Found via various back-links, this thoughtful piece. Chris McDonald poses the question in response to news that a company has instructed employees that they cannot eat meat on company premises. On the face of it, it’s a bit of a non-story. The company is not allowing meat on the menus in its restaurants. Except…
A Montreal accessories company has taken its policy of using no animal products beyond the rack and has forbidden its staff from eating meat and fish at work.
And:
Creative director Inder Bedi said the company was founded on a principle of being environmentally conscious. He said it was important to have employees embrace the lifestyle as well.
No, it isn’t. It is important that they carry out their jobs to the required standard, nothing more, nothing less. Lifestyle is a personal matter and while a particular employer my attract a similarly minded job-seeker, that cannot be guaranteed and there is no requirement for them to adopt or even approve of the company ethos – merely that they do their job.
Not only are the 18 employees barred from bringing meat in their lunches, if they dine at a restaurant with a client, they are required to order only vegetarian dishes.
Chris McDonald asks the question; is this okay? And, before jumping to conclusions, try to be logical and consistent with your answer.
Whatever your instincts about this particular case, it’s worth performing a consistency test on your own conclusion. Try this: if you’re a vegetarian or vegan, and sympathetic to the company’s no-meat policy, ask yourself whether you would reach the same conclusion if the tables were turned, and a meat-packing company required employees to eat meat and forbade vegetarianism. (“Why would a vegetarian work at a meat-packing plant?” Well, times are tough. Stranger things have happened!) If, on the other hand, you think the company in the story above is engaging in unjustifiable discrimination, ask yourself whether you would reach the same conclusion if the company was one whose product embodied some value that you hold dear — something to do with your own religious or philosophical or political beliefs. That kind of consistency test is a good way to double-check that the conclusion you reach with regard to this particular case is rooted in good reasons, or whether instead your conclusion is based on an undefended bias.
I am happy to apply Chris’ reasoning here, as I believe that my approach is entirely consistent. As an employer, I would not expect my views on such things to be extended to employees. Indeed, the only expectations would be the normal ones we take for granted – turn up at the appropriate time, be tidy, clean, polite and do the job competently. What people eat and whether they smoke for example, is something I regard as none of my business.
That said, we get into that libertarian stumbling block, property rights. After all, if it is on the company’s property, doesn’t the company get to say what goes on?
Well, yes that does seem to be the rational libertarian position. But as always, it isn’t quite that clear cut. You see, while the company owns the premises, it does not own our bodies, nor does it own our lunch boxes, nor does it have the right to instruct us what we put into our bodies, as that is a personal decision, you know; my body, my choice of poison. So, if I was entertaining a client outside the company premises, no, I would not expect the company eating policy to apply. My body, my choice of food, especially if I am paying for it. Personally, I’d do as one employee did and go off-site for my lunch.
The other issue for me is the “no animal products” rule, such as no leather. I wear leather boots, for example. I fail to see why I should buy non-leather boots merely to satisfy the whim of an employer. Normal business dress is a reasonable expectation at work, but specific materials is a step too far. Again, it is my money we are talking about, so I should be free to spend it as I see fit.
The libertarian answer, I would say, is that the company can dictate the rules.
Well, yes, the company can dictate the rules on their premises. Many had already banned smoking on the premises before the smoking ban. They didn’t tell their employees not to smoke when off-site nor did they enact a policy of testing for cotinine and refusing to employ anyone who failed the test.
That came later.
Likewise, nobody weighed their employees to ensure they were within standard tolerance ranges. Nor did they refuse to employ fat people.
That came later.
This company is telling its employees what they can wear and eat on company time. They are not refusing to employ anyone non-vegan…
This is heading to a future where only teetotal non-smoking slim vegans will be allowed any sort of employment.
Even in breweries and cigarette factories.
That may be the case, Leg-iron, but the problem from a libertarian point of view is the legislation that pushes such agendas, and the use of our money, purloined by the state to support the fake charity lobbyists, rather than the actions of private employers. The legislation violates property rights, whereas in this case the employer is enforcing their own property rights, albeit in a way which we all find odious. If we are to be consistent, we are obliged to support the employer’s right to do this. So we’re assaulted with control-freakery from two directions. Not good, I know. I guess we need to be more organised. If companies faced loss of earnings through boycotts and bad publicity, they’d not want to do such things, but in the case in point, it sounds like a bit of a kooky place anyway.
I see nothing wrong with this at all. It’s a matter of bargaining. If the company really wants to employ you, then they had better realise you want to eat meat and work something out. If you really want to be employed by the company, then you had better realise they don’t want you to eat meat during work lunches and deal with it. Or would you rather the government came and did something about it – which would surely be not in your favour?
I think the same thing would apply to a pub which allowed smoking. If you were a non-smoker and you believed that 2nd hand smoke was harmful or just didn’t like it, but you really wanted to work in that pub, well deal with it. Wear a mask or something, or if you were really amazing at bartending, the publican could create a non-smoking area near the bar if he thought that would work.
My first instinct on reading the article was; “their place their rules”. However, on further thought, I don’t accept that. The current employment situation places people in a position where they have to accept what is going – and if I was in that situation, I’d accept the job because I need an income. I do not accept that the employer has the right to dictate – at any time, in any place – what goes into my body. My body trumps their premises as far as property rights are concerned. The job market being what it is, being placed under such duress is unreasonable. Sure, given the luxury of choice, I’d tell them where they could stick their control freakery, but we don’t have that luxury and the employer is taking advantage.
@G – the problem with the bargaining argument is that we are in a situation where the balance is one-sided in favour of the employer. No, I most certainly do not want to have the politicians involved. Equally, I don’t want employers dictating to me when it is outside their remit and what goes into my body is way outside their remit.
As far as consistency is concerned, I applied the reasoning used by Chris McDonald and I am being consistent. Where there is a clash of property rights, we decide which one has priority. I would suggest that our bodies meets that test. No one but me has domain over my body.
I am also inclined to agree with LI here. The employer is merely carrying on where the legislation so far has left off. They are enabling the politicians in their next move.
Agreed, they do sound pretty kooky.
Something else worth mentioning, because it hasn’t cropped up in this discussion is the extent to which liberty reaches. That is, only so far as it does not adversely affect others.
So, the company is exercising property rights. However, given that lunch breaks are generally unpaid, it is seeking to impose its “lifestyle choice” on people in their own time and at their expense – particularly so where they insist that people do not wear leather shoes, so would have to buy that awful fake leather when they might not otherwise choose to do so. I would suggest that this meets the test of your liberty to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Hasn’t the McCartney enterprise long banned its roadies and other technicians from eating meat?
Same thing as here, and my initial thoughts are ‘their gaff, their rules, and good luck to anyone who puts up with it’. Admittedly, even they don’t seem interested in going as far as these people.
Whatever this company produces, I don’t want it, or will purchase it from a competitor instead. See how they like me exercising my ideological and ethical outlook. đ
The libertarian answer, I would say, is that the company can dictate the rules
Indeed, which is why I am not a libertarian and why I consider the libertaran commitment to liberty to be deeply inconsistent, as it takes property rights to trump all other rights. Would you also support an employer who dictated to employees that they may not drink alcohol when away from the workplace?
An interesting one Longrider. The company clearly has a right to dictate what occurs on their premises, just as anyone else has the right to take their labour or their custom elsewhere.
I have no idea what Canadian labour law says on the subject, or how it varies between the provinces.
That said, the company manufactures fashion accessories, so the eating habits and food choices of their employees would not seem to have much bearing on their ability to perform their work, or to be in any way directly related to the business objectives of the company.
And the quote mentioned was from the ‘creative director’ rather than HR, which suggests to me that the issue is more with the desired, or projected company image, that of being an ‘environmentally conscious’ company, rather than any directly job related shortcomings?
I’d also class the scientific basis for their prohibition – that eating meat damages the environment, as perhaps not the most robust of tenets on which to base employment practices.
Similarly, specifying what people may or may not do outside the immediate work environment can be problematic.
And finally, I would have to class it as retrospectively applying conditions of employment. Usually not the best of ideas in most jurisdictions.
So – possible? Definitely. Legal? Maybe. Ethical? Don’t think so. Wise? Uh uh.
“Indeed, which is why I am not a libertarian and why I consider the libertaran commitment to liberty to be deeply inconsistent”
Far from it, Stephen. What you find here, is a discussion about liberty and an attempt to be consistent, which is difficult in a un-libertarian society, which does not respect property or individual liberty, made up of petty-minded people like yourself, who expects the government to come and wipe your behind.
“property rights to trump all other rights”
What other rights are there? My body is my property. My thoughts are my property. My opinion is my property.
“Would you also support an employer who dictated to employees that they may not drink alcohol when away from the workplace?”
From what I’ve said, you’d expect me to, as this is consistent. It is also what is being discussed on the thread, but you wouldn’t understand, because you’re not a libertarian. Neither, incidently, are the employers in question. That’s the problem for us libertarians – dealing with you people who aren’t libertarians.
I’d imagine this would be illegal under UK employment legislation. Companies are not allowed to impose conditions on their employees which contravene legislation, i.e. make them work in an unhealthy environment by including a clause to that effect in their contract. If somebody gets sacked for not complying with a clause in their contract forbidding meat, it is likely that clause would be ruled illegal, probably under human rights legislation.
Far from it, Stephen. What you find here, is a discussion about liberty and an attempt to be consistent, which is difficult in a un-libertarian society, which does not respect property or individual liberty, made up of petty-minded people like yourself, who expects the government to come and wipe your behind
Absurd exaggeration noted about this society not respecting property rights. I can point you to ledgers of law which codify property rights. Of course what you actually mean is that property rights are not absolute. Welcome to the real world. No society that has ever existed or shall ever exist would permit property rights divorced from obligations. Except a libertarian society, which will never exist except in the imaginations of libertarians. If objecting to an employer who seeks to control what his employees may feed themslves is petty minded, then so be it. Like Humpty Dumpty, you are free to use words with whatever meaning you choose, just don’t expect anyone else to take any notice of you.
âproperty rights to trump all other rightsâ
What other rights are there?
Libertarianism in a nutshell. Only property owners have rights. No wonder people refer to you as libertories.
âWould you also support an employer who dictated to employees that they may not drink alcohol when away from the workplace?â
From what Iâve said, youâd expect me to, as this is consistent
So much for your concerns for ‘liberty’ when you assert the absolute right of an employer to dictate to an employee what he may do in his off-hours.
It is also what is being discussed on the thread, but you wouldnât understand, because youâre not a libertarian
True, I don’t suffer from that intellectual disadvantage.
Neither, incidently, are the employers in question. Thatâs the problem for us libertarians â dealing with you people who arenât libertarians
Actually I’d say the Libertarian’s problem is appearing as a utopian crank.
Iâd imagine this would be illegal under UK employment legislation
Indeed. I think it would also convene the right to a privacy under the ECHR.
Stephen,
I asked “What other rights are there?”
“Libertarianism in a nutshell. Only property owners have rights. No wonder people refer to you as libertories. ”
You don’t answer the question. If you read the sentence that follows the question, I make it clear that property rights for a libertarian include many things that others specify separately.
“True, I donât suffer from that intellectual disadvantage [of being a libertarian]”
Then why are you taking part in a discussion on a libertarian blog? Especially as you have nothing but contempt for libertarianism?
We both probably dislike what the employer has done, but that is not the issue, it is whether the employer has a right make such specifications to its employees. If you don’t think they have, on what basis are you making the argument? You mention above a right to privacy under the ECHR. Do you think such a right has nothing to do with property? I remind you that to a libertarian, everyone is a property owner, they own their own body first and foremost. As others have pointed out, the employer’s action may infringe the (property) rights of the employees.
Whether you chose to understand it, the libertarian basis of freedom is founded on property, and I reiterate the first and foremost property a man has is his body. This is as rational a basis that we have. What, then, would you prefer as a basis? I can work with Natural Rights, endowed by our Creator, but this isn’t a rational basis.
Their gaff, their rules.
Personally, I wouldn’t work for them, but if other people are willing to do so, it’s none of my (or your) business.
This is outrageous, and I’m a vegetarian. These people are just fascists.
A couple of points. Andrew, I don’t accept the “their gaff, their rules” argument for the reasons stated. If this is the only job offer on the table, the prospective employee is being coerced into accepting the company’s lifestyle choices. we are not in a candidate driven employment market. If it was me, I’d accept the job and then break the rule as my property rights over my body (and lunch box) trumps the employer’s property rights over their premises. They employ me, the do not own me.
Stephen, of course there are conflicting property rights – hence the post. However, you asked this question which does beg a reply (not least because it appears to pose an inconsistency in my position):
Yes, absolutely. Okay, I’ll expand – there are circumstances when it is acceptable. In the rail industry, there is a strict no alcohol and no drugs rule. This is a safety critical industry and mind altering substances place other employees and the general public at risk. Hence the rule – along with a regime of random testing. This means, in effect, you cannot drink for a minimum of eight hours prior to booking on duty – and cannot take illegal narcotics at any time as they remain in the system for much longer. I accept this as reasonable as there is a clear business and safety reason for doing so. In the case of the Montreal handbag company, there is not.
No, it isnât. It is important that they carry out their jobs to the required standard, nothing more, nothing less. Lifestyle is a personal matter and while a particular employer my attract a similarly minded job-seeker, that cannot be guaranteed and there is no requirement for them to adopt or even approve of the company ethos â merely that they do their job.
Precisely, LR.
OFF their premises, they have no rights at all, so stuff the control-freaks.
I suspect this won’t last, as they might find it difficult to get enough people to follow their stupid restrictions.
Anyway, haven’t these wankers (the employers) looked at their teeth in a mirror?
Humans are omnivores, anyway.
1. This employer will be punished in the market place for letting irrelevancies get in the way of hiring and keeping the best staff.
2. Offering you a job with strings attached is not coercion. It gives you an option you would not otherwise have. If you decide to take it, that is your decision. [You may perhaps regret that you don’t have better offers right now, and can’t afford to wait for them to appear].
3. As to the entertaining clients at lunch, normally the employer pays so they are entitled to set the rules, no matter how daft.
Robbo – point number 1, agreed. Point number 2 – in a candidate led market, yes. However, when you are faced with a choice of that or nothing, it is coercion. Point number 3 – my body, my rules, not theirs.