WeWork is going vegetarian (nytimes.com)

>I think there are too many confounding factors here

care to name some?

I think one of the big factors might be, that it's more about money then the environment.

The last time I've heard about Wework is that they are still expanding and not making any profit yet.

It might be, that the funds are running dry and to cut costs, they are forcing their employees to bring in their on food on own expense.

Should have kicked off with this thought process.

Because it is delicious.

I am fully aware of this. But instead of going vegan or vegetarian we could put our meat consumption back to a sensible level, where we don't overdo it and raise and slaughter more animals that we can actually eat.

I'm not against being a vegan or vegetarian, but I am against these kind of moves.

There are million other problems that need fixing first and have a bigger impact on carbon emissions then eating meat.

Because the wild meat I eat would decimate your plants and other parts of the ecosystem if they are not quelled each season.

> If you eat meat, have you ever asked yourself why?

That is exactly the kind of question that is not your concern if we work together. It's potentially intrusive in an area of my life that does not affect the job by causing danger or a hazard in the working environment. You sure as hell don't want to be asking that of a subordinate, due to the power imbalance.

Sorry, if I offended you. I am not against vegans or vegetarians, but you never see a non-vegan one walking up to you and telling you that you are a shit person if you're not one of them.

I think veganism and vegetarianism is slowly becoming a cult.

I have vegan and vegetarian friends and I never make fun of them. I am usually curious why people chose that diet. Some do out of love for the animals, other do it because of the carbon emission and there are who just do it to try and eat healthier and such.

No problem with this. I have problem with the vegan police culture.

So I'm aggressively non-vegetarian, and my mom is aggressively vegan, even trying to raise me as such. I was curious to ask her what she thought about this, since she clearly has strong opinions on the subject. She _concurred_ that it felt very eerie for ones place of work starting to have these sorts of "opinions." While there's something of a status-quo in the US that "a professional should probably not be getting drunk on the company dime" I honestly don't perceive the same zeitgeist within vegetarianism. Simply but, my work should NOT be in the business of trying to influence my personal socio-economic choices. I realize this may not be a popular opinion nowadays, but I'd put it well under the bucket of "I don't trust them to use that power for exclusively good." (Nor do I necessarily think my and their idea of 'good' will always align; I feel similarly about the workplace health plans, while I realize the potential benefit, I'm scared about the implications of them having that purview and data)

From my standpoint as someone who has been struggling for decades to maintain a healthy bodyweight (normally very under, stress based appetite loss) and for whom meat is often one of the few things that enables this, a company saying this is very much a "You Are Not Welcome" and feels quite "aggressive" to me; it CERTAINLY feels like proselytizing.

And then on the pragmatic side, I don't think it's a lack of confronting my omnivore nature, it's that this seems like an absurd way to do so. It reminds me of the "stop showering to save california drought." There's a bit of a tragedy-of-the-commons problem with telling people Just Don't Eat Meat, and I would worry that as it does to me, it causes more people to dig their heels in further. I'm VERY WILLING to adjust my spending habits to pay for more ethically raised meat. I live in a farming community now and buy most of mine from a local farmers market. I'm VERY WILLING to see this become more expensive if we legislate effective animal treatment laws. I'm VERY WILLING to add carbon taxes and other methods to properly align externality-based-incentives. I'm NOT willing to give up one of the short list of things that brings some happiness into what is (for all humans) a very short time on this earth to make a moral point, I'd rather attack the problem from other angles.

I realize this is selfish but I'd hope it's also pragmatic enough that those on the other side realize we still have the same goal; I'm concerned that this, like many of the other "my way or the highway"-sounding stances, will serve to wedge people more than Solve The Underlying Problem.

I am angry when they tell you what you can eat. Whilst we let them be vegans, or vegetarians they don't want us to be meat eaters. That is the difference. Yes, you have meat eaters mocking vegans and vegetarians, but they still wont deny your right to be one. And this is effectively doing that.

But this whole thing is probably about forcing the employees to bring in their own food and cutting down company costs. They're still growing and don't make any huge amount of profit.

I would argue with that.

Also if you want to find the biggest carbon emitter then look no further then the oceans. We should ban them too.

Or at least that was in one study, but who knows. There are hundreds of studies nowadays on this topic.

Or, consider this, people really don't like companies imposing personal values.

Would you approve of a company denying you certain benefits for having children out of wedlock?

In my experience, most meat-eaters don't care if you're vegetarian. If you're vegetarian, it's "Oh, that's nice. Next item on the agenda?"

However, by creating a place that is definitely vegetarian, it opens up the potential for hostility toward meat-eaters, which is worrisome.

For me it's not about the vegetarian aspect per-se, but the lifestyle controlling aspect. Yes, I know it's on company time and dime - I don't care. There are dozens, or hundreds, of other companies that don't feel compelled to do this. I don't want to get preached to at a full-time job.

At the end of the article, it says their end-game is to go vegan (no fish, dairy and eggs). So even vegetarians may get second thoughts.

> All the vegetarians are now somewhat more likely to work there.

It's not debatable. What percentage of software engineers are vegetarians? 1-2%? And now they are somewhat more likely to work at WeWork. Great.

I as someone that enjoys eating meat, will never work at this company and if for some reason I had somehow ended up working there I would look for work elsewhere.

I'm not sure what applicability this link has here? It seems unrelated. What am I missing?

(genuine question, no tongues in cheeks, I don't see the connection)

Edit: Upon further thought, I think maybe you're agreeing with me and saying that Burwell vs Hobby Lobby gives precedent to WeWork being entitled to do this? Legally, maybe, but it seems specially concerned with religious affiliation, which vegatarianism isn't, so I don't think it would apply. It also presumes you agree with the Burwell vs Hobby Lobby decision; some people might not.

It's a fair comparison, but I don't think it holds water. I just think what WeWork is doing is fine because employees aren't morally entitled to free food from their employer.

> You can hear the stories about companies not hiring women when they are in a relationship and in the age when they are more likely to have kids.

That's discrimination, and is a legally prosecutable offense in many countries.

Unfortunately it still happens, but we are putting an effort in making sure it happens less and less.