Yes, but one does have to wonder about the quality of those selections


If I hadn't actually smelled the burning "weed" in the shop myself, I'd not have withdrawn my work from them. I can even tolerate a mid-day beer, having occasionally had one with my own lunch, but when the shop foreman is obviously intoxicated while performing my work, I have reservations.


Nobody said they were alcoholics, but "they" were clearly drunk on the job. Being intoxicated doesn't make them an alcoholic, but it does make their company unreliable, and, therefore, unworthy of my patronage.


That's not a generalization. It's based on specific observation.


We got our gang problem because they (the gangs) voluntarily choose to segregate themselves from society at large and make illegal activities part of their own culture. They choose to speak, dress, and generally behave differently and violate the principles and laws that make our society stabile. It's not the choice of "mainstream" society that makes them different. It's .their choices. They choose to participate in use and distribution of illegal substances. They behave violently, and disrespectfully of the legal rights and property of others, not because society demands it of them, but because they choose to do it. They are the willing victim of society's wrath, which, IMHO, is not nearly severe enough, and they willingly suffer the consequences.

U.S. business, these days, is based less on manufacturing and more on "services." When I enter a service business and find the providers of that service are impaired by substance abuse, I have to take my service demand elsewhere ... where I'm not confronted with that aberrant behavior. When a PCB house doesn't even offer to do good work, i.e. their manufacturing specifications don't even match what was expected 20 years ago, I don't patronize them.

I doubt you can validate your claim that my behavior reflects prejudice. There are few PCB houses local to me, and it's those whom I've observed behaving in a manner incompatible with my confidence. If I'm going to send work away, which is what I've done over the past 10 years, I'll send it where I am offered the best quality at the best price. That's not in the U.S. Since I have, on occasion, visited other states and communities than the one in which I live, I do know that people behave in more or less the same way there as here. Consequently, the fact that I haven't encountered intoxicated workers in the manufacturing facilities there, doesn't make me believe they're any more likely to be sober on the job than our locals, nor does is persuade me that they'll do any better work, since they don't offer to do that.

You've extrapolated, and quite unreasonably, on the things I've said. I do have considerable experience dealing with people. That included a machine shop with 21 employees, and an electronics design house with 18. I was even in the retail business, although only peripherally, for some time. I didn't like the quality of service that I got for the equipment I had to buy in order to provide the services I provided, so I reconfigured my engineering business so that there were fewer people at my location, eliminated the *nix-based computers, and kept all my agreements with clientele strictly in writing. No more "business on a handshake." I didn't stay in retail for very long.

Would that I had to invent such "fantasies."



Based on what you've said, I believe you are acquainted with fewer professionals than I. The professionals I know are able to complete a task without much direction, and won't accept a task until it's fully specified. Seldom do they encounter unanticipated "snags" in their work, hence, they produce their work product within schedule. I have no idea why you say what you do, Per, but I suppose you have your reasons. Those reasons don't have any bearing on me, though. I'm not a believer in the "second chance" theory, believing instead that, once a person has demonstrated his unwillingness to do his work properly, he should be constrained from participating in that pursuit, ever again. Using drugs and alcohol, or otherwise appearing intoxicated while on the job is clearly a choice, indicating an unwillingness to perform useful work.

All I've said is that (A) I won't buy services from vendors who don't offer the services I want, and (b) I won't deal with service providers whose employees have appeared (smelled) to have been using recreational chemicals while on the job. That's my privilege, and it's not a prejudice, as it is a decision based on observation and not speculation, though your conclusions are, in fact, based on an absence of information. You clearly prefer to assume facts not in evidence, which is your right, I suppose, but not a wise, or even reasonable, choice.

RE