161–170 of 319 posts
> staff will not be able to expense any meals that include poultry, pork or red meat. What about dolphin?
Like most fake vegetarians, the policy apparently does not include any aquatic creatures like fish, squid, whales, or dolphins...even though the latter two are intelligent mammals with more capacity to feel pain than any type of poultry.
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?
It's a hell of a lot easier to install a charger in a parking lot than it is to install a gas station. Also, there may be perks/subsidies offered by the local government for installing EV chargers.
Being a vegetarian is exactly as equal a choice of freedom as being an omnivore or carnivore. This feels wrong to push this lifestyle on people. Of course one can always just not do business with We Work.
Let's not be hyperbolic here. Serving food that doesn't happen to contain meat isn't forcing you to be vegetarian any more than serving only soft drinks at an event would be forcing you to be a teetotaler.
All I want to convey is that I believe eating an omnivorous diet is an equal dietary preference to eating a herbivorous one. Deserving of the same protections, if any.
It's obvious they are trying to save money, with the weirdest excuse they could find. Meat is the most expensive part of any meal.
If a company I worked for introduced that I think my response would be subterfuge. "Hey buddy, I'll have the steak but can you do me a favour and put 2 beetroot and feta tarts on the bill instead."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should certainly make sure that they feel the full effects of their decisions, in PR, the employment market, and in public praise or ridicule.
Blood thirst. Of all the causes you could take up, you take arms against a group of people who (albeit, according to their own values) want to restrict budgets from going to killing animals.
You will note that my statement was carefully neutral and did not endorse either side of the issue. WeWork also carefully did not use "blood" as a reason for their policy, instead describing it as a global warming/emissions related measure.
In any case, I am more in favor of people not doing numerically and scientifically unsupportable things to folks who work for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, per Sartre killing oneself is a course of action available to us at (almost) any moment, which must be justified against by any supposed moral system. This is pretty standard. We aren't talking about what the law dictates, we're talking about how some moral system might inform our actions. Two very different things, although of course the relationship between them is fascinating in its own right.
Eating isn't a choice. Please don't deflect from the criticism of your claim. Downvote me all you like Andrew, but I'm going to call you out for espousing ideas that can literally kill people.
I'll leave you with this quote of yours to consider:
> Choosing not to eat is self-destruction and there is absolutely nothing about that that's a moral choice. In fact, it's generally accepted to be immoral.
If something is immoral, there must have been a moral choice made to engage in the immoral activity. "Moral choice" here is a technical term which means the choice itself has moral weight, not that the choice is moral.
It's obvious they are trying to save money, with the weirdest excuse they could find. Meat is the most expensive part of any meal.
Eating vegetarian is more expensive if you want to feel full and satiated in the end.
However, once you throw (principally) dairy into the mix, including mass-market meat substitutes (such as Quorn which often contains dairy derivatives), your options expand to the point where it is easy to a) just drop the meat and increase veg. intake with supplemented dairy from common dishes or b) replace the meat with a price-competitive meat substitute.
If you did indeed mean vegetarianism in general then I’m keen to know why you think it is more expensive.
I’m with other commenters here that this is a weird cost-saving measure from WW, and that dietary choices should not be imposed on people like this (whilst acknowledging WW is a private company and can do whatever they want—- it’s just a strange way to force it on people IMO)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't weaken the argument, it just calls into question the argument that employers should pay for abortions.
Where does it stop? When does compensation stop being the company's money and start being the employee's property to do with as they please?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if your company said that they are starting a program to reimburse solar panel installation, but that program doesn't cover reimbursement for gas. Would your argument be that most of the world consumes gas, so they're "forcefully impose extreme views on a whim."
This is a false equivalence. It is apparently a matter of custom at WeWork for at least some employee meals to be paid for by the company. To dictate what employees may order in those situations is unconscionable. Imagine your manager takes the team out for a working lunch, and you basically can’t order anything except for a garden salad from the menu. You have to be at the lunch, but you cannot order like a normal p…
Once again to reiterate, they are not limiting your choice, they are limiting what they will reimburse.