On 4/14/2021 3:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/14/2021 3:26 PM, bruce bowser wrote:
>> I've noticed that fewer bosses smoke in the building and stash liquor
>> in the bottom desk drawer.Â* I guess its because its not politically
>> correct.Â* Its still a shame.
>>
>
>
> Many places would fire you for any alcohol.Â* I always had wine in the
> fridge at work.Â* Nothing fancy, just a box of red and one of white.

I worked for a small software company in the 1980's. The owner kept
beer in the office fridge and at Noon on Friday everyone was allowed to
have a beer or two.

Back in the 1990's I had some friends worked at the Coors Brewery which
had recently opened up shop in west TN. Used to be the employees were
allowed to drink company products on the job... until their insurance
company got wind of it. Huge liability issues! So they started giving
their employees a case of whatever product they wanted every Friday to
take home instead.

Jill

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 4:20:24 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On 4/14/2021 3:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 4/14/2021 3:26 PM, bruce bowser wrote:
> >> I've noticed that fewer bosses smoke in the building and stash liquor
> >> in the bottom desk drawer. I guess its because its not politically
> >> correct. Its still a shame.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Many places would fire you for any alcohol. I always had wine in the
> > fridge at work. Nothing fancy, just a box of red and one of white.
> I worked for a small software company in the 1980's. The owner kept
> beer in the office fridge and at Noon on Friday everyone was allowed to
> have a beer or two.
>
> Back in the 1990's I had some friends worked at the Coors Brewery which
> had recently opened up shop in west TN. Used to be the employees were
> allowed to drink company products on the job... until their insurance
> company got wind of it. Huge liability issues! So they started giving
> their employees a case of whatever product they wanted every Friday to
> take home instead.
>
Anheuser-Busch was the same way, though with their clout I'm sure they
could have gotten the State of Missouri to exempt breweries from any
liability associated with allowing employees to have a beer or two with
lunch, and it's not like you can get drunk on two Budweisers.
>
> Jill
>
--Bryan
Sweet Little Fourteen, can you show us on the teddy where the
man nurse licked you?
For your safety and protection, this sig. has been thoroughly
tested on laboratory animals.

On 4/14/2021 5:35 PM, Bryan Simmons wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 4:20:24 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> On 4/14/2021 3:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2021 3:26 PM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>> I've noticed that fewer bosses smoke in the building and stash liquor
>>>> in the bottom desk drawer. I guess its because its not politically
>>>> correct. Its still a shame.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many places would fire you for any alcohol. I always had wine in the
>>> fridge at work. Nothing fancy, just a box of red and one of white.
>> I worked for a small software company in the 1980's. The owner kept
>> beer in the office fridge and at Noon on Friday everyone was allowed to
>> have a beer or two.
>>
>> Back in the 1990's I had some friends worked at the Coors Brewery which
>> had recently opened up shop in west TN. Used to be the employees were
>> allowed to drink company products on the job... until their insurance
>> company got wind of it. Huge liability issues! So they started giving
>> their employees a case of whatever product they wanted every Friday to
>> take home instead.
>>
>> Jill
> Anheuser-Busch was the same way, though with their clout I'm sure they
> could have gotten the State of Missouri to exempt breweries from any
> liability associated with allowing employees to have a beer or two with
> lunch, and it's not like you can get drunk on two Budweisers.
>
> --Bryan


The State has very little to do with liability insurance purchased by a
company. Maybe you're thinking of Worker's Comp; who funds it varies by
State. At any rate, my friends who worked there told me some of the
guys on the line would start drinking at lunch and keep on going. NOT a
good idea.

Jill

On 2021-04-14 5:55 p.m., jmcquown wrote:

> The State has very little to do with liability insurance purchased by a
> company.Â* Maybe you're thinking of Worker's Comp; who funds it varies by
> State.Â* At any rate, my friends who worked there told me some of the
> guys on the line would start drinking at lunch and keep on going.Â* NOT a
> good idea.
>
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle4144089/

An Ontario Superior Court judge has found an employer partly liable for
injuries suffered by a receptionist who drank at an office Christmas
party, drank more at a bar afterward, and then tried to drive home in a
snowstorm, ignoring offers of a ride.

In a 20-page judgment issued yesterday, Mr. Justice Clair Marchand said
Linda Hunt's boss noticed she was tipsy during the Friday-afternoon
party in a Barrie real-estate office in 1994, and failed in his duty to
keep her from harm.

The judge said it was not enough for the boss to offer to call her
husband and ask him to pick her up if she planned to keep drinking; it
was not enough to make a general offer of cab rides to employees, and it
did not get the boss off the hook when a co-worker offered Ms. Hunt a lift.

Ms. Hunt was convicted of impaired driving after losing control of her
four-wheel-drive vehicle on her way home and colliding with a truck. The
crash left her with severe injuries, including brain damage, and she is
unable to work.

In a lawsuit that has inspired television satire and irate letters to
newspapers, Judge Marchand found her 75-per-cent responsible for her
pain and financial loss.

He placed the remaining responsibility jointly on her employer, Sutton
Group Incentive Realty Inc., and the bar, P.J.'s Pub.

The bar has gone out of business without insurance coverage, leaving
Sutton Group liable for the 25-per-cent damages, calculated by the judge
at about $288,000 plus interest and legal costs.

Ms. Hunt's lawyer, Roger Oatley, and other personal-injury specialists
said it appeared to be the first time a Canadian court had held an
employer partly responsible for car-crash injuries suffered by an
employee who got drunk at a company social function. In 1999, a jury in
London, Ont., found a company partly liable for injuries suffered by a
second driver in an accident caused by a worker who had taken part in a
drinking session in a company parking lot.

In the Hunt case, Judge Marchand rejected the real-estate firm's
argument that taking Ms. Hunt's keys would have amounted to theft and
forcing her into a taxi would have been equivalent to kidnapping.

"I find that had her employer insisted on her leaving the keys at the
office or on her taking a cab home at his expense, if indeed he was
prepared to do so, [it]would have resulted in the plaintiff having no
alternative but to accept. Furthermore, he could easily have phoned her
husband to come and pick her up. He could even have called police if
need be."

Moreover, the employer "ought to have foreseen that, by maintaining an
open and unsupervised bar, he would be incapable of monitoring the
alcohol consumption of his employee, which led to her danger," he said.

Don Jerry, owner and president of the firm, said yesterday he is angry
about the outcome of the trial, which ended in October.

"Based on this decision, nobody should ever, ever buy another person a
drink, because you might get sued," he said. "Why do they even have a
drinking age? If people can't be held responsible for their own actions,
then maybe the age should be raised to 100."

He said he will ask his insurance company to appeal the decision on
grounds that Judge Marchand dismissed the jury in mid-trial.

The judge accepted a request from Ms. Hunt's lawyers to try the case
without a jury because of the media glare and the complexity of the
evidence. Letters to newspapers had suggested that Ms. Hunt was trying
to shift blame for her own actions, and her claim was the subject of a
Royal Canadian Air Farce joke.

Mr. Jerry said he is sure the jury would have approved of his efforts to
stop Ms. Hunt from drinking and driving. He said it was not his fault
that she went to a bar to continue drinking.

"The jury was made up of people like you and I," he said. "They had the
common sense to know you don't go suing somebody because you drank too
much."

At her Wasaga Beach home yesterday, Ms. Hunt, who swears she will never
drink alcohol again, said she accepts most of the responsibility for her
drunken actions.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 10:16:01 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-04-14 5:55 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
>
> > The State has very little to do with liability insurance purchased by a
> > company. Maybe you're thinking of Worker's Comp; who funds it varies by
> > State. At any rate, my friends who worked there told me some of the
> > guys on the line would start drinking at lunch and keep on going. NOT a
> > good idea.
> >
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle4144089/
>
> An Ontario Superior Court judge has found an employer partly liable for
> injuries suffered by a receptionist who drank at an office Christmas
> party, drank more at a bar afterward, and then tried to drive home in a
> snowstorm, ignoring offers of a ride.
>
> In a 20-page judgment issued yesterday, Mr. Justice Clair Marchand said
> Linda Hunt's boss noticed she was tipsy during the Friday-afternoon
> party in a Barrie real-estate office in 1994, and failed in his duty to
> keep her from harm.
>
> The judge said it was not enough for the boss to offer to call her
> husband and ask him to pick her up if she planned to keep drinking; it
> was not enough to make a general offer of cab rides to employees, and it
> did not get the boss off the hook when a co-worker offered Ms. Hunt a lift.
>
> Ms. Hunt was convicted of impaired driving after losing control of her
> four-wheel-drive vehicle on her way home and colliding with a truck. The
> crash left her with severe injuries, including brain damage, and she is
> unable to work.
>
> In a lawsuit that has inspired television satire and irate letters to
> newspapers, Judge Marchand found her 75-per-cent responsible for her
> pain and financial loss.
>
> He placed the remaining responsibility jointly on her employer, Sutton
> Group Incentive Realty Inc., and the bar, P.J.'s Pub.
>
> The bar has gone out of business without insurance coverage, leaving
> Sutton Group liable for the 25-per-cent damages, calculated by the judge
> at about $288,000 plus interest and legal costs.
>
> Ms. Hunt's lawyer, Roger Oatley, and other personal-injury specialists
> said it appeared to be the first time a Canadian court had held an
> employer partly responsible for car-crash injuries suffered by an
> employee who got drunk at a company social function. In 1999, a jury in
> London, Ont., found a company partly liable for injuries suffered by a
> second driver in an accident caused by a worker who had taken part in a
> drinking session in a company parking lot.
>
> In the Hunt case, Judge Marchand rejected the real-estate firm's
> argument that taking Ms. Hunt's keys would have amounted to theft and
> forcing her into a taxi would have been equivalent to kidnapping.
>
> "I find that had her employer insisted on her leaving the keys at the
> office or on her taking a cab home at his expense, if indeed he was
> prepared to do so, [it]would have resulted in the plaintiff having no
> alternative but to accept. Furthermore, he could easily have phoned her
> husband to come and pick her up. He could even have called police if
> need be."
>
> Moreover, the employer "ought to have foreseen that, by maintaining an
> open and unsupervised bar, he would be incapable of monitoring the
> alcohol consumption of his employee, which led to her danger," he said.
>
> Don Jerry, owner and president of the firm, said yesterday he is angry
> about the outcome of the trial, which ended in October.
>
> "Based on this decision, nobody should ever, ever buy another person a
> drink, because you might get sued," he said. "Why do they even have a
> drinking age? If people can't be held responsible for their own actions,
> then maybe the age should be raised to 100."
>
> He said he will ask his insurance company to appeal the decision on
> grounds that Judge Marchand dismissed the jury in mid-trial.
>
> The judge accepted a request from Ms. Hunt's lawyers to try the case
> without a jury because of the media glare and the complexity of the
> evidence. Letters to newspapers had suggested that Ms. Hunt was trying
> to shift blame for her own actions, and her claim was the subject of a
> Royal Canadian Air Farce joke.
>
> Mr. Jerry said he is sure the jury would have approved of his efforts to
> stop Ms. Hunt from drinking and driving. He said it was not his fault
> that she went to a bar to continue drinking.
>
> "The jury was made up of people like you and I," he said. "They had the
> common sense to know you don't go suing somebody because you drank too
> much."
>
> At her Wasaga Beach home yesterday, Ms. Hunt, who swears she will never
> drink alcohol again, said she accepts most of the responsibility for her
> drunken actions.

The employer will probably win on appeal.

On 4/15/2021 10:48 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 10:16:01 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-04-14 5:55 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> The State has very little to do with liability insurance purchased by a
>>> company. Maybe you're thinking of Worker's Comp; who funds it varies by
>>> State. At any rate, my friends who worked there told me some of the
>>> guys on the line would start drinking at lunch and keep on going. NOT a
>>> good idea.
>>>
>> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle4144089/
>>
>> An Ontario Superior Court judge has found an employer partly liable for
>> injuries suffered by a receptionist who drank at an office Christmas
>> party, drank more at a bar afterward, and then tried to drive home in a
>> snowstorm, ignoring offers of a ride.
>>
>> In a 20-page judgment issued yesterday, Mr. Justice Clair Marchand said
>> Linda Hunt's boss noticed she was tipsy during the Friday-afternoon
>> party in a Barrie real-estate office in 1994, and failed in his duty to
>> keep her from harm.
>>
>> The judge said it was not enough for the boss to offer to call her
>> husband and ask him to pick her up if she planned to keep drinking; it
>> was not enough to make a general offer of cab rides to employees, and it
>> did not get the boss off the hook when a co-worker offered Ms. Hunt a lift.
>>
>> Ms. Hunt was convicted of impaired driving after losing control of her
>> four-wheel-drive vehicle on her way home and colliding with a truck. The
>> crash left her with severe injuries, including brain damage, and she is
>> unable to work.
>>
>> In a lawsuit that has inspired television satire and irate letters to
>> newspapers, Judge Marchand found her 75-per-cent responsible for her
>> pain and financial loss.
>>
>> He placed the remaining responsibility jointly on her employer, Sutton
>> Group Incentive Realty Inc., and the bar, P.J.'s Pub.
>>
>> The bar has gone out of business without insurance coverage, leaving
>> Sutton Group liable for the 25-per-cent damages, calculated by the judge
>> at about $288,000 plus interest and legal costs.
>>
>> Ms. Hunt's lawyer, Roger Oatley, and other personal-injury specialists
>> said it appeared to be the first time a Canadian court had held an
>> employer partly responsible for car-crash injuries suffered by an
>> employee who got drunk at a company social function. In 1999, a jury in
>> London, Ont., found a company partly liable for injuries suffered by a
>> second driver in an accident caused by a worker who had taken part in a
>> drinking session in a company parking lot.
>>
>> In the Hunt case, Judge Marchand rejected the real-estate firm's
>> argument that taking Ms. Hunt's keys would have amounted to theft and
>> forcing her into a taxi would have been equivalent to kidnapping.
>>
>> "I find that had her employer insisted on her leaving the keys at the
>> office or on her taking a cab home at his expense, if indeed he was
>> prepared to do so, [it]would have resulted in the plaintiff having no
>> alternative but to accept. Furthermore, he could easily have phoned her
>> husband to come and pick her up. He could even have called police if
>> need be."
>>
>> Moreover, the employer "ought to have foreseen that, by maintaining an
>> open and unsupervised bar, he would be incapable of monitoring the
>> alcohol consumption of his employee, which led to her danger," he said.
>>
>> Don Jerry, owner and president of the firm, said yesterday he is angry
>> about the outcome of the trial, which ended in October.
>>
>> "Based on this decision, nobody should ever, ever buy another person a
>> drink, because you might get sued," he said. "Why do they even have a
>> drinking age? If people can't be held responsible for their own actions,
>> then maybe the age should be raised to 100."
>>
>> He said he will ask his insurance company to appeal the decision on
>> grounds that Judge Marchand dismissed the jury in mid-trial.
>>
>> The judge accepted a request from Ms. Hunt's lawyers to try the case
>> without a jury because of the media glare and the complexity of the
>> evidence. Letters to newspapers had suggested that Ms. Hunt was trying
>> to shift blame for her own actions, and her claim was the subject of a
>> Royal Canadian Air Farce joke.
>>
>> Mr. Jerry said he is sure the jury would have approved of his efforts to
>> stop Ms. Hunt from drinking and driving. He said it was not his fault
>> that she went to a bar to continue drinking.
>>
>> "The jury was made up of people like you and I," he said. "They had the
>> common sense to know you don't go suing somebody because you drank too
>> much."
>>
>> At her Wasaga Beach home yesterday, Ms. Hunt, who swears she will never
>> drink alcohol again, said she accepts most of the responsibility for her
>> drunken actions.
>
> The employer will probably win on appeal.
>

If he hasn't won on appeal by now, he never will. The court decision
was handed down 20 years ago.

On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 1:54:22 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 4/15/2021 10:48 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 10:16:01 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2021-04-14 5:55 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
> >>
> >>> The State has very little to do with liability insurance purchased by a
> >>> company. Maybe you're thinking of Worker's Comp; who funds it varies by
> >>> State. At any rate, my friends who worked there told me some of the
> >>> guys on the line would start drinking at lunch and keep on going. NOT a
> >>> good idea.
> >>>
> >> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle4144089/
> >>
> >> An Ontario Superior Court judge has found an employer partly liable for
> >> injuries suffered by a receptionist who drank at an office Christmas
> >> party, drank more at a bar afterward, and then tried to drive home in a
> >> snowstorm, ignoring offers of a ride.
> >>
> >> In a 20-page judgment issued yesterday, Mr. Justice Clair Marchand said
> >> Linda Hunt's boss noticed she was tipsy during the Friday-afternoon
> >> party in a Barrie real-estate office in 1994, and failed in his duty to
> >> keep her from harm.
> >>
> >> The judge said it was not enough for the boss to offer to call her
> >> husband and ask him to pick her up if she planned to keep drinking; it
> >> was not enough to make a general offer of cab rides to employees, and it
> >> did not get the boss off the hook when a co-worker offered Ms. Hunt a lift.
> >>
> >> Ms. Hunt was convicted of impaired driving after losing control of her
> >> four-wheel-drive vehicle on her way home and colliding with a truck. The
> >> crash left her with severe injuries, including brain damage, and she is
> >> unable to work.
> >>
> >> In a lawsuit that has inspired television satire and irate letters to
> >> newspapers, Judge Marchand found her 75-per-cent responsible for her
> >> pain and financial loss.
> >>
> >> He placed the remaining responsibility jointly on her employer, Sutton
> >> Group Incentive Realty Inc., and the bar, P.J.'s Pub.
> >>
> >> The bar has gone out of business without insurance coverage, leaving
> >> Sutton Group liable for the 25-per-cent damages, calculated by the judge
> >> at about $288,000 plus interest and legal costs.
> >>
> >> Ms. Hunt's lawyer, Roger Oatley, and other personal-injury specialists
> >> said it appeared to be the first time a Canadian court had held an
> >> employer partly responsible for car-crash injuries suffered by an
> >> employee who got drunk at a company social function. In 1999, a jury in
> >> London, Ont., found a company partly liable for injuries suffered by a
> >> second driver in an accident caused by a worker who had taken part in a
> >> drinking session in a company parking lot.
> >>
> >> In the Hunt case, Judge Marchand rejected the real-estate firm's
> >> argument that taking Ms. Hunt's keys would have amounted to theft and
> >> forcing her into a taxi would have been equivalent to kidnapping.
> >>
> >> "I find that had her employer insisted on her leaving the keys at the
> >> office or on her taking a cab home at his expense, if indeed he was
> >> prepared to do so, [it]would have resulted in the plaintiff having no
> >> alternative but to accept. Furthermore, he could easily have phoned her
> >> husband to come and pick her up. He could even have called police if
> >> need be."
> >>
> >> Moreover, the employer "ought to have foreseen that, by maintaining an
> >> open and unsupervised bar, he would be incapable of monitoring the
> >> alcohol consumption of his employee, which led to her danger," he said.
> >>
> >> Don Jerry, owner and president of the firm, said yesterday he is angry
> >> about the outcome of the trial, which ended in October.
> >>
> >> "Based on this decision, nobody should ever, ever buy another person a
> >> drink, because you might get sued," he said. "Why do they even have a
> >> drinking age? If people can't be held responsible for their own actions,
> >> then maybe the age should be raised to 100."
> >>
> >> He said he will ask his insurance company to appeal the decision on
> >> grounds that Judge Marchand dismissed the jury in mid-trial.
> >>
> >> The judge accepted a request from Ms. Hunt's lawyers to try the case
> >> without a jury because of the media glare and the complexity of the
> >> evidence. Letters to newspapers had suggested that Ms. Hunt was trying
> >> to shift blame for her own actions, and her claim was the subject of a
> >> Royal Canadian Air Farce joke.
> >>
> >> Mr. Jerry said he is sure the jury would have approved of his efforts to
> >> stop Ms. Hunt from drinking and driving. He said it was not his fault
> >> that she went to a bar to continue drinking.
> >>
> >> "The jury was made up of people like you and I," he said. "They had the
> >> common sense to know you don't go suing somebody because you drank too
> >> much."
> >>
> >> At her Wasaga Beach home yesterday, Ms. Hunt, who swears she will never
> >> drink alcohol again, said she accepts most of the responsibility for her
> >> drunken actions.
> >
> > The employer will probably win on appeal.
> >
> If he hasn't won on appeal by now, he never will. The court decision
> was handed down 20 years ago.

The article still quoted that the employer: "said he will ask his insurance company to appeal the decision". Who knows whether he did or not,

On 2021-04-15 1:48 p.m., bruce bowser wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 10:16:01 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
much."
>>
>> At her Wasaga Beach home yesterday, Ms. Hunt, who swears she will never
>> drink alcohol again, said she accepts most of the responsibility for her
>> drunken actions.
>
> The employer will probably win on appeal.
>

It was appealed and there was an out of court settlement.

I think it sucks. They had offered her a ride. They had offered her a
taxi. She declined. She was not drunk at the company party. She got
drunk at the bar.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 4/15/2021 11:50 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-04-15 1:48 p.m., bruce bowser wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 10:16:01 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> much."
>>>
>>> At her Wasaga Beach home yesterday, Ms. Hunt, who swears she will never
>>> drink alcohol again, said she accepts most of the responsibility for her
>>> drunken actions.
>>
>> The employer will probably win on appeal.
>>
>
> It was appealed and there was an out of court settlement.
>
> I think it sucks. They had offered her a ride. They had offered her a
> taxi. She declined. She was not drunk at the company party. She got
> drunk at the bar.
>


They are just looking for pockets to pick.

Bryan Simmons wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 4:20:24 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> On 4/14/2021 3:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2021 3:26 PM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>> I've noticed that fewer bosses smoke in the building and stash liquor
>>>> in the bottom desk drawer. I guess its because its not politically
>>>> correct. Its still a shame.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many places would fire you for any alcohol. I always had wine in the
>>> fridge at work. Nothing fancy, just a box of red and one of white.
>> I worked for a small software company in the 1980's. The owner kept
>> beer in the office fridge and at Noon on Friday everyone was allowed to
>> have a beer or two.
>>
>> Back in the 1990's I had some friends worked at the Coors Brewery which
>> had recently opened up shop in west TN. Used to be the employees were
>> allowed to drink company products on the job... until their insurance
>> company got wind of it. Huge liability issues! So they started giving
>> their employees a case of whatever product they wanted every Friday to
>> take home instead.
>>
> Anheuser-Busch was the same way, though with their clout I'm sure they
> could have gotten the State of Missouri to exempt breweries from any
> liability associated with allowing employees to have a beer or two with
> lunch, and it's not like you can get drunk on two Budweisers.
>>
>> Jill
>>
> --Bryan
> Sweet Little Fourteen, can you show us on the teddy where the
> man nurse licked you?
> For your safety and protection, this sig. has been thoroughly
> tested on laboratory animals.
>

A real employer in a good place (like Brooklyn new york) would give
each employee a gallon of crystal palace every day. The hell with
watered down beer.

On 2021-04-14 5:20 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/14/2021 3:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> Many places would fire you for any alcohol.Â* I always had wine in the
>> fridge at work.Â* Nothing fancy, just a box of red and one of white.
>
> I worked for a small software company in the 1980's.Â* The owner kept
> beer in the office fridge and at Noon on Friday everyone was allowed to
> have a beer or two.
>
> Back in the 1990's I had some friends worked at the Coors Brewery which
> had recently opened up shop in west TN.Â* Used to be the employees were
> allowed to drink company products on the job... until their insurance
> company got wind of it.Â* Huge liability issues!Â* So they started giving
> their employees a case of whatever product they wanted every Friday to
> take home instead.
>


Aside from being a perk, there is a big advantage to employees getting
to eat or drink their products. It stops them from ****ing into the vats.

When I worked in the maintenance department we had some crews that did a
lot of boozing. Several of the patrol yards had a habit of a couple
beers on Friday afternoon. There was one where the booze came out after
lunch. Some of the specialty crews had a lot of liquid lunches.

The bridge crew was the worse. That was probably because the foreman
was a drunk. He showed up at our shop in his work vehicle on a day off.
He was half in the bag. He picked up a cement mixer to so some cement
work at home. Before he made it home he blew a stop sign and got T
boned, totalling the van and the mixer. He somehow managed not to get
fired. He lost his license so they arranged for a driver for him.