Igloo Won't Pay For Your Meat Expenses

[Robin-H]

19 minutes ago, rachelmum said:

I think people need to eat alot less meat to sustain them than vegetables,  berries, fruit. Look back in history humans have always ate meat and always will. There is a thriving need for all aspects of food buying. In a world where there has never been so much diversity in race,  sexual orientation, where especially in citieslike Sheffield range of food choices from around the world. It just seems so narrow minded to dictate food choices 🙄

All they are saying is that they won't pay for your choice to eat meat. You can still eat as much meat as you want. 

 

Eating meat should be seen as a luxury if we have any hope of creating a more equal and sustainable planet (until lab grown meat can be produced cheaply and sustainably). By saying they won't pay for meat expenses Igloo are saying they view meat as a luxury, which I believe has to be the direction of travel. It's the same as a company saying they'll pay for your standard class rail ticket but if you want to travel first class you can pay for it yourself. 

 

If you have a suggestion how the entire planet could sustainably eat the amount of meat the UK eats per capita then I would be interested to hear it. 

[rachelmum]

45 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

All they are saying is that they won't pay for your choice to eat meat. You can still eat as much meat as you want. 

 

Eating meat should be seen as a luxury if we have any hope of creating a more equal and sustainable planet (until lab grown meat can be produced cheaply and sustainably). By saying they won't pay for meat expenses Igloo are saying they view meat as a luxury, which I believe has to be the direction of travel. It's the same as a company saying they'll pay for your standard class rail ticket but if you want to travel first class you can pay for it yourself. 

 

If you have a suggestion how the entire planet could sustainably eat the amount of meat the UK eats per capita then I would be interested to hear it. 

Not everyone chooses to eat meat and for those who do I don't see any shortage to buy and with the likes of Aldi at a very affordable price. Surely it's supply and demand. If there was no meat to buy or it was at a premium price I would have more meat free days. Currently meat is available, affordable  and I eat it most days by choice both while at work and away from work. It that changes in the future I could live without it. 

[Robin-H]

8 minutes ago, rachelmum said:

Not everyone chooses to eat meat and for those who do I don't see any shortage to buy and with the likes of Aldi at a very affordable price. Surely it's supply and demand. If there was no meat to buy or it was at a premium price I would have more meat free days. Currently meat is available, affordable  and I eat it most days by choice both while at work and away from work. It that changes in the future I could live without it. 

There isn't a shortage, but the impact on the planet is undeniable, which is the problem. It is also undeniable that the planet could not sustain the UK's meat consumption globally. 

 

I find the attitude that we have some god given right to eat as much meat as we want and heaven forbid our employer requests we pay for our choice to do so quite bizarre. Who cares that our desire for meat is damaging the planet, the results of which most negatively impacting the poorest people on the planet. Who cares that those people could only dream of having access to the goods and food we somehow think we have an unquestionable entitlement too... 

[Guest makapaka]

44 minutes ago, rachelmum said:

Not everyone chooses to eat meat and for those who do I don't see any shortage to buy and with the likes of Aldi at a very affordable price. Surely it's supply and demand. If there was no meat to buy or it was at a premium price I would have more meat free days. Currently meat is available, affordable  and I eat it most days by choice both while at work and away from work. It that changes in the future I could live without it. 

I think you’re missing the point - they’re not doing it just to save money or annoy meat eaters;

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

i eat meat - i don’t eat as much now because my partner is a vegetarian. I don’t have a problem with trying to reduce it and think initiatives to encourage reducing it should be applauded.

[rachelmum]

20 hours ago, enntee said:

What about reimbursing all food expenses as normal, but offering a financial bonus to those eating only vegetarian?

Putting their money where their mouth is!

That sounds a good  idea. Then they're not penalising meat eating staff just rewarding staff for making vegetarian  choices win win. 

[Guest makapaka]

11 hours ago, rachelmum said:

That sounds a good  idea. Then they're not penalising meat eating staff just rewarding staff for making vegetarian  choices win win. 

You expect a business to reimburse for food and then provide an additional financial bonus based on the persons food choice.

 

why would a business want to do that.

 

would you expect additional payment  from work over and above your holiday pay if you didn’t fly overseas and stayed in England?

 

 

[ECCOnoob]

10 hours ago, makapaka said:

You expect a business to reimburse for food and then provide an additional financial bonus based on the persons food choice.

 

why would a business want to do that.

 

would you expect additional payment  from work over and above your holiday pay if you didn’t fly overseas and stayed in England?

 

 

You can't just broadly say they are "reimbursing for food"  Thats not true is it.

 

They are only reimbursing for certain types of food which fit the personal agenda of the company's owner.  In turn they are completely unreasonably and unfairly refusing claims for those people who choose to eat other types of perfectly legal, unrestricted and acceptable food products.

 

Perhaps Mr CEO with the huge chip on his shoulder should really put his money where his mouth is.   If he wants to be seen as a great do gooder he needs to be properly paying the incentive for people not to eat meat.

 

Excluding one and favouring another simply doesn't cut it when it comes to something as basic as sustenance.  

 

[Robin-H]

13 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

You can't just broadly say they are "reimbursing for food"  Thats not true is it.

 

They are only reimbursing for certain types of food which fit the personal agenda of the company's owner.  In turn they are completely unreasonably and unfairly refusing claims for those people who choose to eat other types of perfectly legal, unrestricted and acceptable food products.

 

Perhaps Mr CEO with the huge chip on his shoulder should really put his money where his mouth is.   If he wants to be seen as a great do gooder he needs to be properly paying the incentive for people not to eat meat.

 

Excluding one and favouring another simply doesn't cut it when it comes to something as basic as sustenance.  

 

Igloo clearly understand the damage that unsustainable meat consumption has on the planet. The company voted and agreed that this measure was one small way they could help. 

 

If you don't think the typical UK consumption of meat is unsustainable then I suggest you look into it. I don't understand why a company agreeing to do one small thing for the benefit of the planet has got so many people riled up. 

[Guest makapaka]

23 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

You can't just broadly say they are "reimbursing for food"  Thats not true is it.

 

They are only reimbursing for certain types of food which fit the personal agenda of the company's owner.  In turn they are completely unreasonably and unfairly refusing claims for those people who choose to eat other types of perfectly legal, unrestricted and acceptable food products.

 

Perhaps Mr CEO with the huge chip on his shoulder should really put his money where his mouth is.   If he wants to be seen as a great do gooder he needs to be properly paying the incentive for people not to eat meat.

 

Excluding one and favouring another simply doesn't cut it when it comes to something as basic as sustenance.  

 

As noted by robin h above - you’re missing the point as to the rationale for doing this.

 

its not a personal agenda - it’s an approach to try and solve a significant global issue that affects everyone on the planet.

 

its not self serving in anyway. 
 

if you think of it from that point of view there can be no reason whatsoever to criticise their approach.

 

no one will starve.

no one will be out of pocket.

the planet (and everything in it) will benefit. 
 

What’s the problem?
 

 

[Longcol]

On 23/02/2020 at 21:01, Robin-H said:

As the video explains, Inuits managed because they ate raw meat, blubber, raw liver etc. That prevented protein poisoning due to high fat content. They did actually also eat things such as berries, seaweed, tubers so even they didn't eat meat exclusively. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine 

Quite ironic given Igloo are using the name of an Inuit dwelling.