No meat on expenses - forced vegetarianism?
Discussion
Not sure if we've had this yet - I couldn't see anything already posted, unless hidden away.
A company has banned employees from claiming expenses for meals which include meat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51529207
I don't think I'd be too pleased to be working for a company that did this. I'm not against eating non-meat meals, I do it quite often, but it seems to be a case of applying politics to company policy which is never good.
A company has banned employees from claiming expenses for meals which include meat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51529207
I don't think I'd be too pleased to be working for a company that did this. I'm not against eating non-meat meals, I do it quite often, but it seems to be a case of applying politics to company policy which is never good.
PorkInsider said:
Not sure if we've had this yet - I couldn't see anything already posted, unless hidden away.
A company has banned employees from claiming expenses for meals which include meat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51529207
I don't think I'd be too pleased to be working for a company that did this. I'm not against eating non-meat meals, I do it quite often, but it seems to be a case of applying politics to company policy which is never good.
An increasing number of companies like to promote themselves as wide awoke but they need to take care when following fashion.A company has banned employees from claiming expenses for meals which include meat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51529207
I don't think I'd be too pleased to be working for a company that did this. I'm not against eating non-meat meals, I do it quite often, but it seems to be a case of applying politics to company policy which is never good.
https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/dec...
It's per calorie which excuse seekers think is a get-out, but it isn't given that they're talking about production impact not consumption.
PorkInsider said:
Not sure if we've had this yet - I couldn't see anything already posted, unless hidden away.
A company has banned employees from claiming expenses for meals which include meat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51529207
I don't think I'd be too pleased to be working for a company that did this. I'm not against eating non-meat meals, I do it quite often, but it seems to be a case of applying politics to company policy which is never good.
I suspect the sort of people who would want to work there won't mind. They'll reap what they sow.A company has banned employees from claiming expenses for meals which include meat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51529207
I don't think I'd be too pleased to be working for a company that did this. I'm not against eating non-meat meals, I do it quite often, but it seems to be a case of applying politics to company policy which is never good.
Cue inventive food outlets giving tofu receipts for all and sundry. Reminds me of some time I spent in Hong Kong
SamR380 said:
I wasn't able to open that link but it looks like the company is WeWork?
I think this is at least as much a cynical attempt at saving themselves a bit of cash (by bouncing expense claims) as much as anything.
It's a property company called igloo this time.I think this is at least as much a cynical attempt at saving themselves a bit of cash (by bouncing expense claims) as much as anything.
Google the owner 'Kate Marfleet', maybe, if the BBC links don't work.
It was voted for by the employees and I think the type of person they want to employ will go for it
Whether that turns into good corporate results, or not, remains to be seen
This is the company https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/0405746...
In it's last accounts it made £261k after tax on £4.5m turnover
Whether that turns into good corporate results, or not, remains to be seen
This is the company https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/0405746...
In it's last accounts it made £261k after tax on £4.5m turnover
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.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.By all means folks can go veggy if they don't want to eat animals, despite being an omnivore. Justification based on bunk isn't needed.
article said:
The idea was put to an internal vote and passed, with a few dissenters.
article said:
"We had some justifications as to why it was a good idea, mostly environmental. There were some reservations from staff, but most of those were based on them being unsure of the environmental impact."
Very vague, sounds like the usual type of minority who shout the loudest and force their opinion on others. I'd be interesting to know how many "a few dissenters" actually was. Plus how many others didn't speak up because their opinion didn't fit into the (forced) agenda.How far can companies go with policies like this I wonder. If a company said they would only reimburse "meat" based meals, I suspect there would be lot's of reaction.
And what about taking it a step further and ONLY employing vegetarians....or vegans say, ie discrimination against omnivores? Is that allowed under law as it is not a race or religion?
And what about taking it a step further and ONLY employing vegetarians....or vegans say, ie discrimination against omnivores? Is that allowed under law as it is not a race or religion?
poo at Paul's said:
How far can companies go with policies like this I wonder. If a company said they would only reimburse "meat" based meals, I suspect there would be lot's of reaction.
I 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.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff