The Little Sins We Commit at Work—and the Bosses Who Are Cracking Down
Companies are strictly enforcing rules to show who’s in charge and control expenses
Companies are strictly enforcing rules to show who’s in charge and control expenses
Ever used the office printer for your kid’s homework assignment or scrolled Facebook Marketplace during an all-hands Zoom meeting? Fair warning: Your employer may be paying close attention.
Big companies on the hunt for efficiency are deploying perk police to bust employees for seemingly minor infractions that, by the letter of company law, can result in termination.
“We have had lots of requests for new controls,” says Katie MacKillop, U.S. director of Payhawk, which administers company credit-card accounts and watches for misuse.
Clients are asking Payhawk to restrict when and where company cards work. For example, a company can limit a lunch allowance to be available only on weekdays from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and be usable at Chipotle but not at Kroger . In partnership with Visa and Mastercard , Payhawk is developing a feature that sends real-time spending alerts to corporate finance teams and allows them to instantly block suspicious transactions by employees.
MacKillop’s firm doesn’t track what happens to employees who violate company policies, but she says there is little doubt employers are taking codes of conduct more seriously.
That helps explain reports of crackdowns at Meta , where employees were fired for spending $25 meal allowances on other items, Ernst & Young dismissing workers who watched multiple training videos at the same time, and Target canning employees who jumped the line to buy coveted Stanley water bottles ahead of the general public. The companies declined to comment on the incidents.
As the employer-employee power struggle tilts in companies’ favour, some businesses are using strict rules enforcement to make an example of rule-breakers or reduce payroll without having a real layoff. An employer feeling buyer’s remorse after a post pandemic hiring spree can use the company handbook to push out unwanted employees, says human-resources consultant Suzanne Lucas.
“When you are desperately hiring, you’re definitely overlooking things,” says Lucas, who cheekily brands herself the Evil HR Lady. “When you need to cut head count, you tighten up the rules.”
Workers argue many so-called perks are designed to increase productivity. A free meal is an enticement to stay at your desk. A recorded HR tutorial is less a reprieve from the awkwardness of in-person, sexual-harassment training than an invitation to keep plugging away while paying half attention to a video on your second monitor.
Why gin up excuses to fire people instead of simply announcing a round of job cuts? A few reasons, Lucas says.
Layoffs imply a business is struggling, and companies may want to avoid shaking the confidence of customers or investors. Employers often feel obligated—or are contractually bound—to offer severance packages to laid-off workers. Firing people for cause can save money, she says.
Then there’s the effect on a company’s remaining employees. Few things put workers on notice like seeing colleagues pink-slipped for minor offences. And, as a matter of principle, stealing is stealing even if it is a small amount of company money or time.
If a goal of harsh consequences is to keep people in line, then it’s working on Matt Tedesco.
When he read a Financial Times report that Meta fired employees who spent Grubhub meal allowances on things like acne pads and laundry detergent in a saga dubbed “Grubgate,” he flashed back to a similar episode at a defunct company where he used to work. He says a half dozen colleagues in sales were shown the door because they used meal stipends to buy groceries.
Tedesco, 47, describes himself as a rule follower in general and says he is doubly sure to do everything by the book in the current climate. He started this fall as a sales account executive at Hearst after being laid off by S&P Global last year.
“It’s hard to get a job right now—it took me months,” he says. “From an employee standpoint, my takeaway is don’t abuse any privilege because it’s not worth the risk.”
People in a range of industries admitted to me privately that they’ve broken rules like these in the past but said they’d never cop to it publicly. One likened today’s workplace to a street with a 30 mph speed limit, where you routinely get away with driving 37 mph and feel blindsided when you’re pulled over and ticketed. Enforcement levels fluctuate, this person said, and seem to be high right now.
Cracking down is a time-honoured tactic when companies feel financial pressure. In 2009, in the teeth of the Great Recession, a former private-client relationship manager at Fidelity told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that he and three colleagues lost their jobs for running fantasy-football leagues at work, in violation of a corporate policy against gambling. The stakes in his league: $20. Fidelity had laid off 1,700 employees earlier that year.
And in 2018, when Wells Fargo announced significant head count cuts, the bank fired or suspended more than a dozen bankers who put dinners on the company tab and doctored the receipts. The bank said at the time that it pays for meals when employees work late, but some ordered takeout before the allowed hour and changed the timestamps on the bills.
Without knowing all the details, it can be hard to understand why companies police small dollars when they appear to spend freely on pricier items, says Jennifer Dulski , chief executive of Rising Team, a maker of employee-engagement software. She notes Meta offices are known for vending machines stocked with headphones, keyboards and other electronics available to employees free of charge, yet the company is getting serious about lunch money.
“They’re either weeding or just trying to make an example of behaviour they think is inappropriate,” Dulski says.
Employers have good reasons to be sticklers in some cases, says Cedar Boschan, a forensic accountant in Culver City, Calif. Companies can invite tax trouble if money earmarked for perks and business expenses is misspent on other things.
So, don’t put all of the blame for policy crackdowns on human resources. Save some for the one department that HR might beat in a popularity contest: accounting.
A long-standing cultural cruise and a new expedition-style offering will soon operate side by side in French Polynesia.
The pandemic-fuelled love affair with casual footwear is fading, with Bank of America warning the downturn shows no sign of easing.
The pandemic-fuelled love affair with casual footwear is fading, with Bank of America warning the downturn shows no sign of easing.
The boom in casual footware ushered in by the pandemic has ended, a potential problem for companies such as Adidas that benefited from the shift to less formal clothing, Bank of America says.
The casual footwear business has been on the ropes since mid-2023 as people began returning to office.
Analyst Thierry Cota wrote that while most downcycles have lasted one to two years over the past two decades or so, the current one is different.
It “shows no sign of abating” and there is “no turning point in sight,” he said.
Adidas and Nike alone account for almost 60% of revenue in the casual footwear industry, Cota estimated, so the sector’s slower growth could be especially painful for them as opposed to brands that have a stronger performance-shoe segment. Adidas may just have it worse than Nike.
Cota downgraded Adidas stock to Underperform from Buy on Tuesday and slashed his target for the stock price to €160 (about $187) from €213. He doesn’t have a rating for Nike stock.
Shares of Adidas listed on the German stock exchange fell 4.5% Tuesday to €162.25. Nike stock was down 1.2%.
Adidas didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Cota sees trouble for Adidas both in the short and long term.
Adidas’ lifestyle segment, which includes the Gazelles and Sambas brands, has been one of the company’s fastest-growing business, but there are signs growth is waning.
Lifestyle sales increased at a 10% annual pace in Adidas’ third quarter, down from 13% in the second quarter.
The analyst now predicts Adidas’ organic sales will grow by a 5% annual rate starting in 2027, down from his prior forecast of 7.5%.
The slower revenue growth will likewise weigh on profitability, Cota said, predicting that margins on earnings before interest and taxes will decline back toward the company’s long-term average after several quarters of outperforming. That could result in a cut to earnings per share.
Adidas stock had a rough 2025. Shares shed 33% in the past 12 months, weighed down by investor concerns over how tariffs, slowing demand, and increased competition would affect revenue growth.
Nike stock fell 9% throughout the period, reflecting both the company’s struggles with demand and optimism over a turnaround plan CEO Elliott Hill rolled out in late 2024.
Investors’ confidence has faded following Nike’s December earnings report, which suggested that a sustained recovery is still several quarters away. Just how many remains anyone’s guess.
But if Adidas’ challenges continue, as Cota believes they will, it could open up some space for Nike to claw back any market share it lost to its rival.
Investors should keep in mind, however, that the field has grown increasingly crowded in the past five years. Upstarts such as On Holding and Hoka also present a formidable challenge to the sector’s legacy brands.
Shares of On and Deckers Outdoor , Hoka’s parent company, fell 11% and 48%, respectively, in 2025, but analysts are upbeat about both companies’ fundamentals as the new year begins.
The battle of the sneakers is just getting started.
In the remote waters of Indonesia’s Anambas Islands, Bawah Reserve is redefining what it means to blend barefoot luxury with environmental stewardship.
Pure Amazon has begun journeys deep into Peru’s Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve, combining contemporary design, Indigenous craftsmanship and intimate wildlife encounters in one of the richest ecosystems on Earth.