Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Guess I didn't express myself clearly. I don't blame the union for suspending him I blame them for not protecting him. That's what the union is there for, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Have you ever heard that saying, if you're not liberal when you're young, you have no heart? Well, maybe, maybe not.
However, TheBlaze will likely incapacitate your brain from too much exposure.
Yes I've heard it. Do I think its a load of crap? Yes. That said I do have some liberal tendencies. Go check out the transgender thread, read some of my posts.
The Blaze or MSNBC, CNN, HLN? Hmmmmmm. No brainer. If you don't like the sorce I use, don't comment on the thread. Simple. And if you do comment how 'bout talking about the story. Or is that just too hard for liberals?
Guess I didn't express myself clearly. I don't blame the union for suspending him I blame them for not protecting him. That's what the union is there for, right?
Yes I've heard it. Do I think its a load of crap? Yes. That said I do have some liberal tendencies. Go check out the transgender thread, read some of my posts.
The Blaze or MSNBC, CNN, HLN? Hmmmmmm. No brainer. If you don't like the sorce I use, don't comment on the thread. Simple. And if you do comment how 'bout talking about the story. Or is that just too hard for liberals?
In the future, I'll think twice any time I'm tempted to open one of your threads. You know, you even got the story wrong in this thread. Is there no time for humility in the conservative world?
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 05-22-2012 at 09:27 AM..
"Safeway meat clerk Ryan Young has his job back and has become a bit of a celebrity after being suspended for trying to help a pregnant woman who was being kicked by her boyfriend."
"Then a sea of support rose for Young, starting with his union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5. They immediately challenged Young's suspension, but the company refused to budge for weeks—until Wednesday, when he was reinstated."
"Safeway reinstated Young with back pay. The decision came a day after union representatives and the company spoke."
I agree with some of the others: It appears that you utterly misunderstood the article, although now you claim that you were pointing out how the union was 'awesome' for having this young man's back.
Anyway, let us discuss this: why would a corporate employer have rules mandating that employees not physically become involved in situations concerning customers?
Mind, I am not saying that I 'agree' with Safeway's policy. It may be true that if this young man had not intervened, the young lady may have been seriously injured: however, that is speculation.
Regardless, the policy apparenly is: call 911 or store security. Do not physically intervene.
Why?
One possible reason: liability. If the young hero had been injured, he may have sued Safeway (it costs little to file a suit); at the least he would have filed for worker's compensation.
Of course, Safeway would have argued that the young employee was acting outside of the scope of his employment (which I imagine he was). Yet, individuals have been awarded worker's compensation for strange things.
Second: what if the young employee had injured the aggressive man? I doubt the man would have sued the young employee, since he has next to nothing. Rather, he would sue Safeway. Maybe not win, but who knows?
And what if the young employee had misinterpreted what he had seen? What if the store security cameras had shown that the aggressive man was not truly being 'aggressive' towards the pregnant lady? (again, I AM MAKING SUPPOSITIONS, NOT STATING FACT). Said aggressive gentleman could surely sue Safeway for millions of dollars if he were injured.
Third: what if the young lady decided to sue Safeway? What if she claimed that the young hero's actions actually made her situation worse for her (like, at home). Or, again, that said employee misunderstood the situation? Sue for loss of companionship, etc?
In short: I guess if I owned a large corporation (like Safeway, Walmart, etc) I would probably desire that my employees not confront aggressive customers, but let trained law enforcement do so.
As for the argument that if the young employee had done nothing then the damage could have escalated: possibly true, but perhaps if he called the police they may have arrived within a very few minutes (I read an article the other day about a toddler who called 911 when her mother was choking; police arrived four minutes later and managed to save the woman). We must not assume that the police response would be an hour later.
I would be interested in hearing from readers who believe that it should be stated company policy that employees actually interfere in physical confrontationss between customers, and upon what legal basis you are basing your opinion on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I don't blame the union for suspending him I blame them for not protecting him. That's what the union is there for, right?
