Igloo Won't Pay For Your Meat Expenses

[the_bloke]

On 26/02/2020 at 13:54, makapaka said:

Yes I incur expenses every day.

 

ive worked away permanently and semi permanently and only worked in my home town for small periods in my entire working life.

So imagine the hypothetical situation of you working for a company that won't pay expenses for tea and coffee.

 

As you say, there are alternative options. How long before you start thinking it's an unfair policy?

[Robin-H]

16 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

So imagine the hypothetical situation of you working for a company that won't pay expenses for tea and coffee.

 

As you say, there are alternative options. How long before you start thinking it's an unfair policy?

If there was good evidence that our consumption of tea and coffee was unsustainable and damaging the planet, and that the alternatives the company was still offering to pay expenses for was as widely available and better for the planet, then I personally would absolutely fine with that. I can't speak for makapaka but I would imagine they would feel the same. 

 

As it happens, the single biggest thing a person can do to reduce their impact on the planet is reducing consumption of meat and diary. 

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Robin-H said:

If there was good evidence that our consumption of tea and coffee was unsustainable and damaging the planet, and that the alternatives the company was still offering to pay expenses for was as widely available and better for the planet, then I personally would absolutely fine with that. I can't speak for makapaka but I would imagine they would feel the same. 

 

As it happens, the single biggest thing a person can do to reduce their impact on the planet is reducing consumption of meat and diary. 

I agree with Robin.

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

As it happens, the single biggest thing a person can do to reduce their impact on the planet is reducing consumption of meat and diary. 

No actually, the single biggest thing a person can do to reduce their impact on the planet is to keep their legs shut.  

 

Strangely that is an issue which all the ecomentalists and do gooders swerve to avoid.   Perhaps if Mr and Mrs Thunburg really wanted to stop climate change they should have used a condom instead of sending their sniveling little brat around the world preaching to us about how to live our lives.

 

The entire stock of McDonalds dead cow wouldn't cause a fraction of the damage that overpopulation will.   "....'How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood'...."   they scream.    Yeah, perhaps shouldnt have had them in the first place.

 

So do forgive me if I have the gall to tuck into my meat pie or enjoy a nice chicken sandwich whilst Sharon parades her newborn around the office during her maternity leave.  

 

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[hauxwell]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

No actually, the single biggest thing a person can do to reduce their impact on the planet is to keep their legs shut.  

 

Strangely that is an issue which all the ecomentalists and do gooders swerve to avoid.   Perhaps if Mr and Mrs Thunburg really wanted to stop climate change they should have used a condom instead of sending their sniveling little brat around the world preaching to us about how to live our lives.

 

The entire stock of McDonalds dead cow wouldn't cause a fraction of the damage that overpopulation will.   "....'How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood'...."   they scream.    Yeah, perhaps shouldnt have had them in the first place.

 

So do forgive me if I have the gall to tuck into my meat pie or enjoy a nice chicken sandwich whilst Sharon parades her newborn around the office during her maternity leave.  

 

 

I agree with you on this. It’s time to educate  people to stop having large families to save the planet.  

Edited February 29, 2020 by hauxwell

[the_bloke]

4 hours ago, Robin-H said:

If there was good evidence that our consumption of tea and coffee was unsustainable and damaging the planet, and that the alternatives the company was still offering to pay expenses for was as widely available and better for the planet, then I personally would absolutely fine with that. I can't speak for makapaka but I would imagine they would feel the same. 

 

As it happens, the single biggest thing a person can do to reduce their impact on the planet is reducing consumption of meat and diary. 

I didn't say anything about the impact of it on the planet. I asked if you would feel it unfair even though alternatives exist.

 

However, take this into consideration;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/04/green-coffee

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-much-is-your-cup-of-tea-costing-the-environment_uk_5bbb343de4b01470d0531089

 

Both tea and coffee have massive environmental and human rights impacts, not that it's behind my question.

Edited February 29, 2020 by the_bloke

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

No actually, the single biggest thing a person can do to reduce their impact on the planet is to keep their legs shut.  

 

Strangely that is an issue which all the ecomentalists and do gooders swerve to avoid.   Perhaps if Mr and Mrs Thunburg really wanted to stop climate change they should have used a condom instead of sending their sniveling little brat around the world preaching to us about how to live our lives.

 

The entire stock of McDonalds dead cow wouldn't cause a fraction of the damage that overpopulation will.   "....'How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood'...."   they scream.    Yeah, perhaps shouldnt have had them in the first place.

 

So do forgive me if I have the gall to tuck into my meat pie or enjoy a nice chicken sandwich whilst Sharon parades her newborn around the office during her maternity leave.  

 

 

Sharon shouldn’t have had a child - so you can eat a meat pie on company expenses. 

 

oh and Greta Thunberg should never have been born and is a snivelling brat.

 

Wow - what a strange way to think.

[Robin-H]

6 hours ago, the_bloke said:

I didn't say anything about the impact of it on the planet. I asked if you would feel it unfair even though alternatives exist.

 

However, take this into consideration;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/04/green-coffee

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-much-is-your-cup-of-tea-costing-the-environment_uk_5bbb343de4b01470d0531089

 

Both tea and coffee have massive environmental and human rights impacts, not that it's behind my question.

Then I don’t understand your question. The whole point of Igloo’s stance is down to the impact on the planet..that’s why they’re doing it. 

[the_bloke]

19 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Then I don’t understand your question. The whole point of Igloo’s stance is down to the impact on the planet..that’s why they’re doing it. 

I take their reasoning with a pinch of salt, maybe I'm just a cynic. The fact the person at Igloo who claims credit for the idea also claims to only eat meat once every ten days suggests a bit of an 'I'm alright Jack' in regards to her fellow coworkers and a way to push an ethical as well as an environmental agenda. We shall never know.

 

So okay, no tea or coffee because the company doesn't like the environmental impact on the planet. (There is plenty of data showing how damaging coffee is especially). Same reasons as Igloo. How would you feel about that?

[rachelmum]

On 28/02/2020 at 09:31, 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?

 

 

Why not if it actually means so very much to Igloo  and it isn't just to get people talking about it. Which we all have been so they seem to have won that one 🙄