View Single Post
Old 12-05-2012, 08:06 PM   #95
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 962
My Ride: S2000+Wrangler
Originally Posted by broey v View Post
for all of you "autozone has a policy, he broke it so they have the right to fire him" people.... no one is denying that they have a right to fire him... you're arguing a moot point.

the point is that it was a douche move to fire the guy, regardless of whether or not he violated their policy. and spare me all the "well if they make an exception for this guy, then.." BS.
Although I don't agree with the reason, I support the right of a private business to fire/hire anyone they want for any reason. My beef is people here claim that these companies don't want the liability of a lawsuit from the thief. You cannot make policy for "employee safety" because each circumstance is different. Sometimes it will be some pissant kid with an airsoft, and sometimes it will be a gangmember that doesn't want to leave witnesses.

To me, this is similar with the fight I had last year with my in-laws HOA. I took my daughter to their pool. She was only 2 at the time, so she was swimming with an inflatable. The lifeguard came up to me and told me the HOA rules state no toys allowed in the pool. He was a young kid, so I told him that I understand he has a job to do, but I will deal with the HOA, don't worry about it. I told him to call his boss and explained the situation to him, and kept swimming. Now, later that week, I met with the HOA with my attorney.

Here are some facts....

1) If a pool is open with a sign "swim at your own risk, no lifeguard on duty" the liability shifts to the individual. This goes for public beaches. When the lifeguard leaves, you're on your own.

2) If you HAVE lifeguards, you shift the liability on to yourself (the HOA) (in the case of the HOA, a lifeguard subcontractor).

3) Not allowing my daughter to have an inflatable adds a MASSIVE liability to the development.

They all looked at each other and the next day, the toy policy was gone. They can have a no baby policy, but not a no toys policy.

So, back to having this policy on PAPER, employees can claim that they were afraid to lose their jobs and didn't do anything, which may result in the murder of a coworker....(ie an employee has a CCW but he was afraid to act since he has 3 kids to feed and doesnt want to lose his job, and as a result, his coworker gets killed.)...meaning, the company on paper forbids their employees to defend themselves, or risk losing their jobs. The above comments are more related to the Walgreens incident rather than this one (because the kid ran out and back) but you get the point. I think the companies are opening themselves up for a greater liability with these policies.

Last edited by NFRs2000nyc; 12-05-2012 at 08:08 PM.
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote