Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 319 posts

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#291

Post by myrandomcomment »

jlarocco wrote: post #91
juancn wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're forced for example in the context of a business trip.

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.

Because they are saying you have to travel for work and you cannot eat anything we do not approve. How hard is it to understand that? I travel all the time for work. I cannot eat Gluten (medical reason), when I am in Japan what do you suggest I eat? There are many options that are safe for me to eat and they are all meat based. It is fine they choose not to server meat as part of what the company does as an in house offering but it is not okay for them to tell me what I can it when I am traveling on business. I do not require a drink with dinner. That’s fine, but I do require food I can digest without getting sick. This is pure bullshit over reach. The best part is everyone will just ignore it as no one turns in itemized reports on what they ordered just the CC slip. It is pure BS.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#292

Post by mcintyre1994 »

> In an email to employees this week outlining the new policy, co-founder Miguel McKelvey said the firm’s upcoming internal “Summer Camp” retreat would offer no meat options for attendees.

Unless they have two events called Summer Camp, that's not an internal event, it's an event they're selling to their members as including the best hand picked Street food vendors in the UK. I imagine lots of people will be surprised that none of them sell meat if it's actually that event.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#293

Post by cimmanom »

tracker1 wrote: post #244

As a diabetic who is allergic to legumes... fuck you WeWork, I will never do business with you given a choice. I know eggs and fish are okay, but what were the eggs fed? It does matter. If it's a company event, will there be eggs and fish, or just soy products?

It sounds like they're making exceptions for employees with religious or health needs that make this an undue burden.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#294

Post by gtt »

candiodari wrote: post #280
kozikow wrote: post #14

I and a few of my past co-workers have been suspecting that the facilities team in a big tech company I used to work for had an evil genius plan to reduce costs: 1. Pick the most popular snack (e.g. nachos) 2. Replace it with less tasty alternative (e.g. kale chips) "for your health" 3. Consumption is a few times smaller 4. The company can claim they take better care of their workers and no one can accuse them of bei…

You forgot: 6. Fire the engineer pointing out that the pay of even one member of the finance team during this 2-month project would have paid for nachos for the whole company for 10 years.

If such parasitic behaviour (on part of finance team in this example) is tolerated by the upper management it is better for productive developer to update his resume and spend time on networking and seeking the new opportunities. The nachos are just signs of things to come.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#295

Post by [deleted] »

Waterluvian wrote: post #163
bunderbunder wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Refusing to serve meat == refusing to serve vegetables. Imagine if the inverse were true. People would flip. 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.

[deleted]

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#296

Post by pwinnski »

whack wrote: post #142
bunderbunder wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a pretty great analogy. Lots of businesses have a no-alcohol policy. No one even bats an eye when it's mentioned. I hardly see anyone complaining about such companies pushing a lifestyle agenda.

It's easy and common to ask for two checks, and alcohol purchases end up on a separate check, paid for with a separate card.

I'm not sure how a restaurant would react if one ordered a meal and asked for the the meat in that meal to be put on a separate check.

So it's an analogy, but not a great one, I think.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#297

Post by lolsal »

donutte wrote: post #217
lolsal wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about this mindset - it seems like you object to eating animals because they lack a choice. Do you have any problem with wild animals eating other wild animals (who presumably also have less of a choice)? I'm not trying to trick you or trap you, just genuinely curious.

I’m genuinely curious: you ask if one has any problem. Do you mean to imply that you have zero problem with this? When you watch a big cat torture and eat a prey animal, do you not have any sense at all that maybe the prey would prefer that not to happen? Or that, all else being equal, if the tiger could eat something that doesn’t seem to mind being eaten, that would be at least as good for everyone? Like, obviously…

> Do you mean to imply that you have zero problem with this?

I really do have zero problem with animals killing and consuming other animals.

> When you watch a big cat torture and eat a prey animal,

I don't think it's fair to say that a big cat 'tortures' a prey animal. I suspect it's practice. Torture to me requires intent that I don't think the big cat has.

> do you not have any sense at all that maybe the prey would prefer that not to happen?

I do have a sense that the prey does not want to die. What they want doesn't really matter though to the carnivore.

> Or that, all else being equal, if the tiger could eat something that doesn’t seem to mind being eaten, that would be at least as good for everyone?

If the world could exist in a different state that had less suffering, that might be good. Not sure what it would cost though.

> But — again, genuinely asking — does the intractability of that problem really force you, personally, to assign zero moral weight to the experience of animals?

I think you misunderstood me, or I failed to explain well. I don't see any moral problem with animals consuming other animals. Killing animals for no reason I would find morally wrong. Killing animals for food I find morally neutral. Reducing sufferring where possible is morally good (whether in raising the animal, or the mechanism of killing the animal), but is separate from actually killing the animal in my opinion.

If you killed an animal painlessly, would there be any moral problem in consuming animals?

> Or do you sincerely just... not care?

I care immensely in making sure animals do not suffer needlessly. I care that animals are well taken care of while they are alive and that they are killed humanely and for a purpose. My livestock has, without question, healthier, more secure and more prolific lives than they would in the wild.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#298

Post by proofbygazing »

Probably a net-negative business move.

This creates goodwill among vegetarians within the company, who will appreciate being part of this uniquely progressive organization. However, their lives will not actually change very much - they won't have to witness meat at company events, sure, but their travel lives will be the same - they will just order vegetarian, like usual.

This creates ill-will among meat eaters at the company, who will want to eat burgers and pork chops and will not be able to do so on the company expense, like every other company allows. Unlike the vegetarians, they will be reminded of this not only at company events but also every time they get food while traveling, as they have to think through what they are allowed to eat and see all the meat options, knowing that WeWork is the reason they can't have them.

The animosity outweighs the goodwill here by a large margin. Retention will suffer.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#299

Post by proofbygazing »

stvswn wrote: post #83
mkempe wrote: post #54

"The company estimates that the policy will save 445.1m pounds of CO2 emissions ... by 2023." That's 202,000 kt over a 5-year plan. Global fuel-based emissions in 2015: 36,061,710 kt CO2. In other words, they think they are so important as to "save" about 0.1% of global CO2 annually just by refusing to include meat in the menu of their own events and employee-expensed meals. I doubt the magnitude of their estimates.…

Also, if a group of urban westerners WERE to stop eating such a large quantity of meat en masse, it would have the effect of lowering the price of meat and not the effect of simply reducing the meat eaten in the world. Most of that meat will just get bought by others for a slightly cheaper price. Making protein cheaper for poorer people in the world would arguably be the best outcome of this experiment if the magnitu…

You're right to consider the marginal effect that this might have on the purchasing habits of meat eaters, but you're wrong to ignore the marginal effect that the fall in prices will have on meat producers.

A fall in price will always reduce the quantity supplied, ceteris paribus.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#300

Post by proofbygazing »

munificent wrote: post #181
scott00 wrote: post #176

As a business decision this seems incredibly odd. Being vegetarian or supporting vegetarianism does not seem like it would have disproportionate representation among either their target clientele or their target employees. As such it seems to me it would have minor negative effect on their perception by clients, and moderately negative impact on their perception by employees. I don't see why they would risk that for…

> I don't see why they would risk that for a cause entirely unconnected to their business Maybe they just really believe in it.

Well then it seems like starting an alternative to PETA would be a better use of management's time and efforts than running a real estate REIT that just has a vegetarian-friendly per diem policy.

Of course, they won't do that, because they actually just care about making money and aren't really worried about this stuff. So I'm still puzzled.

Post reply on HN