Jump to content

Igloo Won't Pay For Your Meat Expenses

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, L00b said:

Perhaps someone told them that alcohol has no nutritional value ;)

So you'd be OK telling the client that you're meeting for lunch that they can't order any alcohol because it has no nutritional value? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

So you'd be OK telling the client that you're meeting for lunch that they can't order any alcohol because it has no nutritional value? 

I'd never have to: I've no problem whatsoever about expensing alcohol with lunch or dinner on this side of the Channel :P;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, L00b said:

I'd never have to: I've no problem whatsoever about expensing alcohol with lunch or dinner on this side of the Channel :P;)

That's not really the point is it. 

 

Do you think the reason why businesses often don't allow for alcohol in expenses is because it doesn't have 'nutritional value'? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

That's not really the point is it. 

 

Do you think the reason why businesses often don't allow for alcohol in expenses is because it doesn't have 'nutritional value'? 

Well, what was your point with bringing up alcohol into our discussion?

 

We're talking about expensable meals, here, not the employee's personal lunch of preference (i.e. that which is not expensable).

 

You're the poster taking issue with my post defining vegetarianism as a belief system (or life choice or...<however you want to call it>) under which eating meat is bad and must not be done, and that refusing to expense employee meals with meat is forcing that belief system (or life choice or...) on them.

 

So it's up to you to show me how that definition is wrong and/or why refusing to expense employee meals with meat is not forcing vegetarianism on them.  

 

It's pointless asking me why businesses "often don't allow for alcohol in expenses": that might be a British reality and experience, but it isn't here on the Continent. So the reasons why British businesses frown upon expensing alcohol can be cultural as much, or less, or more, as nutritional or other...it could simply be that, what with the stereotypical relationship of the stereotypical Brit with 'booze', the employer can't trust them about sticking to moderation, so a ban is safer.

 

It's a bit hard to get drunk and disorderly, and potentially bring one's employer into disrepute, on a Barnsley chop ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, L00b said:

Well, what was your point with bringing up alcohol into our discussion?

 

We're talking about expensable meals, here, not the employee's personal lunch of preference (i.e. that which is not expensable).

 

You're the poster taking issue with my post defining vegetarianism as a belief system (or life choice or...<however you want to call it>) under which eating meat is bad and must not be done, and that refusing to expense employee meals with meat is forcing that belief system (or life choice or...) on them.

 

So it's up to you to show me how that definition is wrong and/or why refusing to expense employee meals with meat is not forcing vegetarianism on them.  

 

It's pointless asking me why businesses "often don't allow for alcohol in expenses": that might be a British reality and experience, but it isn't here on the Continent. So the reasons why British businesses frown upon expensing alcohol can be cultural as much, or less, or more, as nutritional or other...it could simply be that, what with the stereotypical relationship of the stereotypical Brit with 'booze', the employer can't trust them about sticking to moderation, so a ban is safer.

 

It's a bit hard to get drunk and disorderly, and potentially bring one's employer into disrepute, on a Barnsley chop ;)

 

 

I'm not taking issue with your post defining vegetarianism as a 'belief system' or life choice. 

 

I am taking issue with the claim that a company saying they aren't going to pay for your meat anymore, but that you are perfectly free to still eat what you want, is them imposing a belief system on you, just like them saying you can't drink alcohol on company expenses is not imposing a belief system on them. 

 

The company and employees voted. They voted for the change. What's the problem, no-one is forcing you to work for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, L00b said:

excluding meat from expensable dining is enforcing a vegetarian belief that meat should not be eaten

Saying it again doesn't make it true.

 

The person can eat what they like - the company they work for have just excluded it from their expenses policy.

 

It's a great way to promote positive change with little or no impact to the individual. If every employer did it the positive impacts would be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, makapaka said:

It's a great way to promote positive change with little or no impact to the individual. If every employer did it the positive impacts would be huge.

Exactly. My employer provides my lunches and does "Meat Free Monday".

 

At first I was OUTRAGED (not really) and thought "stuff that I'll get my own food".

 

But once I actually tried it I was very impressed at what was on offer and look forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

Exactly. My employer provides my lunches and does "Meat Free Monday".

 

At first I was OUTRAGED (not really) and thought "stuff that I'll get my own food".

 

But once I actually tried it I was very impressed at what was on offer and look forward to it.

Indeed. I often eat at catered events where it is very common now for the food to be on offer to be entirely vegetarian or vegan. Not only is it better environmentally, it's probably cheaper and easier for the caterer too. Not only that, but it's generally delicious. 

 

I don't complain that they are 'imposing their belief system on me'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Saying it again doesn't make it true.

 

The person can eat what they like - the company they work for have just excluded it from their expenses policy.

 

It's a great way to promote positive change with little or no impact to the individual. If every employer did it the positive impacts would be huge.

Eating meat has positive benefits also.   It's discrimination towards meat eaters. 

 

48 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

Exactly. My employer provides my lunches and does "Meat Free Monday".

 

At first I was OUTRAGED (not really) and thought "stuff that I'll get my own food".

 

But once I actually tried it I was very impressed at what was on offer and look forward to it.

Does your employer run a canteen?   Having a meat free Monday isn't the same as what Igloo are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robin-H said:

I'm not taking issue with your post defining vegetarianism as a 'belief system' or life choice. 

 

I am taking issue with the claim that a company saying they aren't going to pay for your meat anymore, but that you are perfectly free to still eat what you want, is them imposing a belief system on you, just like them saying you can't drink alcohol on company expenses is not imposing a belief system on them. 

 

The company and employees voted. They voted for the change. What's the problem, no-one is forcing you to work for them. 

1st bit in bold is your false equivalence, not mine: I haven't equated the proscription of alcohol amongst expensable dining with the imposition of a belief system, you did.

 

2nd bit in bold: perhaps you want to look at my first post in this thread (the one you quoted and started all this guff about) and read again what I wrote. Then you can tell me what your problem is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never worked for an employer that doesn't allow alcohol to be claimed on expenses. I think that says a lot about the culture of a company that they have to go to such measures; do they employ alcoholics or just people who can't be trusted to behave in a social environment on the company tab?

 

I thought there was a recent court case where veganism was classed as a protected characteristic which means it comes under the discrimination laws; which means you have a grey area that if discriminating against a vegan is wrong, then likewise so should be discriminating against a non vegan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, West 77 said:

Eating meat has positive benefits also.   It's discrimination towards meat eaters. 

It also has negatives - physically and environmentally.

 

there is no discrimination - it’s an expense policy that’s all - no one is being prevented from eating meat.

 

 

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.