No meat on expenses - forced vegetarianism?
Discussion
Woody John said:
Cheeses of Nazareth said:
Woody John said:
Went to a conference last week and they announced the lunch spread was all vegan, because cow farts are warming the planet apparently.
So why hold a conference and not a Webex.. At that point I am leaving to go get proper food.
Tokenism at its worst.
How do some of these people find employment?
DaveGrohl said:
How do some of these people find employment?
Because Big Vegan - the Seventh-day Adventist’s Church (evolution deniers), EAT Lancet and their dozens of commercial partners, have used their billions to lobby governments and propagandise the public consciousness into believing that all of the universe’s problems are caused by Big Meat. Therefore nothing else matters. Including reality and common sense.Click for more information; the five universal laws of human stupidity
Kenny Powers said:
DaveGrohl said:
How do some of these people find employment?
Because Big Vegan - the Seventh-day Adventist’s Church (evolution deniers), EAT Lancet and their dozens of commercial partners, have used their billions to lobby governments and propagandise the public consciousness into believing that all of the universe’s problems are caused by Big Meat. Therefore nothing else matters. Including reality and common sense.Click for more information; the five universal laws of human stupidity
As I said before, it would have been possible to have presented an intelligent win-win proposal, where you gained by making the v choice but lost nothing by declining, even though it was based around a potentially stupid belief.
csd19 said:
Woody John said:
Your staff are looking for the door, you better believe it.
You should be looking for Specsavers, it was Countdown who said they were implementing the restrictive car loan policy, not Slightlyoldgit... 
And staff wont “look for the door” because of the changes we’ve made to the Expenses Policy because (a) the changes only affect a small proportion of staff (b) the Union was happy to agree to it (c) we pay relatively high wages and (d) Most of our staff are based in Manchester and London and use public transport anyway.
otolith said:
What do you need a union for, when you are delighted for your employer to impose upon you any conditions which are legal?
I’m not sure anybody has made the assertion that Employees are always delighted about what their Employers want to do 
AIUI even the Company in the original post consulted with their staff before putting this rule in place. It’s just good management practice.Countdown said:
otolith said:
What do you need a union for, when you are delighted for your employer to impose upon you any conditions which are legal?
I’m not sure anybody has made the assertion that Employees are always delighted about what their Employers want to do AIUI even the Company in the original post consulted with their staff before putting this rule in place. It’s just good management practice.Countdown said:
There’s no compulsory requirement for the Company to reimburse meals taken on works business. In that respect it’s no different to the Compoany “Xmas Do”.
Companies make numerous impositions on employees. For example some require Male employees to wear shirt and tie (no such imposition on female employees”. Some on’t allow tattoos which are visible to customers. In short, companies have lots of rules and regulations, some of which make sense, others which may not.
It actually IS their damn business. If people dont like it they know where the door is.
Companies make numerous impositions on employees. For example some require Male employees to wear shirt and tie (no such imposition on female employees”. Some on’t allow tattoos which are visible to customers. In short, companies have lots of rules and regulations, some of which make sense, others which may not.
It actually IS their damn business. If people dont like it they know where the door is.
otolith said:
Countdown said:
otolith said:
What do you need a union for, when you are delighted for your employer to impose upon you any conditions which are legal?
I’m not sure anybody has made the assertion that Employees are always delighted about what their Employers want to do AIUI even the Company in the original post consulted with their staff before putting this rule in place. It’s just good management practice.Countdown said:
There’s no compulsory requirement for the Company to reimburse meals taken on works business. In that respect it’s no different to the Compoany “Xmas Do”.
Companies make numerous impositions on employees. For example some require Male employees to wear shirt and tie (no such imposition on female employees”. Some on’t allow tattoos which are visible to customers. In short, companies have lots of rules and regulations, some of which make sense, others which may not.
It actually IS their damn business. If people dont like it they know where the door is.
Companies make numerous impositions on employees. For example some require Male employees to wear shirt and tie (no such imposition on female employees”. Some on’t allow tattoos which are visible to customers. In short, companies have lots of rules and regulations, some of which make sense, others which may not.
It actually IS their damn business. If people dont like it they know where the door is.
1.;Employees aren’t always delighted about rules imposed upon them.
2. Companies make numerous impositions.
3.;If employees dont like it they can leave.
4. It’s good management practice to consult with employees.
5. That doesn’t mean we can only do what they choose to accept.
HTH
csd19 said:
Woody John said:
Your staff are looking for the door, you better believe it.
You should be looking for Specsavers, it was Countdown who said they were implementing the restrictive car loan policy, not Slightlyoldgit... Woody John said:
csd19 said:
Woody John said:
Your staff are looking for the door, you better believe it.
You should be looking for Specsavers, it was Countdown who said they were implementing the restrictive car loan policy, not Slightlyoldgit... 
bless you poppet. Countdown said:
Maybe it’s down to interpretation but I don’t see my statements as being contradictory
1.;Employees aren’t always delighted about rules imposed upon them.
2. Companies make numerous impositions.
3.;If employees dont like it they can leave.
4. It’s good management practice to consult with employees.
5. That doesn’t mean we can only do what they choose to accept.
HTH
So again, what do you need a union for? If you don't like it, you know where the door is.1.;Employees aren’t always delighted about rules imposed upon them.
2. Companies make numerous impositions.
3.;If employees dont like it they can leave.
4. It’s good management practice to consult with employees.
5. That doesn’t mean we can only do what they choose to accept.
HTH
That really doesn't sound like your normal position on employee relations, though, so I suspect that in this case you simply sympathise with the measure.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff