Re:Walmart banned alcohol and swearing from Jet's offices an...
by stale2002 on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @07:25PM
(#14659480)
Look, it is not a need, it is one factor among many.
Having draconian alcohol policies is a negative, and it can be weighed against the pros and cons of working there.
Maybe the pros out weight the singular drawback of uptight HR representives. But maybe it doesn't, and that one negative among many negatives is enough to push someone over the edge of not working there.
Ex:if the pay is higher then maybe I'd still take the job.
I don't really care about employer liability. That is their problem, not mine.
Re:Walmart banned alcohol and swearing from Jet's offices an...
by ck425 on Thursday June 29, 2017 @07:07AM
(#14662232)
It's not the lack of alcohol, it's because HR are dictating culture. Beyond health and safety, the law or contractual obligations HR shouldn't be dictating this.
We're all adults, use your best judgement. Companies and offices should be able to have mature conversations around this without it being dictated.
Re:Walmart banned alcohol and swearing from Jet's offices an...
by everdayimhustln on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @07:34PM
(#14659526)
At Stanford in academic dept, we had wine and beer social parties at work and at dept chair's house. No sexual harassment, no brogrammers and no calling the cops. Everyone went home sober enough.
Booze is awesome but there's a time and place for it. If someone gets loaded at work enough to impair their ability to drive, then gets into an accident and injures or kills someone, their employer (in the US at least) could be liable in part. It's one thing to go out with your coworkers after work, or maybe even have a beer over lunch before going back to work, and it's another to need booze on premises.