[withinboredom]

I think I wasn't clear. What I meant, is that if I am working late, I am entitled to the voucher. If I get some toothpaste instead of eating ... is that theft?? I do agree that if you aren't working late, you aren't entitled to the voucher and that is clear theft. I'm talking about spending the money that you are entitled to on something different than the purpose of the money.

I suspect in those cases, to most people, it is no different than saving for a trip and using the money on different expenses for _reasons_. If it is the case that people were entitled to the money, but then spent it on non-food, asserting that it is theft is just people trying to control people. You gave them money, they spent it on something you don't agree with, so you fire them. That's bullshit, you gave them the money.

I also suspect that these are the same people that give beggars cash and complain when the beggar buys some shampoo and a beer instead of food.

[s1artibartfast]

Maybe there is a context problem here from people not familiar with business expenses or these types of employee perk programs.

Every program of this nature that I have had was clear that they arent giving you money, but offering to pay for a specific thing. There are clear rules for what they are willing to pay for and when.

I dont think it is plausible these purchases happened by mistake.

[gopher_space]

> Every program of this nature that I have had was clear that they arent giving you money, but offering to pay for a specific thing. There are clear rules for what they are willing to pay for and when.

The point of the program is to keep the kids at work longer than they'd normally stay. If you understand that and are working late, why would you not pocket the money?

[s1artibartfast]

I don't understand the question. They have a food program for people who stay late. They don't have a cash or toothpaste program for people to stay late. It seems very clear to me.

My work has a free cab home program. That doesn't mean I can skip the cab and wander the halls taking staplers, or use my business travel card for beer.

I might argue that "hey, these things are equal value" but it doesn't matter. It wasn't what was offered.

[gopher_space]

Once again, the point of having the program is to get people to stay later. For $25.

There's no scenario where paying attention to this money helps more than having people put in more hours at work, so what's the goal of this exercise?

[withinboredom]

Possibly also cultural. For example, once you tell me you are giving me money, you don't have the right to tell me how to spend it.

[s1artibartfast]

I would agree with that statement, I just dont think it describes this situation. It was never the employees money. It was permission to spend company money on food.

Giving an employee keys to the safe is not the same as giving them the contents.

[withinboredom]

Depends on how it was worded and/or explained to the employee. Was it: "if you stay late, the company gives you an extra 25 bucks so you can eat dinner at work" or "if you stay late, you are given a 25 bucks stipend that can only be used for food"?

The former sounds like extra money that I can do whatever I want with, while the latter is much more explicit.

[Terretta]

> "I am entitled to the voucher."

If you buy a meal, they vouch to pay for it.

> "spending the money that you are entitled to"

Seems to be a disconnect or mental leap here.

[withinboredom]

It comes down to English. There's not really an easy way to say, "Here's a voucher that can only be used for food" other than spelling it out like I just did. Instead, it is most likely presented like this during onboarding (IIRC): "If you work late, the company gives you a voucher so you can eat dinner." Notice the entire lack of mentioning that you can _only_ use it on dinner.

[Viliam1234]

> If I get some toothpaste instead of eating ... is that theft??

If you can prove that you actually ate the toothpaste, you could probably sue them for libel.