Jump to content

Property firm BANS staff from claiming expenses for meals that contain MEAT


boro_boy

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

Fuck sake, the world is a weird place!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8016493/Property-firm-BANS-staff-claiming-expenses-meals-contain-MEAT.html#comments

How is this not be discrimination? Imagine the outcry if people could only claim meals which included meat. 

The place only has 30 staff, hopefully they go under!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, boro_boy said:

Fuck sake, the world is a weird place!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8016493/Property-firm-BANS-staff-claiming-expenses-meals-contain-MEAT.html#comments

How is this not be discrimination? Imagine the outcry if people could only claim meals which included meat. 

The place only has 30 staff, hopefully they go under!

And then 30 people would be out of work! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boro_boy said:

Fuck sake, the world is a weird place!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8016493/Property-firm-BANS-staff-claiming-expenses-meals-contain-MEAT.html#comments

How is this not be discrimination? Imagine the outcry if people could only claim meals which included meat. 

The place only has 30 staff, hopefully they go under!

The company (going by its comments) are basically LYING CUNTS.....what they are doing is astranomic discrimination & if NOT challenged by workers or any union that they may be affiliated to will be a serious affront to impartiality/unlawful ethics in the working environment. In short this is a fucking disgrace. YOU CANNOT force people to eat what YOU want

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, boro_boy said:

I don't really care ??

That's not fair mate....you cannot just throw the employees to the side. Irrespective of how they feel that will probably be their only source of income into the family home mate. If they want to challenge the fucked off decision about meals then good on them but you cannot say you don't care about these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Harold said:

That's not fair mate....you cannot just throw the employees to the side. Irrespective of how they feel that will probably be their only source of income into the family home mate. If they want to challenge the fucked off decision about meals then good on them but you cannot say you don't care about these people.

I think what he was meaning Harold is that he doesn't really care about the firm going bust, even if sadly it would lead to 30 people losing a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
13 minutes ago, Harold said:

That's not fair mate....you cannot just throw the employees to the side. Irrespective of how they feel that will probably be their only source of income into the family home mate. If they want to challenge the fucked off decision about meals then good on them but you cannot say you don't care about these people.

 

3 minutes ago, sployal said:

I think what he was meaning Harold is that he doesn't really care about the firm going bust, even if sadly it would lead to 30 people losing a job

Yeah the people who lose their jobs would no doubt find other jobs asap there are loads of jobs constantly being advertised. ??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, boro_boy said:

If it only takes the loss of 30 people to put a strong message about that you can't force vegetarianism on anyone in your work place. I think that's a not that bad. 

Tell that to the families that the financial hardship would hurt.

No one needs to lose their job, it just needs common sense negotiation to take place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr Magnificent said:

Poor attitude.

They need to work towards a compromise instead of 30 people losing their livelihood.

Don't agree with you mate, i finally clicked on the link and read the article, it's a company imposed rule surely against the law and certainly human rights.

If the employees have signed a contract agreeing to this then OK, if not then it's a case for the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
2 minutes ago, sployal said:

Don't agree with you mate, i finally clicked on the link and read the article, it's a company imposed rule surely against the law and certainly human rights.

If the employees have signed a contract agreeing to this then OK, if not then it's a case for the courts.

I think they voted for it but with a few objections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
5 minutes ago, Mr Magnificent said:

Tell that to the families that the financial hardship would hurt.

No one needs to lose their job, it just needs common sense negotiation to take place. 

Nah I don't have to tell anyone haha. People lose jobs everyday so it's not the end of the world. People should save at least 3 months wage so if they lose their jobs they have the money their until they find a new job. ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, boro_boy said:

Nah I don't have to tell anyone haha. People lose jobs everyday so it's not the end of the world. People should save at least 3 months wage so if they lose their jobs they have the money their until they find a new job. ??

I don't think you live in the real world sometimes. 

Many people don't earn enough money to do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Statistics

    6.9k
    Total Topics
    175.7k
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    819
    Total Members
    3,654
    Most Online
    shiva1993
    Newest Member
    shiva1993
    Joined
  • New users  2 New users online in the last 24 hours

×
×
  • Create New...