Argh! Did he have no choice in the matter? Jesus.
“Warehouse”?
He had no choice in the matter.
Huh? Is that a pun or do you call them different where you are?
I don’t know what a warehouse is in the UK, but here it’s not something that you join. A warehouse is a large storage building, or sometimes recently the term is applied to “big box” retail stores, such as Home Depot.
Please tell me that isn’t what happens when you join Sam’s Club.
It is humiliating and people get killed for insufficient reason. At least in the “mind” of the legislature. I suspect that it is illegal primarily because people get killed. At least the outcry against hazing seems to peak when a death occurs.
just my opinion…
That’s what it is here, but warehouses need people to operate the forklifts, keep inventory, load things into trucks, etc etc- so I’d say that usage is correct in this sense.
My objections to hazing are:
- Humiliating someone is contrary to building esprit de corps.
- It’s done without the guidance, of course, of the senior management/chain-of-command.
- The victim (and make no mistake, that’s exactly what he or she is) has no realistic choice in the matter once embarked on that path.
- Hazing quite often (if not always) includes illegal acts.
- People are injuired and killed on a more than nonincidental level.
If he did have a choice in the matter, and agreed to it, would that make it all right for them to do it to him?
I don’t think so. Just because someone is foolish enough to let you injure or torture them doesn’t make it ethically right for you to do so. That’s the basic problem with the “But they consented!” defense of hazing.
Obviously, not all hazing rises to that level. But there are many documented cases of hazing leading to people being put in highly unsafe situations – often with the participants apparently not recognizing (or not caring about) the level of danger.
Besides, if you take a job in a warehouse, you should expect to have foreign objects forcibly shoved up your cornhole. So you’re responsible.