No meat on expenses - forced vegetarianism?
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
To be honest, if an Employee came to me talking about his "fundamental rights and the balance of power" I'd tell him to leave. Your post is verging on the pathetic, nobody but nobody would get THAT upset about changes to the subsistence policy. If they did I'd wonder how they dealt with genuine problems.You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
Countdown said:
To be honest, if an Employee came to me talking about his "fundamental rights and the balance of power" I'd tell him to leave. Your post is verging on the pathetic, nobody but nobody would get THAT upset about changes to the subsistence policy. If they did I'd wonder how they dealt with genuine problems.
You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
How about this hypothetical: Only vegitarian item on the menu contains a substance you are allergic to? Is it fair to force you to pay for your own meal?You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
Countdown said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
To be honest, if an Employee came to me talking about his "fundamental rights and the balance of power" I'd tell him to leave. Your post is verging on the pathetic, nobody but nobody would get THAT upset about changes to the subsistence policy. If they did I'd wonder how they dealt with genuine problems.You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
Some of the posts are quite funny on here, quite unintentionally though.
Jinx said:
Countdown said:
To be honest, if an Employee came to me talking about his "fundamental rights and the balance of power" I'd tell him to leave. Your post is verging on the pathetic, nobody but nobody would get THAT upset about changes to the subsistence policy. If they did I'd wonder how they dealt with genuine problems.
You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
How about this hypothetical: Only vegitarian item on the menu contains a substance you are allergic to? Is it fair to force you to pay for your own meal?You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
But the policy is self-policing and Ms Marfleet says employees should be able to make their own decisions based on their dietary requirements.
"If you're gluten-free and there's no suitable vegetarian option, then you can make a choice," she says.
Jinx said:
Countdown said:
To be honest, if an Employee came to me talking about his "fundamental rights and the balance of power" I'd tell him to leave. Your post is verging on the pathetic, nobody but nobody would get THAT upset about changes to the subsistence policy. If they did I'd wonder how they dealt with genuine problems.
You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
How about this hypothetical: Only vegitarian item on the menu contains a substance you are allergic to? Is it fair to force you to pay for your own meal?You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
I'd ask the owner if he could knock me up some egg and chips
I'd buy some food with my own money.
I'd get a Tesco Meal Deal.
The options are almost endless.
chrispmartha said:
Jinx said:
Countdown said:
To be honest, if an Employee came to me talking about his "fundamental rights and the balance of power" I'd tell him to leave. Your post is verging on the pathetic, nobody but nobody would get THAT upset about changes to the subsistence policy. If they did I'd wonder how they dealt with genuine problems.
You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
How about this hypothetical: Only vegitarian item on the menu contains a substance you are allergic to? Is it fair to force you to pay for your own meal?You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
But the policy is self-policing and Ms Marfleet says employees should be able to make their own decisions based on their dietary requirements.
"If you're gluten-free and there's no suitable vegetarian option, then you can make a choice," she says.
Countdown said:
To be honest, if an Employee came to me talking about his "fundamental rights and the balance of power" I'd tell him to leave. Your post is verging on the pathetic, nobody but nobody would get THAT upset about changes to the subsistence policy. If they did I'd wonder how they dealt with genuine problems.
You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
That's the most bizarre thing about this thread.You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
Most of the people saying what an appalling breach of peoples rights this is are usually whining about "snowflakes" and "woke".
Unreal
Countdown said:
Jinx said:
Countdown said:
To be honest, if an Employee came to me talking about his "fundamental rights and the balance of power" I'd tell him to leave. Your post is verging on the pathetic, nobody but nobody would get THAT upset about changes to the subsistence policy. If they did I'd wonder how they dealt with genuine problems.
You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
How about this hypothetical: Only vegitarian item on the menu contains a substance you are allergic to? Is it fair to force you to pay for your own meal?You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
I'd ask the owner if he could knock me up some egg and chips
I'd buy some food with my own money.
I'd get a Tesco Meal Deal.
The options are almost endless.
chrispmartha said:
It's even more pathetic as in this instance the employees voted it through, the company even stated "We realised we needed the whole company to come on board, it couldn't just be imposed," she says.
Some of the posts are quite funny on here, quite unintentionally though.
This.Some of the posts are quite funny on here, quite unintentionally though.
They're all getting their knickers in a twist over a private company policy. A company they don't work for, will likely never work for and if they did, would have the option of resigning over it.
I highly doubt they understand the irony when they call others "professionally offended".
Gecko1978 said:
Countdown said:
Jinx said:
Countdown said:
To be honest, if an Employee came to me talking about his "fundamental rights and the balance of power" I'd tell him to leave. Your post is verging on the pathetic, nobody but nobody would get THAT upset about changes to the subsistence policy. If they did I'd wonder how they dealt with genuine problems.
You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
How about this hypothetical: Only vegitarian item on the menu contains a substance you are allergic to? Is it fair to force you to pay for your own meal?You being able to have a bacon sarnie is NOT a fundamental right.
I'd ask the owner if he could knock me up some egg and chips
I'd buy some food with my own money.
I'd get a Tesco Meal Deal.
The options are almost endless.
If the stated policy of such a company is to reduce meat consumption and its effect on the environment, then having an employee expense policy to support this makes perfect sense.
Its discrimination plain and simple, sure they voted for it on the whole but it discriminates against those who may want to join in future.
Anyway its all a moot point, they have done it for social media clicks and profile raising, given most will on their lunch time not be claiming it as an expense and just eating at the office as normal it really is almost irrelevant in terms of being 'green' - I bet if you popped by their office right now you would find BLTs etc. being eaten for lunch as normal.
Anyway its all a moot point, they have done it for social media clicks and profile raising, given most will on their lunch time not be claiming it as an expense and just eating at the office as normal it really is almost irrelevant in terms of being 'green' - I bet if you popped by their office right now you would find BLTs etc. being eaten for lunch as normal.
chrispmartha said:
It's even more pathetic as in this instance the employees voted it through, the company even stated "We realised we needed the whole company to come on board, it couldn't just be imposed," she says.
.
Looking at this comment "internal vote and passed, with a few dissenters" it doesn't appear that 100% of the staff voted for it. Interesting that they didn't give the percentages for and against. .
Down and out said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: That's the most bizarre thing about this thread.
Most of the people saying what an appalling breach of peoples rights this is are usually whining about "snowflakes" and "woke".
Unreal
I'm sure there would have been a lot of "whining" if a company had a meat only policy.Most of the people saying what an appalling breach of peoples rights this is are usually whining about "snowflakes" and "woke".
Unreal
I go back to what I said earlier which is that I tend to think that if this policy annoys someone there are likely to be other things about the company that mean they're just not a great fit.
coldel said:
Its discrimination plain and simple, sure they voted for it on the whole but it discriminates against those who may want to join in future.
Anyway its all a moot point, they have done it for social media clicks and profile raising, given most will on their lunch time not be claiming it as an expense and just eating at the office as normal it really is almost irrelevant in terms of being 'green' - I bet if you popped by their office right now you would find BLTs etc. being eaten for lunch as normal.
It’s not discriminatory, how does this stop meat eaters getting a meal on expenses?Anyway its all a moot point, they have done it for social media clicks and profile raising, given most will on their lunch time not be claiming it as an expense and just eating at the office as normal it really is almost irrelevant in terms of being 'green' - I bet if you popped by their office right now you would find BLTs etc. being eaten for lunch as normal.
chrispmartha said:
coldel said:
Its discrimination plain and simple, sure they voted for it on the whole but it discriminates against those who may want to join in future.
Anyway its all a moot point, they have done it for social media clicks and profile raising, given most will on their lunch time not be claiming it as an expense and just eating at the office as normal it really is almost irrelevant in terms of being 'green' - I bet if you popped by their office right now you would find BLTs etc. being eaten for lunch as normal.
It’s not discriminatory, how does this stop meat eaters getting a meal on expenses?Anyway its all a moot point, they have done it for social media clicks and profile raising, given most will on their lunch time not be claiming it as an expense and just eating at the office as normal it really is almost irrelevant in terms of being 'green' - I bet if you popped by their office right now you would find BLTs etc. being eaten for lunch as normal.
coldel said:
chrispmartha said:
coldel said:
Its discrimination plain and simple, sure they voted for it on the whole but it discriminates against those who may want to join in future.
Anyway its all a moot point, they have done it for social media clicks and profile raising, given most will on their lunch time not be claiming it as an expense and just eating at the office as normal it really is almost irrelevant in terms of being 'green' - I bet if you popped by their office right now you would find BLTs etc. being eaten for lunch as normal.
It’s not discriminatory, how does this stop meat eaters getting a meal on expenses?Anyway its all a moot point, they have done it for social media clicks and profile raising, given most will on their lunch time not be claiming it as an expense and just eating at the office as normal it really is almost irrelevant in terms of being 'green' - I bet if you popped by their office right now you would find BLTs etc. being eaten for lunch as normal.
chrispmartha said:
If that was an expenses policy of a private company and it passed an internal vote within that company, why not, and this is what I don’t get, why would you care?
I dont care, like I said its just click bait by the company to raise its profile. Its discrimination because its deliberately exclusive. Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice for most, they can eat meat no problem. As the report said not everyone voted for it, so some peoples choices are being discriminated against.But like I say, couldn't care less, the reasons for it i.e. save the planet are a load of old horse s
t they are looking for air time. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff