> I think that's fundamentally wrong and should - at least in an ideal world - never happen. Agreed. But it does. Some of the perks removed were never perks bu

> I think that's fundamentally wrong and should - at least in an ideal world - never happen. Agreed. But it does. Some of the perks removed were never perks but a form of negligence. Some of the expenses being denied for seemingly arbitrary reasons were denied because there is no way they can be justified as business expenses, but somebody in the past authorized them. > I just don't think that fibbing expenses is a good way to get back at your employer. We're in agreement on that. Just like theft from employer, it can only realistically have one outcome regarding employment once discovered -- no matter how small. > I'm aware that this reply has a certain whiff of Euro centrism, where such things are less likely to happen and workers really have better recourse to get back at their employers. My experiences relate to the UK -- albeit during the period where the recourse to get back at employers required paying for an employment tribunal to hear your case. Even after that was reversed, most disgruntled employees don't go to employment tribunals. > Shit like mandatory arbitration agreements would be laughed out of court herearound. Agreed. But you don't need those for injustices to be felt. Most employees don't really consider that expenses have to be a justifiable expense by the employer for tax purposes and that the people authorizing them are possibly over-worked and only distrust few people enough to check every item.