If it’s hard, well, money has a way of changing things. Something tells me a) it’s not really that hard, b) to the extent that it is, it’s about to get a lot easier.
Excusing the potential hypocrisy of the policy re: fish vs meat (given general movement in recent years as to the complexity of fish nervous systems) - As well as the fact that 'fish' is not a useful term in biology...
It seems extreme to say "Utterly disgraceful."...
Let's assume the principle of charity here, and say that the move was about stopping net negative emotion in conscious entities.
They aren't stopping you from doing it. They just aren't funding it themselves any more.
Your reply appears very knee-jerk considering that the principle of charity essentially makes this news into: "Wework cannot morally pay expenses for things that were used in the forced behaviour, or at worst negative emotion of, animals in modern industrialised farming. However, you can still eat meat on our property"
>Is anyone comfortable with a property holding company telling you what you can't eat on the property you pay them to use?
You can. They just won't pay you for it. And this isn't about clients, it's about employees (As an aside, this is possibly a statement that was worth due diligence checks being done, before assuming and posting).
I also note that many people are doing back of the envelope calculations on environmental impact of eggs vs flights etc.
Can this not simply be "We [wework] don't want to pay for what we see as murder"?
The article states that it applies to any onsite event with catering a customer might hold. Perhaps I misunderstand. Given most events hosted there are done in cooperation with or illustrating a relationship between wework with no commercial payment from the third party, i dunno where the lines are.
> "We [wework] don't want to pay for what we see as murder"?
The questionable predicate for doing so is the environmental impact. Where do you get that from? They absolutely would not win any fans imposing moral absolutism on the eating habits of the majority of people.
> They absolutely would not win any fans imposing moral absolutism on the eating habits of the majority of people.
I don't think they're imposing anything, it seems like they're just saying they're no longer going to pay for it. From what I can tell, clients, employees and tenants would be free to eat their own meat-containing meals by simply paying for them.
“It’s also banning meat (but not fish) from all corporate events on the grounds, handed down by co-founder Miguel McKelvey, that “avoiding meat is one of the biggest things an individual can do to reduce their personal environmental impact” “
The word “grounds” is used as a synonym for “reason” or “justification”. It doesn’t refer to WeWork properties.
I think it’s a dumb policy, but there’s no reason to think it will be inflicted on WeWork tenants.
Unless meat was part of the sales pitch or contract, they can probably choose the menu they cater regardless, so this seems fine.
However I do think the expenses part seems wrong. Employers should not dictate restrictions on breakfast, lunch and dinner diets, that is a cultural imposition and treads a dangerous line for employers' control.
On business trips, that cultural imposition may be unavoidable for an employee and it sets a standard that it's okay for WeWork to try to control aspects of employees lives.. will staff be required to wear uniform at all times whilst on a business trip, including company mandated nightwear, only expense business travel if it is electric and only expense drinks if they're caffeinated.
Companies should have discretion on alcohol, night clubs, etc, but these would only ever be perks, food is a dependency and a costly one for many when staying in a hotel.
- (pesco)vegetarian diet is not bad for health. Vegan diet can be bad for health but only if you are not careful (ex: make sure you get enough vitamin B12). In fact, veg* tend to be healthier, though I think it is just a byproduct of simply caring about diet rather than the details of it.
- They don't ban meat, they just refuse to pay for meals that include meat.
- They can make exceptions for health and religious reasons.
People who eat meat (me included) do not need to eat meat at every single meal. So what if the company events will be vegetarian and you expenses dinners will have to as well? You can still eat meat whenever you want. They just won’t be paying for it.
Our cantina has vegitarian days and no-one hardly even notices. Though if you have a meat addiction and absolutely need 200g at every meat, you can just bring your own lunch.
I feel people are far to religious about this. Bring back the outrage when any of their employees starved to death.
There are companies who don’t have company events at all and who don’t let employees expense any meals at all. Shouldn’t they be the real “tyrants”?
This is pretty obviously just the cofounder’s values being forced on the company. It’s one thing to promote a vegetarian lifestyle, another to ram it down throats and create awkward situations across the entire company.
reply