
All the Problems with WeWork’s Tyrannical New “No Meat” Policy - shimms
https://slate.com/business/2018/07/all-the-problems-with-weworks-no-meat-policy.html
======
talltimtom
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”?

~~~
tomjen3
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?

~~~
geoalchimista
> 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...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-
of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15)

------
easytiger
> 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?

~~~
ethiclub
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"?

~~~
easytiger
> 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.

~~~
bootlooped
> 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.

------
b34r
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.

------
lukeinator42
Haha I think I’m going to have to try making those bacon wrapped figs, they
look delicious

------
mabynogy
Probably illegal as it's not good for health.

~~~
GuB-42
\- (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.

~~~
mabynogy
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.

