And yet expensing $470 for a custom cake for an important client who's birthday party you have to miss because you're heading up the shareholder meeting may be money very well spent.
As long as most of the $470's are well spent, and total value for money is better than someone else could achieve, I don't actually mind who's boyfriend gets a fancy cake. But I do need to have confidence that I'm seeing enough of the picture to know that money is being well spent overall, even if that doesn't apply to every individual dollar.
I think most people assume it's okay to for example, use the office printer to print a return slip for a package you're going to mail back on your lunch break.
If the volume for your line of work is tens of thousands of pages, maybe printing 470 return slips is just y'know, fine, gets lost in the noise and makes everyone's life easier to just let it happen.
My take is that the difference here that makes this socially acceptable is that there is a large reduction in total cost when the employee uses the office printer. If an employee uses a printer, the cost is the ink and paper. If the employee did it themselves, they would either need to take a special trip to a print shop or invest in a printer themselves. The total cost of the latter is much higher, maybe $5-$10 of the employee's time vs $0.03-$0.05 in ink and paper. We imagine whether the employer would be willing to make this trade (give $0.05 so the employee would gain $5) and assume the employer would, so the "theft" isn't really a theft.
On the other hand, buying a $470 cake with your boss's money is no more efficient than paying yourself. It's "just" stealing.
BS. Either is stealing and your attempt at rationalization does not make it something else. We just tolerate some things and level of tolerance varies greatly. There are bosses who would nail you to the wall should you take a pen with you and I also know bosses who would tolerate that $500 cake taken by PA.
I don't think it's as black and white, and I don't think the single dimension of "toleration" works to explain the complexity.
Consider napkins at a fast food restaurant. Nobody would say you're "stealing" if you take one napkin and use it to clean your hands after eating. On the other hand, most people would call it "stealing" or at least ethically wrong if you took all the napkins that were available, far more than what you need. In this case, there's more to our ethical intuition than just "stealing" vs "not stealing". Factors include how much you need the napkins, how much you deprive others of the napkins, whether or not the restaurant would be ok with your behavior, whether or not the behavior is a cultural norm, etc.
In case you did not know in some places employers install monitoring software and cameras and you can get your ass nailed just for that - stealing time. They call it different but one still gets fucked.
This kind of analysis may make sense with an employee who handles cash like a bartender or a waitress but I'd think twice about applying it to a trusted position like personal assistant.
> Oversight of cash expensing is a basic financial control.
Well, yes. Clearly.
However, point being, that time and time again, for a Personal Assistant who does home/personal life related tasks (not an EA who is work-related duties), the oversight frequently gets overlooked. Lines get blurred and oversight is lacking. Hence by PAs are often prone to fraud.
The CEO of Goldman Sachs had his PA steal over $1.5 million from him before anyone noticed. The Gearbox CEO also has his PA steal $3 million. There are tons of stories like this.
As long as most of the $470's are well spent, and total value for money is better than someone else could achieve, I don't actually mind who's boyfriend gets a fancy cake. But I do need to have confidence that I'm seeing enough of the picture to know that money is being well spent overall, even if that doesn't apply to every individual dollar.