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.
"Tutterrow, 46, is paid a yearly salary, and other staffers are paid a flat weekly fee, according to Joyce Fitzpatrick, a spokeswoman for ride operator Family Attractions Amusement Company.
However, Family Attractions Amusement’s income depends on ridership; it’s paid based on how many tickets it receives from riders"
I was thinking this must have been it. I am sure there is pretty large amount of pressure to keep the ride up and running from the higher-ups. I am sure that if this goes to trial and in the trials for the inevitable lawsuits, we will hear quite a bit about this.
I was thinking this must have been it. I am sure there is pretty large amount of pressure to keep the ride up and running from the higher-ups. I am sure that if this goes to trial and in the trials for the inevitable lawsuits, we will hear quite a bit about this.
Yeah. I wonder if they'll settle just to keep this out of the news.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Lots of speculation here. But how does anyone know what was in that man's mind? Maybe he did have intentions on hurting someone. I hope not. Maybe he just wanted to keep the ride going and wasnt smart enough to understand what could happen? Noone knows for sure...except him. And of course he is not going to say I wanted to harm anyone. There are a lot of crazies out there.
Yeah. I wonder if they'll settle just to keep this out of the news.
I'm sure it is in the best interest of the ride company to settle any lawsuits ASAP. Only thing is I am sure the lawyers feel like they have a pretty slam dunk case with the investigation that will give them loads of evidence, so they are going to ask for a huge amount.
Also, the operator is probably not going to just plead to the charges brought and will likely want to go to trial and the prosecution has little reason to give him much of a deal due to the same evidence.
I'm sure it is in the best interest of the ride company to settle any lawsuits ASAP.
Why?
Is it in any business' interest to simply roll over at the first threat of a lawsuit? You don't think they and their insurers are going to want to test the claims and the evidence? Might it not be in their interest to establish a reputation as a company that quickly and easily settles claims?
Is it in any business' interest to simply roll over at the first threat of a lawsuit? You don't think they and their insurers are going to want to test the claims and the evidence? Might it not be in their interest to establish a reputation as a company that quickly and easily settles claims?
I think in most cases, you are right. However, it seems to me (knowing nothing other than what's been reported in the press and just using reasoning) that they would be crazy to let this go to anything close to a trial, because if the plaintiffs start to get emails or other communications or take witness statements from the ride operators and find out that yes, management encouraged them to keep the rides running at all costs, a jury will BURY them. From what I have seen, they only have things to hide and unless this guy went rogue, they have everything to lose here. I am sure they will paint him as a rouge employee, but their own statement already that he was salaried and not paid based on ridership already puts more reason on the company to have the ride running than the employee. If he is paid no matter what, he wouldn't care if he spent all day loading people on the ride or running new wire and switches for the safety interlocks.
I think in most cases, you are right. However, it seems to me (knowing nothing other than what's been reported in the press and just using reasoning) that they would be crazy to let this go to anything close to a trial, because if the plaintiffs start to get emails or other communications or take witness statements from the ride operators and find out that yes, management encouraged them to keep the rides running at all costs, a jury will BURY them. From what I have seen, they only have things to hide and unless this guy went rogue, they have everything to lose here. I am sure they will paint him as a rouge employee, but their own statement already that he was salaried and not paid based on ridership already puts more reason on the company to have the ride running than the employee. If he is paid no matter what, he wouldn't care if he spent all day loading people on the ride or running new wire and switches for the safety interlocks.
Since the company gets paid on ridership, the employee might have pressure to keep the ride running at all costs so it will make money. Salaried employees can be fired or denied a raise. For legal purposes, there might be an employee manual that sates to shut down the ride down if there is a problem but at the same time, pressure to keep it running. He is probably salaried just so the ride company can avoid paying him all the OT that he works.
Lots of speculation here. But how does anyone know what was in that man's mind? Maybe he did have intentions on hurting someone. I hope not. Maybe he just wanted to keep the ride going and wasnt smart enough to understand what could happen? Noone knows for sure...except him. And of course he is not going to say I wanted to harm anyone. There are a lot of crazies out there.
As one who was standing right there and saw the aftermath, I could see that he was completely wigging out, clutching his head, and extremely upset. I in no way believe it was intentional (if so, why did he "wait" until almost everyone was already off). But I can see how being sloppy--possibly under pressure to move the crowds through faster--could lead to a "what would it hurt not to follow this procedure..." mentality.
He is probably salaried just so the ride company can avoid paying him all the OT that he works.
A common misconception - but whether someone is paid hourly or is salaried is not determinative of whether they are entitled to overtime compensation. There is such a thing as salaried non-exempt positions.
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.
