"No meat" expenses policy

[AndrewJB]

If you still don't get it, the difference is that with Brexit, the country has to be either in the EU or out of the EU. You can't have some people in, some people out.

With eating meat, it is perfectly possible to have some people who do eat meat and some people who don't. If the majority don't eat meat, they have no need to force the minority to foreswear meat as well; if the majority do eat meat, they have no right (and I suspect no inclination) to make the minority eat meat. It's a matter of personal freedom - you may be quite happy with the idea that the majority don't want meat, so no-one can have it; or that the majority don't want football, so football will be abolished; or that the majority think hot pants are attractive, so we all have to wear them. But others think that those things can be left so that some people wear hot pants to play football while eating a bacon butty, and others do not.

It's easy to see how the company can allow some people to eat meat while others choose not to. There is no way for the government to let some UK residents be in the EU and others not.

The mayor of London is exploring the idea of the EU providing those UK citizens who want it, a kind of associate citizenship that allows those people to retain (if not all, then some) elements of free movement. Perhaps local restaurants could subsidise their meat portions for employees of this company? Or possibly there's a business opportunity here? Start a company that injects cholesterol directly into the arteries of those who've had to go without their bacon sarnies?

[houseboy]

“The enforcement comes about because of a vote that simply should never have happened in the first place



People working there should never have been asked to make the choice. Nobody has made 'an informed and independent choice', they have been made to make a choice on something they should never have been asked to make in the first place“

Thanks very much houseboy, my irony-meter has now exploded

Why?

[houseboy]

I bet it's not. It's up to the employer if they wish to pay a food allowance, and if they indeed do, they can state what is and what isn't applicable.

You could be wrong there mate. If a company decides to give some kind of benefit but then said 'but it's not being paid to (insert any differentiation you like)' they could be on very unsafe legal ground. This appears to be what they have done, vote or no vote. You simply cannot ignore the law because you have given a few people a vote on whether to ignore that law or not.

[houseboy]

From my reading of the article, there isn't any such clause. The company has said they won't reimburse costs for meat. A meat eater who eats the same meal as a vegetarian will get equally reimbursed. Likewise, a vegetarian who hypothetically buys meat will not. Doubt there's any basis for discrimination claim.

It ultimately comes down to whether a company is allowed under workplace law to set a criteria for what expenses they will cover. I suspect they are, e.g. I doubt it'd be illegal for a company to set a rule that they won't reimburse the costs of any alcoholic beverages bought with a meal whilst on work duties. Similar issue here.

Whilst meat eaters may feel limited by the policy, the vegetarians aren't being treated any different.

Except meat eaters eat vegetarian foods...Vegetarians don't eat meat.

[Firthy]

Except meat eaters eat vegetarian foods...Vegetarians don't eat meat.

But meat eaters shouldn't be forced to eat vegetarian food which is what they have to do unless they pay for it themselves. This is discrimination at it's worst, trying to make us carnivores go without meat Why should a bunch of rabbit food eating employees be able to decide what is best for the rest of the staff. By the time they've eaten all their cabbage and sprouts they'll be far worse for the environment than anybody

[houseboy]

Why should the vote not have happened?
Who are you to say what people can and cannot vote on?
Why have they not been able to make an informed and independent choice?
They chose to have the vote
They could have voted no
They voted in favour

Your argument, such as it is, does not stand up on any level. I get that you don't like the decision but it was arrived at after consultation and a vote. Due process was observed so stop whinging about it.

I did reply to this but for some reason it hasn't appeared. You just are not understanding are you. Nothing democratic happened there. A totally unecesarry vote was forced upon the people who work there - that in itself is not democratic. The question you should be asking is 'who are the company to enforce a vote in the first place that involves people's personal lifestyle choices'? Again, to try to help you, the subject matter is irrelevant, it is the forcing of a vote on a subject that has nothing whatsoever to do with the company that is being called into question. Did they have some kind of a pre-vote as to whether to have the vote in the first place? Obviously not. Your whole argument is founded on sand mate. I've explained why the vote should not have happened, which annuls the rest of your argument.

[deanothedino]

From my experience of project work both inside and outside of offices covering workers daytime food expenses is not the norm and actually this company is going further in what it provides its workforce than most.

This isn't covering their lunch at home site, I'm assuming it's away from their normal location as in they're not at a site visit 5 minutes away.

I've always had all three meals covered if I travel, if I didn't I wouldn't do it.

[deanothedino]

I could get my B12 from Broccoli or my Omega-3 from flax, processed foods simply add convenience, that's universal.
Processed does not automatically mean bad.

Broccoli only contains trace amounts of B12.

[thatdberight]

This isn't covering their lunch at home site, I'm assuming it's away from their normal location as in they're not at a site visit 5 minutes away.

I've always had all three meals covered if I travel, if I didn't I wouldn't do it.

Most employers don't cover lunch on the basis that's the meal you'd probably buy in the same way regardless of location. Of course not true for everybody but that's the norm and pretty reasonable in my view/experience.

[GandalfsBeard]

Good on the employers for considering it, good on the employees for voting for it. Climate change is a battle for everyone, from the giant corporations to us little people.

[Cryssys]

I did reply to this but for some reason it hasn't appeared. You just are not understanding are you. You mean I don't agree with your interpretation.

Nothing democratic happened there. Yes it has. A motion was put forward and approved by the majority of those affected.

A totally unecesarry vote was forced upon the people who work there - that in itself is not democratic. I'm sure that it was proposed and seconded in the normal way, put to a vote and passed by a significant majority. It may have been unnecessary in your opinion but the employees obviously thought differently as they agreed to have a vote on it. That's what happens in democracies.


The question you should be asking is 'who are the company to enforce a vote in the first place that involves people's personal lifestyle choices'? Again, to try to help you, the subject matter is irrelevant, it is the forcing of a vote on a subject that has nothing whatsoever to do with the company that is being called into question. Why do you persist in saying that the company forced the vote. It was proposed by an employee and was supported by the majority of the employees. Nobody was forced or coerced unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Did they have some kind of a pre-vote as to whether to have the vote in the first place? Obviously not. why do you say obviously not, what evidence do you have to support that statement? Why should they anyway? It was proposed, put to a vote and passed, that's democracy

Your whole argument is founded on sand mate. No it's not it's based on the observance of normal procedures for deciding issues such as this

I've explained why the vote should not have happened, which annuls the rest of your argument. No you haven't, all you have done is present your opinion as to why the vote should not have happened. You have done nothing to annul my position

[houseboy]

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands bud, I however do not so we must agree to differ on this. I could spend valuable time unraveling your argument but unfortunately I have a living to earn. I have work to do (which is more than you appear to have).

[CombatClaret]

Broccoli only contains trace amounts of B12.

My point is alternatives are available, easier if processed but possible from natural sources.
A fully vegan diet is possible in the modern day and the body does not 'require' meat.
Most people only eat meat because most people eat meat.

[ClaretEngineer]

From my reading of the article, there isn't any such clause. The company has said they won't reimburse costs for meat. A meat eater who eats the same meal as a vegetarian will get equally reimbursed. Likewise, a vegetarian who hypothetically buys meat will not. Doubt there's any basis for discrimination claim.

It ultimately comes down to whether a company is allowed under workplace law to set a criteria for what expenses they will cover. I suspect they are, e.g. I doubt it'd be illegal for a company to set a rule that they won't reimburse the costs of any alcoholic beverages bought with a meal whilst on work duties. Similar issue here.

Whilst meat eaters may feel limited by the policy, the vegetarians aren't being treated any different.

Yes by this internal (meaningless) office vote vegetarians are not affected, however in doing so you placing other employees at a disadvantage. I'm sure many of them can and do have vegetarian meals (I often do) but the point is here is they are dictating what they will reimburse based on preference. Discrimination at its simplest.

Whatever the subject matter, by treating employees differently regarding what should be a universal expense is discrimination.

[Claretmatt4]

Christ this board has some proper rude people on it. Do you get off on arguing on the Internet?

Is it mandatory to have such polarising views?

[Firthy]

My point is alternatives are available, easier if processed but possible from natural sources.
A fully vegan diet is possible in the modern day and the body does not 'require' meat.
Most people only eat meat because most people eat meat.

Most people eat meat because they like it

[Cryssys]

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands bud, I however do not so we must agree to differ on this. I could spend valuable time unraveling your argument You're welcome to try but given that you have tried and failed on at least two occasions I don't fancy your chances.

but unfortunately I have a living to earn. I have work to do (which is more than you appear to have).

[Billy Balfour]

You could be wrong there mate. If a company decides to give some kind of benefit but then said 'but it's not being paid to (insert any differentiation you like)' they could be on very unsafe legal ground. This appears to be what they have done, vote or no vote. You simply cannot ignore the law because you have given a few people a vote on whether to ignore that law or not.

No, I'm not wrong, pal. A company can stipulate what they will or won't pay expenses for. If I said I will pay expenses for vegetarian meals, but not for meals containing meat, then that would be a matter for me and nobody else. It's like a subsidised staff canteen saying they are going wholly vegetarian. It would have nothing to do with ignoring any law because there are no laws that state otherwise.

Anyway, this is getting a bit dull now and I even feel like berating myself for commenting on this none-event.

[deanothedino]

Most employers don't cover lunch on the basis that's the meal you'd probably buy in the same way regardless of location. Of course not true for everybody but that's the norm and pretty reasonable in my view/experience.

I've always had it covered as if I don't have kitchen facilities, I am unable to make my lunch as I normally would. Can't take 5 days of lunches with me for a week away.

[deanothedino]

My point is alternatives are available, easier if processed but possible from natural sources.
A fully vegan diet is possible in the modern day and the body does not 'require' meat.
Most people only eat meat because most people eat meat.

Where would you get your B12 from then? You've just said broccoli but it wouldn't provide that for you.

It is possible to be fully vegan, but possible just not mean advisable and/or healthy. Animal produce (not just meat) provides nutrients we need, far better than processed vegan crap would.

[deanothedino]

Good on the employers for considering it, good on the employees for voting for it. Climate change is a battle for everyone, from the giant corporations to us little people.

I'm sure the deforestation and food miles for their avocado toast will help massively.

[CombatClaret]

It is possible to be fully vegan, but possible just not mean advisable and/or healthy. Animal produce (not just meat) provides nutrients we need, far better than processed vegan crap would.

Sorry, I was having an interesting conversation but to imply a vegan diet is neither healthy or advisable and cast of stuff you probably know nothing about as 'processed vegan crap' it's become clear I was wrong to engage.

[GandalfsBeard]

I'm sure the deforestation and food miles for their avocado toast will help massively.

The blame game and tit for tat help nobody

[deanothedino]

Sorry, I was having an interesting conversation but to imply a vegan diet is neither healthy or advisable and cast of stuff you probably know nothing about as 'processed vegan crap' it's become clear I was wrong to engage.

Were you? You suggested you could get all the B12 you need from something you can't, you then didn't come up with an alternative.

Lots of stuff on the shelves is processed vegan crap, as is plenty of stuff in the fast food restaurants.

I don't believe a vegan diet is healthy or advisable based on the studies I've read. Feel free to engage and tell me why you think I am wrong but so far, suggesting you could get B12 from something you can't isn't a strong point to sway me with.

[timshorts]

Being a vegetarian or not being a vegetarian is not a protected characteristic under the current discrimination rules.
However, this type of policy is pretty thoughtless.
Having a vote means nothing if one of the possible results of the vote could be construed as to condone discriminatory behaviour in the workplace - in this instance by the employer.
If a company had a vote to say that people couldn't pray during their breaks, and that vote won 80:20, it would still be discriminatory to those whose religion requires prayer during regular working hours.
If 90% of the employees at a garage voted to allow calendars with naked girls to be put up in the rest room that doesn't make it right.
So, let's say that this company has a majority of employees that are of a religion that don't eat meat, then this policy is discriminatory to Christians, Jews and moslems.
Whether it is discriminatory is partly subjective. There are stacks of comments on this site which, if used in a different context at work, would be discriminatory. And it isn't always those described as "gammon" that use it.
name calling for example, based on age, is discriminatory. There is no "man up" defence (actually, that is offensive in its own right) . There is no "bantz" defence. That is usually an admission of wrong doing, but claiming that it was only intended to be funny, when it is more likely to be a form of bullying.
This particular behaviour seems to me to be akin to paying people a bonus if they don't have a foreign holiday, or if they don't turn their radiators on or if they don't make hot drinks in the kitchen, or if they don't eat egg sandwiches because they smell. They all have a potential to exclude people and it isn't hard to figure that certain types of people would be prejudiced.

[CombatClaret]

I didn't say all your B12 I said it's a source in the same way Omega-3 can be found in flax, I'll admit B12 is a hard vitamin to come by in plants but it's out there and can also be supplemented. Fortified foods should not just be filled under 'processed foods' and labeled therefor as junk, they put fluoride in our water after all because it makes it better for us.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/
Here's a randomly picked result: advice for doctors from a medical journal on a plant based diets, it references 44 other studies and claim a plant based diet and it's posisitve impact on weight, blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and general mortality (the main factors to mortality is attributes to the reduction of red meat).

It mentions B12 as one of the very few thing which is difficult to come by and might need to be supplemented.
I'm not even vegan or vegetarian but I know when the science and health advise is right. It's about as clear as climate change but comes with the odd deniers.

[AndrewJB]

Were you? You suggested you could get all the B12 you need from something you can't, you then didn't come up with an alternative.

Lots of stuff on the shelves is processed vegan crap, as is plenty of stuff in the fast food restaurants.

I don't believe a vegan diet is healthy or advisable based on the studies I've read. Feel free to engage and tell me why you think I am wrong but so far, suggesting you could get B12 from something you can't isn't a strong point to sway me with.

I think there is quite a lot of processed vegan food, and it seems much of it works as a kind of meat substitute - sausages, or "burgers" etc - but when I make a vegan meal I stay clear of things like that. I'm not a vegan myself (I eat everything), but many of the people I know who are have been for twenty or thirty years, and don't seem to be suffering health problems because of it, so without dismissing the studies you've read, I think concluding that a vegan diet is unhealthy is probably over the top (history shows us that human beings can get by with a whole variety of limited diets that don't provide us with everything).

The permutations are endless when you factor in exercise, age, etc; but generally speaking most health advice is to eat less meat, and more fruit and vegetables. I think it's possible for most people to make such a change without having to make extreme choices about their diets.

[deanothedino]

I think there is quite a lot of processed vegan food, and it seems much of it works as a kind of meat substitute - sausages, or "burgers" etc - but when I make a vegan meal I stay clear of things like that. I'm not a vegan myself (I eat everything), but many of the people I know who are have been for twenty or thirty years, and don't seem to be suffering health problems because of it, so without dismissing the studies you've read, I think concluding that a vegan diet is unhealthy is probably over the top (history shows us that human beings can get by with a whole variety of limited diets that don't provide us with everything).

The permutations are endless when you factor in exercise, age, etc; but generally speaking most health advice is to eat less meat, and more fruit and vegetables. I think it's possible for most people to make such a change without having to make extreme choices about their diets.

Lots of advice is to eat less meat but I’m not to read a study that advocates eating no meat.

I didn’t say unhealthy, I said I don’t believe it is healthy. Yes, they’ll be some people who can do it no problem but equally they’ll be people who can suffer health difficulties if they become vegan. No one is the same.

[Stayingup]

First, this is another example of bullying people into something they don't want, and is, as some have said, probably challengable in law (although the payment of expenses is not a legal right I suppose). Secondly, if I am reading this right they are a property developer, so do they carefully look at where they are building. Thirdly, I have questioned for years this idea that vegetarians are somehow saving the planet's environment. My wife was a veggie for nearly 20 years before she got bored with it and we had some interesting conversations. My main point was how does it help the environment when you can actually 'grow' animals in places you can't grow crops, such as on the tops of hills or mountains, or even in water. I have even wondered if it would be logistically possible for the whole world to be veggie due to the need for vast areas of agricultural land, do we have enough of it, and what of countries where such land is at a premium?

The whole concept of vegetariansim somehow saving the planet doesn't seem to work for me. I could of course be totally wrong and maybe I could be convinced otherwise, I don't have a closed mind on this, but there are simply too many things that get in the way. What do we do with all the meat related industries employing millions of people worldwide? How do we feed all the people who are not in a position to grow crops in vast quantities? What of the people in the fishing industry and the communities that rely on that industry? Until someone asks those questions and actually comes up with some definite answers we should stop trying to bully ordinary people into some kind of procrustean bed of conformity.

Your just not 'Woke' enough Houseboy!!!

[Stayingup]

If people want to be Vegan thats their choice. Problem these days, in other social areas as well as this, is there is no discussion and we are TOLD what is right for the environment. The BBC recently told us in a documentary 'The World Matters'. As though we didn't know without being preached at by an organization whose primary role is to deliver news. Biggest problem to me is Plastic. In my view that area needs real action taking as plastic is now in the food chain - fish etc - unless of course you-re a Vegan.

[houseboy]

You win mate - I can't be bothered now. Life's too short. Believe as you like. Nobody has won this argument, that can only be done if one has convinced the other. All the best to you though bud.

Excuse me - is this the right room for an argument.

[houseboy]

No, I'm not wrong, pal. A company can stipulate what they will or won't pay expenses for. If I said I will pay expenses for vegetarian meals, but not for meals containing meat, then that would be a matter for me and nobody else. It's like a subsidised staff canteen saying they are going wholly vegetarian. It would have nothing to do with ignoring any law because there are no laws that state otherwise.

Anyway, this is getting a bit dull now and I even feel like berating myself for commenting on this none-event.

I agree totally mate - life's too short. What we think doesn't matter. I've just told Chryssys the same thing because at the end of the day (to use an old and hackneyed footballing phrase) we aren't gonna change the world on here are we. Cheers bud.

[houseboy]

Your just not 'Woke' enough Houseboy!!!

Apparently not - even if I actually knew what that meant. I've seen it a lot lately but can't be arsed to look up what it means. I presume it is some sort of reference to the PC brigade but I don't know. If it is then no, the only WOKE I do is in the morning.

[Corky]

Interesting isn't it...well it's not really but some are saying this is democracy in action whilst other are saying it is clearly discriminatory. And of course both are right. But is is fair I would suggest not. However the running of a company is up to the owner and if he/she wants to operate a meals expenses policy in this manner it's his or her call.

[Cryssys]

Interesting isn't it...well it's not really but some are saying this is democracy in action whilst other are saying it is clearly discriminatory. And of course both are right. But is is fair I would suggest not. However the running of a company is up to the owner and if he/she wants to operate a meals expenses policy in this manner it's his or her call.

Dear Lord, it's like pulling teeth. How many times does it need saying? The policy wasn't imposed by the company/owner it was supported by the employees in a free vote. They had a choice, they could have voted no, instead they voted in favour of not being able to claim meat on expenses. .

[Corky]

Cryssys you aren't Imploding Turtle by any chance are you. Being deliberately obtuse was one of his traits.

[Cryssys]

Cryssys you aren't Imploding Turtle by any chance are you. Being deliberately obtuse was one of his traits.

I'm in here lads. I'm going to need a bigger landing net though.

[thatdberight]

Cryssys you aren't Imploding Turtle by any chance are you. Being deliberately obtuse was one of his traits.

It was one of his less unendearing ones.