... isn't legally usable. What is "reasonable"? If a bar's sole source of income is smokers, is it "reasonable" to ban smoking at the above mentioned bar, to "protect the workers"? That's a legal tango I wouldn't want to be involved in, for damn sure!
They already dispense with "safe work practices" in construction sites. It's happened for years, and will likely always happen. It's too damn expensive to keep workers absolutely safe, in fact - nearly impossible (if not completely.) Here is where your "reasonable" comes into play, but how do you define "reasonable", in a definitive manner?
Also, yes, if you don't agree with working at an unsafe job, you SHOULD find work someplace else. If everybody followed that line of thinking, work places would be *forced* to provide more safety to their workers. Unfortunately, due to lack of education/lack of ambition/lack of many things - this almost never happens. This is an entirely different problem that needs to be tackled, however.
I'm assuming your Victorian thought comment was referencing socialism, liberalism, and collectivist principals being applied to social/political problems. I'm not quite sure how you equate this with what I said. In fact, Victorian ideals are the exact opposite of what I am talking about, which is heavy individualism, the inversion of socialist thought. Maybe you meant another school of thought? |
