Ever tried to save your company money, only to get scolded for it? That’s exactly what happened to one employee who found out the hard way that corporate logic sometimes makes less sense than a toddler with a calculator.
While working on a long-term assignment in New York City’s flashy Theater District, this Redditor decided to skip pricey tourist restaurants and live modestly, microwave meals, cereal, and sandwiches.
The result? Accounting refused to reimburse him for being too practical. What followed was an ironic tale of corporate red tape, reverse frugality, and an accidental binge at five-star restaurants.
Want to know how saving money got this guy into more trouble than spending it? Let’s unpack the delicious absurdity.
When good intentions meet bad policy, someone’s bound to get heartburn
Business travel often comes with detailed meal allowances, but navigating these rules can be surprisingly complex, especially in high-cost areas.
In this case, the employee was assigned a long-term project in New York City’s Theater District, an area known for expensive restaurants and limited budget-friendly options.
The company allowed a meal reimbursement of $30–$40 per meal, yet for convenience and practicality, the employee purchased groceries to cover multiple meals at once, ultimately exceeding the per-meal allowance when aggregated.
Accounting policies are often structured around per-meal limits rather than total weekly expenditures, which can create friction when employees attempt to optimize for efficiency.
According to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), clear guidelines on per diem allocations exist precisely to control costs and prevent overpayment, but rigid adherence can sometimes penalize practical decisions like bulk grocery purchases.
Behavioral economics suggests that employees often seek to maximize efficiency within fixed constraints, such as buying groceries to avoid expensive daily restaurant meals. Here, the employee’s approach reduced long-term costs and minimized time lost to frequent dining.
Dr. Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist, notes that “people will often optimize within rules to meet their own needs, which may appear noncompliant but reflects rational decision-making under constraints.”
From a managerial perspective, this situation underscores the importance of flexible interpretation of expense policies and clear communication between employees and accounting departments.
After clarifying the weekly allowance averaging method, the employee was reimbursed appropriately and could return to a practical meal plan. Such adjustments align corporate policy with operational realities while maintaining fairness and budget oversight.
Here’s the feedback from the Reddit community:
These commenters highlighted the absurdity of corporate rules and the irony of policies that punish logic and efficiency
This group shared personal stories of gaming or adapting to company expense policies out of frustration
![[Reddit User] − This was the golden perk of a 3 month training at a former employer.](https://dailyhighlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/wp-editor-1762013374702-54.webp "Accountant Denies $60 Grocery Bill, Accidentally Approves A Month Of Fine Dining")
They provided an insider’s explanation from an accounting perspective
One offered a detailed, analytical story showing how company bureaucracy can reject clear cost-saving logic
Have you ever been penalized for doing something too efficiently? Drop your funniest corporate contradictions below, bonus points if spreadsheets were involved.
