6 ms·

I can't eat a lot of types of food due to allergies. Meat is one of the few things I still can eat without issue. Yes, there are actually people out there (hi,

I can't eat a lot of types of food due to allergies. Meat is one of the few things I still can eat without issue. Yes, there are actually people out there (hi, me!) that actually cannot eliminate certain foods from our diets without getting sick. This policy would prevent me from being able to work at that company, for recognized medical health reasons, because I would not be able to do legitimate expenses of food related to travel, nor would I be able to eat probably anything during the "summer camp". I also have serious concerns about letting companies have moral opinions about paying for choices you make for your own health, for example with health insurance, and considering the current supreme court situation, maybe you should too.

jlarocco 8y ago
I guess I missed how anybody being "forced" to do anything. Their employees are still free to buy all the meat they want.
- juancn 8y ago
  They're forced for example in the context of a business trip.
  - jlarocco 8y ago
    No they're not. Every company has limitations and provisions on what they'll expense on business trips, and I don't see how this is any different.
    - tedunangst 8y ago
      Companies used to have one hotel room per trip limitations, too, and if the woman didn't want to stay with a man she could always pay for her own room.
      - jlarocco 8y ago
        And they also used to let everybody smoke cigarettes inside at their desks. Times change.
      - apple4ever 8y ago
        That's a really great example. I don't understand how people cannot see the implicitly force used here. In fact, its a large part of why WeWork is doing this.
    - myrandomcomment 8y ago
      Because they are saying you have to travel for work and you cannot eat anything we do not approve. How hard is it to understand that? I travel all the time for work. I cannot eat Gluten (medical reason), when I am in Japan what do you suggest I eat? There are many options that are safe for me to eat and they are all meat based. It is fine they choose not to server meat as part of what the company does as an in house offering but it is not okay for them to tell me what I can it when I am traveling on business. I do not require a drink with dinner. That’s fine, but I do require food I can digest without getting sick. This is pure bullshit over reach. The best part is everyone will just ignore it as no one turns in itemized reports on what they ordered just the CC slip. It is pure BS.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- kyledrake 8y ago
  Is this the same conversation we're going to have when the company says no IUD costs can come from your health insurance plan?
- internet_user 8y ago
  and you are free to buy your own health insurance!
koala_man 8y ago
>Forcing your employees to only eat certain kinds of food is an intensely terrible thing to do. I absolutely agree. Fortunately, no one is doing that. WeWork employees can eat as much meat as they want. It's just that WeWork won't pay for it.
- apple4ever 8y ago
  Actually, they are doing that. Its an implicit force.
  - koala_man 8y ago
    Would you also say that Apple is implicitly forcing their employees to starve because they don't serve free lunch?
downandout 8y ago
Not only is it terrible from a dietary standpoint, it reveals an intolerant workplace culture that I certainly wouldn't want any part of. Most of the world, and likely most of their employees, eat meat. It shows a serious lack of connection with the real world, and a willingness on the part of management to forcefully impose extreme views on a whim. Sounds like an unhealthy place to work, even if they all become vegetarians.
- curo 8y ago
  What if your company said that they are starting a program to reimburse solar panel installation, but that program doesn't cover reimbursement for gas. Would your argument be that most of the world consumes gas, so they're "forcefully impose extreme views on a whim."
  - downandout 8y ago
    This is a false equivalence. It is apparently a matter of custom at WeWork for at least some employee meals to be paid for by the company. To dictate what employees may order in those situations is unconscionable. Imagine your manager takes the team out for a working lunch, and you basically can’t order anything except for a garden salad from the menu. You have to be at the lunch, but you cannot order like a normal person. That’s wrong.
    - natrik 8y ago
      You can eat whatever you want, WeWork simply won't reimburse you if it is meat. Once again to reiterate, they are not limiting your choice, they are limiting what they will reimburse.
    - curo 8y ago
      Alright, you call false equivalence, I call petty fogging if you need your analogies to be perfect. So to make it a proper example: what if your employer had a job benefit to reimburse gas & electric car expenses to visit clients, and then later decided to stop reimbursing gas. Also, considering WeWork is taking this stance, if a WeWork boss takes you to a restaurant whose only vegetarian option is a garden salad, then she's totally trolling you. edit: updating my analogy since i can't reply to your nested comment (not sure why)
curo 8y ago
a) force WeWork owners to pay for something they're morally opposed to paying for b) force staff to do what exactly? Pay for their own meat?
- temp54679680544 8y ago
  I'm pro-choice. The exact same argument is used for requiring companies and insurance plans to pay for abortion.
  - curo 8y ago
    That doesn't weaken the argument, it just calls into question the argument that employers should pay for abortions.
    - temp54679680544 8y ago
      Where does it stop? When does compensation stop being the company's money and start being the employee's property to do with as they please?
      - curo 8y ago
        It never started. The employee's wages can be used however they please.
        ravitation 8y ago
        Why are other forms of compensation (e.g. covering business expenses, or insurance) not equivalent to wages? That is his point.
        natrik 8y ago
        What if you don't consider it as compensation, but as an expense. ie. Working for X company will net me $150k in wages, however I will have to pay for my own meat meals, insurance, etc. I probably won't work here. Even though the company pays for only economy class flights and requires me to take one every 3 months.
donutte 8y ago
“Intensely terrible” is one way to phrase “illegal under the ADA”... I would assume there will be accommodations made for folks with dietary restrictions that require them to eat meat, whether that’s through a simple waiver or a massive lawsuit.
- curo 8y ago
  No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy. They don't have an obligation to reimburse, and this falls so far outside of fair employment laws. HN is going nuts on this one.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy I wouldn't be so sure. > They don't have an obligation to reimburse They don't have an obligation to hire people, either, but if hiring doesn't make reasonable accommodations for disability, it's still illegal.
  - donutte 8y ago
    Why do you say that? It’s certainly in line with the spirit of the ADA, and a cursory Google suggests that lawsuits related to dietary restrictions have been successful. For what it’s worth, I’m a vegetarian and broadly in support of this policy, assuming it can be made compliant with the law.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    Well, they don't have an obligation to reimburse, but reimbursing in a discriminatory fashion could still be legally suspect. There's a difference between not reimbursing at all and reimbursing in a way that excludes certain people. Just like that case with Uber and jackets only for male team members - nobody is required to give out free jackets, but if you only give ones to males and not females, you'll end up in trouble. If not legal one than certainly PR one.
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  It says in the article that "Individuals requiring “medical or religious” allowances are being referred to the company’s policy team to discuss options."
IneffablePigeon 8y ago
I'm also on a FODMAP diet - I've started bringing my own food in to work because I can't eat what they serve at work on this diet. I really don't see a problem. It's impossible to cater to every possible taste, allergy, intolerance and belief. It's nice to make an effort to cater for as many people as possible, but nobody's forcing anybody to eat anything here. It is possible to go meat free on the fodmap diet, by the way (although people's definitions of the diet are admittedly inconsistent, and it is tricky). To be honest, meat is one the the things I find hard to eat because it's so often cooked with garlic.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jlarocco 8y ago

I guess I missed how anybody being "forced" to do anything. Their employees are still free to buy all the meat they want.

juancn 8y ago
They're forced for example in the context of a business trip.
- jlarocco 8y ago
  No they're not. Every company has limitations and provisions on what they'll expense on business trips, and I don't see how this is any different.
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    Companies used to have one hotel room per trip limitations, too, and if the woman didn't want to stay with a man she could always pay for her own room.
    - jlarocco 8y ago
      And they also used to let everybody smoke cigarettes inside at their desks. Times change.
    - apple4ever 8y ago
      That's a really great example. I don't understand how people cannot see the implicitly force used here. In fact, its a large part of why WeWork is doing this.
  - myrandomcomment 8y ago
    Because they are saying you have to travel for work and you cannot eat anything we do not approve. How hard is it to understand that? I travel all the time for work. I cannot eat Gluten (medical reason), when I am in Japan what do you suggest I eat? There are many options that are safe for me to eat and they are all meat based. It is fine they choose not to server meat as part of what the company does as an in house offering but it is not okay for them to tell me what I can it when I am traveling on business. I do not require a drink with dinner. That’s fine, but I do require food I can digest without getting sick. This is pure bullshit over reach. The best part is everyone will just ignore it as no one turns in itemized reports on what they ordered just the CC slip. It is pure BS.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kyledrake 8y ago
Is this the same conversation we're going to have when the company says no IUD costs can come from your health insurance plan?
internet_user 8y ago
and you are free to buy your own health insurance!

koala_man 8y ago

>Forcing your employees to only eat certain kinds of food is an intensely terrible thing to do. I absolutely agree. Fortunately, no one is doing that. WeWork employees can eat as much meat as they want. It's just that WeWork won't pay for it.

apple4ever 8y ago
Actually, they are doing that. Its an implicit force.
- koala_man 8y ago
  Would you also say that Apple is implicitly forcing their employees to starve because they don't serve free lunch?

downandout 8y ago

Not only is it terrible from a dietary standpoint, it reveals an intolerant workplace culture that I certainly wouldn't want any part of. Most of the world, and likely most of their employees, eat meat. It shows a serious lack of connection with the real world, and a willingness on the part of management to forcefully impose extreme views on a whim. Sounds like an unhealthy place to work, even if they all become vegetarians.

curo 8y ago
What if your company said that they are starting a program to reimburse solar panel installation, but that program doesn't cover reimbursement for gas. Would your argument be that most of the world consumes gas, so they're "forcefully impose extreme views on a whim."
- downandout 8y ago
  This is a false equivalence. It is apparently a matter of custom at WeWork for at least some employee meals to be paid for by the company. To dictate what employees may order in those situations is unconscionable. Imagine your manager takes the team out for a working lunch, and you basically can’t order anything except for a garden salad from the menu. You have to be at the lunch, but you cannot order like a normal person. That’s wrong.
  - natrik 8y ago
    You can eat whatever you want, WeWork simply won't reimburse you if it is meat. Once again to reiterate, they are not limiting your choice, they are limiting what they will reimburse.
  - curo 8y ago
    Alright, you call false equivalence, I call petty fogging if you need your analogies to be perfect. So to make it a proper example: what if your employer had a job benefit to reimburse gas & electric car expenses to visit clients, and then later decided to stop reimbursing gas. Also, considering WeWork is taking this stance, if a WeWork boss takes you to a restaurant whose only vegetarian option is a garden salad, then she's totally trolling you. edit: updating my analogy since i can't reply to your nested comment (not sure why)

curo 8y ago

a) force WeWork owners to pay for something they're morally opposed to paying for b) force staff to do what exactly? Pay for their own meat?

temp54679680544 8y ago
I'm pro-choice. The exact same argument is used for requiring companies and insurance plans to pay for abortion.
- curo 8y ago
  That doesn't weaken the argument, it just calls into question the argument that employers should pay for abortions.
  - temp54679680544 8y ago
    Where does it stop? When does compensation stop being the company's money and start being the employee's property to do with as they please?
    - curo 8y ago
      It never started. The employee's wages can be used however they please.
      - ravitation 8y ago
        Why are other forms of compensation (e.g. covering business expenses, or insurance) not equivalent to wages? That is his point.
        natrik 8y ago
        What if you don't consider it as compensation, but as an expense. ie. Working for X company will net me $150k in wages, however I will have to pay for my own meat meals, insurance, etc. I probably won't work here. Even though the company pays for only economy class flights and requires me to take one every 3 months.

donutte 8y ago

“Intensely terrible” is one way to phrase “illegal under the ADA”... I would assume there will be accommodations made for folks with dietary restrictions that require them to eat meat, whether that’s through a simple waiver or a massive lawsuit.

curo 8y ago
No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy. They don't have an obligation to reimburse, and this falls so far outside of fair employment laws. HN is going nuts on this one.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy I wouldn't be so sure. > They don't have an obligation to reimburse They don't have an obligation to hire people, either, but if hiring doesn't make reasonable accommodations for disability, it's still illegal.
- donutte 8y ago
  Why do you say that? It’s certainly in line with the spirit of the ADA, and a cursory Google suggests that lawsuits related to dietary restrictions have been successful. For what it’s worth, I’m a vegetarian and broadly in support of this policy, assuming it can be made compliant with the law.
- smsm42 8y ago
  Well, they don't have an obligation to reimburse, but reimbursing in a discriminatory fashion could still be legally suspect. There's a difference between not reimbursing at all and reimbursing in a way that excludes certain people. Just like that case with Uber and jackets only for male team members - nobody is required to give out free jackets, but if you only give ones to males and not females, you'll end up in trouble. If not legal one than certainly PR one.
brianpgordon 8y ago
It says in the article that "Individuals requiring “medical or religious” allowances are being referred to the company’s policy team to discuss options."

IneffablePigeon 8y ago

I'm also on a FODMAP diet - I've started bringing my own food in to work because I can't eat what they serve at work on this diet. I really don't see a problem. It's impossible to cater to every possible taste, allergy, intolerance and belief. It's nice to make an effort to cater for as many people as possible, but nobody's forcing anybody to eat anything here. It is possible to go meat free on the fodmap diet, by the way (although people's definitions of the diet are admittedly inconsistent, and it is tricky). To be honest, meat is one the the things I find hard to eat because it's so often cooked with garlic.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]