|
|
|
|
|
|
by consteval
607 days ago
|
|
|
That's not what the rule is. The rule is you get X amount of money, maximally, to spend on a meal. From the employer standpoint it makes absolutely no difference if you got to a cheap place or an expensive place, because the rule is X amount. So you'd be stupid to go to a cheap place. And the concept of having to eat it is stupid on the surface. What happens if you get full, and you have to take some home? Are you now fired?
No, right? But you broke the rules? You require some amount of leniency. If you follow rules hard and fast, it will backfire. It also creates perverse incentives. Like I said, I'm incentivized to buy as much food as possible and as expensive as possible. I agree some of these employees probably did deserve to be fired. I don't think Meta handled it well though, and I do think this ultimately hurts them orders of magnitude more than anyone else. Often, we justify self-destruction because we're right. Nobody really cares how right you are when you hurt yourself. |
|
|
> The rule is „this credit is for you to buy food as a meal“.
You said:
> That's not what the rule is. The rule is you get X amount of money, maximally, to spend on a meal.
What’s the difference?
You would be stupid to go to a cheap place, so you are free to spend your credit on whatever food you want, as long as it’s your meal. If you don’t finish, you can take the rest, but even going somewhere and ordering stuff just to take home without eating anything is already technically not allowed. I don’t know if you seriously don’t understand the rule or if you’re just trying to argue.
Imagine if someone invited you to dinner and you order 10 plates and tell the waiter that you want to take the excess home. Is that fine because you were invited, so you can order whatever you want? You can’t tell me that you think ordering wine glasses and laundry detergent from your food credit is fine.