• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WeWork bans meals with meat as a work expense

Not really, they just don't want to pay for meat. I don't see the issue. It is no different then something like the Hobby Lobby case and them not wanting to provide contraception.
Both instances where I disagree. I saw Hobby Lobby as a terrible decision.
 
I see it as employee manipulation, in what is none of their business. The employee should be evaluated upon his or her performance, not their lunch choice.

I've seen employers become more & more controlling of their employees over the decades. And I think it's getting ridiculous. The term is "employee", not "indentured servant".

I suspect we just feel differently over how much control an employer should have over their employees' personal lives. I'm sure these differences are also why I blew-off corporate life many years ago, and never looked back. And the more I saw over the ensuing years, the more I'm sure I made the right decision.

They aren't evaluating the employee based on their lunch choice, they just don't want to pay for a meal that has meat in it. I could see your point if they were firing people who ate meat or something (even though I would still say they should have that right as it is there business)
 
I see it as employee manipulation, in what is none of their business. The employee should be evaluated upon his or her performance, not their lunch choice.

I've seen employers become more & more controlling of their employees over the decades. And I think it's getting ridiculous. The term is "employee", not "indentured servant".

I suspect we just feel differently over how much control an employer should have over their employees' personal lives. I'm sure these differences are also why I blew-off corporate life many years ago, and never looked back. And the more I saw over the ensuing years, the more I'm sure I made the right decision.

It's about sustainability of the planet and saving the company billions...it's not about evaluating, manipulating or controlling employee personal choices or eating habits. The employee could wear a meat dress for all the company cares...as long as it isn't at the company's expense.
 
Last edited:
They aren't evaluating the employee based on their lunch choice, they just don't want to pay for a meal that has meat in it. I could see your point if they were firing people who ate meat or something (even though I would still say they should have that right as it is there business)
Exactly.

They're manipulating their employees personal eating habits.
 
It's about sustainability of the planet and saving the company billions...it's not about evaluating, manipulating or controlling employee personal choices or eating habits. The employee could wear a meat dress for all the company cares...as long as it isn't at the company's expense.
But it's not about whether an employee gets reimbursed for their business expenses, Moot. It's about the employer controlling what the employee eats. They are withholding reimbursing the employees business expenses, unless the employee conforms to their prescribed diet.

I don't agree with employers having this much detailed control over there employees, but it seems the country is going further & further down this route. Unfortunately, it seems to be legal as the courts have been upholding this crap. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor your logic as to why I should.

Like I said, I wouldn't be a corporate employee today for all the tea in China. For reasons just like this.
 
But it's not about whether an employee gets reimbursed for their business expenses, Moot. It's about the employer controlling what the employee eats. They are withholding reimbursing the employees business expenses, unless the employee conforms to their prescribed diet.

I don't agree with employers having this much detailed control over there employees, but it seems the country is going further & further down this route. Unfortunately, it seems to be legal as the courts have been upholding this crap. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor your logic as to why I should.

Like I said, I wouldn't be a corporate employee today for all the tea in China. For reasons just like this.

In any of these "policy change" cases I think people should be grandfathered in. If a person is a new hire and informed of the company policies before accepting the job then that seems fair to me. But if a person has been working there a number of years, got a few promotions, building a career, in the retirement plan, etc. then they should be exempt. Some might object saying it makes things too complicated; a computer program can handle complexity. Retirement plans can now be very complex, depending on when you were hired in.
 
Jordan Peterson was talking about his family's medical problems and how they switched to a similar diet and how much healthier they have been on the Joe Rogan podcast. It was fairly interesting.

I don't think this type of eating is really anything new. I caught on to it because just about any carbs drove up my blood sugar. Leafy greens, which are the best for you, drove it up the least, though, thank goodness. And meat didn't drive up my triglycerides excessively. I don't eat massive amounts of fat, but there is some. Anyways, everybody is different; what works for one won't for another.
 
In any of these "policy change" cases I think people should be grandfathered in. If a person is a new hire and informed of the company policies before accepting the job then that seems fair to me. But if a person has been working there a number of years, got a few promotions, building a career, in the retirement plan, etc. then they should be exempt. Some might object saying it makes things too complicated; a computer program can handle complexity. Retirement plans can now be very complex, depending on when you were hired in.
Yeah, I'm just dead-set against the amazing control that corporations seem to wield over their employees today.

I remember when employee drug-testing and DUI check-points became legal, both around the same time, and both that had many of us believing the Court really overstepped its bounds in terms of privacy and due process. Well it just kept going from there to where it is today, and now it seems our employer can tell us not to eat meat for lunch!

I don't do drugs, don't even drink, but I'm so glad I'm out of the corporate employee game ...
 
I thought a private company could set their own rules? Like who they bake cakes for. What about their free will and beliefs? Seems those with religious beliefs are more important to some. Hell, companies have rights similar to individuals if you listen to most cons. Seems there is an exception for those that disagree. Too funny!

So far only the guy who posted the OP is objecting to WEWORK's policy. The rest of us could care less.
 
Yeah, I'm just dead-set against the amazing control that corporations seem to wield over their employees today.

I remember when employee drug-testing and DUI check-points became legal, both around the same time, and both that had many of us believing the Court really overstepped its bounds in terms of privacy and due process. Well it just kept going from there to where it is today, and now it seems our employer can tell us not to eat meat for lunch!

I don't do drugs, don't even drink, but I'm so glad I'm out of the corporate employee game ...

One of my sons works for a corporation where it is a disciplinary offense not to address a person by their chosen pronoun. I didn't even know what he was talking about until he explained it. And there are like several dozen pronouns. So if a person sends you an email signed off with the pronoun in front of their name, you must use that pronoun when making a reply. You will get a stern reprimand if you don't. And repeated offenses will get you fired. I don't know how young people today put up with PC culture in general. Seems so stressful. What the WeWork company is really doing is sending a message that their employees should be vegans and against the meat industry. Corporate manipulation.
 
One of my sons works for a corporation where it is a disciplinary offense not to address a person by their chosen pronoun. I didn't even know what he was talking about until he explained it. And there are like several dozen pronouns. So if a person sends you an email signed off with the pronoun in front of their name, you must use that pronoun when making a reply. You will get a stern reprimand if you don't. And repeated offenses will get you fired. I don't know how young people today put up with PC culture in general. Seems so stressful. What the WeWork company is really doing is sending a message that their employees should be vegans and against the meat industry. Corporate manipulation.
That's pretty much the way I see it.
 
Considering how profitable wedding cakes are, I seriously doubt it would be an issue unless you are calling around every cake shop looking for the ones that will not serve you.

You and I aren't Masterpiece Cake Shop though.
I can state flatly that even if I were deeply religious, I wouldn't give a second thought to the orientation of a customer in my bakery because I wouldn't see refusing to serve them as some mighty score for my side. I'd see it as a stupid and petulant move designed to do nothing more than inflame the community.

The bakery owners think that they scored some kind of incredible victory. They really didn't.
And from now on, I suppose gay couples will just come in, order a wedding cake and won't provide information.
And someone else will provide the decoration that they want, and the so called "deeply religious" bakers won't have done anything to sanctify their views on marriage in the end.

In the end, so called deeply religious pharmacists have actually sealed their own doom because with the proliferation of outfits like "GoodRx" and other online pharmacies, pretty soon all brick and mortar pharmacists will be out of a job. If Amazon wins the right to get into the business, it's a guarantee and I guarantee Amazon will NEVER EVER question the religious aspects of providing contraception to ANY customers.

A serious estimation is that probably seven out of ten people that I happen to know decided to stop patronizing brick and mortar pharmacies altogether because they're just tired of the lines, crappy service and high prices. The fact that a woman can order a morning after pill in advance means she will never have to drive all over town just to find a pharmacist who isn't shoving THEIR religion down her throat.
 
You and I aren't Masterpiece Cake Shop though.
I can state flatly that even if I were deeply religious, I wouldn't give a second thought to the orientation of a customer in my bakery because I wouldn't see refusing to serve them as some mighty score for my side. I'd see it as a stupid and petulant move designed to do nothing more than inflame the community.

The bakery owners think that they scored some kind of incredible victory. They really didn't.
And from now on, I suppose gay couples will just come in, order a wedding cake and won't provide information.
And someone else will provide the decoration that they want, and the so called "deeply religious" bakers won't have done anything to sanctify their views on marriage in the end.

In the end, so called deeply religious pharmacists have actually sealed their own doom because with the proliferation of outfits like "GoodRx" and other online pharmacies, pretty soon all brick and mortar pharmacists will be out of a job. If Amazon wins the right to get into the business, it's a guarantee and I guarantee Amazon will NEVER EVER question the religious aspects of providing contraception to ANY customers.

A serious estimation is that probably seven out of ten people that I happen to know decided to stop patronizing brick and mortar pharmacies altogether because they're just tired of the lines, crappy service and high prices. The fact that a woman can order a morning after pill in advance means she will never have to drive all over town just to find a pharmacist who isn't shoving THEIR religion down her throat.

Gay couples will simply go to the cake shops that will design the cakes in the fashion they want.

And in your example that is simply the free market at work, as long as there is a market for an item someone will provide that service. As you said who wants to wait in line and have to deal with crappy sservice when you can have it shipped to your door.

I don't really see what you are complaining about.
 
I don't think this type of eating is really anything new. I caught on to it because just about any carbs drove up my blood sugar. Leafy greens, which are the best for you, drove it up the least, though, thank goodness. And meat didn't drive up my triglycerides excessively. I don't eat massive amounts of fat, but there is some. Anyways, everybody is different; what works for one won't for another.

True, I went on a similar diet and lost 100lbs in 7 months.
 
Both instances where I disagree. I saw Hobby Lobby as a terrible decision.

Should a Muslim business be forced to provide pork products or Hindu provide steak and Hamburgers to their employees even if it is against their beliefs?
 
Should a Muslim business be forced to provide pork products or Hindu provide steak and Hamburgers to their employees even if it is against their beliefs?
I would not allow them to not reimburse their employees expense accounts, as in this instance.
 
This is only one step away from treating meat consumption like smoking. Imagine mandatory "meat cessation programs". This is just one more example showing how the left is hostile to personal choice unless it fits their agenda.


https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wework-bans-meat-as-an-allowable-expense/






• Static link to an article from a bona-fide news organization. CHECK
• Dateline within the past 48 hours. CHECK
• Exact same title as the cited article. CHECK
• Quoted short excerpts from the article. CHECK
• Your own unique content to spur discussion. CHECK

Solution, bring your own meat and stop whining. Jeesh, when did the GOP turn into a bunch ******s.
 
I would not allow them to not reimburse their employees expense accounts, as in this instance.

So you would force some to pay for something that goes against their religion? Seems to be a strange position for a libertarian.
 
Solution, bring your own meat and stop whining. Jeesh, when did the GOP turn into a bunch ******s.

It goes beyond explicit policies. I knew about a manager that made it a point to know what kind of vehicle an applicant drives. If it's a V8, you may as well immediately walk out of the interview. These kinds of idiocy are actually useful. It communicates what kind of a company you will deal with.
 
This is only one step away from treating meat consumption like smoking. Imagine mandatory "meat cessation programs". This is just one more example showing how the left is hostile to personal choice unless it fits their agenda.


https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/wework-bans-meat-as-an-allowable-expense/






• Static link to an article from a bona-fide news organization. CHECK
• Dateline within the past 48 hours. CHECK
• Exact same title as the cited article. CHECK
• Quoted short excerpts from the article. CHECK
• Your own unique content to spur discussion. CHECK



That's really up to the company. I guess if people don't like it, they can quit.
 
This is only one step away from treating meat consumption like smoking.

No. it is not. This is one company not letting employees force them to pay for meals with meat. Although it seems like a stupid idea on the surface. It probably did this to save $$$$ which it needs badly.
 
You don’t seem to mind when it was a bakery forcing others to conform when they wouldn’t serve a gay couples wedding cake.

Who were they forcing to conform? Not even close in comparison.
 
That's really up to the company. I guess if people don't like it, they can quit.

Or not apply there in the first place. Whenever I see "they can quit", it almost has a connotation similar the "they can go eat dirt". When I see "they can always go update their resume", it comes off more like "I hope they find a comparable job without the hassle."
 
No. it is not. This is one company not letting employees force them to pay for meals with meat. Although it seems like a stupid idea on the surface. It probably did this to save $$$$ which it needs badly.

What do you suppose will happen to the WeWork employee that buys a big hunk of brisket and eats it at his desk? Have you heard of the expression "managed out"?
 
Back
Top Bottom