Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
While I don't like someone not providing service, it seems entirely reasonable to let a particular employee morally object to doing something, so long as there is another one there. I'm not quite so sure about sending a person to a different pharmacy, but how is this otherwise different from when your 18 yo waitron tells you they have to get a 21 yo waitress to take your drink order? Mild inconvenience, sure. But shouldn't an employer be able to choose to accomodate employees in this way?
|
Sure. Phil can sit in the back and worship crystals for all I care so long as Ed or Frieda or someone back there will fill the goddamned thing. It's not like I have a deep personal relationship with my pharmacist.
But going to another pharmacy? Uncool. Same thing for being told to come back in an hour, or tomorrow, or whenever the "pro-choice" pharmacist is in.
Quote:
|
And, BTW, I'm pretty sure we've all been on the flipside of being told to represent a detestable client. Did you like it?
|
No shit. My firm represents, uh, one of the detestable clients mentioned today. I'd raise this philosophical dilemma in the next firmwide meeting, but fear that I'd be brained over the head with a shovel and buried on the spot by the managing partner.
