I have no particular stance on WeWork's policy, but this argument seems pretty strained. You seem to be saying that if implementing the opposite of policy A would be unacceptable, then implementing policy A is hypocrisy.

That doesn't make sense to me. At the extreme end, take my moral stance against killing other people. "Imagine the opposite - having a moral stance FOR killing people - there would be outrage! Hypocrisy."

Or with a less extreme example, say as a company I mandate the use of electric cars on business trips (assuming rental companies had them available). Many people would think the opposite policy - say, mandating vehicles getting 12mpg or less - would be an outrage. Would that make the electric-car-preferred policy hypocritical?

It seems like our entire discourse now - especially our political discourse - is one big search for the big Hypocrisy Gotcha moment.

It's not at all strange for many people, and exactly the opposite view is held by them.. that eating all vegetarian is unhealthy, and all or mostly meat is the healthiest.

I mean, we can provide some supporting evidence to support our claims, but certainly your statement is not uncontroversial..

The fact that they are limiting people's choices and free will to eat meat and write-off (financial incentive) is the core problem.

They’re not limiting people’s choices, they’re just limiting what they want to pay for. It’s not like they’re threatening to fire anyone who eats meat on their own.

I don’t see the problem here. Lots of companies don’t buy their employees food at all. (And I say this as a meat eater who would definitely be affected by this change.)

The biggest issue for me would be getting reimbursed for travel expenses. True that some companies don't buy food for their employees at all but I definitely expect to be fed while traveling for the company, and I would definitely be finding a new place to work if I couldn't eat meat while traveling.