People are arguing selectively in the moment to defend the worker against the customer thoughtlessly Like if it were actually a rule that people with allergies could demand to be protected from any chance of exposure, that would still be a burden the customer puts on the driver
-
-
Show this thread
-
Unfortunately allergy triggers are common enough in the world that we've decided it isn't reasonable to accommodate them at all times in public People can take their dogs wherever, restaurants can serve food with peanuts, bodegas can have cats, sidewalks have trees with pollen
Show this thread -
But IF we DID decide that allergies were something that had to be accommodated then this would be a burden that falls on the worker first and not the customer It has to be, that's the structure of the law
Show this thread -
The workers' paradise you envision of having the right to say "Fuck your allergies, my car my rules, get a ride somewhere else" is a shitty shitty vision of "socialism"
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
didn't she inform driver there would be a dog or something? i seem to remember hearing that. anyway, he would've just said so, not "i don't want your dog on my seats."
-
The allergy argument is always brought up as a hypothetical defense In none of the real cases I've seen has the driver actually claimed to be allergic, much less "deathly allergic"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
IF the driver was THAT sensitive to dogs (which is rare), I imagine they'd probably have notified their employer, and if said employer wasn't prepared to help them, they'd not have taken the job. Bad faith argument, disregard.
-
Like, nobody who has life threatening allergies would put themselves in harm's way like that. Why are people just so against defending a disabled person?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.