3 ms·
If you think that nobody would be fired for refusing to work in unsafe conditions and nobody would be fired for not drinking, you're still agreeing that the sit
by Jiro 4y ago
If you think that nobody would be fired for refusing to work in unsafe conditions and nobody would be fired for not drinking, you're still agreeing that the situations are similar. You're just agreeing that neither would get you fired, rather than that both would get you fired. Sio why is the employee to blame for one but not for the other when they are both dangerous and they both would or wouldn't get you fired?
Having to drink is basically an unsafe working condition. It's just an unofficial unsafe working condition instead of an official one.
- Normille 4y ago>If you think that nobody would be fired for refusing to work in unsafe conditions and nobody would be fired for not drinking, you're still agreeing that the situations are similar... I'm absolutely not. One is being given a 'duty' of some sort to do, as part of your job, but legitimately refusing on safety grounds. How is that in any way similar to not participating in a drinking contest down the pub, on a works piss-up? And if, instead of staggering out the pub and going on his arse, this eejit and his pissed-up mates had decided to drunkenly kick the crap out of some innocent passer-by, that would have been excusable too, because he only joined in to avoid losing 'social credit' with his workmates?
- TomSwirly 4y ago> legitimately refusing on safety grounds. As has been explained to you twice, if you "legitimately refuse" to participate in bullshit social activities, in many organizations it is likely they'll find some other excuse to get rid of you. I feel lucky that I'm a sociable guy, but I've seen other people who weren't so lucky suffer from it.