I don’t think Meta thought this through, unless the staff already know you can be fired for small things like this. Sure, they stretched what you are supposed to spend money on, broke the rules, fine. Fuck around, find out, not something i do professionally. But it’s $25. You’re a 1.5$ trillion company. It comes off as petty.

If I was still working at Meta, I’d be job hunting. And maybe that’s what they want. Maybe they need to downsize some more.

But eventually Meta will have the minimum amount of staff and need to grow again or necessary people will leave, and when they try to hire people they may find this article and demand more money to make up for the pettiness or they won’t apply, because no one likes to be under a microscope.

My first thought is that this entire article reads like a camouflaged press release from Meta.

The source for the article seems to be an anonymous, internal leak, but those “leaks” are often from the company itself as a way to send a message while maintaining plausible deniability.

My second thought is that they are grouping together wildly different types of infractions without saying how many people were guilty of each one. It’s possible that one person was committing outright fraud while everyone else was just accused of a minor technicality.

Finally, the accusation of “pooling” funds seems like a big tell. That’s what you should want the employees to do to save the company money. Without specific details about why that was wrong this sounds more like a gotcha than a legitimate reason to fire someone.

All of these together make this article seem like a way of scaring employees into resigning so they can cut the workforce without being subject to WARN act requirements.