No meat on expenses - forced vegetarianism?

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

Kenny Powers said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Agreed. Most of this “snowflake” pushback against rational criticism amounts to little more than ad hominem insults because the removal of choice doesn’t affect them personally. I absolutely guarantee these same people would be crying into their tofu if an employer implemented expenses discrimination against those who choose not to eat meat. They’ll claim it’s not the same thing, but it is.

A lot of companies have a "No alcohol" Policy. is that forced teetotalism?

Do we all need to eat to survive? Yes!
Do we all need to drink alcohol to survive? No!
Are foods largely substances that alter the awareness and ability of a person to act safely in the workplace? No!
Is alcohol a substance that affects the ability of a person to act safely in the workplace? Yes!
Can you be prosecuted for driving after eating? No!
Can you be prosecuted for driving after drinking? Yes!
Alcohol and food/nourishment are not things that can be approached as equals in such instances. You know that though!

[chrispmartha]

InitialDave said:

chrispmartha said:

Eggs are meat are they?

If you wait long enough.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure you understand properly what the eggs that are eaten actually are, try leaving an egg a while and you’ll notice it doesn’t hatch and a chick appears

[amusingduck]

chrispmartha said:

Look up Ketogenic which is what he said he was, and anyway he could still be able to claim a meal on this companies expenses policy

Yeah, a ketogenic carnivore

[chrispmartha]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Does this expenses policy stop employees from eating and claiming it on expenses?

[Agammemnon]

chrispmartha said:

Kenny Powers said:

oyster said:

It's not ok to just insist they are the same without any justification.

They are exactly the same thing. People's right to choose what they eat on company time is being discriminated against based on someone else's ethics. The only distinction is one of which side of the fence one sits on.

I suspect we'll have to amicably disagree on this, because I am not inclined to get into a drawn-out debate about it.

There’s no such thing as a ‘right’ to choose what you eat on company expenses

It's fortunate that he never said that, isn't it?

[chrispmartha]

amusingduck said:

chrispmartha said:

Look up Ketogenic which is what he said he was, and anyway he could still be able to claim a meal on this companies expenses policy

Yeah, a ketogenic carnivore

Carnivore does not mean exclusively eating meat, as he said he eats fish and eggs, and ketogenic doesn’t mean not eating vegetables

[chrispmartha]

Agammemnon said:

chrispmartha said:

Kenny Powers said:

oyster said:

It's not ok to just insist they are the same without any justification.

They are exactly the same thing. People's right to choose what they eat on company time is being discriminated against based on someone else's ethics. The only distinction is one of which side of the fence one sits on.

I suspect we'll have to amicably disagree on this, because I am not inclined to get into a drawn-out debate about it.

There’s no such thing as a ‘right’ to choose what you eat on company expenses

It's fortunate that he never said that, isn't it?

Yes it is

“ People's right to choose what they eat on company time is being discriminated against”

Theres no such ‘right’

[oyster]

Kenny Powers said:

oyster said:

It's not ok to just insist they are the same without any justification.

They are exactly the same thing. People's right to choose what they eat on company time is being discriminated against based on someone else's ethics. The only distinction is one of which side of the fence one sits on.

I suspect we'll have to amicably disagree on this, because I am not inclined to get into a drawn-out debate about it.

I do understand why you're arguing they are the same, and if you eat only meat for ethical (or of course medical/allergic) reasons it definitely would feel discriminatory. But then this particular company must feel comfortable that they haven't put anyone, or would potentially put anyone in that position. It's probably already endemic within their culture and such a change to expenses policy effectively makes little to no difference.

Slightly related, a company I used to work for has just changed their mileage claim policy to give a much higher pence per mile rate on employees who use an EV for business mileage than those who use ICE-powered cars.

[chrispmartha]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But they aren’t stopping employees eating meat so your point doesn’t make sense

[Kenny Powers]

chrispmartha said:

Look up Ketogenic which is what he said he was, and anyway he could still be able to claim a meal on this companies expenses policy

For clarity, not that it's really relevant to the topic, I eat all animal produce only. Nose to tail as much as possible. No plants. No grains. No seed oils. No sugar. Effectively zero-carb apart from some glycogen in liver. Lean muscle meat isn't really my M.O.

If I worked for this company I guess I could just about have a boiled egg and get reimbursed

[chrispmartha]

Kenny Powers said:

chrispmartha said:

Look up Ketogenic which is what he said he was, and anyway he could still be able to claim a meal on this companies expenses policy

For clarity, not that it's really relevant to the topic, I eat all animal produce only. Nose to tail as much as possible. No plants. No grains. No seed oils. No sugar. Effectively zero-carb apart from some glycogen in liver. Lean muscle meat isn't really my M.O.

If I worked for this company I guess I could just about have a boiled egg and get reimbursed

You could have a nice omelette, with a bit of ham in it, lovely

[Kenny Powers]

chrispmartha said:

You could have a nice omelette, with a bit of ham in it, lovely

Only if it was cooked in animal fat and not "vegetable" oil, but that's another conversation for another day

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What do you think the intention of the expenses policy is?

[chrispmartha]

Kenny Powers said:

chrispmartha said:

You could have a nice omelette, with a bit of ham in it, lovely

Only if it was cooked in animal fat and not "vegetable" oil, but that's another conversation for another day

A bit of beef dripping or Duck fat - lovely

[Kenny Powers]

chrispmartha said:

A bit of beef dripping or Duck fat - lovely

Mmmm. BRB...

[chrispmartha]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

To incentivise the employees to eat less meat, and?

Are you against a mileage policy that incentivises people to drive electric cars?

[oyster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'd take it as attempting to align with a wider corporate policy.
That's the norm.

You can't set a corporate policy of trying to reduce meat consumption, for example, and then pay for people to eat meat. That would be bizarre.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The intention of the company is to control the behaviour of employees and control their diet in order for the company to be able to use that as a selling point or for brownie points with people of a certain mindset.
There is no incentive involved. I've said before, if there was a bonus incentive for those that chose to follow a v diet then that would be great, as long as those that ate a normal omnivorous diet were not punished for doing so by losing expenses when travelling and working away.

[chrispmartha]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And I’ve said before I agree with your last point, that’s what I would have done if I wanted to encourage staff to eat more vegetarian meals however that doesn’t mean it’s discrimination and that they shouldn’t be allowed to implement whatever policy they want as long as its within the law

[Cheeses of Nazareth]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Is it another 'look at me' job ?