Not because of corporate restructuring or considerable downsizing, but because of the unusual justifications given for staff dismissals, recent layoffs at Meta and Ernst & Young (EY) have drawn a lot of media coverage. Both companies, giants in their domains, let US employees go for infractions that might seem minor to outsiders.
From eating food freebies at Meta to signing up for many online courses at EY, the cases show how corporate values may mix with employee behaviour and leave people wondering if the punishment matches the crime.
Meta’s coupon abuse: $25 dinner costing job
Recently, Meta—the IT powerhouse behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—sacked about twenty-one employees from its Los Angeles office. Regarding what? Abuse of a restaurant coupon valued at twenty-five bucks.
Meta offers its staff food credits of $20 for breakfast, $25 for lunch, and $25 for dinner via Grubhub and Uber Eats. These credits are supposed to let staff members order food outside of regular business hours. Still, it seems some employees mistreated this benefit.
Some Meta staff members purchased non-food items like toothpaste and wine glasses instead of using the dinner credit to buy meals and have them delivered to the workplace or to their homes. Others matched their credits to colleagues. Those who utilised their vouchers were shown the door; few, based on media reports, were given warnings.
One employee, allegedly earning $400,000 annually, expressed dismay at being let go for what they thought was a small mistake. Posting anonymously, they claimed they felt “surreal” upon being rejected for misusing a meal credit.
Meta has been in a cost-cutting frenzy; this incident occurred with a fresh wave of layoffs impacting Reality Labs, WhatsApp, and Instagram employees. These dismissals have created waves across the company, even if the number of people let go is unknown.
EY’s Cheating Scandal: Overabundance of courses and too challenging assignments
Around the same time, Ernst & Young, a British global professional services firm, let several US employees go for what it thought to be “cheating.” During the May business “EY Ignite Learning Week,” the challenge is registering for multiple online courses simultaneously. EY’s internal investigation reveals numerous staff members registered in various classes throughout the learning week, violating the firm’s strict US learning policy and worldwide code of conduct.
The company claimed these resignations were necessary to uphold moral standards. “All we do at EY is driven by our basic ethical and moral values.” A statement said cases involving individuals found to be in violation of US learning policy and our code of behaviour were addressed with suitable disciplinary action.
But the let-off staff members saw things differently. Many claimed they had no idea they were violating business standards; one employee claimed EY’s event marketing mailers encouraged staff members to register for as many sessions as their schedules allowed. “We all work with three monitors,” the employee added, suggesting that in a busy office, taking many seminars felt like a benign multitasking effort.
EY’s method of multitasking shows
The debate about the justice of these layoffs transcends simple policy transgressions. Some former EY employees pointed out the company’s multitasking culture, whereby partners would routinely manage many client calls simultaneously, turning cameras on and off depending on who they were chatting with. “If this is unethical, then that is unethical, too,” stated one dismissed employee.
Conversely, EY stayed true to its decision and considered the terminations as necessary responses to maintain moral standards. “Integrity and ethics are at the forefront of everything we do,” the company said, stressing that any violation of trust counts as a big one regardless of size.
Corporate ethics against employee perspective
Recent Meta and EY firings have asked questions about corporate ethics, business culture, and the degree of disciplinary action policies. While companies like Meta and EY are expected to maintain strict standards of behaviour, employee reaction reveals a gap between policy and everyday operations.
Meta employees were perplexed that using a $25 dinner coupon—especially for highly paid professionals—may cause firing. Staff members at EY observed their natural curiosity and eagerness to learn during the training week since they were more likely to be productive than unethical.
The Meta and EY cases reveal a growing trend in corporate governance whereby little behavioural violations have significant consequences. As companies focus more on ethical and cost-cutting techniques, employees could battle more rigid rules, even in little spheres. Whether this would lead to more transparency in business policy or more disputes between management and employees remains to be seen. One thing is clear: given today’s corporate atmosphere, even a $25 dinner coupon can have significant effects.
