261–270 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, a policy of "you can expense vegetarian meals, but only vegetarian meals" is forcing you to be vegetarian at a much higher and more obnoxious level than that.
Employees are not being forced to become vegetarians, they can still eat fish, dairy and eggs and expense their meals. They can even choose to go outside and eat meat, they have freedom of choice.
Is this any weirder than how a lot of companies let employees charge their personal electric vehicles for free, but won't let you expense personal gasoline?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think his point was that such a heavy handed policy that runs contrary to the views of most of the world's population is problematic. Since there will be situations where employees have little or no choice but to eat company sponsored meals, I for one don't see that to be "illogical".
At my current workplace I can only work from home once per week. I would vastly prefer working from home than the uncomfortable chair and noisy working environment of the office, but I have to make do. Options available to me are changing jobs, asking for a policy shift because of medical issues, etc. If you have to eat a more ethically sourced and less savory meal because of work I don't see that to be a large issue…
Comparing working from home to eating is two totally different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a real stretch. If the company refused to pay for an escort, they aren't forcing me to be celibate. They aren't affecting my identity they are just choosing not to pay for a certain act .
That's just a completely disingenuous comparison. It's pretty normal for companies to pay for work-related food, just as it's pretty normal for you to pay for food you eat on your own time. It's pretty not-normal for companies to pay for escorts, just like it's pretty not-normal for you to pay for escorts on your own time. Some people pay for escorts, but it's pretty well outside social norms, and I can't imagine a b…
In fact, it would be like a company who normally does pay for escorts, but then deciding they'll own pay for opposite sex escorts, instead of allowing same sex escorts.
They'd rightly be pillared for allowing one but not the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they're not. Every company has limitations and provisions on what they'll expense on business trips, and I don't see how this is any different.
Companies used to have one hotel room per trip limitations, too, and if the woman didn't want to stay with a man she could always pay for her own room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they're not. Every company has limitations and provisions on what they'll expense on business trips, and I don't see how this is any different.
Companies used to have one hotel room per trip limitations, too, and if the woman didn't want to stay with a man she could always pay for her own room.
I don't understand how people cannot see the implicitly force used here. In fact, its a large part of why WeWork is doing this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Intensely terrible” is one way to phrase “illegal under the ADA”... I would assume there will be accommodations made for folks with dietary restrictions that require them to eat meat, whether that’s through a simple waiver or a massive lawsuit.
It says in the article that "Individuals requiring “medical or religious” allowances are being referred to the company’s policy team to discuss options."
I can't eat a lot of types of food due to allergies. Meat is one of the few things I still can eat without issue. Yes, there are actually people out there (hi, me!) that actually cannot eliminate certain foods from our diets without getting sick. This policy would prevent me from being able to work at that company, for recognized medical health reasons, because I would not be able to do legitimate expenses of food re…
>Forcing your employees to only eat certain kinds of food is an intensely terrible thing to do. I absolutely agree. Fortunately, no one is doing that. WeWork employees can eat as much meat as they want. It's just that WeWork won't pay for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a real stretch. If the company refused to pay for an escort, they aren't forcing me to be celibate. They aren't affecting my identity they are just choosing not to pay for a certain act .
That's just a completely disingenuous comparison. It's pretty normal for companies to pay for work-related food, just as it's pretty normal for you to pay for food you eat on your own time. It's pretty not-normal for companies to pay for escorts, just like it's pretty not-normal for you to pay for escorts on your own time. Some people pay for escorts, but it's pretty well outside social norms, and I can't imagine a b…
I've known lots of companies to pay for escorts, but only the “walk you from the building to your car at night” kind and not the “euphemism for prostitute” kind.