8 Comments

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?

Expand full comment

I think one moves on, maybe maybe bringing a constructive dismissal case en route, if the employer is obviously unreasonable. Not much else to say, as this is just a matter of moral intuitions.

Expand full comment

I think whatever route that makes the person feel like they are doing what they feel is needed is legitimate at the end of the day. A lot depends on personal circumstances and resources, and on the ultimate outcome the person is seeking. Maybe this person is trying to look out for other people who don't have the wherewithal to take on the company. Maybe changing jobs wouldn't be the solution as all other companies in the sector have similar "fun" expectations. Maybe at his level finding a new job would realistically mean moving homes and he can't afford it. Maybe he just doesn't like being bullied around and wanted to teach the company a lesson about not crossing personal lines in a professional environment. I occasionally lock horns with bullies where there would be a line of lesser resistance just for the sheer joy it gives me to see idiots scrambling around for the homework the dog ate the minute they realise I wipe my rear end with their say-so.

Expand full comment

But I do recognise that there is an increasing tendency to escalating before even considering alternative routes to resolution, which I've been observing in the last decade or so. I've been threatened with being reported to HR for stuff which was being done exactly by corporate policy. Pointing it out to the person resulted in a "oh. Right" moment. The sense of entitlement sometimes doesn't match knowledge of what the person signed up to.

Expand full comment

This isn't a debating point from me - rather a personal report. It's just that I'm growing to feel that wanting to shape external entities because we don't like them feels kind of narcissistic. This is just something I'm noticing about the less ideological me.

Expand full comment

I'm yet to come across human activity that can't be construed as narcissistic, and isn't narcissistic on some level. But of course, you have a right to pet peeves ;) have a good week ahead!

Expand full comment

This is because few people have figured out that the ego is illusory by experiencing the dissolving of subject/object relations in meditation :-)

Expand full comment

Haha, disagree. Even those of us who have had that experience still spend their time airing their views online or responding to said views, primarily because they like the sound of their own voice and think everyone else should be given the unique opportunity to hear such a great symphony. ;)

Expand full comment