"No meat" expenses policy

[houseboy]

Does it matter how many dissenters there were?

Nothing was enforced, It was put to a democratic vote and the majority voted in favour. It was there informed and independent choice. You may not agree with it but the employees did and voted accordingly.

You're missing my point bud. The enforcement comes about because of a vote that simply should never have happened in the first place in a place of work. 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.

This is simply a point of principle, nothing to do with veggies or carnivors or whether to eat with a fork or spoon or which end of a boiled egg you open, it is down to a company asking a question of their employees which, in the end, has nothing to do with them. Imagine what would have happened had they done the same thing with regard to, say, Halal meat. They would have been hauled over the coals for it, in fact they would never have legally got away with it, and the basic principle is the same.

[Firthy]

Just another load of big brother shite trying to telling us what we can and can't do or in this case eat. Simple answer just don't work for a company like that.

[thatdberight]

I can buy into the meat free theories and I've cut back a lot recently. This does seem excessive though.

Imagine they only expensed travel if you went by bike and refused to expense travel by other means if it wasn't carbon neutral?

I understand that producing meat leaves a bigger carbon footprint, but in the grand scheme of things if this company ensures its employees don't eat meat (or reduces it significantly), what is the impact on the carbon footprint?

So many better ways to achieve carbon neutrality than this, definitely an attempt to get people talking and it's worked...

Doing one thing good (I'm with you - this is just something we're going to have to do) doesn't commit you to doing everything perfectly. That would be a reasonable stance.

But it's not hard to see that taking this stance simply invites the pointing out of what else could be done.

It's the illiberal stance that's revealing. Almost all of the benefit would have been realised if those in favour had agreed to do it. Why wasn't that enough? The need to kick the others into line by compulsion shows that the causes of the day may be different but the desire to compel those who are "other" to comply is just part of human nature.

[Stalbansclaret]

Cryssis..I find your "it's democracy..get over it" argument ridiculous. If the people in your street voted, by a majority, to say that everyone living there should dye their hair green and wear nothing but swimwear outdoors in order to have a parking space would it be "fair enough" for this to be binding on you ? Discriminating against people on the grounds of what they choose to eat is nonsense.
As others have pointed out it's either facile virtue-signalling or just old-fashioned publicity seeking.

[claretonthecoast1882]

In the absence of turtle there does seem an eager contest between some to come across as the most right on poster

[houseboy]

In the absence of turtle there does seem an eager contest between some to come across as the most right on poster

It's called a discussion bud. The world ain't going to end because of a few thoughts on here. The sun will still rise tomorrow, but for today we have some fun. You can always give the thread a swerve. Freedom of choice you see mate - it works.

[Cryssys]

Whoosh....!!!!

It doesn't matter whether it was enforced or voted for. It's a PR stunt, for those wet behind the ears.

So what if it is a PR stunt? If it is, its certainly worked.

Whats even better is that it's triggered the right wing nut jobs on here.

[addisclaret]

So what if it is a PR stunt? If it is, its certainly worked.

Whats even better is that it's triggered the right wing nut jobs on here.

Shouldn't that be right wing meat jobs?

[CombatClaret]

Here's a fact you clearly didn't know, the body doesn't need carbs. It is the only one out of fat, protein and carbs that the body doesn't need.

Meat isn't a fundamental requirement, however a diet devoid of meat will need supplementing to replace nutrients that are predominately found in animal products. The human body isn't made to purely eat plant based.

The most environmentally friendly diet, in my opinion, would include locally produced meat alongside locally produced fruit and veg.

I did know that I was mainly referencing the generic 'balanced diet', carb free diets have been around forever.

In this modern age when we can supplement or fortify foods with everything we require so it removes the need for meat, I just had a vegan drink with 32% of my daily vitamin B12, the first thing pointed to that you 'only get from meat'.
Also studies show up to 40% of the US population is vitamin B12 deficient and the majority of those will be meat eaters.

It's like saying 'humans aren't designed to fly' but we have progressed to the point where technology allows us to. We have now progressed to the point where a meat free diet is not only possible but incredibly healthy and environmentally favorable.

[Lowbankclaret]

No, because that would be racial discrimination and illegal. What this company has done is entirely legal and has the support of the employees.

And I suggest this is also illegal.

It’s not just meals claims it’s all meals onsite as well which are paid for by the company.

Interestingly they are very happy to list as partners companies that Extinction Rebellion are actively campaigning against as major contributors to climate change.

[Cryssys]

Cryssis..I find your "it's democracy..get over it" argument ridiculous. If the people in your street voted, by a majority, to say that everyone living there should dye their hair green and wear nothing but swimwear outdoors in order to have a parking space would it be "fair enough" for this to be binding on you ? Discriminating against people on the grounds of what they choose to eat is nonsense.
As others have pointed out it's either facile virtue-signalling or just old-fashioned publicity seeking.

"It's democracy get over it" was one of the favourite sayings on here with regard to the Brexit vote. Respecting the will of the people also popped up on a regular basis. I fail to see why this is any different.

Facile virue signalling? Why, because group of people made an ethical decision that you don't agree with?

[Cryssys]

And I suggest this is also illegal.

It’s not just meals claims it’s all meals onsite as well which are paid for by the company.

Interestingly they are very happy to list as partners companies that Extinction Rebellion are actively campaigning against as major contributors to climate change.

What grounds have you to suggest that it's illegal? Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that it's illegal.

Someone put forward a suggestion, the employees voted in favour. I'm struggling to see anything illegal in that

[deanothedino]

It's like saying 'humans aren't designed to fly' but we have progressed to the point where technology allows us to. We have now progressed to the point where a meat free diet is not only possible but incredibly healthy and environmentally favorable.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on both of those claims.

[Lowbankclaret]

What grounds have you to suggest that it's illegal? Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that it's illegal.

Someone put forward a suggestion, the employees voted in favour. I'm struggling to see anything illegal in that

It’s been a while since I was a union rep, but I would suggest they have gone against some workplace law.

What I have done is written to my full time rep to ask if he thinks they have and could it be challenged in court as it has set a very dangerous precedent in the UK.

Although to be fair, there are some precedents being set at the moment I feel uncomfortable with. For instance companies banning smoking completely on site.

[thatdberight]

What grounds have you to suggest that it's illegal? Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that it's illegal.

Someone put forward a suggestion, the employees voted in favour. I'm struggling to see anything illegal in that

If it is a problem, it will be unlawful, not illegal.

[Cryssys]

It’s been a while since I was a union rep, but I would suggest they have gone against some workplace law.

What I have done is written to my full time rep to ask if he thinks they have and could it be challenged in court as it has set a very dangerous precedent in the UK.

Although to be fair, there are some precedents being set at the moment I feel uncomfortable with. For instance companies banning smoking completely on site.

Suggest away my friend but until you have evidence to support your position it's only your opinion and no more or less valid than anybody elses.

[Billy Balfour]

It’s been a while since I was a union rep, but I would suggest they have gone against some workplace law.

What I have done is written to my full time rep to ask if he thinks they have and could it be challenged in court as it has set a very dangerous precedent in the UK.

I bet you've given your full time union rep a right good laugh. You have certainly given me one. Oh, and good luck with the response from your union. Blimey, you couldn't make this stuff up.

[MrTopTier]

Nowt wrong with it, might suggest it at my next board meeting, I will report back.

[Dike Muff]

Well, this news story has certainly been a dog-whistle for all the Gammon that post on here.

[thatdberight]

Well, this news story has certainly been a dog-whistle for all the Gammon that post on here.

You here all week?

[Devils_Advocate]

You here all week?

Nope he's got to meet up with this group of vegetarian ideological zealots whoever the hell they are when they are at home

[ClaretEngineer]

What grounds have you to suggest that it's illegal? Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that it's illegal.

Someone put forward a suggestion, the employees voted in favour. I'm struggling to see anything illegal in that

Because the reimbursement of expenses whilst on company business is enforceable under contract. Any company inserting a clause that states only Vegetarians will be reimbursed for expenses would be open to discrimination charges.

This is an issue of contract and its implications in law regardless of an office vote.

I believe that this has probably been undertaken with the best intentions but has no basis in law.

[TheFamilyCat]

Slightly off-topic but I've just seen that they're based in Leeds and I used to work across the road from their office!

[thatdberight]

Nope he's got to meet up with this group of vegetarian ideological zealots whoever the hell they are when they are at home

I find them vehemently vegetarian but allergic to punctuation.

I'm not sure what you object to in my categorisation. Vegetarianism is an ideology (a number of vegetarian organisations identify this - you can Google it). I'm sure many would be happy to define themselves as zealous (synonyms include; fervent, ardent, passionate, impassioned, committed, dedicated, enthusiastic, sincere, wholehearted, intense, fierce).

[deanothedino]

Because the reimbursement of expenses whilst on company business is enforceable under contract. Any company inserting a clause that states only Vegetarians will be reimbursed for expenses would be open to discrimination charges.

This is an issue of contract and its implications in law regardless of an office vote.

I believe that this has probably been undertaken with the best intentions but has no basis in law.

Exactly and what happens if you're a new start? Do they carry out the vote again everytime they have a new joiner?

[claret2018]

“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

[Billy Balfour]

Because the reimbursement of expenses whilst on company business is enforceable under contract.

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.

[thatdberight]

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

I've worked in places where alcohol was not allowed on certain expenses claims depending on which project you were on, but was on others. I think (don't know if it still is the case) the US DoD wouldn't pay for alcohol therefore the whole chain had to be kept "dry".

I don't have expertise so don't know if this is permissible or not. I'm sure it's productive for the company that certain organisations will gravitate to them which they may think outweighs those who will avoid them.

[ClaretEngineer]

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

I agree and it will be how it is written in the individuals contract. However I would challenge on what is or isn't applicable. Either a food expense is offered or it isn't explicitly or is just covered under general expenses up to a limit. It would be discriminatory to offer expenses for vegetarians only.

A similar example (and perhaps more clear cut) would be a company offering fuel expenses, only to change it to ''drivers of petrol cars only'' after an office vote.

[claret2018]

I agree and it will be how it is written in the individuals contract. However I would challenge on what is or isn't applicable. Either a food expense is offered or it isn't explicitly or is just covered under general expenses up to a limit. It would be discriminatory to offer expenses for vegetarians only.

A similar example (and perhaps more clear cut) would be a company offering fuel expenses, only to change it to ''drivers of petrol cars only'' after an office vote.

Not really. A non-vegetarian can still eat non-meat without getting the AA out to pump their stomach

[Lowbankclaret]

I bet you've given your full time union rep a right good laugh. You have certainly given me one. Oh, and good luck with the response from your union. Blimey, you couldn't make this stuff up.

Believe me, some of the things that get reported are hilarious.

[Hipper]

I did know that I was mainly referencing the generic 'balanced diet', carb free diets have been around forever.

In this modern age when we can supplement or fortify foods with everything we require so it removes the need for meat, I just had a vegan drink with 32% of my daily vitamin B12, the first thing pointed to that you 'only get from meat'.
Also studies show up to 40% of the US population is vitamin B12 deficient and the majority of those will be meat eaters.

It's like saying 'humans aren't designed to fly' but we have progressed to the point where technology allows us to. We have now progressed to the point where a meat free diet is not only possible but incredibly healthy and environmentally favorable.

I don't think it is a good idea to rely on highly processed 'foods' in order to eat a complete diet.

I find it ironic that those people that used to live in igloos had a diet heavy in animal products - whale, seals etc..

[Billy Balfour]

Believe me, some of the things that get reported are hilarious.

I can well believe it.

BTW: By some strange twist of fate - your union rep has sent the email responce to me.

Dear brother Lowbankclaret,

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. You can be sure we will fight for your right to enjoy a large meaty sausage at lunchtime.

Yours fraternally,

Mr Full Time Rep

[Devils_Advocate]

I find them vehemently vegetarian but allergic to punctuation.

I'm not sure what you object to in my categorisation. Vegetarianism is an ideology (a number of vegetarian organisations identify this - you can Google it). I'm sure many would be happy to define themselves as zealous (synonyms include; fervent, ardent, passionate, impassioned, committed, dedicated, enthusiastic, sincere, wholehearted, intense, fierce).

You seem like someone who normally and sensibly steers away from sweeping generalisations so labelling most vegetarians as zealots (fanatical and uncompromising) seems a bit unfair and over the top.

Your viewpoint looks even less sensible In light of the article where a company has come up with a policy, involved all the people it impacts in the discussion and decision making process and has even stated they will let people self police it.

I dont object to your categorisation I just think it is incorrect and unfounded

[Cryssys]

Exactly and what happens if you're a new start? Do they carry out the vote again everytime they have a new joiner?

No. You would be informed of the companies policy at interview. If you subsequently accept a job with them and sign a contract it will become part of your terms and conditions of employment.

[thatdberight]

You seem like someone who normally and sensibly steers away from sweeping generalisations so labelling most vegetarians as zealots (fanatical and uncompromising) seems a bit unfair and over the top.

Your viewpoint looks even less sensible In light of the article where a company has come up with a policy, involved all the people it impacts in the discussion and decision making process and has even stated they will let people self police it.

I dont object to your categorisation I just think it is incorrect and unfounded

I did say "many vegetarians" not "most" but I'll not quibble; it was quite broad brush but, in my experience, not unreasonable. Yes, I think their passionate belief in this often slips into being uncompromising.

The reference to self-policing wasn't clear as to its meaning. What was clear was that the company would not pay for, say, a bacon sandwich if you choose that. The self-policing reads as if no-one will be in trouble if, in some unlikely and bizarre combination of allergy and lack of availability, you are forced to choose between "starving" and having a cheese which might have rennet in it.

Nobody, I'd guess, is going to fight this. It's not worth the bother. It's just a tiny nibbling at the edges of a few people's freedom. "First they came for our bacon sandwiches..." does not apply. It's rather pathetic since, as I say, those behind it were at liberty to make this change voluntarily and generate almost all the benefit they believe will follow without restricting anyone else.

[Lowbankclaret]

So what’s the next step???
I would be asking for votes on lots of stuff, just to be a tw*t.

Some that spring to mind.

No meat products allowed on company premises!!
No one allowed to wear products made from animal products or tested on animals!

No bra’s to be worn on company premises!

Employees are only allowed to go to the toilet once a day! ( this was a real rule where my partner worked once ) water saving !!

Employees are not allowed to bring plastic on site! ( very high on the PC scale at the moment)

[Cryssys]

You're missing my point bud. The enforcement comes about because of a vote that simply should never have happened in the first place in a place of work. 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.

This is simply a point of principle, nothing to do with veggies or carnivors or whether to eat with a fork or spoon or which end of a boiled egg you open, it is down to a company asking a question of their employees which, in the end, has nothing to do with them. Imagine what would have happened had they done the same thing with regard to, say, Halal meat. They would have been hauled over the coals for it, in fact they would never have legally got away with it, and the basic principle is the same.

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.

[Cryssys]

So what’s the next step???
I would be asking for votes on lots of stuff, just to be a tw*t.

No need to ask for votes, you're doing just fine anyway.

[Lowbankclaret]

No need to ask for votes, you're doing just fine anyway.

I think you guys are missing the point.

Unfair restrictions could be enforced on minority groups by a simply show of hands.

Exactly the reason Thatcher made strike votes a secret ballot.

Any restriction could be brought in .

So I have an allergy to nuts and seeds, plus fruit and other food stuffs. I don’t tell airlines when I fly because I think it’s unfair stopping the whole flight being able to eat those foodstuffs. I just don’t eat on an airplane.
I also think I could use that custom and practice to prevent my work place to enforce the same restrictions, would that be fair.

Interestingly at Igloo that would leave them very very short of anything to eat on site.


I have seen things like this escalate out of hand.

[deanothedino]

No. You would be informed of the companies policy at interview. If you subsequently accept a job with them and sign a contract it will become part of your terms and conditions of employment.

I can't say I've ever asked about an expenses policy at interview, nor has an expenses policy ever been in my contract.

[ClaretAndJew]

I used to work at Boohoo in 2014 and we weren't allowed to eat pork products on site because of either the director or a manager or something. Not sure whether it was an enforced rule or just to be polite. Wonder if that has changed since.

[AlargeClaret]

Publicity stunt par excellence along with a puff piece about “ their eco values “ coupled with interviews etc Though quite concerning that this sort of “ eco nazism” is getting air time and the propogaters know by just mooting this horseh1t ( oh methane ,ironic) they have a captive audience of snowflakes yapping like lapdogs

[Devils_Advocate]

I did say "many vegetarians" not "most" but I'll not quibble; it was quite broad brush but, in my experience, not unreasonable. Yes, I think their passionate belief in this often slips into being uncompromising.

The reference to self-policing wasn't clear as to its meaning. What was clear was that the company would not pay for, say, a bacon sandwich if you choose that. The self-policing reads as if no-one will be in trouble if, in some unlikely and bizarre combination of allergy and lack of availability, you are forced to choose between "starving" and having a cheese which might have rennet in it.

Nobody, I'd guess, is going to fight this. It's not worth the bother. It's just a tiny nibbling at the edges of a few people's freedom. "First they came for our bacon sandwiches..." does not apply. It's rather pathetic since, as I say, those behind it were at liberty to make this change voluntarily and generate almost all the benefit they believe will follow without restricting anyone else.

Self policing does not read like you have stated at all. It reads like you can eat what you like for your lunch but they will only cover your expenses if you eat a vegetarian option.

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.

Only you can control what you worry about in terms of your freedoms being eroded away but Id suggest there's a lot more to be concerned about with the direction the current govt is leading us but I'll guess thats just something we'll have to amicably disagree on

[KateR]

the irony from some posters on this thread is immense, but I shouldn't be surprised, I really shouldn't

[Cryssys]

Yes, I think their passionate belief in this often slips into being uncompromising.

Sounds familiar. Brexit negotiations anyone?

[dsr]

"It's democracy get over it" was one of the favourite sayings on here with regard to the Brexit vote. Respecting the will of the people also popped up on a regular basis. I fail to see why this is any different.

Facile virue signalling? Why, because group of people made an ethical decision that you don't agree with?

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.

[Cryssys]

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. No, but you can shake it all about.

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; nobody has been forced or asked to foreswear meat

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 Agreed -

you may be quite happy with the idea that the majority don't want meat, so no-one can have it; No one is saying you can't have it

or that the majority don't want football, so football will be abolished; So, if that was put to a referendum and the result was 52:48 in favour of abolition would you ignore the will of the people?

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. Words fail me.

It's easy to see how the company can allow some people to eat meat while others choose not to. They do, but the employees in the company in question voted in favour of it not being able to claim it on expenses.

There is no way for the government to let some UK residents be in the EU and others not. Repetition, see opening line.

Other than the above, you're spot on.

[Brisliam]

Because the reimbursement of expenses whilst on company business is enforceable under contract. Any company inserting a clause that states only Vegetarians will be reimbursed for expenses would be open to discrimination charges.

This is an issue of contract and its implications in law regardless of an office vote.

I believe that this has probably been undertaken with the best intentions but has no basis in law.

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.

[CombatClaret]

I don't think it is a good idea to rely on highly processed 'foods' in order to eat a complete diet.

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.

If there are lots of people here living on single ingredients diets fine but I'd imagine most live a life of convenience that modern shopping has enabled.
And even then you probably fall below your RDI of a couple vitamins or minerals.