SERIOUSLY???

[Island]

I disagree, alcohol impares judgment and shouldn't be consumed at work.

Reddick is free to, and right to prompt discussion.
I think it sets a worrying principle and w should be concerned about Descrimination in the work place.

Veganism has recently been recognised as a "protected philosophical belief" by an employment Tribunal. And as such is protected under the equality act. Which is all well and good.

However, this firm have gone a big leap further.
Yes the staff were consulted, yes they had a vote. But it was not it was not unanimous vote of agreement. And even if it was unanimous now, what about new recruits ? Would it become parts of the Employee Hand book?

So it seems to me that this firm is forcing it's none Vegan staff to participate in Veganism, (A protected philosophical belief) ,or be financially penalised.
And to highlight my poiint, can you imagine the fuss if a company (which was predominantly one religion) voted to restrict expenses to Halal, or Kosher food, or banned both?

It is descrimination in the work place. Clear and simple. I hope someone challenges it under the Equality Act because it discriminates against the freedom of choice for those who are not Vegan.

M.

^^^ This.

Any current non-Vegan staff members would, I should imagine, stand a very good chance of having that decision overturned on the basis of discrimination should they choose to take action on it.

All in all it is a non-entity of a story, to my mind little more than a publicity stunt by the company concerned, and one that appears to have worked...

Ignore them and they will go away.

 

[Rake Aboot]

I disagree, alcohol impares judgment and shouldn't be consumed at work.

Reddick is free to, and right to prompt discussion.
I think it sets a worrying principle and w should be concerned about Descrimination in the work place.

Veganism has recently been recognised as a "protected philosophical belief" by an employment Tribunal. And as such is protected under the equality act. Which is all well and good.

However, this firm have gone a big leap further.
Yes the staff were consulted, yes they had a vote. But it was not it was not unanimous vote of agreement. And even if it was unanimous now, what about new recruits ? Would it become parts of the Employee Hand book?

So it seems to me that this firm is forcing it's none Vegan staff to participate in Veganism, (A protected philosophical belief) ,or be financially penalised.
And to highlight my poiint, can you imagine the fuss if a company (which was predominantly one religion) voted to restrict expenses to Halal, or Kosher food, or banned both?

It is descrimination in the work place. Clear and simple. I hope someone challenges it under the Equality Act because it discriminates against the freedom of choice for those who are not Vegan.

M.

Apart from the fact that this is not solely for during work time, it is expenses claims. So the same as alcohol.

And no one is being forced to not eat meat, you're simply making that up. They just cannot claim meat on expenses. If they want to eat meat they are free to do so , just out of their own pocket.

So not discrimination at all then.

 

[Miki]

Don't riddickule the poor chap.

I know, tch, it sounds so riddickuless ..... apparently everything's going up in Woodsmoke these daze

 

[Dunwaters]

Sorry to go off on a tangent here and this is not meant to be crude but something just entered my head, and yes this is a serious question. Are vegans allowed to do oral sex?

Not right through the month.

 

[Rake Aboot]

^^^ This.

Any current non-Vegan staff members would, I should imagine, stand a very good chance of having that decision overturned on the basis of discrimination should they choose to take action on it.

All in all it is a non-entity of a story, to my mind little more than a publicity stunt by the company concerned, and one that appears to have worked...

Ignore them and they will go away.

The staff voted for it.

 

[Sampo]

Looks like the public did give them a nice smack up their lousy bottom. If they push ahead with it, anyone intelligent or has any sense of integrity will leave the company, leaving the looney toons working for them with the company folding pretty soon. Imagine how much noise the fake meat loonies would have made if it was the other way round where a company pushes a policy where all veggie/ tasteless meals cannot be included in expenses?

Anyone interested in starting a religion which mandates eating meat and we can on religious grounds/ beliefs oppose such idiocracy from the loonies?

 

[MAH]

If they want to eat meat they are free to do so , just out of their own pocket.

Your reply above descrides discrimination perfectly. E.g If you follow the philosophical believe, you can claim the expense. If you don't you can't, and will therefor be financially worst off because you don't participate in our philosophical believe. That's descrimination based on a philosophical believe.

Try telling someone you can't claim a legitimate food expense when away on business, if it was Kosher, or Halal.
You'd be dragged into court in a flash, and rightly so.
This is no different.
M.

 

[MAH]

The staff voted for it.

So if the staff vote in favour of descrimination based on race, would that be ok?
Obviously not.
This is no different.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Your reply above descrides discrimination perfectly. E.g If you follow the philosophical believe, you can claim the expense. If you don't you can't, and will therefor be financially worst off because you don't participate in our philosophical believe. That's descrimination based on a philosophical believe.

Try telling someone you can't claim a legitimate food expense when away on business, if it was Kosher, or Halal.
You'd be dragged into court in a flash, and rightly so.
This is no different.
M.

Yes, it is. And the staff voted for it (again)

This is like claiming you are discriminated against because you like to drink but you're not allowed alcohol.

Have I mentioned the staff voted for it.?

Nothing to see here. (except people being professionally offended on anybody else's behalf )

 

[Rake Aboot]

So if the staff vote in favour of descrimination based on race, would that be ok?

You think that race equates to choice in foodstuff. ?

Awesome.

 

[MAH]

This is like claiming you are discriminated against because you like to drink but you're not allowed alcohol.

Clearly, alcohol is quite different, given the HSE implications. A bit like a smoking ban in the work place, it applies to everyone, so no descrimination.
Would you be happy if a firm excluded vegetarian meals from expence claims?
M.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Clearly, alcohol is quite different, given the HSE implications. A bit like a smoking ban in the work place, it applies to everyone, so no descrimination.
Would you be happy if a firm excluded vegetarian meals from expence claims?
M.

Not really. My company allows you to claim alcohol on expenses, so not like the smoking ban at all then.

I really don't want to repeat it again, but you know,, the staff and all that voting stuff right ?

 

[Island]

Yes, it is. And the staff voted for it (again)

This is like claiming you are discriminated against because you like to drink but you're not allowed alcohol.

Have I mentioned the staff voted for it.?

Nothing to see here. (except people being professionally offended on anybody else's behalf )

Nothing remotely like not allowing alcohol in the slightest. Alcohol is not allowed because of the effects that it will have on any staff working, with the associated H&S / loss of productivity burden that consumption of alcohol will bring. It is, to be quite blunt, a safety issue first and foremost. Any attempted comparison between them is simply absurd.

A more reasonable comparison would be a company saying that you could expense a can of Cola, but not a can of Pepsi, based on the Board of Directors preferring the red brand. It is absurd.

I find it telling that the company states that the policy will remain under review by their "Values Team", perhaps because they know that any challenge to such a policy will almost certainly succeed. They are in effect saying that they will provide expenses for those employees who follow their beliefs, but not for those that do not. By definition this is discrimination. A discrimination founded on no scientific or safety or productivity related basis but rather a belief system.

We are at least in agreement with your "nothing to see here" statement. As I mentioned previously it is a publicity stunt, something to garner them some column inches. Something that has worked admirably. As for being offended? Not in the slightest. I really could not give a tinkers cuss to be honest....

 

[dartmoordog]

Apart from the fact that this is not solely for during work time, it is expenses claims. So the same as alcohol.

And no one is being forced to not eat meat, you're simply making that up. They just cannot claim meat on expenses. If they want to eat meat they are free to do so , just out of their own pocket.

So not discrimination at all then.

How on earth do you work that out as not being discriminatory.........Very strange thought process!

 

[Apthorpe]

Not really. My company allows you to claim alcohol on expenses, so not like the smoking ban at all then.

I really don't want to repeat it again, but you know,, the staff and all that voting stuff right ?

That "voting stuff" doesn't make something wrong right. Some of the employees voted against the policy.
Not that long ago, you'd have been able to find any number of companies where the staff were prepared to vote against employing gays, black people, foreigners, the Welsh or Scots.
It's blatant discrimination and it's equally blatantly wrong.

 

[User00025]

Now don't you get upset Riddick my old love.
Take no notice of these nasty closet people, and no you can't terminate them, that's naughty. Don't you worry all the good lads love "Riddick's Tales from the Tree House".

 

[reloader54]

Now don't you get upset Riddick my old love.
Take no notice of these nasty closet people, and no you can't terminate them, that's naughty. Don't you worry all the good lads love "Riddick's Tales from the Tree House".

nothing here gonna keep me awake at night my friend, and don't you worry, not going rogue,

"Are you sitting comfortably"

 

[Woodsmoke]

everything's going up in Woodsmoke these daze

Bugger-all is going up me. You can knock that rumour on the head right now!

 

[MAH]

My company allows you to claim alcohol on expenses

Ok, then I assume everyone can claim then.
Or, let me be devils advocate, is there some descrimination between let's say larger, which can be claimed; and may be prosecco, which can't be claimed because someone perceived as a girls drink.
M.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Ok, then I assume everyone can claim then.
Or, is there some descrimination between let's say larger, which can be claimed and may be prosecco, which can't be claimed because it's perceived as a girls drink.
M.

I'll assume from that , that you have been drinking