Not to be a total asshole, but she had a 99% blockage, that has nothing to do with stress or being overworked, and the very first person in a management position she contacted told her to close the pharmacy window and get to the ER, which she ignored, wanting someone to come in and cover, first. This wasn’t about being overworked so much as someone who put keeping up with a store that was behind and understaffed already above their health, even when their superior told them not to.
A pharmacist in 2021 could find three jobs within the range she could throw a rock. Don’t be dedicated to a company that isn’t taking care of you (I’m guessing this is why 3 of her coworkers had quit).
The purpose of “but” is to negate everything said before it, so you do mean to be a total asshole. Her work environment was at least a significant causal factor; inclusive of the diet associated with it, the daily stress, lack of sleep, high pace, constant effort, etc. The idea the blockage is unrelated to the work environment is ridulous. And yes the employee ignored her boss, but on workplace safety, it’s the boss’s nondelegable duty to protect the employee; the boss should have made sure the employee was safe, based on the minimal effort it would have required and the high probability of serious injury or death at hand.
A person can be actively having a heart attack or bleeding out or on the verge of death. If they are still of sound mind (can answer a few simple questions) and they refuse medical help, it’s illegal to force them to get it. It’s not an employers duty, right, or ability to make an employee get medical attention if they choose to not have it.
Did I misread? I thought she complained of symptoms that day and was told to close the pharmacy and get help. That’s what I’m talking about. Employers have an affirmative legal duty to provide a safe work environment and protect workers, even from themselves, including by firing the employee if necessary. Plenty of case law on the employer’s duty of care. If the employer called an ambulance and the employee refused care, that would relieve the employer form moral culpability.
Either way, in my country anyway, workers’ comp. is strict liability. The employee’s work was intended to and did directly benefit the employer and therefore the injurious work activity is within the scope of her employment, and therefore the employer is liable to provider whatever statutory medical coverage and death and survivors benefits that workers’ comp. must pay. Hopefully they aren’t utter shit.
Hard disagree with you. Her supervisor was not at the store and told her to shut down and go get checked out. Staying there was 100% her choice. Pharmacists also don’t have to eat so poorly on shift that it would cause their heart condition of having a 99% blockage. Heck, for most slimmer people it’s a genetic thing and not just dietary.
Not to be a total asshole, but she had a 99% blockage, that has nothing to do with stress or being overworked, and the very first person in a management position she contacted told her to close the pharmacy window and get to the ER, which she ignored, wanting someone to come in and cover, first. This wasn’t about being overworked so much as someone who put keeping up with a store that was behind and understaffed already above their health, even when their superior told them not to.
A pharmacist in 2021 could find three jobs within the range she could throw a rock. Don’t be dedicated to a company that isn’t taking care of you (I’m guessing this is why 3 of her coworkers had quit).
The purpose of “but” is to negate everything said before it, so you do mean to be a total asshole. Her work environment was at least a significant causal factor; inclusive of the diet associated with it, the daily stress, lack of sleep, high pace, constant effort, etc. The idea the blockage is unrelated to the work environment is ridulous. And yes the employee ignored her boss, but on workplace safety, it’s the boss’s nondelegable duty to protect the employee; the boss should have made sure the employee was safe, based on the minimal effort it would have required and the high probability of serious injury or death at hand.
A person can be actively having a heart attack or bleeding out or on the verge of death. If they are still of sound mind (can answer a few simple questions) and they refuse medical help, it’s illegal to force them to get it. It’s not an employers duty, right, or ability to make an employee get medical attention if they choose to not have it.
Did I misread? I thought she complained of symptoms that day and was told to close the pharmacy and get help. That’s what I’m talking about. Employers have an affirmative legal duty to provide a safe work environment and protect workers, even from themselves, including by firing the employee if necessary. Plenty of case law on the employer’s duty of care. If the employer called an ambulance and the employee refused care, that would relieve the employer form moral culpability.
Either way, in my country anyway, workers’ comp. is strict liability. The employee’s work was intended to and did directly benefit the employer and therefore the injurious work activity is within the scope of her employment, and therefore the employer is liable to provider whatever statutory medical coverage and death and survivors benefits that workers’ comp. must pay. Hopefully they aren’t utter shit.
Hard disagree with you. Her supervisor was not at the store and told her to shut down and go get checked out. Staying there was 100% her choice. Pharmacists also don’t have to eat so poorly on shift that it would cause their heart condition of having a 99% blockage. Heck, for most slimmer people it’s a genetic thing and not just dietary.