I don’t think only high powered clients matter? In my old job vendors used to take us out and they let us choose the restaurant. If they told us we couldn’t order any meat it would be super weird and awkward. This kind of stuff definitely affects sales people’s relationship with clients and a majority of their income is based off of that relationship.
Post by Michael Scott on Jul 17, 2018 14:17:24 GMT -5
Is there somewhere it's mentioning expensing meals? I may have missed it. The title and the article, to me, seemed that this was affecting what the company would be offering in terms of food options at their "cafes" and work events. If that is the case, is there less opposition?
Is there somewhere it's mentioning expensing meals? I may have missed it. The title and the article, to me, seemed that this was affecting what the company would be offering in terms of food options at their "cafes" and work events. If that is the case, is there less opposition?
I know someone who works there so that’s how I know about the expensing and the original policy that employees could not bring meat into the office.
Is there somewhere it's mentioning expensing meals? I may have missed it. The title and the article, to me, seemed that this was affecting what the company would be offering in terms of food options at their "cafes" and work events. If that is the case, is there less opposition?
It's in the first sentence:
"WeWork, the co-working startup that’s valued at ~$20 billion and has some 200,000 members across 200 locations globally plus nearly 6,000 staff of its own, will no long allow employees to expense meat. It will also no longer serve meat at company events. The policy shift is intended to reduce the business’ environmental impact."
I think that's completely valid; however, I think a public spark has to start somewhere. I'm comparing this to cigarette bans/tax. I think the interesting/hopeful part is that you said it's easier to do when cooking at home which leads to the belief that if there was more buy-in we'd see a lot more options and transparency from retailers that the public can trust.
I don't think it's fair to compare to cigarettes, which have no health benefits and directly negative health impacts on people around you. Humans evolved to eat small quantities of meat - not that we need to, but it is indisputable that most humans can derive nutritional benefits from meat.
All of that said, I don't really have a problem with a company deciding it's not going to provide meat to its employees (with the caveat that if there are true medical needs those should be exempted).
I meant in terms of public outcry (banning where one can smoke, hiking taxes), not in health benefits. I think the analogy fits as seen by this thread.
While I realize that in general, a vegetarian diet is better for the planet, it doesn't follow that every meat-free item on a menu is better for the planet than every vegetarian item. I'm calling BS on local, humanely raised chicken being a worse environmental choice than a Gardenburger, which uses energy to produce, generates waste in the form of packaging, and shipped from 3000 miles away in a refrigerated truck.
Is there somewhere it's mentioning expensing meals? I may have missed it. The title and the article, to me, seemed that this was affecting what the company would be offering in terms of food options at their "cafes" and work events. If that is the case, is there less opposition?
I know someone who works there so that’s how I know about the expensing and the original policy that employees could not bring meat into the office.
The article says employees can still bring in whatever they want though. I wonder if they reversed on that?
"Though she emphasized that the company is not prohibiting WeWork staff or members from bringing in meat-based meals they’ve paid for themselves. Members are also still free to host their own events at WeWork locations and serve meat they’ve paid for themselves. The policy only applies to food purchased (or paid for) by WeWork itself."
Is there somewhere it's mentioning expensing meals? I may have missed it. The title and the article, to me, seemed that this was affecting what the company would be offering in terms of food options at their "cafes" and work events. If that is the case, is there less opposition?
It's in the first sentence:
"WeWork, the co-working startup that’s valued at ~$20 billion and has some 200,000 members across 200 locations globally plus nearly 6,000 staff of its own, will no long allow employees to expense meat. It will also no longer serve meat at company events. The policy shift is intended to reduce the business’ environmental impact."
Ah, I took that to mean the admin ordering. Yeah, that's going to be hard to navigate.
I guess that's fine if that's what they want to do, but seems like there could be other areas to make a larger environmental impact... are they recycling at all their offices? using energy efficient appliance and HVAC? solar?
they have 6K employees...since it's something like a "perk" of working there, I'm fine with them being able to direct how that benefit works (no meat) But for things like employees are traveling / being forced to eat away from home or taking out clients, there should be exemptions.
Eating meat in typical American quantities does have a pretty big impact, though all of the typical ones are dwarfed by having children. I don't think it's outrageous for a company to focus on the meat solution, and I say this as an omnivore.
We talked about an article similar to this one a while ago:
I don't need meat in my diet, but I have a stomach condition that at times prevents me from eating most high-fiber foods (aka salads, meals based around beans or lentils). Grilled chicken is usually the main thing I eat. Pasta is obviously a great option in my case, but this is a food I try to avoid because of the calories.
If I worked in one of their offices, I would probably just not rely on their food options for lunch. I pack my lunch a lot now because it's hard to find places with what I can/want to eat anyway.
You can’t BRING meat into the office. I know someone who works there.
ETA: I read the article and they must be tweaking the policy because it says you can bring in meat. I know my friend was told they can’t when the policy first came through.
WeWork is an office space that anyone can work at - and they are all over the US and even international.
I'm aware. I've worked at a coworking space, though not WeWork.
This policy will mainly affect their corporate employees, who are likely based in the Bay Area. While they have staff in other cities, the community manager isn't likely taking high-powered investors out to lunch, so I think that's a moot argument.
However, coworking spaces sometimes provide lunch, happy hours, etc to the people who "work" there. That's a take-it-or-leave-it type thing, IMO. You can simply make other lunch plans. If you work out of the WeWork space you are not their employee and you are not getting reimbursed by them for meals you are eating with your own clients, so it's not a policy that affects that at all.
Ohh I didn't realize it was corporate employees that got the food. I think I was under the impression that if you were a member working there, maybe lunch was included or something.
I'd probably just be annoyed as an employee - unless my CWs were getting tons of free meals and I was having to pay for my own or bring it from home OR if this was the policy before I started working there (paid lunches can be a not-insignificant perk in terms of a personal budget). Of course I can get medical documentation, but my issue isn't like a food allergy or something with a lab test to show what I can't eat. It's a lot of trial and error and even my exercise habits can affect how well I can handle some food.
But I work in a cancer hospital so I get maybe 4 free lunches a year, depending on how many full-day training classes I take. So this is not an arena I'm familiar with at all.
This isn’t a dietary need, but the time I tried (for about 6 weeks) to eat vegetarian, the non-meat protein sources made me so gassy that my husband thought something died in my car. So uhh, not good for work.
But really, this seems like a weird thing to police and I’m not sure this will actually make the impact they’re hoping it to make. I could be wrong though.
I know someone who works there so that’s how I know about the expensing and the original policy that employees could not bring meat into the office.
The article says employees can still bring in whatever they want though. I wonder if they reversed on that?
"Though she emphasized that the company is not prohibiting WeWork staff or members from bringing in meat-based meals they’ve paid for themselves. Members are also still free to host their own events at WeWork locations and serve meat they’ve paid for themselves. The policy only applies to food purchased (or paid for) by WeWork itself."
I guess a lot of people complained and they revised it. The original policy was definitely no meat allowed in the office.
I'm really not concerned about clients. I doubt a company like this has many clients, and if they have decided their bottom line can handle a client being annoyed they can't get a free steak, then whatever.
I am concerned about the diabetic who is on a strict low carb diet that has to buy her own chicken caesar while everyone else gets their linguine pesto comped at the company holiday party. It's complete bullshit.
San Francisco "liberals" are notorious for waiving the banner of environmentalism to discriminate. This is not about environmentalism. This is to make it harder for overweight people, sick people, and pregnant people to work there. They want to make these people uncomfortable so they don't apply to work there, and are using the environment to do it.
I'm really not concerned about clients. I doubt a company like this has many clients, and if they have decided their bottom line can handle a client being annoyed they can't get a free steak, then whatever.
I am concerned about the diabetic who is on a strict low carb diet that has to buy her own chicken caesar while everyone else gets their linguine pesto comped at the company holiday party. It's complete bullshit.
San Francisco "liberals" are notorious for waiving the banner of environmentalism to discriminate. This is not about environmentalism. This is to make it harder for overweight people, sick people, and pregnant people to work there. They want to make these people uncomfortable so they don't apply to work there, and are using the environment to do it.
Yes.
This is going to cause legal problems. Maybe not immediately, but it will. I can't imagine they had legal counsel approve this.
Post by sporklemotion on Jul 17, 2018 14:32:10 GMT -5
I don’t work in a corporate environment, and the rare employer-provided meals I get rarely have veggie options (I’m vegetarian), so while I feel for employees who have to bring stuff in while others provide it, I am not that upset about it.
I see the arguments against it, but with the amount of food waste generated by big events, I can see the appeal of at least cutting out the meat part. You’re throwing away a lot in either case, but at least there’s less impact if you’re throwing away something more sustainable?
"Of course, group cohesion also fosters exclusion. For all the lip service to diversity, corporate tribalism enforces legally acceptable homogeneity. You can’t racially discriminate, but you can use Stuff White People Like as a guide to approving expense reports."
I'm really not concerned about clients. I doubt a company like this has many clients, and if they have decided their bottom line can handle a client being annoyed they can't get a free steak, then whatever.
I am concerned about the diabetic who is on a strict low carb diet that has to buy her own chicken caesar while everyone else gets their linguine pesto comped at the company holiday party. It's complete bullshit.
San Francisco "liberals" are notorious for waiving the banner of environmentalism to discriminate. This is not about environmentalism. This is to make it harder for overweight people, sick people, and pregnant people to work there. They want to make these people uncomfortable so they don't apply to work there, and are using the environment to do it.
This is me exactly, although I'm not diabetic. Due to a health condition, I've got a very strict set of food regulations and (just to make it more complicated) have an allergy to the two non-meat proteins that are ok within those regulations. Because OF COURSE I do. So all of my meals consist of meat, no-sugar-added dairy, and specific vegetables, and that's pretty much it. So that means I'm the person that literally cannot eat anything at some parties. (PASTA BAR! ICE CREAM BAR! PIZZA!) I literally sat through our company party three years ago with the ability to eat exactly one ounce of scallops for the entire meal, plus a glass of wine. I was so sad that they didn't even release the menu ahead of time so I could plan, because I'd worked there with those same restrictions for more than a year and EVERYONE knew (edit: and it wasn't like it was a large company either: less than 30 people). It was like a giant F YOU in my direction. So I quit a week later (literally the same day my bonus check cleared.)
I've actually met a person who had so many food intolerances/issues that he mostly ate meat and pretty much no vegetables. It was years ago and I don't remember the whole story, but he could only eat meat at the group dinner we were at.
I'm really not concerned about clients. I doubt a company like this has many clients, and if they have decided their bottom line can handle a client being annoyed they can't get a free steak, then whatever.
I am concerned about the diabetic who is on a strict low carb diet that has to buy her own chicken caesar while everyone else gets their linguine pesto comped at the company holiday party. It's complete bullshit.
San Francisco "liberals" are notorious for waiving the banner of environmentalism to discriminate. This is not about environmentalism. This is to make it harder for overweight people, sick people, and pregnant people to work there. They want to make these people uncomfortable so they don't apply to work there, and are using the environment to do it.
This is me exactly, although I'm not diabetic. Due to a health condition, I've got a very strict set of food regulations and (just to make it more complicated) have an allergy to the two non-meat proteins that are ok within those regulations. Because OF COURSE I do. So all of my meals consist of meat, no-sugar-added dairy, and specific vegetables, and that's pretty much it. So that means I'm the person that literally cannot eat anything at some parties. (PASTA BAR! ICE CREAM BAR! PIZZA!) I literally sat through our company party three years ago with the ability to eat exactly one ounce of scallops for the entire meal, plus a glass of wine. I was so sad that they didn't even release the menu ahead of time so I could plan, because I'd worked there with those same restrictions for more than a year and EVERYONE knew (edit: and it wasn't like it was a large company either: less than 30 people). It was like a giant F YOU in my direction. So I quit a week later (literally the same day my bonus check cleared.)
Ugh, I'm so sorry. Too many people have complicated health issues that they shouldn't have to explain. There's always going to be challenges at parties, and while most companies could do better, it is insane that a company would go in the other direction, and make things even worse for people by figuring out how to exclude them even more regularly?
Post by Michael Scott on Jul 17, 2018 14:42:27 GMT -5
I'm curious what a successful meat-free initiative looks like then or as impactful as meat-free. I don't mean snark around this because I thought this was a generally decent effort than most companies/people are providing.
People can still eat meat though. They just don't get reimbursed for eating it nor can they buy it at company cafeterias. I don't see the big deal. Any employee with a meat restricted diet will still be able to adhere to their diet.
People can still eat meat though. They just don't get reimbursed for eating it nor can they buy it at company cafeterias. I don't see the big deal. Any employee with a meat restricted diet will still be able to adhere to their diet.
Except if they’re traveling for work or attending lunch meetings.
People can still eat meat though. They just don't get reimbursed for eating it nor can they buy it at company cafeterias. I don't see the big deal. Any employee with a meat restricted diet will still be able to adhere to their diet.
Except if they’re traveling for work or attending lunch meetings.
But they could use their own money while traveling or bring their own food to the meeting?
As someone who does not have any dietary restrictions, I am totally fine with this.
However, I can see how it would have a major impact on certain people depending on their nutritional needs.
I also wonder, like other posters, what else they are doing to reduce their environmental impact. Have they gone fully electronic? Are they reducing their impact through efficient HVAC? Are they contributing as an organization to clean air initiatives?
Except if they’re traveling for work or attending lunch meetings.
But they could use their own money while traveling or bring their own food to the meeting?
While other employees get theirs comped? I have a food allergy and I don't mind packing my lunch every day or bringing food to a meeting. But if I'm traveling, I don't have that option.