal credits issued in $25 increments.
Hot damn this is absolutely wild. Even if you only look at lunch, that’s ~$6k/person. If you add in breakfast and dinner that’s ~$17k/person.
As someone who works at Meta:
Ya the benefits are nice.
My first thought is that this entire article reads like a camouflaged press release from Meta.
The source for the article seems to be an anonymous, internal leak, but those “leaks” are often from the company itself as a way to send a message while maintaining plausible deniability.
My second thought is that they are grouping together wildly different types of infractions without saying how many people were guilty of each one. It’s possible that one person was committing outright fraud while everyone else was just accused of a minor technicality.
Finally, the accusation of “pooling” funds seems like a big tell. That’s what you should want the employees to do to save the company money. Without specific details about why that was wrong this sounds more like a gotcha than a legitimate reason to fire someone.
All of these together make this article seem like a way of scaring employees into resigning so they can cut the workforce without being subject to WARN act requirements.
I work in a Meta office nearby, it’s the talk of the town, many people think it’s true.
The only thing that I could imagine would make the pooling look really bad is if one or more people are not going to use their credit and so they “pool” it in with someone else who does want to use it, and the latter employee now has a $50/$75/etc. credit.
Some decent bootlicking in here…
“Leadership” gets strippers and nobody cares lol
I’m reminded of a video from Gary Vee where he had a small moment of reality: Some guy was complaining his employee quit 3 weeks after starting because they were all lazy. Also note it was always his only employee.
Gary asks him how much they paid the employee (min wage) and if he demanded they work over 40 hours (yes and no ot), then pointed out the guy was walking home with all the money and expecting someone to work hard with no return.
The entire audience was confused. Now they are in these comments.
These grifters get super cagey when you point basic math… Capitalism for me, but no for thee🤡
It’s crazy to see people justify this. I wonder how they’d feel getting microscoped at work until fired. There’s always a cause if your scummy enough.
Don’t get me wrong purely from “regulatory” perspetive this wagie done fucked up…
But sufficient slaving experience, I can tell you that this reason is a pretext lol
It seems bootlickers can’t tell the difference and appreciate the nuance of what happened here. No wonder we got this shiti “employment experience” peasants are their own worst enemies.
I don’t think Meta thought this through, unless the staff already know you can be fired for small things like this. Sure, they stretched what you are supposed to spend money on, broke the rules, fine. Fuck around, find out, not something i do professionally. But it’s $25. You’re a 1.5$ trillion company. It comes off as petty.
If I was still working at Meta, I’d be job hunting. And maybe that’s what they want. Maybe they need to downsize some more.
But eventually Meta will have the minimum amount of staff and need to grow again or necessary people will leave, and when they try to hire people they may find this article and demand more money to make up for the pettiness or they won’t apply, because no one likes to be under a microscope.
And maybe that’s what they want
It’s absolutely what they want. I think they’re trying to cull their workforce, and cracking down on random policies in this way is intended to get people to leave w/o having to pay out severance packages.
they may find this article and demand more money
I highly doubt that. People will continue to apply to Meta because it’s a prestigious job and pays remarkably well. Unfortunately, Meta will get away with this, and it’s honestly disgusting to me.
100% agree on your first point.
I would caution your second point. A few years ago, news articles pointed out Meta had to pay people more compared to other similar companies due to people not wanting to work there. Sadly Google search isn’t showing me those older articles.
A few websites are saying Meta’s average pay is 379k (Zuckerberg takes a $1 so he isn’t driving that number) vs Google at $315k vs Microsoft $193k vs Nvidia 267k. That’s a lot of difference. So running a company like a pedant has a real dollar difference, especially for workers who can demand it. Meta lost a lot of money on the Metaverse and they are spending to catch up AI, meaning they already have to be competitive for employees compared to other companies. Add in the perks are a trap to get fired, and your costs just keep going up. Perks are typically offered in lieu of higher costs and in this case incentive people to work longer in an office. Now they leave for food or go home and you have lost those benefits.
Meta had to pay people more compared to other similar companies due to people not wanting to work there
It’s probably more because they were offered a position at some other prestigious firm, like Google or Netflix. Meta doesn’t need to compete with you local mom-and-pop software company, they’re competing with other large tech firms, so if they want “the best,” they need to pay up for it.
Microsoft $193k
I think there’s a lot more variety of roles in some of those companies though. Microsoft has a big hardware division (XBox, Surface, mouse/keyboard, etc), which means a lot of lower-paid support staff, logistics, etc. Meta is relatively new to that (mostly just their VR), so they probably have a lot fewer lower-paid roles. Microsoft also has a lot of campuses in lower COL areas, whereas my understanding is that Meta is almost entirely in the SF Bay area, with relatively few satellites (i.e. much higher average COL).
So just looking at average salaries doesn’t tell the whole story, we’d need to look at equivalent roles. You could absolutely be right here, I’m just pointing out the metrics don’t necessarily support the conclusions.
Totally fair points. Probably next to impossible. Wish I could find those articles, but oh well. I just don’t see this being good for future hiring at Meta at the end of the day.
I hope you’re right, because I detest Meta and refuse to use anything they touch.
I’m just trying to understand how UberEats is a good way to feed an office. Are we talking about 3 people in a WeWork space somewhere? I can’t imagine 250 UberEats orders all arriving somewhere at once and getting to the right people. Or even 25.
Oh, it’s terrible. The entire policy is Bananas. And you can’t pool funds? So if it is 3 people, $75 worth of pizza will feed them for a long time. But they got fired for pooling them.
How much time were the Accountants spending verifying this? Or did workers just receive vouchers? If a handful of people were abusing it, how did they notice? No refunds on vouchers, so you’d assume an amount of late nights and then refill as needed. It was already budgeted, so it’s a sunk cost.
Also in some places I’ve worked, $25 after the delivery costs isn’t that much food either. I’d be ignoring that perk forever if I still worked there, too much red tape.
Yeah the pooling funds part confuses me. What is the damn issue?
Well, they also just straight up laid off 9,000 people this week so they are clearly in a mood to get rid of people. And I suppose they don’t mind firing people for small infractions because it accomplishes two things for them:
- no severance required
- sets an example and scares people into obedience
Free food is after all a perk that most people don’t get at work. And it’s just the tip of the iceberg of perks that Meta employees get. I know for a fact that executives get sick and tired of employees being spoiled by all this and they probably took personal enjoyment in these terminations.
I agree, this stinks of petty gotcha, which is why i dont think its a good idea, as remaining employees with devalue those perks and stop working for Meta as a result.
And yes, these are perks above all else, but remember Meta created these incentives to keep people in the office longer without having to pay them (a lot) more. A few people abusing it in order to ensure the majority of workers stay nights and weekends (at small satellite offices) is a small price. Now? “Hey, worker X, staying late tonight?” “No, going home to eat, don’t want to make a mistake on ordering Uber Eats and get fired” means you don’t get 5-40 hours per week extra time from that worker X. And you already paid for the vouchers, so you don’t save money. Also other workers won’t stay because more people leave.
Granted we are talking Mark Z here, so eating food is probably too alien for him to understand.
Your fine with people violating your trust? Because that’s what you’re advocating.
If people are going to show they’re willing to scam the company and steal from it, why would you keep them around.
Sorry, I would have a zero tolerance policy on theft. I’ve seen it first hand in a small business and in a massive retailer, not cool.
Really depends on how valuable all of the staff are. I too have seen theft of small and large offices I’ve worked in. Personally didn’t buy pens until I started working from home. I also did the accounting and budgeting for office supplies and products from the product line (beer), which sometimes had free samples taken from it. Executives loved to grab samples daily. We ensured this was added to employees paychecks as a perk for tax purposes, but not down to the individual beer. We also had talks with anyone who took over their fair share.
The cost always came down to pennies per person. Their value as a worker was typically more valuable then micromanaging them and creating an environment where they were punished. Average employee made more for the company daily then what they took home. If they knew it was fine within some limits (which most did and I would argue these Meta workers were within given their pay/value of the company), it’s actually better to just ignore it.
Now the remaining employees and future employees know any mistake could cost them their job, with no major warning, just 2 strikes and your out.
When you take this personally (“violating your trust”), you end up creating a shitty place to work to soothe your ego.
Where’s the scam? If the company is providing a $25 credit as a benefit, then they should just give the employees $25. Why should Meta get a say in how it’s spent?
Shut the fuck up lmaooooo they already expect the employees to spend $25 per day, meal or not.
There’s no maliciousness from employees at that point, only real people trying to meet their needs so that they can keep working. FOR YOU!
Corps keep squeezing labor more and more, time to squeeze back a piddling little bit
people violating your trust?
Implying any of us are equivalent to a $1.5 trillion social media monopoly that has more political and social power than any other organization on the planet. Sure Jan, any one of us is exactly like that.
Have you worked for a corpo?
“Trust” lol
I would just give them the voucher if they are in the office and let them decide what to do with it.
If it was made clear that it was only to be used for food and to only use while you were at the office, then fine. Harsh, but whatever.
Lick lick lick slurp is all I see with this comment.
Stupid policy is stupid.
Are they requiring receipts from those that follow the directions to make sure they spend all $25 on lunch?
It’s for food.
It’s the rules for receiving the funds. Don’t like it, don’t accept the funds.
Someone making 400,000 a year who has no need to risk their job for 25 dollars mentioned it off hand to HR. One could infer that the policies were unclear and the reaction was overkill.
What a load of crap.
Why should someone get more of a benefit because they spend more on food? Why does the person who brought a tasty snack and doesn’t wolf down cold McDonalds not get to take advantage of a monetary benefit provided to other workers?
And I ask again, did they make sure the people that took the vouchers spent all of it on food, or are they only picking on people who weren’t smart enough to keep quiet about spending it on other things?
There’s a lot of context we’re missing here. For example this happens with my company and the reason is tax implications - if they provided “free money” that would be additional salary and taxed as such, whereas “free meals” are taxed completely differently. There could be completely legitimate reasons. Maybe if they let people use it for whatever purpose, the $25 would turn into $15 due to tax.
What I won’t defend is firing people for this reason. I don’t see how that can be ethically acceptable…
Yes, i though this, too, but usually companies address this by issueing vouchers that can be only be used for certain businesses or products. This makes sure, the expense shows up as food on the invoice. Nobody cares if employees find a loophole to buy non-food. The company issued food vouchers. That will do.
Every company I’ve worked for either gave us digital gift cards or, when I was a manager, let us charge meals specifically to our business credit card for a certain amount per month (team outings) without prior approval.
Exactly. If they abuse the benefit, withdraw the benefit.
If that is the case the Meta set themselves up for failure for some tax breaks and is taking it out on their employees.
No, they’re using this as an excuse to cull the workforce.
In most orgs, this would merely result in losing access to the benefit.
It can be both, since the vouchers have existed for years and are only now getting scrutiny.
This was for sites that didn’t have a cafeteria. They offered this as a way to provide food, while on-site, if the employee would like to. This childish notion that “sOmBoDy GoT mOrE tHaN mE!” is ridiculous. This wasn’t supposed to be for personal monetary gain. Employees with sites that had cafeteria are not handed cash or allowed to select household goods if they choose not to eat at the cafeteria. This isn’t something that should really have to be explained to grown-ass adults making 400k a year. This is just an extreme level of entitlement and I can’t believe people are making me defend a company who’s products I refuse to use.
I can’t believe people are making me defend a company who’s products I refuse to use.
Exactly!
People abusing a benefit for marginal gain is wrong. It’s not “you’re fired” wrong, it’s “you don’t get this benefit anymore” wrong.
We can absolutely call out the empolyees for abusing the benefit while also calling out the company for overreacting, and we should be calling it what it is: Meta looking for ways to cull their workforce w/o having to pay out severance or dealing with wrongful termination.
I’ll give you that, but that other commenter seemed to think it wouldn’t be “fair” if another employee used it, and they didn’t, which is a very childish notion. Depending on severity and duration, I could even see it being a talking to. I do also see not being able to find this employee suitable for a position of trust, which they may have been in given their salary. If the employer can’t trust you to self-regulate on something as simple as a meal voucher, I don’t see how they could trust you at large.
very childish
Absolutely! My kids make this argument all the time (they got a half centimeter more juice than me!! waaah!!), and if they complain, I take it away. I was always taught, “you get what you get and you don’t get upset,” which works fantastically when divvying up things like this. I’m not going to make a stink over a $25 food voucher or whatever, it’s just a way to replace not having a benefit available elsewhere (a cafeteria), and if you’re whining about someone else using the whole $25 when you don’t, then you’re a super selfish person who I wouldn’t want to work with anyway.
If I was a manager in this situation, I’d deal with it exactly as I do with my kids: I’d take away the voucher. No disciplinary action, just removing the benefit if it’s causing problems. I would probably also not want to recommend them for promotion because this type of behavior often indicates other issues, but I wouldn’t do that just because of this stupid benefit violation.
It is either wrong to use it for something else or it isn’t.
Should the employees who spent less than the dollar amount of the voucher on that day’s meal be fired too?
??
There’s no requirement to use up the whole voucher, the only requirement is that if you choose to use the voucher, you only use it on food. That’s it.
No, this is the company treating their employees like children over a benefit they chose to provide.
You don’t have to defend them, they have lawyers. You are choosing to defend them.
I’m just explaining how the real world works. For instance, I supervise other employees. Their hourly rate is lower than mine, however, the real cost of many of the employees I supervise far exceeds my real cost. How? Well, some have dependants and they are included on their health insurance. Beyond that, some have chosen different providers or higher option plans than I have. There are other benefits that can increase their real cost to the employer. Does that mean my employer owes me the difference in cash or other tangible rewards based on how I choose to take advantage of the benefits offered? What if I chose not to contribute to my retirement, do they owe me that match percentage, even though that’s not his it’s outlined? This is absurd. There are problems with capitalism and corporations in this country, but expecting people to follow simple guidelines regarding a meal voucher isn’t one of them, especially for well compensated employees. Realistically, meta could probably refer this to the local police as fraud if they chose to.
That isn’t the same thing by a mile.
Travel meal vouchers are common and rarely require receipts because they are provided with the onus on the employees to use them as intended. There is zero liability on Meta for a voucher given as a condition of being in the office, because if it was that important they would have been collecting receiots and reimbursing employees or having them order on a company account or something like that.
This is grade A after the fact petty shit to dismiss employees.
Why does it matter if you’re doing it out of genuine care for your employees? This is just virtue signaling bullshit by Meta
The severity of punishment does not match the severity of violating the policy. We’ve already figured this idea out in real life and across numerous genres of fiction that at this point is a common trope. It’s literally a sci-fi trope at this point of the paradise planet that everyone loves but the biggest flaw is that any infraction against the law however minor is tje death penalty. The concept of fair punishments is literally baked into the constitution through the bill of rights with the 8th amendment, no cruel and unusual punishments, no excessive bail or excessive fines.
Yeah, that’s how that works: when you abuse a perk for meals in the office by using it for other stuff, you’re rolling the dice, aren’t you?
Can i have that $400k job?
Right? I promise not to scheme on $10 worth of toothpaste.
Honestly, I would refuse if offered, because I’m not selling myself to Meta for any price.
And I’m not making anywhere near $400k, but I do have a comfortable salary with a company I don’t hate and a team I like.
I’ll do it - only gotta fake it for a year and then I can buy a house!
Sorry, trying to scam your employer isn’t smart. Food vouchers, not couch vouchers.
Exactly. Force them to do layoffs, don’t give them an easy out to fire you for misconduct.
That said, Meta could absolutely have just ended the program for people who abused the policy. But it seems their intent is to reduce headcount as cheaply as possible, so that’s why they went this direction.
Being fired means 6 months of unemployment. Fuck meta. Time for a vacation.
I’m getting unemployment right now. It’s 1/6th of my former pay, zero benefits. Oh, and the max benefit is a total of 2 weeks of former pay.
I got 1100/week, for up to 6 months 🤷
It’s hardly like getting fired is a ticket to a 6 month vacation. Misuse of funds like this is tantamount to theft and probably grounds to disqualify you from unemployment benefits. And anyway for these highly paid workers, unemployment is a tiny fraction of what they are accustomed to making. It’s a tough job market out there and Meta laid off another 9,000 this week so it’s a smart move to start job hunting the second you’re unemployed. I know people who have not found work after 1 year. A vacation? Shyeah no.
Exactly. I lost my job during COVID and fortunately the unemployment office found that my “contract position” was actually an illegal “full-time position” and I qualified for benefits. But the benefits were a fraction of my regular salary, even with the increased COVID-era unemployment benefits. It was enough to live on (I was already frugal), but I was certainly motivated to find new work.
I was “fired” because “my job had been eliminated.” Had I been fired for misconduct, I wouldn’t have gotten any unemployment benefits.
Meta is doing it this way to cut workforce without having to pay severance or unemployment, not because they really care about that $25.
My state would pay them $4400/m for 6 months, assuming they meet the minimum requirements of applying to jobs. And, since it’s a rough market out there, 6 months isn’t really unreasonable.
If they were fired for cause such mis using company funds… No UI
They can argue against the employer’s claim and prove they weren’t fired for cause. My former employer lied to unemployment and and it worked in my favor. Either way they can appeal a decision and should start consulting attorneys immediately.
Only if they fight it. Which they probably won’t.
If they documented the firing properly, they will send it to UI office. Everytime.
If this was not a firing but just, you did this and we are dismisisng you. Then yes they won’t bother.
Based on how this went down, looks like meta would be documenting it. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a headline
