Quote:
Originally Posted by oliver9184
That's a good example you described and I'm interested to hear about your reasoning for this comment, that you'd have fired them guys if it was your call - even though it didn't impact their work. So why fire them? Because it was a potential danger - with heavy tools and so on? Because of the potential for drinking to impact their work? Or purely because of the principle, that they should drink on their own time - even if nothing was affected when they were drinking on their employer's time?
|
The risk was the problem, and eventually that risk did catch up to one of the guys. He was just a little too hammered and the homeowner (or yard owner) called and cancelled our contract with her and even reported us. It was exactly what I warned the maintenance director about. It was stupid to allow them to be drunk or even buzzed in the first place.
It's not about principle, though I would question anyone that wants to work buzzed, it's about risk. The risk just isn't worth tolerating.
Look, I'd understand if a bartender was to drink a bit while he or she was working, simply because that's often part of the job. What I can't understand is why someone would want his or her inhibitions and reasoning skills decreased while trying to earn a living. Would you want a drunk accountant doing your taxes? Would you want a drunk firefighter trying to put out your house? Would you want a drunk, grabby salesman blatantly flirting with your 16 year old daughter while you were trying to buy her prom dress?
Madmen is just a show on television about a bygone era where people were still too naive about things like alcohol, tobacco, and parenting.