OTT "RSA" in the PER lounge

[suze2000]

Following this thread with interest... what I don't understand is how RSA rules can be employed in this way when the requester is clearly not intoxicated? What next? A breathalyser in the Lounge that you have to use prior to your next service?

(contrast this with a recent experience in SYD Lounge, where my FIL, on discovering everything was free, proceeded to down 3 bottles of beer (4.5 std drinks, I imagine) in 40 mins or so. Nobody batted an eyelid, except me, it would seem)

 

[Kieran2274]

So it would be partly related to the FIFO brigade?

You cannot tell me asking for a drink 10 minutes after first one is part of RSA. To refuse me service would suggest you have a very good indication I am drunk after 1 drink. Which is clearly not the case.

A much simpler solution would be to refuse to serve FIFO workers rather than discriminate against everyone.

Yes, it would seem there is some sort of enforcement based on who they think you are (or which stereotype they think you belong to, rather than whether you are sober or not). Despite state/territory based fines for RSA breaches, I note RSA enforcement is often lax when you pay for drinks, so perhaps it's a combination of snobbery and cost control lol. I'm sure there have been a few bad apples in PER and DRW belonging to the hi-vis set that have done the wrong thing (just as I'm sure a few 'suits' have done too), but you can't then treat everyone or sub-sets of the community with presumptive prejudice either, and not except to cop some grief about it. RSA is about declining to serve when patron is intoxicated (whether mildly or absolutely) - nothing more, nothing less (it doesn't require a whole bunch of assumptions about whether the patron drives, plans to go windsurfing lol, etc - you can't decide RSA based on some future possibility or forecast made, just on how they present now).

Venues may put in rules that relate to alcohol consumption - such as not being able to ask for another drink within ten minutes of last order - but that's nothing to do with RSA. That's just a plain old management decision. Something they are entitled to do (even if it may open them up to discrimination complaints, if the local rule appears limited to a protected segment), but if so, they should at least take ownership of it as such and not try to hide behind unrelated State/Territory/Council regulations. And I wouldn't use RSA to mask just plain old rudeness either lol.

 

[candyflip]

I think this is all a smokescreen.

VA want to limit their spend - in every way possible.
They are simply over-reaching in this situation and have offended a repeat customer in the process.

Poor show boys...

 

[Deleted member 29185]

VA want to limit their spend - in every way possible.

I'm not so sure. It seems to be just the PER lounge. If what you suggest were true, wouldn't we see the same across all the VA lounges? I'm more convinced it's either a sub-contract supplier wanting to limit their spend, or simply an overzealous employee who has a chip on his shoulder and begrudges everyone or perhaps has a personal reason to restrict alcohol (religious belief, family history of alcohol abuse etc).