Sunday, March 28, 2010

Meat ban by Indian-origin billionaire stirs row

IANS
Published on Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:54, Updated on Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 13:55 in World section
Tags: Meat Ban, Perth , Perth
Read Comment Post Comment
MEAT-O-METER: A woman looks at meat through the window of a butcher's shop in Buenos Aires.
The Western Australian construction union criticised the ban on building workers eating ham sandwiches and meat pies at the building site.
The ban was "absolutely wrong", said Joe McDonald, who is Western Australian assistant secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.
"She still wants them to build her $70 million mansion, but she's telling them what they're going to eat... it's wrong. I respect everybody's right to practise their religion, but I totally disagree with anyone forcing it on others.
"That has caused more wars and destruction throughout the world than anything else I know of. If people are working on the job and they want to have a ham sandwich or a bacon and egg sandwich, they should have one," he was quoted as saying.
Workers said there was one small shed in which they were allowed to eat meat.
Perth Now quoted a source close to the Oswals as saying that some workers had continued to eat meat on the site "just to spite them".
Pankaj, who is currently in New York to help Radhika prepare for the launch of her vegetarian fast-food chain, Otarian, defended the meat ban.
He said: "This is our home."
Radhika has earlier charged the meat industry with "raping the earth" and said: "Meat eating is creating bad karma and you are also creating a vicious cycle. It's destroying us environmentally, economically and socially. I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I've always been a vegetarian so I have always felt strongly about it."
"First, because of religious reasons, but then later because I realised the greater good associated with it."

I think the issue is about terms of employment. Were conditions of dietary habit part of the employment agreement? If the subject is not there at all in the agreement, it has to be understood that it would not matter. We can’t go beyond the terms of employment once the same has been agreed upon by both parties. While we would be within our rights to employ the type of person we want, the conditions have to be settled before the employment.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/meat-ban-by-indianorigin-billionaire-stirs-row/112248-2.html?from=tn

No comments: