Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Igloo Won't Pay For Your Meat Expenses

Recommended Posts

On 08/03/2020 at 15:00, makapaka said:

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

The argument raised by yourself and Pettytom in particular has been that profitability is an outdated concept and sustainability should be foremost now to repair the damage of previous generations to pave the way for generations to come. This goes way beyond a ham sandwich or a salad sandwich, but it is small steps needed and the debate has been interesting. It does seem changes are needed and while I don't like to think they are imposed and choice is taken away i can see the merit. Let's hope that we can all make some changes now big or small to redress damage caused to date and be more socially responsible for my grandchildren and their children. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rachelmum said:

The argument raised by yourself and Pettytom in particular has been that profitability is an outdated concept and sustainability should be foremost now to repair the damage of previous generations to pave the way for generations to come. This goes way beyond a ham sandwich or a salad sandwich, but it is small steps needed and the debate has been interesting. It does seem changes are needed and while I don't like to think they are imposed and choice is taken away i can see the merit. Let's hope that we can all make some changes now big or small to redress damage caused to date and be more socially responsible for my grandchildren and their children. 

Nice one.👍🏻

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine a month on, the Igloo staff have just taken this on the chin and got on with their lives.

 

Not Sheffield Forum though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

I would imagine a month on, the Igloo staff have just taken this on the chin and got on with their lives.

 

Not Sheffield Forum though.  

The Igloo staff apparently voted for it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

I would imagine a month on, the Igloo staff have just taken this on the chin and got on with their lives.

 

Not Sheffield Forum though.  

Well it wouldn't be sf without plenty of gammon :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, melthebell said:

Well it wouldn't be sf without plenty of gammon :rolleyes:

True, although this thread has seen a bit of a gammon / snowflake role reversal, which just goes to illustrate that the zonal and meridional directions on the political compass really are independent, at least up to a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the igloo staff have got over it but the debate is about the bigger principle.

 

Allowing the personal opinion and moral judgement of a Director to dictate a company wide policy affecting all staff is an extremely dangerous precedent.  Even more so if such policies may cause conflict with widely accepted employment regulations or industry wide standard.

 

It's a slippery slope.  

 

Igloo are clearly lucky as they can get away with it being a small firm with a particular type of image.     I bet such a circumstance wouldn't go down so well with a huge national corporation particularly one that was heavily unionised.

 

That is the real point to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/03/2020 at 20:24, ECCOnoob said:

I'm sure the igloo staff have got over it but the debate is about the bigger principle.

 

Allowing the personal opinion and moral judgement of a Director to dictate a company wide policy affecting all staff is an extremely dangerous precedent.  Even more so if such policies may cause conflict with widely accepted employment regulations or industry wide standard.

 

It's a slippery slope.  

 

Igloo are clearly lucky as they can get away with it being a small firm with a particular type of image.     I bet such a circumstance wouldn't go down so well with a huge national corporation particularly one that was heavily unionised.

 

That is the real point to this.

It’s not personal opinion or moral judgement that meat production damages the environment - it’s fact.

 

which is why your whole argument is flawed.

Edited by makapaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, makapaka said:

It’s not personal opinion or moral judgement that meat production damages the environment - it’s fact.

It's also a fact that growing vegetables can also damage the environment so encouraging more people to be vegetarian may also have a negative impact in the long run. With an increasing number of vegetarians to cater for you will need more land, more water, more pesticides (unless it's GM) ;) , more fertiliser, more energy for harvesting and transportation and the waste products from it produce methane as they degrade and compost. What people should be doing is having a balanced diet and not just rely on vegetables.

 

4 hours ago, makapaka said:

which is why your whole argument is flawed.

Its Igloos ethics that are a bit flawed but good publicity nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, apelike said:

It's also a fact that growing vegetables can also damage the environment so encouraging more people to be vegetarian may also have a negative impact in the long run. With an increasing number of vegetarians to cater for you will need more land, more water, more pesticides (unless it's GM) ;) , more fertiliser, more energy for harvesting and transportation and the waste products from it produce methane as they degrade and compost. What people should be doing is having a balanced diet and not just rely on vegetables.

 

Its Igloos ethics that are a bit flawed but good publicity nevertheless.

To a much smaller degree than livestock production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Halibut said:

To a much smaller degree than livestock production.

Exactly - our existence damages the environment - were never going to get it to zero - we can try and hit the big impact areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Halibut said:

To a much smaller degree than livestock production.

Mmm... That may be how it is now but what I am arguing is that a big increase in vegetarianism may also make a big difference in the long term. A lot of vegetables on a calorie to calorie comparison with meat actually require more resources in terms of energy and water usage alone and can result in more emissions, and Rice is a prime example. Protein is also needed in a diet and meat is a good source for protein.

 

Consuming less meat is a good thing but it's not as simple as stating stop eating meat and save the planet as other factors come into play.

 

 

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

Exactly - our existence damages the environment - were never going to get it to zero - we can try and hit the big impact areas.

Me bolded.. With that I agree :) Something Igloo seems to not bother about.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.