Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakebasile | Hacker News Reader

Say I work for WeWork and travel for work. I have a limited palate and like almost nothing that could be considered vegetarian and even less that would be vegan. I am now required to pay out of pocket for all my meals, when normally I could choose to eat at home, which is not possible thanks to my job requiring me to travel. Depending on the area I'm travelling to this could be a large expense that under normal conditions the company would cover, but because of the politics of the founders it isn't.

The arguments I've heard usually talk about how companies often don't pay for alcohol (which I think is also ridiculous, if I'm travelling for work I will be stressed and could use a nice drink to relax after the day). The flaw is firstly that food is required to live, and also just because some company doesn't have to provide for $ITEM doesn't mean it's not a nice thing to do for your employees.

View on HN

Okay, but that didn't convince me much personally. I think its absolutely in the company's liberty to cover the costs of the things they want to cover - as is the case with all benefits (other than gov mandated ones). They are just perks after all.

That's not at issue. It's of course their right. It's also my right to say it's a mean spirited and heavy handed overreach into employees personal lives.

Disagree. I don't think of covering my expenses when traveling as a "perk". I consider it part of the minimum standard of fair dealing.

And, for those who don't see a problem with this, do you see a problem if some other company specifically won't reimburse for Mexican restaurants?

I see your point - I think a lot of things today boil down to: a substantial number of people, and in this case science too, has agreed that one action is "good" for the planet. However, not everyone agrees - some people feel that all actions should be seen equally.

What I'm trying to say is that many would agree We Work are trying to do something good for the planet here. Another group of people don't see it that way.

Me personally - I would say in this instance the company should have liberty to exercise their own preference (incl Mexican restaurants). If it is ridiculous to their employees, they will quit. I believe in this case they have a substantial number of employees who don't mind or understand their reasoning.

Either way, I don't find it a human rights violation or anything.

If you are a picky eater and choosing between starving or paying for your own meal I think it's a safe bet which you would choose.

Try and flip your example around - say you were vegan and had to travel for work to a small town without any vegan options. Would you expect that your company would ship you food to fill the gap or would you just buy some groceries yourself and figure it out?

The "flipped" situation isn't the same, but just like in my example no I wouldn't starve, I'd find a way since I'm an adult capable of providing for myself.

That doesn't mean it is a nice thing to do to your employees. "You won't starve" isn't an excuse for the company's bad behavior.

I mostly agree with your sentiment - my example wasn't a very good one.

But I disagree that the opposite of not doing 'nice things' for your employees is 'bad behavior'. There's a middle ground where the company is neither bad nor good just average.

Not paying for my alcohol isn't "ridiculous". Everyone unwinds in different ways - I wouldn't expect bike rentals, a massage, or a ticket to the movies to be part of my reimbursement.

I'm glad you have high standards for how your employers treat you - I think everyone should. I just think we take for granted how fortunate most of us are with regards to our jobs and careers compared to most workers and it puts us in a bit of a bubble.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com