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 totally understand that. That's why I said this "zero tolerance" is making us a nation of idiots.
There are no exceptions to the rules.
Common sense and logic doesn't enter the picture here.
Reality is that she put out the fire and no child was harmed.
Those are the facts on the table.
If I had a child in her care I'd be hugging her and praising her for doing what she did.
To me that was a justified exception that worked out to everyone's benefit and physical safety.
But she didn't follow the rules. That is the point of this story. 500 stupid messages on this thread don't change that fact.
This is not a story about "zero tolerance." The zero tolerance BS came about on this thread, not in this story. It is quite possible that the owner has had problems with this employee in the past. It's possible the owner has had problems with insurance, or with breaking rules in the past. We don't know that. That information is not in the article. You have a bunch of people on this thread speculating about something which they have essentially no clue, and indicting the owner over the scant information contained in the article. Neither you, nor me, nor anyone else on city-data.com has all the facts.
Bottom line: employee broke the rule and was fired for it. That she extinguished the fire, that it was a small fire, that no one was harmed, is all completely irrelevant to the one person in this story who matters, and that is the owner. The owner decided. There will be an investigation. Until the investigation finishes, and we have all the facts (if we ever do), all the garbage on this thread about zero tolerance are meaningless.
No different than her going to the rest room. The idea that there is no supervision because the person is in the next room for a couple minutes is silly and dismissable.
As a parent, you have the freedom to make these choices. And I've frequently had children left overnight with me. So I don't take it upon myself (you're insinuations are getting tiresome, by the way. Why don't you just stop trying to be subtle and accuse me of something? Oh, that's right, you're trying to attack my character but not violate the TOS. But since an attack on me is both off-topic and a violation of the TOS you fail on both counts.), they have baths before bedtime because that's what you do with children.
I don't bath small children who aren't my own. What insinuations? I find it ludicrous your attempt to show how you watch children 100% of the time as you claim. It's nonsense and you know it. Sit there and watch em while they nap etc. Gimme a break. If you think I'm attacking you then go tell to the moderators. You simply aren't making any sense and now when called on it you want to take the "your attacking me" route. Good luck with that.
But she didn't follow the rules. That is the point of this story. 500 stupid messages on this thread don't change that fact.
This is not a story about "zero tolerance." The zero tolerance BS came about on this thread, not in this story. It is quite possible that the owner has had problems with this employee in the past. It's possible the owner has had problems with insurance, or with breaking rules in the past. We don't know that. That information is not in the article. You have a bunch of people on this thread speculating about something which they have essentially no clue, and indicting the owner over the scant information contained in the article. Neither you, nor me, nor anyone else on city-data.com has all the facts.
Bottom line: employee broke the rule and was fired for it. That she extinguished the fire, that it was a small fire, that no one was harmed, is all completely irrelevant to the one person in this story who matters, and that is the owner. The owner decided. There will be an investigation. Until the investigation finishes, and we have all the facts (if we ever do), all the garbage on this thread about zero tolerance are meaningless.
Ok but it ended up ok for everyone involved didn't it ?
Is it the outcome or the principle you are debating ?
I see the outcome and say it was a justified exception.
The fire got put out and no child got harmed.
And it's not irrelevant. It's totally relevant because that's why she got fired.
Better to let it catch on fire and burn the place down then leave the sleeping children.
But she didn't follow the rules. That is the point of this story. 500 stupid messages on this thread don't change that fact.
This is not a story about "zero tolerance." The zero tolerance BS came about on this thread, not in this story. It is quite possible that the owner has had problems with this employee in the past. It's possible the owner has had problems with insurance, or with breaking rules in the past. We don't know that. That information is not in the article. You have a bunch of people on this thread speculating about something which they have essentially no clue, and indicting the owner over the scant information contained in the article. Neither you, nor me, nor anyone else on city-data.com has all the facts.
Bottom line: employee broke the rule and was fired for it. That she extinguished the fire, that it was a small fire, that no one was harmed, is all completely irrelevant to the one person in this story who matters, and that is the owner. The owner decided. There will be an investigation. Until the investigation finishes, and we have all the facts (if we ever do), all the garbage on this thread about zero tolerance are meaningless.
Now who's playing "what if" with various scenarios ?
No different than her going to the rest room. The idea that there is no supervision because the person is in the next room for a couple minutes is silly and dismissable.
Not "dismissable."
"Note to public: Teachers are NEVER to leave their children. Never to allow the children to be out of their sight no matter how short of a time. There is a reason why the average teacher has an enlarged bladder and is often “irregular” when it comes to excretion. Teaching is not like a job in the business world. There are no trips to the water cooler, no coffee breaks when you are feeling sluggish, no brief trips to the washroom just because your body is calling for it. Unless another teacher or someone from the office is available to stand in for a teacher, THERE IS NO LEAVING YOUR CHILDREN WHEN YOU ARE DESIGNATED TO BE WITH THEM!"
LOL, the owner even admits that this all would have likely have been worse if not for the actions of the teacher.
Rozhaov took Action News on a tour of the facility. We didn't smell smoke, but found light smoke damage around the oven. Hammack believes it could have been much worse.
"It probably would have progressed had it not been put out before that."
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.
