No meat on expenses - forced vegetarianism?
Discussion
chrispmartha said:
Down and out said:
TBF, you're not a great example of "we".
I’ll take that as a compliment ;-)
https://youtu.be/g2ERWFMLptw
Roofless Toothless said:
If you joined a company with this policy and the conditions were laid out before you, then I would say fair enough.
But if you were already in employment and this was imposed on you, then that's another thing.
Personally, I would consider taking it to an industrial tribunal. It is arguably constructive dismissal - at the least discriminatory.
Who/what are they discriminating against?But if you were already in employment and this was imposed on you, then that's another thing.
Personally, I would consider taking it to an industrial tribunal. It is arguably constructive dismissal - at the least discriminatory.
How is it any different to an expenses policy that states taxi fares won't be re-imbursed but train fares will be?
janesmith1950 said:
suppose the distinction is that, if you only reimburse meat meals, you're discriminating against vegetarians who 'can't' eat meat, whereas it would be very unusual for a meat eater to not want to or be able to eat non-meat products. In other words, the effect on one is not the same as the effect on the other.
My OH is a celiac, steak is her usual safe go-to if there's not gluten free menu as it's one of the few things you can trust will be safe from unnecessary wheat addition.amusingduck said:
RizzoTheRat said:
amusingduck said:
Bussolini said:
bad company said:
It can’t be difficult to get a receipt for lunch or whatever which doesn’t itemise what was ordered / eaten.
If I don't have an itemized receipt, I don't get my expenses.
I would assume in the case of the company in the OP, expense claims are generally fairly small so it's less hassle just to pay and be reimbursed.
Bussolini said:
bad company said:
It can’t be difficult to get a receipt for lunch or whatever which doesn’t itemise what was ordered / eaten.
If I don't have an itemized receipt, I don't get my expenses.Never had a problem getting staff to help out with these things, although we were all in on it and I guess it could be more difficult if you’re not with like-minded individuals!
Down and out said:
chrispmartha said:
Down and out said:
TBF, you're not a great example of "we".
I’ll take that as a compliment ;-)https://youtu.be/g2ERWFMLptw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqncRvQHWk
utgjon said:
I bet yo the afternoon meeting after 30 have been on the egg sarnies is a bit ripe.....!! 
Zetec-S said:
In the article WeWork said:
WeWork cited research suggesting going vegetarian was "one of the biggest things an individual can do to reduce their personal environmental impact" and estimated its change would save 16.6 million gallons of water, 445.1 million pounds of CO2 emissions and 15,507,103 animals over five years.
That's a very specific number, I suspect plucked from someone's arse as a way of making them feel good about themselves. And it won't "save" 15m animals. They are bred to meet demand, if demand drops then suppliers will breed fewer.Anyone who actually investigates these numbers comes away rolling their eyes in disbelief. And the saddest part of that extract is that it simply hasn't occurred to the author that any lifeforms may have perished in the growing of their woke vegetables. Never mind the reality that many times more animals die from growing crops than animals.
DaveGrohl said:
Pathetic. There are all sorts of reasons why this ban is wrong on so many levels. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to be vegetarian or vegan. What I do have a problem with is the constant cycling of these ridiculously comedic numbers and them being used as some sort of justification for a woke agenda by misguided activists.
Anyone who actually investigates these numbers comes away rolling their eyes in disbelief. And the saddest part of that extract is that it simply hasn't occurred to the author that any lifeforms may have perished in the growing of their woke vegetables. Never mind the reality that many times more animals die from growing crops than animals.
Spot on. Anyone who actually investigates these numbers comes away rolling their eyes in disbelief. And the saddest part of that extract is that it simply hasn't occurred to the author that any lifeforms may have perished in the growing of their woke vegetables. Never mind the reality that many times more animals die from growing crops than animals.
oyster said:
Roofless Toothless said:
If you joined a company with this policy and the conditions were laid out before you, then I would say fair enough.
But if you were already in employment and this was imposed on you, then that's another thing.
Personally, I would consider taking it to an industrial tribunal. It is arguably constructive dismissal - at the least discriminatory.
Who/what are they discriminating against?But if you were already in employment and this was imposed on you, then that's another thing.
Personally, I would consider taking it to an industrial tribunal. It is arguably constructive dismissal - at the least discriminatory.
How is it any different to an expenses policy that states taxi fares won't be re-imbursed but train fares will be?
Of course, to quote that well known phrase or saying, IANAL, but I wonder if there is any precedence for a situation like this at an industrial tribunal.
There is precedence in the reverse direction ...
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/veganism-judgmen...
... but I wonder if it would work the other way round. Veganism is accepted here as a 'philosophical belief', but would refusal of enforced dietary restrictions be the same?
DaveGrohl said:
Zetec-S said:
In the article WeWork said:
WeWork cited research suggesting going vegetarian was "one of the biggest things an individual can do to reduce their personal environmental impact" and estimated its change would save 16.6 million gallons of water, 445.1 million pounds of CO2 emissions and 15,507,103 animals over five years.
That's a very specific number, I suspect plucked from someone's arse as a way of making them feel good about themselves. And it won't "save" 15m animals. They are bred to meet demand, if demand drops then suppliers will breed fewer.Anyone who actually investigates these numbers comes away rolling their eyes in disbelief. And the saddest part of that extract is that it simply hasn't occurred to the author that any lifeforms may have perished in the growing of their woke vegetables. Never mind the reality that many times more animals die from growing crops than animals.
Shouldn't a private company be able to set whatever rules they want for the expenses policy as long as it's legal?
FWIW I wouldn't do it in my company, but hey ho it's up to them.
oyster said:
Who/what are they discriminating against?
How is it any different to an expenses policy that states taxi fares won't be re-imbursed but train fares will be?
That's fair enough if trains allow you to make the same journey.How is it any different to an expenses policy that states taxi fares won't be re-imbursed but train fares will be?
What I don't get with this is the company stating that if there's no vegetarian choice available you can buy meat, but you won't get reimbursed. Employees shouldn't be incurring costs for going about doing business activities* and meeting their basic needs.
- I appreciate everyone can bring lunch, but that's not practical on an overnight trip.
A friend of mine until recently had a job in a place that supplied vegan products to (I think) the wholesale sector. The owner of the company was a massive vegan hippy sort. As a consequence, he banned anyone from eating meat in the workplace. I'd last a week before I walked out I think.
She got laid off in a round of redundancies in the end. She didn't seem hugely upset under the circumstances.
She got laid off in a round of redundancies in the end. She didn't seem hugely upset under the circumstances.
rxe said:
It backfires eventually.
We (large company) put a load of pressure on people running up large bar bills for social events and drinks while travelling.
There was a load of whinging, but what happened is that social events stopped dead. People stopped travelling by finding excuses not to.
Eventually the powers that be realised the unintended consequences of their actions and reversed the decision.
They may be fine as it sounds like a small company and everyone agrees with the decision. But per above, most receipts don't actually list the precise contents of the meal. E.g. "sandwich" rather than "steak sandwich".
We have a no alcohol policy )except for Board members) We're still spending £200k/month on travel and probably upwards of £50k on subsistence. We've got VC facilities, Skype, putting in place MS Teams but a lot of people still enjoy the pleasure/torture of travelling.We (large company) put a load of pressure on people running up large bar bills for social events and drinks while travelling.
There was a load of whinging, but what happened is that social events stopped dead. People stopped travelling by finding excuses not to.
Eventually the powers that be realised the unintended consequences of their actions and reversed the decision.
They may be fine as it sounds like a small company and everyone agrees with the decision. But per above, most receipts don't actually list the precise contents of the meal. E.g. "sandwich" rather than "steak sandwich".
In relation to the OP - it's usually discernible from the receipt what the item was so I don't think many people would take the gamble of not having it reimbursed. My view is "Their Expenses Policy, their rules". If you want to have meat pay for it yourself.
RizzoTheRat said:
amusingduck said:
RizzoTheRat said:
amusingduck said:
Bussolini said:
bad company said:
It can’t be difficult to get a receipt for lunch or whatever which doesn’t itemise what was ordered / eaten.
If I don't have an itemized receipt, I don't get my expenses.I would assume in the case of the company in the OP, expense claims are generally fairly small so it's less hassle just to pay and be reimbursed.
Also claiming via personal card can add some handy positive cashflow. I once had a whole bunch of travel I claimed for - I think I was something like £15k in credit for over a month between when my expenses were paid and when my CC bill had to be paid off.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff