I don't disagree with the sentiment of what you are saying re rights Vs responsibilities, but the one you have chosen seems like a rather odd example the point. From the Wikipedia page you linked I read:
The court decided that workers should not be obliged to “forcibly participate in seminars and end-of-week drinks frequently ending up in excessive alcohol intake, encouraged by associates who made very large quantities of alcohol available” and that it was valid for Mr T to not want to take part in “practices linking promiscuity, bullying and incitement to get involved in various forms of excess and misconduct”.[3]
The court found that Cubik Partner's definition of fun breached Mr T's “fundamental right to dignity and respect of private life” and that his refusal to take part was his “freedom of expression.”[3] The court stated that the culture of the company included “humiliating and intrusive practices regarding privacy such as simulated sexual acts, the obligation to share a bed with a colleague during seminars, the use of nicknames to designate people and hanging up deformed and made-up photos in offices.”
The word "forcibly" clinches it for me. How can a company ever reasonably expect you to share beds with colleagues and fire you if you don't regularly get drunk beyond the point of recall?
I don't disagree with the sentiment of what you are saying re rights Vs responsibilities, but the one you have chosen seems like a rather odd example the point. From the Wikipedia page you linked I read:
The court decided that workers should not be obliged to “forcibly participate in seminars and end-of-week drinks frequently ending up in excessive alcohol intake, encouraged by associates who made very large quantities of alcohol available” and that it was valid for Mr T to not want to take part in “practices linking promiscuity, bullying and incitement to get involved in various forms of excess and misconduct”.[3]
The court found that Cubik Partner's definition of fun breached Mr T's “fundamental right to dignity and respect of private life” and that his refusal to take part was his “freedom of expression.”[3] The court stated that the culture of the company included “humiliating and intrusive practices regarding privacy such as simulated sexual acts, the obligation to share a bed with a colleague during seminars, the use of nicknames to designate people and hanging up deformed and made-up photos in offices.”
The word "forcibly" clinches it for me. How can a company ever reasonably expect you to share beds with colleagues and fire you if you don't regularly get drunk beyond the point of recall?