Meta fires worker for carrying Mark Zuckerberg's toothpaste

It might seem surreal to fire an employee with a sky-high salary simply for using company-provided meal vouchers to buy minor personal items. Yet, this is exactly what Meta did last week. But is this issue really that serious? Does it matter if a meal voucher is used to buy a burger or a tube of toothpaste? Apparently, it matters a great deal to Mark Zuckerberg. Employees and employers alike should take note: if you know someone who’s spending meal vouchers on non-intended purchases, they could find themselves in a situation similar to that of this Meta employee—no matter their position or salary.

Rules are useless without consequences

A company can have all the rules in the world, but if they go unenforced, they’re as good as nonexistent. Employers often feel frustrated when employees ignore established policies, but many times, they themselves do nothing to enforce them. While firing an employee should rarely be the first option, repeated issues may eventually warrant firm action.

This is precisely what happened at Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram, owned by billionaire Mark Zuckerberg. Reportedly, the dismissed employee frequently used the company-provided meal vouchers to buy personal hygiene products, which directly violated policy. These vouchers are specifically intended to cover meals for employees who, due to work location or time constraints, can’t go home for lunch. It might seem extreme to let an employee go over using a $25 voucher to buy minor items, especially when that employee is making around $400,000 a year. But at the end of the day, rules exist to be followed, and if they’re not, there are consequences.

Some believe this was merely an excuse for Meta to dismiss the employee, suspecting that other factors may have influenced the decision. Others argue that, in massive corporations, there are many highly paid roles that contribute minimally to the company’s objectives. Hence, companies like Meta might use any minor policy infraction to let someone go legally. And this case is not isolated; Meta reportedly fired more than 20 employees for the same reason, potentially saving the company millions in annual costs.

What’s the purpose of this rule?

When you pay someone $400,000 a year, does it really matter if they occasionally use a meal voucher for other things? From the perspective of a multinational corporation with thousands of employees worldwide, the answer is yes, it matters—a lot. The purpose of meal vouchers was never to subsidize small personal expenses for employees. These vouchers were introduced to enable employees to continue working through lunch. Spending that money on household items doesn’t motivate people to work longer hours. It might sound “strict,” but that’s the reality.

For instance, if an employee making $400,000 a year works a standard 40-hour week, that translates to about $192 per hour. If the same employee clocks 50 hours, the hourly cost to the company drops to $153. And if they reach 60 hours because meal vouchers allow them to keep working with fewer interruptions, the cost reduces further to $128 per hour. This adds up to millions saved when multiplied by thousands of employees daily. While treating employees well is important, large corporations must prioritize responsible spending.

Clearly define your rules as a company

Meta deemed this rule important enough to fire two dozen employees. However, they could have addressed the situation differently, perhaps by suspending meal vouchers for those who misused them. What do you think? Was this an overreaction? Or do you agree that rules are there to be followed, and if they’re not, one must face the consequences? The debate is open.