This might be the closest thing to breaking news that this blog will ever cover. At the time of writing, the bars—Gallagher's and Southern—have stop serving alcohol.
First off, if this is a surprise to some of you: yes! We do have (had?) functioning bars at McMurdo Station. Alcohol was regularly served after the normal workday and both were popular for those who were not working late or overnight. If there is a social heart at McMurdo, it's the bar.
There has, however, been rumblings and requests for a while now for more alcohol-free spaces. Not everyone on station drinks—myself included though this was in the works even before I was hired—and the opportunity to treat some more problematic behavior in the community must have made this an attractive opportunity for the McMurdo leadership. So after one last hurrah, alcohol service was ended and both bars have become monitored hangout spots with opening and closing hours, rather than the 24-hour lounges they were before.
This does not mean, however, that alcohol is banned or that McMurdo is a dry station (though we'll get to that later). As is fitting for what was previously a naval base, everyone has an alcohol ration they are allotted and are able to purchase alcohol of varying kinds from the McMurdo store. The bars were apparently not part of that ration, so now there's a limit to the amount of alcohol someone can consume on a weekly basis. So while they won't serve alcohol at the bar, you can bring and consume your own alcohol there (the bars will be serving sodas and other soft drinks, but I highly doubt anyone will really be paying for those).
Hopefully that serves as an introduction to the bars and alcohol in general on station. We're going to talk a bit about why they made this change and whether it will be effective or not. As a fair warning, much of this will be based on speculation from myself and other coworkers that I've spoken with, as well as some rumors that have been going around. How true these rumors are remains to be seen, but their validity doesn't have any effect on how people live their lives once hearing them.
So to begin, I actually think this may have been a good move on station management's part. Both for the health of the station workers and for their safety. By health, I mean the obvious stuff. If my last post didn't hammer it home enough, slips, trips, and falls really are the most common form of injury on the station. And if we know anything about alcohol, it's that coordination often goes right out the door; not to mention thinning blood and susceptibility to cold, both of which are obviously bad here. But all of those can be mitigated with careful consumption, a "designated driver," and general self-control.
But more to the matter is safety. The United States Antarctic Program has a few skeletons, as any organization does, but also being a government entity, they are fairly well documented. While not a pattern, and certainly not such an epidemic as to warrant major safety concerns for those of you back home, there are many documented instances of harassment and inappropriate behavior on station. And the most common factor among those events is alcohol. I doubt I need to outline what happens to inhibitions and decision-making when alcohol is overly involved. So in an effort to stem and eventually stop these kinds of behavior, shutting down the bars might be a first step to totally shutting down intoxicated misbehavior.
There's talk about making McMurdo an entirely dry station—no alcohol whatsoever (except to cook with, but if you drink that, I pity you). It honestly may not be the worst idea. Despite being a science base, McMurdo has a bit of a reputation as a party place. Drinking is the national sport down here. I've been told by returning staff that some people that come here actually lose money because of how much they drink. When room and board are both covered and you have really no bills, that is an obscene amount of alcohol to drink. As one of my coworkers pointed out, this place isn't spring break. You are expected to work and work well. You don't come down to party and then drag your hungover body to your job. If the party culture is that prevalent, it could be getting in the way of quality work and a safe work environment for others.
So if the goal is to change the culture of McMurdo station and protect the individuals that work here, I think having to cut off a limb to save the body is the right step. What's important will be to see how leadership follows up with this to offer new opportunities for staff as well as outlining a plan going forward. Keeping your workers in the dark about plans often leads to unease and a lack of faith in upper management. But the keen-eyed of you might have picked up on a flaw in this proposed solution.
When I talked with my coworkers about this, I asked two questions: was this decision well-thought-out? And will it work as leadership wants it to? I think we've come to the conclusion on the first part that there is a worthwhile intent behind the change, and that it may have been thought through. But will it work like they want? While the bars will not be serving alcohol, we still have our own ration of alcohol.
You know what they say about good intentions, the road to hell is paved with them. Stopping sale of alcohol at the bars could theoretically limit the amount of drinking, but it also opens new problems. In general, this is where much of the dissatisfaction comes from on station. And there are a few points to consider.
The first is that this doesn't necessarily limit the amount people will drink. While the alcohol ration is limited, it is also weekly and can (and probably will be) stockpiled. There's no real limit on what people can do with their own property. One of my coworkers said that the problems they faced related to alcohol happened away from the bar. People's actions will still be effected by their drinking. And linked to that is that it will no longer be localized to one area. Now that the bars have regular hours, people will need to find new places to take their after-party. The only real options are the galley, the dorm lounges, and their rooms. That means that any additional alcohol-influenced behavior is going to happen in more secluded and "residential" places. What might have been avoided at the bar could well fall into someone's lap while "home." As one kitchen member said, if someone wants to act like a hooligan, they will, regardless of location.
Next up is that this basically begs for a black market to be created. I've mentioned before, but I'm not the only one who doesn't drink. Other people aren't using their alcohol ration for their own enjoyment. But everyone still has one, even if they don't use it. So what's stopping someone from using their ration and then turning around and selling the alcohol to those who do want it. Yes, there are rules against that—misappropriation of government assets or something—but that's what makes it a black market. Supply and demand often makes it worth the risk to some people. People will get their alcohol, one way or another.
And third, this is taking away public space. What used to be a hangout spot is now limited in when it can be used. The initial push was for more alcohol-free social zones, but with the bars closing as they are, that leaves even less space for casual socialization. There's now the galley, which is now sort of the bar #2, there's the dorm lounges, which all fall under the 24-hour quiet hours rule, there's the craft room, which is only open at certain times, and there's the rec room, same issue. And there has been a rumor going around that if things like the rec room aren't being used enough, then it will get changed over to office space, further limiting the amount of social spaces. I don't think we're asking for a whole new building to be erected here for the sole purpose of board games and book clubs, but by taking away a social space and not filling that void, it really feels like the walls are tightening around the staff. If you don't hike or ski, do you really have a place here to relax uninhibited with friends?
This has obviously not been an extremely popular choice among the staff. There's even been a rumor that some forty people backed out of their contracts when they heard the bars were closed. With only around 900 people expected this season, that's not an insignificant number. And many people that I've talked to just think this is a bad idea.
For me, it's been a very interesting week. I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm not drinking while down here. But my investigative journalist has been stirred and listening to people and asking questions has been very enlightening. If I had one take away from this, it would be to encourage leadership to be open and honest about what they want to achieve and to have a set plan on how to get there. People are not happy right now, and part of that is the ambiguity. You've taken a "toy" away and not really explained why. That's going to foster some resentment. If this is going to be a cultural change, embrace that and let the chips fall where they may. The people that will come back after the fact are those you want if you're doing something new.
And for everyone else, drink responsibly.
Stay cool everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment