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

311–319 of 319 posts

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

#311

Post by fulafel »

cjbprime wrote: post #305
fulafel wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't fix everything at once. Whataboutism, etc.

I thought about this some, and don't agree that this is whataboutism, because there's no change of topic. The environmental impact of WeWork's business decisions is supposed to be the topic. But the impact of massive transatlantic air travel gets a pass, and the far lesser impact of meat-eating doesn't. I think it's legitimate to ask whether someone's being consistent or sincere in their commitment to Cause X when th…

But aren't nearly all individual actions to combat climate change or improve animal welfare like this? I think it's not hypocritical to take first steps that are easy, it's just tactics.

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

#312

Post by charmides »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #310
charmides wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people do. What OP described is called fraud and people get terminated for fraud all the time.

One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust policy.

You can quit your job if hurting animals and harming the environment is so important to you.

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

#314

Post by VBprogrammer »

charmides wrote: post #312
VBprogrammer wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust policy.

You can quit your job if hurting animals and harming the environment is so important to you.

I care about companies not making moral judgements on behalf of their employees.

I guess this particular restriction aligns with your morality closely enough that you are happy to give it a pass. What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to reimburse employees for halal meals? What if they decided coffee production was too likely to have involved child labour and so that's off the list too. Surgery deserts make people fat and can lead to diabities, can't go paying for that either.

For what it's worth 3 of my sister's are vegan. My mother has been vegetarian since the age of 9. So it's fair to say I've eaten my fair share of meat free meals.

I think as a company there are a whole bunch of things you could do to promote vegetarianism without alienativing 90% of the population. An easy one would be offering a similar range of vegetarian alternatives as they do normal meals.

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

#315

Post by smsm42 »

curo wrote: post #137
donutte wrote: post #103

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.

No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy. They don't have an obligation to reimburse, and this falls so far outside of fair employment laws. HN is going nuts on this one.

Well, they don't have an obligation to reimburse, but reimbursing in a discriminatory fashion could still be legally suspect. There's a difference between not reimbursing at all and reimbursing in a way that excludes certain people. Just like that case with Uber and jackets only for male team members - nobody is required to give out free jackets, but if you only give ones to males and not females, you'll end up in trouble. If not legal one than certainly PR one.

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

#316

Post by LarryDarrell »

downandout wrote: post #73
kyledrake wrote: post #42

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…

Not only is it terrible from a dietary standpoint, it reveals an intolerant workplace culture that I certainly wouldn't want any part of. Most of the world, and likely most of their employees, eat meat. It shows a serious lack of connection with the real world, and a willingness on the part of management to forcefully impose extreme views on a whim. Sounds like an unhealthy place to work, even if they all become vege…

Heh, try being a vegetarian in the Midwest if you want to feel real intolerant workplace culture.

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

#317

Post by charmides »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #314
charmides wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can quit your job if hurting animals and harming the environment is so important to you.

I care about companies not making moral judgements on behalf of their employees. I guess this particular restriction aligns with your morality closely enough that you are happy to give it a pass. What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to reimburse employees for halal meals? What if they decided coffee production was too likely to have involved child labour and so that's off the lis…

"I care about companies not making moral judgements on behalf of their employees."

This is absurd. Of course companies need to enforce some form of morality among its employees, for instance by having an anti-murder policy or by firing employees who shout racist epitaphs at quarterly meetings. The question is just where to draw the line.

"What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to reimburse employees for halal meals? What if they decided coffee production was too likely to have involved child labour and so that's off the list too. Surgery deserts make people fat and can lead to diabities, can't go paying for that either."

Sounds terrifying. One day, those fascist may ask people to quit drinking on the job, enforce a no-drug policy, ask people to adhere to a dress-code, and prohibit them from carrying firearms on their desk job. Or wait, did I just take your slippery slope fallacy in the wrong direction?

"For what it's worth 3 of my sister's are vegan. My mother has been vegetarian since the age of 9. So it's fair to say I've eaten my fair share of meat free meals."

For the sake of your health, I sure hope you have eaten meals without meat every once in a while.

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

#318

Post by VBprogrammer »

charmides wrote: post #317
VBprogrammer wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I care about companies not making moral judgements on behalf of their employees. I guess this particular restriction aligns with your morality closely enough that you are happy to give it a pass. What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to reimburse employees for halal meals? What if they decided coffee production was too likely to have involved child labour and so that's off the lis…

"I care about companies not making moral judgements on behalf of their employees." This is absurd. Of course companies need to enforce some form of morality among its employees, for instance by having an anti-murder policy or by firing employees who shout racist epitaphs at quarterly meetings. The question is just where to draw the line. "What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to r…

> This is absurd. Of course companies need to enforce some form of morality among its employees, for instance by having an anti-murder policy or by firing employees who shout racist epitaphs at quarterly meetings. The question is just where to draw the line.

Those things aren't the responsibility of the employer. They are illegal.

I don't actually think my argument was the slippery slope. It was my attempt to show that other things could equally be considered immoral that perhaps don't align quite as neatly with your militant vegetarianism.

Anyway, I doubt anyone else is actually reading this 2 week old thread so I'll leave it at that. Have a good weekend.

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

#319

Post by charmides »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #318
charmides wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I care about companies not making moral judgements on behalf of their employees." This is absurd. Of course companies need to enforce some form of morality among its employees, for instance by having an anti-murder policy or by firing employees who shout racist epitaphs at quarterly meetings. The question is just where to draw the line. "What if instead, a company morally objected to halal slaughter and refused to r…

> This is absurd. Of course companies need to enforce some form of morality among its employees, for instance by having an anti-murder policy or by firing employees who shout racist epitaphs at quarterly meetings. The question is just where to draw the line. Those things aren't the responsibility of the employer. They are illegal. I don't actually think my argument was the slippery slope. It was my attempt to show th…

Again you are factually wrong. As long as it is not threatening, it is not illegal in the USA to express racism. That's why companies take a stricter stance against racism than the law does.

>It was my attempt to show that other things could equally be considered immoral that perhaps don't align quite as neatly with your militant vegetarianism.

I don't think you know what the word "militant" means.

Also, your argument remains absurd. Just because there is no universal agreement on morality, it does not mean that morality is relative and it certainly does not mean that companies should not have policies based on their morals and their values.

As a matter of fact, your line of argument is so ridiculous that I doubt even you believe in what you are saying. I think that this company's policy made you feel hurt and attacked for visceral reasons (the do-gooder derogation effect) and you are trying to justify that feeling for yourself by dressing it up as a political argument.

>Anyway, I doubt anyone else is actually reading this 2 week old thread so I'll leave it at that. Have a good weekend.

It sounds like a good idea that you leave. I hope that you learned something here and wish you a pleasant week.

Post reply on HN