this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
432 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
59963 readers
3471 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.
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.