Once complete, the $70 million s Taj-on-Swan mansion will be the biggest home in Australia, on the most expensive block of land. It is located in the exclusive suburb of Peppermint Grove in Perth.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Western Australian assistant secretary Joe McDonald said the ban was "absolutely wrong". "She still wants them to build her $70 million mansion, but she's telling them what they're going to eat . . . it's wrong," he said. "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."
Workers on the site said there was one small shed at the bottom of the site which they were allowed to eat meat in. A source close to the Oswals, who did not want to be named, said some workers had continued to eat meat on the site "just to spite them".
Mr Oswal, who is in New York this week helping Mrs Oswal prepare for the launch of her vegetarian fast-food chain, Otarian, defended the meat ban, saying "This is our home". Mrs Oswal has previously accused the meat industry of "raping the earth". "Meat eating is creating bad karma and you are also creating a vicious cycle," she said.
13 comments:
Yeah- well....
If one can ban the use of alcohol and tabacco from a premises on grounds that those substances are bad for the health in any way, I don't really see why one should not include the consumption of meat in thise bans. After all, lots of people are convinced that eating meat is very unhealthy not only for humans, but also for the planet.
...Mind you I myself am a fervent meat-eater and as far as my own body and health concerns- totally anti-vegetarian. What others do is their own thing.
Come on, you can't really compare smoking and eating meat. Smoking directly affects the people around you, as does drinking alcohol on a construction site. Eating meat doesn't.
Mr. McDonald is completely right, this case is about employer forcing their religious world view on the employees, and it is wrong.
Hm... I personally am not so sure about that.
Some of the vegetarians I know are completely convinced that anyone who eats meat is helping to make the planet thoroughly inhabitable and if you eat the wrong fish, you help to finally empty the seas. If you look at meat from the standpoint of those veggies- meatconsumption becomes about as bad as smoking or any other heavy pollution....
At the same time- No I will not stop eating meat because I personally feel good when eating meat and it helps me to keep good health. But if a veggie would insist on me not eating meat while visiting his premises, I would not be so sure that I would have all the good counter-arguments...
Convinced doesn't equal scientifically proven. These people have no right to force anyone to lie by their rules and beliefs, full stop. Alcohol is banned on the site rightfully, because it impairs function. Tobacco is banned because there are laws to enforce it. Health concerns are irrelivent, and religious beliefs don't give them the right to shove things down someone else's throat.
But there is a difference. Tobacco farming is not good for the environment either, but thats not the reason why I think it's reasonable for me to ask someone not to smoke standing next to me, or while visiting my home. If you stand next to me and eat a ham sandwich, it doesn't immediately, directly affect me in any way, unlike smoking.
This couple is paying the construction workers to build a house for them. In my opinion they have no right to impose their beliefs on them and tell them what they may and may not eat on their lunch break, that has nothing to do with the job they are there to do. And by the way, are leather belts and boots also banned from the construction site? Of course they must be, otherwise the meat ban would be just petty and just a tad hypocritical.
If you're paying me, you get to say what I can and can't do.
What a strange concept. If the employer said that because he is ultimately paying their wages, every man on the construction site has to wear boxer shorts as underwear, would you expect the builders to actually comply? If the employer said that no one on the site may eat non-organic food anymore, would you really agree that it was the workers responsibility to eat only organic food at the site from that point on?
These are individual decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with the job at hand. The Oswals are buying the work these people do, not the people themselves.
If the employer pays more over average and the workers take that cash----- Why not?
If the employer specifically paid the workers not to eat meat (or eat only organic food or wear boxers), that would completely change the situation. I am operating under the assumption that there is no extra money involved and the requirement of the workers not eating meat wasn't written in the contract* before the construction work was started.
*If this is not the case, and the workers were informed of this beforehand, then there is no reason to complain.
Hmmm. It is private property. I wonder what the rules are in AU.
If I were a contractor with that couple, I would set up a meating with them to try to sort things out...
lol...cleaver :P
I was thinking about this story the other day. If the owners insist on stipulating what food can and can't be consumed on the site, I think they should provide good vegetarian lunches for the workers. (And since they're concerned about Karma, they should see this as an investment). Those workers who choose to bring their own, non-vegetarian food, rather than eat what is provided, could then be asked to take their lunches offsite.
Post a Comment