Hacker News Reader

Comment by Normille | Hacker News Reader

I think the French judgement sounds reasonable. Especially given the sexual and humiliating overtones. But this one:

  >An auditor at PricewaterhouseCoopers in England sued the company over severe injuries he sustained at a work event that “made a competitive virtue” of “excessive” drinking, in a lawsuit filed in London’s High Court this year. Michael Brockie fell down in the street, went into a coma and later had part of his skull removed after participating in the company event

Dammit! --if only he'd thought to say 'No thanks. I've had enough' after the first few pints... or even 'No thanks. I don't drink'.

But much better [and more profitable] to fail to take responsibility for your own actions, do something really stupid, fuck yourself up... and then cast around for someone to sue.

View on HN

How does that reasoning not apply to being forced to endure all sorts of unsafe working conditions? "No thanks, I don't drink" would earn demerits and maybe get him fired, just like "no thanks, I don't walk above vats without guardrails".

That's a nonsensical reply.

For starters; No-one would be sacked for refusing to work in conditions which contravened H&S regs --and, if they were, they'd easily win a case for unfair dismissal.

And, in the other situation; joining in with the company drinking games is not part of anyone's job description. So, likewise, anyone dismissed for that 'failing' would have a nailed on 'unfair dismissal' case. Besides. Have you never worked anywhere with muslim colleagues or teetotal ones? I have and quite often they'd come to the pub on a works piss-up for the social element. But stick to alcohol free drinks all night. I never saw anyone trying to force them into having a pint or threatening them with dismissal if they didn't. It's laughably ludicrous.

No. The case I quoted is just another incidence of people failing to take responisibility for their own actions and seeking to excuse their own stupid and quite often horrific criminal behaviour by saying they were only going along with the crowd.

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.

  >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?

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com