|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
This is how you try to transform the bra......y serfs:
Quote:
A sales clerk explains how he was fired from his job: tackling an armed robber who threatened to shoot him. I am not arguing that Circle K should require its clerks to defend themselves and resist malefactors, although I think that would be a reasonable policy. I just don't think they should fire the man for trying to save himself. W. |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
I agree that firing makes no sense, Woland.
However, as an employer still paying Worker's Comp for an employee who decided to break up a fight in our store four years ago, I understand the policy. Roughly, for every dollar of benefit one of our employees receives for WC we are taxed three. Many think it is the benevolent government "taking care of them" but that is not the case at all. Further, if the employee decides to sue the company they will likely win, as we now live in a society where few feel the need to take responsibility for their actions if someone with perceived deep pockets can take the hit instead. If the guy had taken a bullet for his decision to resist, Circle K would have paid a fortune for a decision they did not make and a situation they did not create. The question I have is, did they have a "no resist" rule in their company handbook, and did it indicate the penalty for breaking this rule? Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Well and good, Mr. Mystoffeles, but where would the company be if he had taken a bullet or indeed been murdered whilst in full compliance with its policy of non-resistance? As far as the company's handbook goes, do you think it is legal or enforceable for a company to require its employees to surrender their basic "inalienable" human rights, e.g. in this case, the right to life and self-defense?
W. |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Quote:
do you think it is legal or enforceable for a company to require its employees to surrender their basic "inalienable" human rights, e.g. in this case, the right to life and self-defense? Inalienable rights are surrendered everyday in the workplace. Free speech immediately comes to mind. With regard to safety, hazardous conditions abound and are allowed to be the condition of employment. Such are the contradictions of unregulated capitalism. And besides . . . those women were merely expressing their inalienable right to openly carry guns.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
motown Inner circle Atlanta by way of Detroit 6127 Posts |
I suspect this company will be receiving a whole lot of unpleasant mail and the many other job offers.
"If you ever write anything about me after I'm gone, I will come back and haunt you."
– Karl Germain |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Quote:
And besides . . . those women were merely expressing their inalienable right to openly carry guns. No, they weren't. W. |
|||||||||
seadog93 Inner circle 3200 Posts |
This is nothing new. I've heard of a lot of things like this (no doubt Al will say this because I'm in California! )
"Love is the magician who pulls man out of his own hat" - Ben Hecht
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing'. Between the two, my life flows." -Nisargadatta Maharaj Seadog=C-Dawg=C.ou.rtn.ey Kol.b |
|||||||||
George Ledo Magic Café Columnist SF Bay Area 3042 Posts |
"Enforcing a Policy of Cowardice" - nah.
Just one more example of what's driving a lot of issues in this country nowadays... the insurance companies not wanting their policyholders to get sued.
That's our departed buddy Burt, aka The Great Burtini, doing his famous Cups and Mice routine
www.georgefledo.net Latest column: "Sorry about the photos in my posts here" |
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2885 Posts |
This happened years ago at a 7-11. They were held up, followed the company policy of non-confrontation and gave the bad guys the money. As they left, one of the clerks went out to try and get their license. They stopped, got out of the car and beat the guy senseless.
While he was in the hospital, 7-11 fired him for violating their policy.
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
Patrick Differ Inner circle 1540 Posts |
George Ledo nailed it.
The politics of insurance. Insurance companies don't want to pay premiums, as said money comes off their bottom line, so they require internal policies of non-confrontation for all policy holders. If the policy holder doesn't enforce the internal policy, the insurance company will drop them. If I were an insurance company, I would do the same thing. If I were a policy holder, I would do the same thing. If I were that clerk, I would do the same thing. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if it means acting against the system.
Will you walk into my parlour? said the Spider to the Fly,
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy; The way into my parlour is up a winding stair, And I've a many curious things to show when you are there. Oh no, no, said the little Fly, to ask me is in vain, For who goes up your winding stair -can ne'er come down again. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Insurance yea, but also the aparant condoning of vigilante sort of justice.
I mean if the company thought it was ok to have this sort of behavior yes insurance would be CRAZY! But also wouldn't a stance that encouraged or allowed this sort of open them up to liability if it went wrong? Violence is a tough thing to get behind for me.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
In England, I think, the fellow would sue them for unfair dismissal more or less, which would be dealt with by the industrial tribunal and if he won his case the company would have yo pay him whatever they decided. I am not sure how it works really but I think if he lost he would not have to pay anything but they vet the cases before they listen to them and will not listen to cases that are frivolous and so on.
I think this fellow would win, perhaps.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
thorndyke Regular user Canada 147 Posts |
In my city a few years ago, a grocery store was robbed at gun point. As the robbers returned to their vehicle, a teen age clerk stepped outside to see what kind of vehicle and plate number they had. He was shot and killed. In this case, he wasn't directly threatened while inside like the clerk in this thread was, and I think we can all agree that if it is do or die you have to do something. This young clerk really should have stayed in the store and called the police.
|
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
Just for the record, just because a right is constitutional does not make it inalienable. By definition, inalienable rights cannot be removed or transferred. The Constitution has been changed many times, with certain rights being added and others removed. Even the "inalienable" rights listed (in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution), "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," are not truly inalienable in this life. many of the men who signed that document owned slaves who did not have liberty and were not allowed to pursue happiness, and who could be murdered without fear of repercussions.
As to the employee in question in the OP, I don't agree with his being fired. I do, however, understand the company's policy of non-resistance. History shows us that most (certainly not all) armed robbers are not likely to shoot clerks who pacify them and just hand over the cash. Someone is much more likely to be injured or killed (either the employee or the perpetrator) in a scuffle. When I used to work in retail and service positions, we were always told to hand over the money and even offer the robber access to the office where the next shift's starting till was kept in a locked drawer in the desk. Total cash on hand in a convenience store where I worked the graveyard shift was a few hundred dollars--much less than a workman's comp claim or lawsuit would cost. Having said all that, if the clerk truly believed the woman was going to shoot him anyway, I certainly do not begrudge him the right to do whatever needed to be done to keep that from happening.
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-01-02 11:07, Patrick Differ wrote: Do we have any actual confirmation that this is true? The policy of non-confrontation being imposed by an insurance company, I mean. DO insurance companies actually dictate this sort of policy? I have worked in / and have friends who work in the insurance industry, and I have never heard of such a thing. Mind you I am familiar with life and health and pension, not so much property and casualty. Now I can accept that an insurance company might require an armed guard on the premises and / or give a reduction in premium to any store that has THAT policy. But I await confirmation on the non-confrontation thing.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
I don't know about the insurance mandating it, but I was thinking that it would be more for the company's defense of a lawsuit by an employee. I suspect that resistance leads to a higher likelihood of an employee's being injured, and the company would certainly want to be able to assert in court that not only did they not require or encourage it, but they have a strict record of forbidding it.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Yes, that at least sounds far more likely to me than an insurance company mandating it.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Thank you, Scott for some interesting observations about rights and responsibilities. Let me add that, at least as I see it, the Constitution was not written to grant rights to the people, but rather to construct a government that would be constrained to respect the rights with which their Creator endowed them. Secondly, the fact that the ideals of the Declaration were not 100% embodied by everyone at the end of the XVIIIth century does not necessarily mean that those ideals were not understood to apply to everyone.
Although I understand that there are many reasons why companies might prefer a policy of non-resistance, I think an undesired side-effect is in effect to train people to submit to threats of violence and actual violence. There would be in my opinion a lot less crime if criminals knew that their efforts would be met by the immediate application of sufficient force. These policies in effect aid criminals. And the habit of acquiescence to threats of violence may unfortunately carry over into other spheres of life. W. |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-01-03 06:31, Woland wrote: But there is a lot less crime than there used to be. Crime rates have been decreasing for the past few years. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/1......20111219 So your hypothesis of non-resitence encouraging criminal acts has no evidence to support it.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Actually, Payne, one of the reasons, in my humble opinion, that violent crime has been decreasing is because over the past couple of decades, with a change in most State laws from "may permit" to "shall permit" instructions to local law enforcement, more and more honest, law-abiding citizens are exercising their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to carry the means of self-defense. Even in Wisconsin. I think Illinois is the only remaining State in which it is impossible for honest, law-abiding citizens to obtain a carry permit.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Enforcing a Policy of Cowardice (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |