All the Problems with WeWork’s Tyrannical New “No Meat” Policy(slate.com)
slate.com
All the Problems with WeWork’s Tyrannical New “No Meat” Policy
https://slate.com/business/2018/07/all-the-problems-with-weworks-no-meat-policy.html
6 comments
Nuts seem to be a common protein source for vegetarian/vegan diets and recipes.
That could be a problem for employees who are allergic to nuts.
That could be a problem for employees who are allergic to nuts.
There are carnists who only eat meat (Jordan Petersen is one) but like any minority they have to deal with more friction than the rest of us.
Vegetarians are also a minority, why cater specifically to them?
Vegetarians are also a minority, why cater specifically to them?
> Vegetarians are also a minority, why cater specifically to them?
Second you on this. You may be interested in this article (which answers the why):
The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Second you on this. You may be interested in this article (which answers the why):
The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Because they're a low common denominator, since a lot of religious and cultural limitations are based on specific meat.
The company gave environmental reasons.
> WeWork’s 6,000 employees around the globe have now been told that they will no longer be able to expense meals including meat,
Genuinely would not give wework any business on hearing this. Utterly disgraceful.
> it’s also banning meat (but not fish) from all corporate events on the grounds
Is anyone comfortable with a property holding company telling you what you can't eat on the property you pay them to use?
Genuinely would not give wework any business on hearing this. Utterly disgraceful.
> it’s also banning meat (but not fish) from all corporate events on the grounds
Is anyone comfortable with a property holding company telling you what you can't eat on the property you pay them to use?
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"?
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"?
"Excusing the potential hypocrisy of the policy re: fish vs meat "
Especially given the significant issues of fishing bycatch, waste, overfishing, etc.
Fish is far from being environmentally "okay".
Especially given the significant issues of fishing bycatch, waste, overfishing, etc.
Fish is far from being environmentally "okay".
They explicitly said it was because of the environmental impact, so the murder thing is not in any way a reasonable interpretation.
> They aren't stopping you from doing it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that second quote is taken out of context.
The full quote is:
“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.
The full quote is:
“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.
> Genuinely would not give wework any business on hearing this. Utterly disgraceful.
Why do you think a company making ethical choices about how to spend their own money is disgraceful?
Why do you think a company making ethical choices about how to spend their own money is disgraceful?
> Why do you think a company making ethical choices
For a spurious definition of ethical not shared by almost all people.
For a spurious definition of ethical not shared by almost all people.
I was using the phrase "ethical choices" to mean choices related to ethics.
ethos (ἦθος), according to OED, means "the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations"
You don't call your own belief the ethos or ethical standard of a community if it is not shared by any one other than you.
You don't call your own belief the ethos or ethical standard of a community if it is not shared by any one other than you.
WeWork doesn't really have the best history as far as ethical behavior goes.
It sounds like this policy applies to WeWork's employees, not to people who rent coworking spaces from WeWork.
It also applies to catering applied for onsite events from the article
Where does it say that?
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.
Haha I think I’m going to have to try making those bacon wrapped figs, they look delicious
Probably illegal as it's not good for health.
- (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.
- They don't ban meat, they just refuse to pay for meals that include meat.
- They can make exceptions for health and religious reasons.
It's a controversial subject. I also think it's a political subject in western countries (not in India).
About the "if" (you are not careful), we can also say that for McDonald.
About the "if" (you are not careful), we can also say that for McDonald.
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”?