- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
Company Banning Most Meat
- Thread starter cornflake
- Start date
- Status
A little tough on those employees who a) are carnivores, and b) didn't know this was coming.
(Unionization is for white collar workers, too.)
And, this kind of helps to set a precedent: along with deciding who can or cannot have birth control, employers are also able to tell you what to eat during the workday.
How long before they want to be able to fire women who get pregnant? Not because they're going to be less useful at work, but because of overpopulation? Or getting rid of parking, because people should be using transit?
How about all managers give up their offices, in favour of the same desks, chairs, and lack of parking spaces as everyone else?
How about reducing the whole management/assistants complex?
Any chance of that happening?
(Unionization is for white collar workers, too.)
And, this kind of helps to set a precedent: along with deciding who can or cannot have birth control, employers are also able to tell you what to eat during the workday.
How long before they want to be able to fire women who get pregnant? Not because they're going to be less useful at work, but because of overpopulation? Or getting rid of parking, because people should be using transit?
How about all managers give up their offices, in favour of the same desks, chairs, and lack of parking spaces as everyone else?
How about reducing the whole management/assistants complex?
Any chance of that happening?
That's pretty great. More bold moves like this from big players, please.
Frimble, I reckon better analogies for progressive values statements like this one would be, well, other progressive things. Like reducing plastics and paper use, or divesting from fossil-fueled power, or shifting workplace culture to a more women-and-other-friendly model. This is hardly an authoritarian move.
(PS - humans aren't carnivores)
Frimble, I reckon better analogies for progressive values statements like this one would be, well, other progressive things. Like reducing plastics and paper use, or divesting from fossil-fueled power, or shifting workplace culture to a more women-and-other-friendly model. This is hardly an authoritarian move.
(PS - humans aren't carnivores)
Last edited:
They need to ban fish as well, even farmed fish. Neither farming or the fisheries are sustainable in the long term; they just do too much environmental damage.
I do think this move is somewhat more invasive that recycling or reducing waste, however, because it involves interfering with the nutrition employees have decided is best for their health and well-being. When you start interfering with people's control over their bodies, I'm going to give it the side-eye. A more apt comparison might be the company that gives more paid time off to non-smokers to make up for smoke breaks, or a company that bans smoking on their property.
I do think this move is somewhat more invasive that recycling or reducing waste, however, because it involves interfering with the nutrition employees have decided is best for their health and well-being. When you start interfering with people's control over their bodies, I'm going to give it the side-eye. A more apt comparison might be the company that gives more paid time off to non-smokers to make up for smoke breaks, or a company that bans smoking on their property.
I'm all in for a company deciding its no longer going to serve meat, and there's precedent for companies banning certain foods on premises--in the past I worked in a residential treatment facility under the umbrella of a Jewish social service agency, & though none of the clients nor case managers were Jewish, the kitchen had to be kept kosher--but this
gives me pause. I'm not certain this is what's meant, but if the company normally reimburses for lunches/dinners eaten off premises, this feels invasive and Big Brotherish. Will they decide they won't reimburse employees who have over a certain %age of body fat? Attempt to deny insurance to a woman who has more than one child, someone who drives to work instead of using public transit/a bicycle, etc?
Agree about the fish.
They're not 'interfering with people's control over their bodies', though. They're just not serving or subsidising meat. I'm sure employees are welcome to bring their own food to work, and eat whatever they want for the other 15 hours a day.
I tend to agree with you though I've been vegetarian for 45 years. I think banning the use of straws and styrofoam is a better use of environmental sustainability.
Yeah, but if the subsidizing is part of employee compensation then it might be influencing people's food choices. The choice becomes eat company-approved food and have lunch subsidized vs. eat what you want and pay for it yourself. You lose money with option #2, which is hardly palatable if it's part of your compensation package. If, on the other hand, it's an occasional treat then it isn't as much of a problem.
I hope it does influence people's food choices. As a society we eat way too much meat, which has massive health and environmental consequences. The pervasive idea that a meal without meat isn't a 'real' meal needs to die. I'm excited to see a big company reducing its footprint and possibly (probably) having an impact on the wellbeing of its workers too.
Expect massive employee defections in lower-wage countries where meat is part of the culture. Like China and South America.
For a company that does office renting and catering across the world, this move says "we are a vegan-only company". It's a PR problem of an epic scale. How do you tell your customers "Oh, but this only affects the employees, not the catering services" ?
Good luck with that IPO.
-cb
For a company that does office renting and catering across the world, this move says "we are a vegan-only company". It's a PR problem of an epic scale. How do you tell your customers "Oh, but this only affects the employees, not the catering services" ?
Good luck with that IPO.
-cb
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 11,748
- Reaction score
- 12,190
- Location
- Atherton Tablelands
- Website
- snailseyeview.medium.com
The thing that gets me is that it's very easy to support this sort of corporate influence over personal choices when it's something one agrees with, but that doesn't make it a good thing. What if a company enacted policies to...encourage...employees not to have children in the name of environmental protection? After all, it's quite possible that the worst thing a person can do for the environment is reproduce. Furthermore, the idea that people must have children is just as culturally ingrained as diet, and equally builds on biological impulses. So why, then, would one be considered acceptable and another frightening overreach?
ETA: From Helix's post of a quote I somehow missed when reading the article, it looks like it's just events the company holds/pays for, so that reduces the impact on individual employees.
Last edited:
It's weird how asparagus lovers don't get all het up about the (presumable) lack of asparagus provided by their workplaces. Only meat eaters, for some reason, require their (completely non-essential for optimal health) food choice on their plate, three meals a day, and are somehow on the slippery slope to enforced sterilisation if they don't get it.
Like, come on now. This isn't overreach. It's responsible policy, on a scale rarely seen before - which is why it's making (some) people uncomfortable - but there are no sinister angles to this.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
A little tough on those employees who a) are carnivores, and b) didn't know this was coming.
(Unionization is for white collar workers, too.)
And, this kind of helps to set a precedent: along with deciding who can or cannot have birth control, employers are also able to tell you what to eat during the workday.
How long before they want to be able to fire women who get pregnant? Not because they're going to be less useful at work, but because of overpopulation? Or getting rid of parking, because people should be using transit?
How about all managers give up their offices, in favour of the same desks, chairs, and lack of parking spaces as everyone else?
How about reducing the whole management/assistants complex?
Any chance of that happening?
They're not telling you what to eat -- they're not paying for most meats.
They're not, in any way. They're simply not buying anyone most meat. If I invite people over and serve only vegan food, am I dictating people's diets?
The move doesn't even say they're a vegetarian company, nevermind vegan.
My position is simply that it is easy to support a company when its policies align with one's personal choices and values, but that one should consider if there are fundamental problems with the actions the company is taking. What is responsible policy, after all, is quite subjective.
In this case, there isn't an issue because the company is only saying that it won't purchase certain products for events it hosts. It's not restricting, for example, elements of employee compensation.
I like Pinto's point about farmed fish - quite bad for the environment. And if the concern is for the environment - what about soybeans? It's my understanding that in Brazil soybean farming on a mass scale has a terrible environmental impact.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,288
- Reaction score
- 118
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Website
- www.vanithasankaran.com
The company is certainly within its rights to determine what it offers as perks, whether the motivation is financial, social, or both. However, as a lifelong vegetarian, I've gone to many a company event where there are no vegetarian options, much less a choice between chicken, beef, or fish. It has never influences where I choose to work.
This has the potential to backfire, with workers choosing not to eat the food provided. A perk that isn't really a perk has no value.
This has the potential to backfire, with workers choosing not to eat the food provided. A perk that isn't really a perk has no value.
That's fine, but maybe not if you have to be at some kind of retreat for three days.
And not reimbursing for meals that aren't at vegan restaurants? That's not even allowing for eating something without meat at a place that serves it. In some areas, the amount of places that are accessible is pretty low (I live near Boston. There are places I can get into and a lot of places I can't). I won't even go into the dietary restrictions I have that took me from being a vegetarian to someone who occasionally eats meat because chicken fingers from the kids' menu is the only think I can eat. Discussing this will probably be as much fun as talking about how plastic straw bans affect some people with disabilities, but, really, it's not always simple.
But, yeah, ban it in the company cafeteria, ban it at day-long company events, don't serve it at company retreats, but make sure you aren't serving something that one your employees can't eat if it's all that's on offer for three days or find a way not to starve or make that person feel like a freak or someone who doens't care about animals or the planet.
Last edited:
Not just farmed fish. Current fish consumption is unsustainable. Sustainable wild fisheries are very much a myth right now.
Also, if we're talking about environmental concerns then we'd better start talking about coffee, a problematic industry for what is a pure luxury product.
It's never about what a company writes or tells reporters. It's about perception and branding and the word-of-mouth. Write or say something slightly controversial and it gets blown out of proportions. Always. By competitors. By the public. By those who had a bad business experience. It takes a lot of PR muscle to fix a bad press release when it happens.
Just look at this title:
WeWork is banning meat
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/13/technology/wework-meat-ban/index.html
This is the whole story for the business customers who have better things to do than go read the full article or go to the WeWork web site to find the details.
And here's the killer paragraph for those who will get that far.
The term "disgruntled employees" is a very bad omen for a services-oriented business.
-cb
Last edited:
Worth pointing out, I think, that a lot of soybean production is used to create feed for meat animals. Decrease the number of meat animals, decrease the soybean production.
That's in the US, obviously, and not Brazil, but I'm so tired and haven't had any of my LIFE-SUSTAINING coffee yet this morning and can't bear to sift through links.
Oh, here's the link: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf
So tired.
They are creating a financial inequity among their employees based on their personal dietary preferences. Employees who follow their meat free diet, will have their meals paid for. Those who don't, will have to pay for their own. It's an "us" vs "them" with food being the dividing factor.
On a slightly similar angle.
I have celiac disease. I have never expected anyone in my family or circle of friends to follow my dietary restrictions, even when I was the one cooking the family meals. I cooked what I could eat and whatever my aunt wanted, I made for her.
It's more than a perk. It's a strategic benefit for WeWork who offers catering services on the side. So when WeWork employees are discouraged to sample their own products and services, quality will ultimately end up on the low end. This is plain stupid.
-cb
- Status