Igloo Won't Pay For Your Meat Expenses

[L00b 441]

17 minutes ago, makapaka said:

It’s a total red herring the argument put forward by @rachelmum and @West 77 anyway.

 

theres no reason for this initiative to impact on a company’s profitability and even if it did - that would be their decision to take for the greater good of the environment.

The aside about 'profits paying bills' is a red herring, sure.

 

In the grand scheme of things, any costs that may impact Igloo out of this policy can be lodged against their marketing budget, because quite aside from the ideological nature of the policy, in a business context marketing is all this is.

 

But I wouldn't dismiss *all* the arguments put forth by rachelmum and West77 for that. Some I find to have merit.

[Guest makapaka]

18 minutes ago, L00b said:

The aside about 'profits paying bills' is a red herring, sure.

 

In the grand scheme of things, any costs that may impact Igloo out of this policy can be lodged against their marketing budget, because quite aside from the ideological nature of the policy, in a business context marketing is all this is.

 

But I wouldn't dismiss *all* the arguments put forth by rachelmum and West77 for that. Some I find to have merit.

Which ones?

[L00b 441]

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

Which ones?

Those based on the unilateral and inequitable character of the policy, from a pecuniary point of view, because it is exclusive (excluding meat from the refunding basis: the carnivore choice is penalised) rather than inclusive (e.g. refunding more ('veggie bonus') when no meat is consumed: the vegetarian choice is incentivised).

 

Nothing I haven't raised in the thread before, I don't think.

Edited March 6, 2020 by L00b

[Robin-H 11]

5 minutes ago, L00b said:

Those based on the unilateral and inequitable character of the policy, from a pecuniary point of view, because it is exclusive (excluding meat from the refunding basis: the carnivore choice is penalised) rather than inclusive (e.g. refunding more ('veggie bonus') when no meat is consumed: the vegetarian choice is incentivised).

 

Nothing I haven't raised in the thread before, I don't think.

Just like how travel expenses are often exclusionary (we'll pay for your ticket as long as it's booked in advance and for a standard fare - you are free to travel first class if you wish but if you so you can pay for it yourself) rather than incentivised (here's the money for a first class ticket, feel free to book a standard class and you can keep the difference..) 

 

I don't have a problem with the former in that scenario, and I don't have a problem with Igloo doing it for subsidence expenses either...

[L00b 441]

20 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Just like how travel expenses are often exclusionary (we'll pay for your ticket as long as it's booked in advance and for a standard fare - you are free to travel first class if you wish but if you so you can pay for it yourself) rather than incentivised (here's the money for a first class ticket, feel free to book a standard class and you can keep the difference..) 

 

I don't have a problem with the former in that scenario, and I don't have a problem with Igloo doing it for subsidence expenses either...

Good, so you have your opinion, and I have mine.

 

My team and I travel business class on long haul, 1st class on train journeys above 2 hours. Standard expenses policy. I don't have a problem with it either.

 

It depends on the value which, as an employer, one assigns to employee productivity and inclusivity (the policy applies to all, top to bottom) and how these attributes (amongst others) influence their performance and, to a lesser extent, loyalty: it's easier to work better, on the go, in a business flight seat or 1st class carriage, than in standard class, and it makes for less tired employees at arrival time.

[Robin-H 11]

20 minutes ago, L00b said:

Good, so you have your opinion, and I have mine.

 

My team and I travel business class on long haul, 1st class on train journeys above 2 hours. Standard expenses policy. I don't have a problem with it either.

 

It depends on the value which, as an employer, one assigns to employee productivity and inclusivity (the policy applies to all, top to bottom) and how these attributes (amongst others) influence their performance and, to a lesser extent, loyalty: it's easier to work better, on the go, in a business flight seat or 1st class carriage, than in standard class, and it makes for less tired employees at arrival time.

Igloo's policy applies to all too, and their policy has also been derived from their values.

 

They value the planet and our ability to continue to live on it sustainably and share its resources more equitably. 

[L00b 441]

36 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Igloo's policy applies to all too, and their policy has also been derived from their values.

Have I said or suggested they and their policy didn't? 

38 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

They value the planet and our ability to continue to live on it sustainably and share its resources more equitably. 

I'm not interested, thanks. Maybe try someone else.

 

[Robin-H 11]

1 minute ago, L00b said:

Have I said or suggested they and their policy didn't? 

I'm not interested, thanks. Maybe try someone else.

 

No - and I never said you had. 

 

You did however feel it was necessary to point out that your expense policy was company wide, as if that was in some way relevant (company values, one being inclusivity). I don't therefore see any issue with pointing out that is a value shared seemingly with Igloo, otherwise, why bring it up at all? 

 

Yes, it is clear you don't want to discuss the merits of such a policy on environmental grounds. Maybe it's because you realise arguing against a policy that can only do good is a bit silly. 

[L00b 441]

22 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

You did however feel it was necessary to point out that your expense policy was company wide, as if that was in some way relevant (company values, one being inclusivity). I don't therefore see any issue with pointing out that is a value shared seemingly with Igloo, otherwise, why bring it up at all? 

It seems you confused the value which a company places on its assets, human and not, which is what I posted about; with a company's values (ie beliefs), be they commercial, ethical and/or environmental. 

22 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Yes, it is clear you don't want to discuss the merits of such a policy on environmental grounds. Maybe it's because you realise arguing against a policy that can only do good is a bit silly. 

Maybe it's because I'm not bothered about engaging with dietary and/or environmental zealots instead. Just a thought.

 

 

[Robin-H 11]

1 minute ago, L00b said:

It seems you confused the value which a company places on its assets, human and not, which is what I posted about; with a company's values (ie beliefs), be they commercial, ethical and/or environmental. 

Maybe it's because I'm not bothered about engaging with dietary and/or environmental zealots instead. Just a thought.

 

 

You bought up the value of inclusivity, not me. Either you think it's worth mentioning, or you don't. I don't see how I have confused anything - you can distinguish between values and think some are valid and worth discussing and others aren't all you wish. Doesn't mean we have to agree with you. 

 

The fact you think I am a dietary or environmental zealot is laughable. I agree however that there is no value in discussing this further with you. 

 

 

[rachelmum 11]

On 05/03/2020 at 00:38, Pettytom said:

I wish you well in paying your staff fairly.

 

Please don’t expect the benefit system to bail you , or your company out.  So let’s not hear moaning about paying people a decent package.
 

What really pays the bills is forward planning and sustainability.  That’s the future 

The HMRC  regulate what people should be paid the 'living wage' now pension contributions not only for staff but employers are been regularly increased. All legislation is on the side of employees and the employer foots the SSP bill for time off for sickness/ mental health issues which are escalating. How does sustainability keep pace with the employer constantly being at the wrong end of the stick for all these costs. Not to mention the current health crisis looming. Is sustainability going go cover staffs mortgage and rent if they have to self incubate. SSP is £95 a week will that cover people's costs? You couldn't have planned for people not working for two weeks and the economic strain associated. 

Edited March 7, 2020 by rachelmum
Spelling error

[Guest makapaka]

15 hours ago, rachelmum said:

The HMRC  regulate what people should be paid the 'living wage' now pension contributions not only for staff but employers are been regularly increased. All legislation is on the side of employees and the employer foots the SSP bill for time off for sickness/ mental health issues which are escalating. How does sustainability keep pace with the employer constantly being at the wrong end of the stick for all these costs. Not to mention the current health crisis looming. Is sustainability going go cover staffs mortgage and rent if they have to self incubate. SSP is £95 a week will that cover people's costs? You couldn't have planned for people not working for two weeks and the economic strain associated. 

How are you linking all this back to an employer reimbursing for a salad sandwich but not a ham salad sandwich?