Meta Platforms has fired staff after they allegedly used their meal vouchers worth $25 to buy household items, such as wine glasses and detergent. Executives at the social media firm found it too much to spend credits meant for food for household items and share them with others. They fired 24 employees in Los Angeles for the matter.
Blind, a platform where tech workers gather to discuss their salaries and workplace, has been divided by the story first reported in the Financial Times. One person wrote: “Meal credits are a benefit that makes employees happy. If employees use it better, why is this considered an abuse? The original intent of that credit has been fulfilled”.
One user said, “Bless you to the person who leaked it.” F*** Zuck!” referring to Mark Zuckerberg co-founder and CEO of Meta. One user asked: “While Zuck purchases yachts, employees who buy necessities are considered abusers?” Meta employees get vouchers to use Uber Eats, GrubHub and other food delivery services.
Some people came out in favor of Facebook, the tech giant that owns it. Imagine earning $500,000 per year, but still believing that you are entitled to free crap. That’s pathetic. It’s about time that this happened. Meta employees get free food in its HQ, as well as vouchers to Uber Eats or GrubHub to allow them to deliver to offices that do not have a canteen.
Some staff are using the system for things they need. This includes acne pads. However, this is against company policy. Meta has not responded to a comment request.
Meta announced layoffs for WhatsApp, Instagram, and Reality Labs. The company had already made significant cuts between 2022 and 2023, when it lost 11, 000 members of staff and 10,000 employees respectively.
The company stated that the changes were made to align resources with long-term strategic goals, as well as their location strategy.
It is not a new issue that employees are allegedly abusing their company’s benefits. Citibank fired an analyst last year for gross misconduct for charging the company for lunch he and his partner had on a business trip in Amsterdam. In this case, the judge ruled for the bank because “it was not about the amounts of money involved”, but rather the way it was filed and claimed.
Post Disclaimer
The following content has been published by Stockmark.IT. All information utilised in the creation of this communication has been gathered from publicly available sources that we consider reliable. Nevertheless, we cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this communication.
This communication is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be construed as an offer, recommendation, solicitation, inducement, or invitation by or on behalf of the Company or any affiliates to engage in any investment activities. The opinions and views expressed by the authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company, its affiliates, or any other third party.
The services and products mentioned in this communication may not be suitable for all recipients, by continuing to read this website and its content you agree to the terms of this disclaimer.