signs of the times

Here's a snapshot of where we are. I picked a news story from a few weeks back, from the New York Times.

I'll start off with the actual facts of the story, which the Times does get to:

The company will no longer serve red meat, pork or poultry at company functions, and it will not reimburse employees who want to order a hamburger during a lunch meeting.

Now keep that in mind as you read the headline, and the article.

MEMO FROM THE BOSS: YOU'RE A VEGETARIAN NOW

Clickbait. Right? The company in no way is declaring that its employees are to be vegetarians. They're just saying the company won't pay for meat. But millions of people will see this headline and assume it means what it says. Guaranteed to raise ire about power-hungry political correctness. Except that's not what's happening.

These days we might say, "Hey, lazybones! Read the actual article before making up your mind!" Wrong. This is a swerve from journalistic standards, in which a person should be able to read *just* the headline. By reading it you should get an accurate picture. Then you might decide to read the rest — to fill in details, not to correct the deceptive headline.

Now for the article.

WeWork is no longer a safe space for carnivores.

In too many newspaper articles today, you can completely cross out the opening short paragraph. It's a pox on the land. Apparently the theatrical temptations are just too strong. This one isn't just unnecessary, though. It's wrong. WeWork is a perfectly safe space for carnivores.

Earlier this month, the co-working juggernaut announced that it was essentially going vegetarian.

Not *quite* right, but it could be excused as colorful, as long as there's an explanation, which there is.

The company will no longer serve red meat, pork or poultry at company functions, and it will not reimburse employees who want to order a hamburger during a lunch meeting.
In a memo to employees announcing the new policy, Miguel McKelvey, WeWork's co-founder and chief culture officer, said the decision was driven largely by concerns for the environment, and, to a lesser extent, animal welfare.
"New research indicates that avoiding meat is one of the biggest things an individual can do to reduce their personal environmental impact — even more than switching to a hybrid car," he wrote. Additionally, WeWork could save "over 15 million animals by 2023 by eliminating meat at our events."
Mr. McKelvey, in his first interview since the decision was announced, said the policy was also aimed at raising consciousness among the company's nearly 6,000 employees.
"It's multidimensional," he said. "We're coming at it from an awareness and a mindfulness perspective. The headline has been 'meat-free,' but this is a much larger effort to develop personal accountability in our team."
WeWork's enforced vegetarianism

Beeeeeep! Try again. This isn't enforced vegetarianism. Again, it's the company just deciding not to pay for your lunch if it's meat.

WeWork's enforced vegetarianism could easily be dismissed as just another whimsical human resources directive from a high-flying technology start-up with an inflated sense of self-importance.

Again: they're not saying you have to be vegetarian. They're just trying to be more responsible, and amending an optional measure to do it.

But the move also represents a more substantial development that is reshaping workplaces around the country: In ways large and small, companies are imposing corporate values on the personal lives of their employees.

"Imposing corporate values on the personal lives of their employees?" Maybe some companies are, but this one isn't.

Hobby Lobby has refused to pay for birth control for its employees, citing the owner's Christian values. And the chief executives of companies including Koch Industries and Westgate Resorts have sent memos and informational packets to employees suggesting how they vote.

Does the writer here, David Gelles, really think that refusing to cover birth control as part of an employee insurance plan and suggesting how employees vote are comparable? And that they are equal examples of imposing corporate values on their employees' personal lives?

Other companies have tried to prevent employees from using everything from Uber to cigarettes.

Meaning that they refuse to *pay* for Uber or cigarettes at company functions?

In 2015, IBM banned employees from using ride-sharing apps, citing safety and liability concerns.

I didn't think so. IBM is an example of a company really overstepping its bounds by literally banning its employees from spending their consumer money how they wish.

That is, if Gelles can be trusted. Do we really know from reading this article that IBM's "ban" was really a ban? Or at least an attempt at one? Alas, given his track record, we can't be sure that it wasn't just a suggestion.

(Employees rebelled, and the company did a U-turn a day later.)

Aha. So that's one good sign of how a new measure is being received. So far in the article, we haven't heard of any comparable employee outrage over the measure in question.

And several big employers, including General Electric, have successfully paid employees to quit smoking. Scotts Miracle-Gro even has a policy of not hiring smokers, a move it says helps keep health care costs down.

Now *that's* interesting. I'd be interested in hearing, even briefly, about the legal implications of hiring on that basis. Nope: cul-de-sac. As for GE, that's interesting too, but hardly an example of imposing corporate values on private lives. It's likely more a matter of the bottom line than of ideology or political correctness.

In some of these cases, the values of a few executives are imposed on workers who must adhere to their employers' worldview, often relating to issues with scant connection to the business.

In which of these cases? I mean I can look at it and tell the difference, but I've been given no indication that this journalist can. For instance:

But WeWork appears to be the first big company to tell its employees what they can and can't eat.

No, WeWork doesn't appear to be that. It isn't that. It's not telling its employees what they can and can't eat. It's telling its employees what it will and will not exercise the option to pay for.

"Human beings really don't like when you take choice away from them," said Laszlo Bock, the former senior vice president of people operations at Google and the author of "Work Rules!"

No doubt the humans at WeWork would not like that either. We'll never know, though, unless WeWork introduces a new policy that takes choice away. This one doesn't.

"What people are much more amenable to is nudges," he said. "How can you change the environment that doesn't remove choice, but sends a signal for people to make a good decision?"

Hm. Let's see if we can think of something. How about this: don't remove someone's freedom of choice about what food to buy, but do a nudge by serving them veggie dishes at the annual banquet. Someone should write an article about that kind of amenable nudge.

Mr. Bock has personal experience with vegetarianism. While he was at Google, two of the many cafes at company headquarters tried out "meatless Mondays," going vegetarian for just one day a week. Employees rebelled, throwing away silverware and staging a protest barbecue.

Just like the rebellion that's brewing at WeWork, that is no doubt going to be mentioned in an upcoming paragraph? Or is Gelles going to mention the *lack* of such a rebellion? Dream on. In an article in which it would be news if there were an employee rebellion and news if there weren’t, Gelles withholds any information he may — may — have bothered to get.

Meatless Mondays didn't last at Google. But in time, the company made changes to the cafeterias — like offering smaller plates and making salad bars more prominent — that improved employees' eating habits.

Oops! Let me fix that for you: "But in time, the company forced employees to eat off tiny plates, and shoved salad bars into their private lives."

"When you exercise this level of control over employees, even with good intentions, it often backfires," said Heather Bussing, an employment lawyer in Northern California." Just because you really believe this is the right thing to do, not everyone will agree with you."

For instance, these employees of WeWork: _____________________.

At WeWork, a company led by idealistic co-founders who got their start with an eco-friendly co-working space in Brooklyn, the move to vegetarianism is a reflection of their unconventional personalities.
"I don't eat meat, but I don't consider myself a vegetarian," Mr. McKelvey said. "I consider myself to be a 'reducetarian.' I try to consume less and be aware of the decisions I'm making. Not just food, but single-use plastics, and fossil fuels and energy."
As Mr. McKelvey sees it, imposing his values on his employees is a natural part of being a corporate leader today.

There's that "imposing" again. Notice the difference between imposing and nudging?

"Companies have greater responsibility to their team members and to the world these days," he said. "We're the ones with the power. Large employers are the ones that can move the needle on issues."
There is little question that WeWork has the legal right to withhold meat from its employees.

Withhold? Withhold?

Companies have no obligation to feed their workers, much less offer steak and lamb on the menu.

Exactly! Exactly!!

(And, of course, none of this applies to companies or individuals who rent space from WeWork.)

Yes, thank you for that bit of forthrightness.

"Companies are free to make rules about the things they reimburse or don't reimburse for," Ms. Bussing said.

Wow! So much straight talk all at once! True. They *are* free to do that. And that is the issue, reimbursing employees for stuff, which your company makes decisions about too.

"But usually they have to do with adult movies at hotels and alcohol, rather than what you're ordering at dinner."

I think you mean, "Memo from the Boss: 'Murder She Wrote' and Iced Tea For You, Buster! Companies are Intruding On Their Employees' TV and Drink Preferences."

And even if WeWork does succeed in using vegetarianism to reduce its carbon impact, it isn't a given that the decision will make its employees healthier.
"Animals have a place in the human diet," said Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. "There's plenty of evidence that eating less meat is good for one's health and the planet. But to abolish it completely sounds ideological."

Ideological, and not what's happening. I feel the absurd need to point out here, again and again, that the company isn't abolishing meat completely. Or even abolishing meat partially. They're just going to stop paying for yours and you'll have to buy it yourself, like you always did before getting expensed at WeWork.

Echoing Mr. Bock, Ms. Nestle said a more effective way to promote healthy eating was to offer employees a variety of options. "Most companies that are trying to promote healthy diets among employees are doing it in ways that are less coercive," Ms. Nestle said. "Here you don't have any choice."

Yes, you do have a choice. You can have a ribeye for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every single day.

There will be some wiggle room at WeWork. Seafood will still be permitted on company menus and expense accounts. And employees who "require a medical or religious accommodation" can request an exemption from the enforced vegetarianism.

"Enforced vegetarianism" being the fancy term for "buy your own meat."

(Mr. Bock was not convinced this would work. "Even then, you have to self-identify and let somebody know about it," he said. "Then you'll be the person eating carne asada while everyone else is eating the lettuce bowl.")

Now, I do fully concede this. At the company banquet, we might have a Dear Prudie situation.

Uncomfortable as the new dietary policy may be, Mr. McKelvey said WeWork is only just getting started. The company is phasing out leather furniture, single-use plastics and is going carbon neutral.

I know it weakens my point to mention the bad sentence here. But my overall point has to do with standards at the New York frickin' Times. "The company is phasing out leather furniture and single-use plastics, and is going carbon neutral."

In time, he said, the company will evaluate its consumption of seafood, eggs, dairy and alcohol.
"We could have introduced a series of nudges, but then we wouldn't be having this conversation," Mr. McKelvey said. "And awkward conversations are how we learn."

I wonder if McKelvey is aware that at least some of the awkwardness of the conversations will stem from misinformation.

David Gelles is the Corner Office columnist and a business reporter. Follow him on LinkedIn and Twitter @dgelles. A version of this article appears in print on July 21, 2018, on Page BU3 of the New York edition with the headline: Memo From the Boss: Meat Is Not an Option.

A nice reminder that writers often don't write their own headlines. So the headline may have more to do with the editors than with the writer. (And the other headline is just as cutely misleading.) On the other hand, the article says what it says, in paragraph after aching paragraph. And, further, part of the problem here is that this writer doesn't seem to have had any wide-awake editors to answer to.

***

I've gone into some detail here, on an issue that's not likely to be a hot-button topic, for a reason. I want to point out what our choices are, what this article could have been.

Just a little more length and scope, and you could ask whether this is the best way for a huge company to pull back its environmental impact. A brief bit of information on the buildings they choose for office space, or the way their executives travel, would fill in some blanks.

But if that's asking too much, then fine: an article of similar length and scope could still have presented things very differently, and far more accurately. It could have quoted a few employees' various reactions, or even one anonymous employee yea or nay. It could have characterized the company's problem as "cutting back on a perk," which does indeed sound problematic and worthy of mention, but which has the benefit of giving you a truer picture.

It could have talked more about the role of taking out prospective WeWork clients for dinner — does that happen often? we'll never know from reading this article — and how this policy might therefore limit them in new markets.

Instead, this, from the New York Times.

Mr. Gelles, I could have clicked, clucked, and moved on. But I read the whole thing, and bothered to really look at it. Your editors should have, too. They can do better. You can do better.