If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   Krisopher Oswald offered his Walmart job back after being fired for assisting a woman who was being assaulted in the store's parking lot   (examiner.com) divider line 63
    More: Followup, Walmart, workplace violence, parking lots  
•       •       •

1790 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Oct 2013 at 5:49 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-19 01:14:18 PM
It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.
 
2013-10-19 01:19:36 PM

ginandbacon: The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed.


This
 
2013-10-19 02:16:33 PM
So... fark decency and basic humanity, coming to the assistance of  person in danger.  That might cut into profits!
 
2013-10-19 02:31:52 PM

ginandbacon: It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.


The employers can be liable if the customer is hurt or killed in their parking lot.
 
2013-10-19 02:43:56 PM

ginandbacon: It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.


They can be liable if a 747 crashes into the building and kills someone taking a dump, jurassic park style. This is what insurance is for. Yeah, the employees shouldn't be escalating situations over shop lifting and minor shiat, but come on, to have a corporate policy that you can't help a woman being attacked and screaming for help? . That is evil.

farking lawyers
 
2013-10-19 02:48:42 PM
I have a feeling wally world will bring him back only to severely cut his hours and "encourage" him to quit.
 
2013-10-19 02:49:10 PM

ginandbacon: It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.


I've never signed a contract saying I'd be fired if I saved a woman from a beating and a kidnapping that was happening right in front of me. What kind of farked up place do you work? Out side of wally world and some other retail that is a very odd thing to have in it.
 
2013-10-19 02:59:59 PM

MissFeasance: ginandbacon: The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed.

This


Feasy you seem like a good person. If you had a bf trying to beat your ass and you were screaming for help, what would your thought be if someone just shrugged and apologized because they were working And would get in trouble? would you in any way think that was a decent organization that would rather have you get the shiat beat out of you, or worse, than have to go through the trouble of possibly filing an insurance claim?

a lot of small business folks would of fast tracked that guy for demonstrating courage and getting them some great pr.
 
2013-10-19 03:27:13 PM

SirVagTheTighty: Feasy you seem like a good person.


Did you forget I'm a lawyer?
 
2013-10-19 03:31:52 PM

MissFeasance: ginandbacon: The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed.

This


And they can be held liable for not having security or an employee not doing anything or for anything imaginable. Not chasing shoplifters is understandable, this is BS
 
2013-10-19 03:33:19 PM
Anyway, I hope the guy gets a job at a decent company not run by scum bags
 
2013-10-19 03:37:39 PM

MissFeasance: SirVagTheTighty: Feasy you seem like a good person.

Did you forget I'm a lawyer?


Nope, just thought you seemed like the type of person that wasn't the evil kind Of lawyer.
 
2013-10-19 03:41:29 PM

SirVagTheTighty: MissFeasance: SirVagTheTighty: Feasy you seem like a good person.

Did you forget I'm a lawyer?

Nope, just thought you seemed like the type of person that wasn't the evil kind Of lawyer.


THERE'S ANOTHER TYPE?!

/kidding
//lawyer
///..the evil kind.
 
2013-10-19 03:48:16 PM

SirVagTheTighty: Nope, just thought you seemed like the type of person that wasn't the evil kind Of lawyer.


I'm not saying I agree with it on a personal level.  On a liability level, I understand.
 
2013-10-19 03:53:47 PM

MissFeasance: SirVagTheTighty: Nope, just thought you seemed like the type of person that wasn't the evil kind Of lawyer.

I'm not saying I agree with it on a personal level.  On a liability level, I understand.


If you had a para legal coming back from lunch and the same thing happened outside of your office would you fire them?
 
2013-10-19 04:02:17 PM

SirVagTheTighty: If you had a para legal coming back from lunch and the same thing happened outside of your office would you fire them?


I wouldn't have a company policy prohibiting it.
 
2013-10-19 04:06:49 PM

MissFeasance: SirVagTheTighty: If you had a para legal coming back from lunch and the same thing happened outside of your office would you fire them?

I wouldn't have a company policy prohibiting it.


That is kind of my point
 
2013-10-19 04:08:13 PM

SirVagTheTighty: That is kind of my point


Which doesn't change my point in the least.  From a liability standpoint it's understandable.
 
2013-10-19 04:14:01 PM

MissFeasance: SirVagTheTighty: That is kind of my point

Which doesn't change my point in the least.  From a liability standpoint it's understandable.


How so? Why would you make excuses for wWalmart for making unethical decisions, that you would not make for yourself and your company? I understand they may have some liability advantages, but what is so wrong with saying 'wow what a bunch of unethical dick bags that would be willing to see a poor girl get her ass beat than worry about having to pay a dime, i'd sure as hell never do that'?
 
2013-10-19 04:21:13 PM
Because it's much easier for a small company or single employer to make case-by-case decisions than a company that employs a couple million people?  I think it's stupid, and whoever in HR or legal made the decision to fire him made the wrong call, as they obviously realized as they've offered him his position back, but the concept of "hey, employee, don't get involved in physical altercations while working as an employee on business property, call the cops instead" isn't exactly murdering puppies.
 
2013-10-19 04:32:25 PM

MissFeasance: Because it's much easier for a small company or single employer to make case-by-case decisions than a company that employs a couple million people?   I think it's stupid, and whoever in HR or legal made the decision to fire him made the wrong call, as they obviously realized as they've offered him his position back, but the concept of "hey, employee, don't get involved in physical altercations while working as an employee on business property, call the cops instead" isn't exactly murdering puppies.


There that's all I was saying!  I don't think its stupid to have a 'don't beat the hell out of people on our property policy' and generally agree with you.  It just bugs me when folks toss out:

MissFeasance: ginandbacon: The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed.

This


You weren't wrong, but that not an excuse and I have no idea why anyone thinks its acceptable to defend something like that just because his actions, which could of saved a girls life, could cost a multibillion dollar global corporation an amount so small it wouldn't even be a foot note on the income statement for a single store.
 
2013-10-19 04:38:53 PM
Meh, having a company policy of not having your employees put themselves in harms way in dangerous situations does not make you an evil empire, it makes you prudent in this litigious society.
 
2013-10-19 04:39:49 PM

SirVagTheTighty: You weren't wrong, but that not an excuse and I have no idea why anyone thinks its acceptable to defend something like that just because his actions, which could of saved a girls life, could cost a multibillion dollar global corporation an amount so small it wouldn't even be a foot note on the income statement for a single store.


It totally isn't an excuse.  The problem is that when you're writing an employee manual, you usually don't end up with clauses that end in "except if in this specific case you are saving a woman from her boyfriend beating her up" or whatever.  They're broad for a reason, that reason being that you never know what exactly is going to be the thing that triggers it.  No one is defending Walmart for firing him; they're saying it's not stupid for them to have a policy about engaging in situations.
 
2013-10-19 04:51:29 PM
Yeah, perfect example of why my generation doesn't have the ovaries to be accountable for anything.

If he doesn't help, he's a shiathead who let a woman get hurt and could possibly face criminal prosecution under Good Samaritan laws.
If he helps, he might lose his job (and all the fun that entails), could get hurt (or worse), etc.

/way too many catch-22s for us these days
 
2013-10-19 04:58:59 PM

MissFeasance: SirVagTheTighty: You weren't wrong, but that not an excuse and I have no idea why anyone thinks its acceptable to defend something like that just because his actions, which could of saved a girls life, could cost a multibillion dollar global corporation an amount so small it wouldn't even be a foot note on the income statement for a single store.

It totally isn't an excuse.  The problem is that when you're writing an employee manual, you usually don't end up with clauses that end in "except if in this specific case you are saving a woman from her boyfriend beating her up" or whatever.  They're broad for a reason, that reason being that you never know what exactly is going to be the thing that triggers it.  No one is defending Walmart for firing him; they're saying it's not stupid for them to have a policy about engaging in situations.


I don't think anyone was upset they had a policy about engaging strangers in violent situations, they are upset that he was fired.  If they had sent him to HR to give a statement, sent him home for the rest of the day, talked about it and then told him they understood the extreme circumstances he encountered and he was free to return back to work we wouldn't be having this conversation.  They didn't do that, they fired him (I believe on the spot?).

I don't see anyone above (outside of after I kind of questioned you) saying 'well I understand having policies like that, but its bullshiat he was fired', just:

It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.

And then you agreeing

Anyhow I don't really think we disagree here and its silly to pick over semantics.  Sorry for calling you out here ;)  I still think you are a good person and a good lawyer
 
2013-10-19 04:59:49 PM

Peki: Yeah, perfect example of why my generation doesn't have the ovaries to be accountable for anything.

If he doesn't help, he's a shiathead who let a woman get hurt and could possibly face criminal prosecution under Good Samaritan laws.
If he helps, he might lose his job (and all the fun that entails), could get hurt (or worse), etc.

/way too many catch-22s for us these days


You may want to google that one, I don't think they are what you think they are
 
2013-10-19 05:28:42 PM
This kind of litigious fear is killing America.

Back up your people and let them do the right thing.
 
2013-10-19 05:58:49 PM

SirVagTheTighty: ginandbacon: It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.

They can be liable if a 747 crashes into the building and kills someone taking a dump, jurassic park style. This is what insurance is for. Yeah, the employees shouldn't be escalating situations over shop lifting and minor shiat, but come on, to have a corporate policy that you can't help a woman being attacked and screaming for help? . That is evil.

farking lawyers


Yep, this.

He did a pretty goddamn brave thing because he couldn't not.  Immense, immense respect.

And FFS, he was on his lunch break.  Not in the actual store.  It reminds me of high school when the security guards (who had literally nothing better to do) would go to the mall down the street and ask for student IDs because only seniors were allowed to go off school property for lunch.

Why couldn't a good lawyer, on the off chance they didn't fire him and he sued or someone fakes a similar situation to sue Walmart and references previous situations as corporate condoning intervening...  why couldn't they argue that he was off the goddamn clock?  I'll wager dollars to donuts he wasn't getting paid for that lunch.
 
2013-10-19 06:01:01 PM
They suck
 
2013-10-19 06:03:03 PM
Don't like the business, don't shop there. I don't.
 
2013-10-19 06:04:47 PM

I didn't realize he's 30 and just started at Walmart 7 weeks ago.


Dammit, is there a donation page anywhere for him?  Because if you were just hired at Walmart 7 weeks ago at 30, I imagine you're in pretty dire straits financially.  And I'd like to encourage this type of behavior, because f--k Walmart.


At the least I hope someone offers him a job somewhere else so he can still get a paycheck but won't have to deal with the indignity of going back there.  If I had one to give, I would.


Oswald says Walmart has policies against workplace violence to prevent employees from assaulting co-workers or tackling a shoplifter, but that it appears that nothing allows for them to assist in situations of imminent danger and self-defense.

Oswald says Walmart has policies against workplace violence to prevent employees from assaulting co-workers or tackling a shoplifter, but that it appears that nothing allows for them to assist in situations of imminent danger and self-defense.




Oswald says Walmart has policies against workplace violence to prevent employees from assaulting co-workers or tackling a shoplifter, but that it appears that nothing allows for them to assist in situations of imminent danger and self-defense.


So I'm sure 24 Hour Walmarts have security escorting employees to their cars at night, since if someone pulls a knife or a gun on them to rob or rape them they can't respond without losing their jobs. Right?
 
2013-10-19 06:09:08 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Don't like the business, don't shop there. I don't.


I don't and I can still be pissed off about this.  Not least because I've had someone physically put themselves between me and a motherf--ker who was threatening me.  They didn't have to, but they did.  I really don't want to think about how incredibly awful it would be if not only was I attacked, but there were people nearby who didn't do anything.

And if you live in BFE where Walmart is basically the only large employer in town...
 
2013-10-19 06:09:51 PM
Ah, the case of Legal Obligation v. Moral Imperative
 
2013-10-19 06:13:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: ginandbacon: It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.

The employers can be liable if the customer is hurt or killed in their parking lot.


That is true, but they will also be held liable if an employe is also killed trying to assist that person that was killed. By having a policy that employes can't physically intercede, they are keeping their liability to one person. And I bet having that policy also keeps their insurance premiums lower. All large retail places have policies like this, it is a money thing.
 
2013-10-19 06:13:46 PM
Either way, dude's screwed. Back to work at Wal*Mart, this time with a black mark in his record. He'll never make Assistant Night Manager.
 
2013-10-19 06:15:13 PM
the only thing MaoMart fears more than lawsuits is bad Public Image/press.


MaoMart: We exploit cheap, communist chinese labor so you don't have to!
 
2013-10-19 06:24:08 PM

ongbok: cameroncrazy1984: ginandbacon: It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.

The employers can be liable if the customer is hurt or killed in their parking lot.

That is true, but they will also be held liable if an employe is also killed trying to assist that person that was killed. By having a policy that employes can't physically intercede, they are keeping their liability to one person. And I bet having that policy also keeps their insurance premiums lower. All large retail places have policies like this, it is a money thing.


Here is the thing. It is also and ethics and morality thing. some analyst somewhere actually thinks about this shiat. The look at the cost of an incident, and the value of the negative publicity from stuff like this. The less the value of folks giving a shiat, the more likellylikely they are to do this stuff. Stop excusing them and they will stop doing this type of shiat.
 
2013-10-19 06:24:28 PM

MissFeasance: ginandbacon: The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed.

This



Not stupid, just evil. Par for the course at Walmart.

He didn't even initiate/escalate any violence according to TFA. I could almost understand the dismissal had he charged in wielding a bat.
 
2013-10-19 06:25:21 PM

SirVagTheTighty: Peki: Yeah, perfect example of why my generation doesn't have the ovaries to be accountable for anything.

If he doesn't help, he's a shiathead who let a woman get hurt and could possibly face criminal prosecution under Good Samaritan laws.
If he helps, he might lose his job (and all the fun that entails), could get hurt (or worse), etc.

/way too many catch-22s for us these days

You may want to google that one, I don't think they are what you think they are




Yeah, it's not like he was a NYC cop helping some bikers beat up an Asian guy.
 
2013-10-19 06:25:34 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: antidisestablishmentarianism: Don't like the business, don't shop there. I don't.

I don't and I can still be pissed off about this.  Not least because I've had someone physically put themselves between me and a motherf--ker who was threatening me.  They didn't have to, but they did.  I really don't want to think about how incredibly awful it would be if not only was I attacked, but there were people nearby who didn't do anything.

And if you live in BFE where Walmart is basically the only large employer in town...


This. I've been to a Walmart once in the last decade. I see value in trying to get others to also not go there.
 
2013-10-19 06:30:31 PM

SirVagTheTighty: ginandbacon: It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.

They can be liable if a 747 crashes into the building and kills someone taking a dump, Jurassic park style. This is what insurance is for. Yeah, the employees shouldn't be escalating situations over shop lifting and minor shiat, but come on, to have a corporate policy that you can't help a woman being attacked and screaming for help? . That is evil.

farking lawyers


How do you do that?

Also, THIS.
 
2013-10-19 06:36:02 PM

SirVagTheTighty: ongbok: cameroncrazy1984: ginandbacon: It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.

The employers can be liable if the customer is hurt or killed in their parking lot.

That is true, but they will also be held liable if an employe is also killed trying to assist that person that was killed. By having a policy that employes can't physically intercede, they are keeping their liability to one person. And I bet having that policy also keeps their insurance premiums lower. All large retail places have policies like this, it is a money thing.

Here is the thing. It is also and ethics and morality thing. some analyst somewhere actually thinks about this shiat. The look at the cost of an incident, and the value of the negative publicity from stuff like this. The less the value of folks giving a shiat, the more likellylikely they are to do this stuff. Stop excusing them and they will stop doing this type of shiat.


How did I excuse them? Please tell me. I just stated how it is. If you don't like, don't shop there. It is shiatty, but that is the way things are now, and that isn't changing.
 
2013-10-19 06:47:22 PM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: MissFeasance: ginandbacon: The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed.

This


Not stupid, just evil. Par for the course at Walmart.

He didn't even initiate/escalate any violence according to TFA. I could almost understand

condone the dismissal had he charged in wielding a bat.

/FTFM
 
2013-10-19 06:48:45 PM

ongbok: SirVagTheTighty: ongbok: cameroncrazy1984: ginandbacon: It's not stupid. The employers can be liable if the employee is hurt or killed. It's been in every contract I've signed.

The employers can be liable if the customer is hurt or killed in their parking lot.

That is true, but they will also be held liable if an employe is also killed trying to assist that person that was killed. By having a policy that employes can't physically intercede, they are keeping their liability to one person. And I bet having that policy also keeps their insurance premiums lower. All large retail places have policies like this, it is a money thing.

Here is the thing. It is also and ethics and morality thing. some analyst somewhere actually thinks about this shiat. The look at the cost of an incident, and the value of the negative publicity from stuff like this. The less the value of folks giving a shiat, the more likellylikely they are to do this stuff. Stop excusing them and they will stop doing this type of shiat.

How did I excuse them? Please tell me. I just stated how it is. If you don't like, don't shop there. It is shiatty, but that is the way things are now, and that isn't changing.


If people like you acknowledged it was shiatty it might
 
2013-10-19 07:03:28 PM

SirVagTheTighty: Peki: Yeah, perfect example of why my generation doesn't have the ovaries to be accountable for anything.

If he doesn't help, he's a shiathead who let a woman get hurt and could possibly face criminal prosecution under Good Samaritan laws.
If he helps, he might lose his job (and all the fun that entails), could get hurt (or worse), etc.

/way too many catch-22s for us these days

You may want to google that one, I don't think they are what you think they are


This.

Good Samaritan laws were put in place to prevent lawsuits from someone you chose to help in good faith.

There is not a law on the books that requires anyone to put their life in jeopardy to save yours. Even emergency workers are cautioned about ensuring they don't become a second victim.

Kudos to the guy for saving the gal, but he also took a big risk in doing so. Wally World probably realized the publicity wasn't worth the cost of a low wage earner.
 
2013-10-19 07:07:37 PM
Here's where I get proof that we, as a society and likely as a species, are little more than a cul-de-sec dead end, if there is ever an accounting of some kind later.

This is only an acceptable policy "from a liability perspective" if you accept that the current 'lawyers definition' if liability is anything even close to acceptable or OK.

That we don't even seem to question this shows me how far down the sump pipe we are.

Nothing personal to the lawyerly 'no AS evil' types here. But your line of work is the second biggest reason I can't wait for us to become extinct as a species before we infect the rest of the universe.
 
2013-10-19 07:07:41 PM
"Here Krisopher, we'll give you your 1974 wages back!"
 
2013-10-19 07:08:29 PM

xaks: 'lawyers definition' if liability


OF.

OF liability.

*grumbles
 
2013-10-19 07:11:37 PM

MissFeasance: SirVagTheTighty: Feasy you seem like a good person.

Did you forget I'm a lawyer?


thank you
 
2013-10-19 08:47:27 PM
While I've always been a fan of Wal-Mart, I've pretty much given up on shopping there. Why?

I HATE WAITING IN LINE FOR 30 MINUTES TO CHECK OUT!!!!

30 checkout lanes with only 3 open. You have to drink the milk out of the carton in line to prevent them from spoiling before you get to the counter. I'd rather pay a little more and get checked out of the store quicker. Kroger's has it right. Typically, there may be 1 basket in front of me when I'm ready to pay and leave.

Calling 1-800-WAL-MART is now a waste of time. Called them three weeks ago and they said, we'll call back within 3 days? Never happened.

As if they don't already have problems, they fire a good Samaritan helping out a customer in their parking lot. I'm sure the only reason they offered him his job back was because of the bad PR they're getting.

Large corporation and rich people "haters" don't have to complain about shutting down the monster that is Wal-Mart as they'll self destruct on their own. Free markets and good customer service will prevail.

Hey Wal-Mart?

Are you listening????
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report