ifk how they verified it, but at least with some tech companies in the bay area, you basically paid for food on your own and gave them the receipts, to whih then they would refund you.
I find it pretty hard to imagine this not being caught near instantly if it was also applied in the socal branches of tech companies.
for some context, part of the reason why the free lunch is offered because they also DO serve lunch on campuses at these tech giants, but there are deals in place so that the employees help the local business (instead of the tech giants monopolizing peoples lunches in house) so the offer to eat off campus and paid for thus becomes a thing.
its more the intent on why that benefit existed in the first place (primarily to benefit local restaurants near the HQ) due to a deal the company makes usually between the city to subsidize their physical office space. By using it for other goods (hell im even suprised it was greenlit for WFM use cases) the person is bypassing the intended benefit for the city in whatever city the office is in.
realistically the company is just looking reasons to fire some people without needing to pay for for severences, but the point is sorta like what happened with the PPP loans. they were meant to be apent keeping employees on payroll, but they were misused by some people for other things.
ifk how they verified it, but at least with some tech companies in the bay area, you basically paid for food on your own and gave them the receipts, to whih then they would refund you.
I find it pretty hard to imagine this not being caught near instantly if it was also applied in the socal branches of tech companies.
for some context, part of the reason why the free lunch is offered because they also DO serve lunch on campuses at these tech giants, but there are deals in place so that the employees help the local business (instead of the tech giants monopolizing peoples lunches in house) so the offer to eat off campus and paid for thus becomes a thing.
But… Why does it matter what it’s being spent on? Am I just not silicon valley enough to get it?
its more the intent on why that benefit existed in the first place (primarily to benefit local restaurants near the HQ) due to a deal the company makes usually between the city to subsidize their physical office space. By using it for other goods (hell im even suprised it was greenlit for WFM use cases) the person is bypassing the intended benefit for the city in whatever city the office is in.
realistically the company is just looking reasons to fire some people without needing to pay for for severences, but the point is sorta like what happened with the PPP loans. they were meant to be apent keeping employees on payroll, but they were misused by some people for other things.
How is that my fucking problem? Fuck these companies.