Jump to content



Photo

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#31 Hardcore Til I Die

Hardcore Til I Die

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,318 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 07
  • Location: England

Posted 17 June 2014 - 19:41

same thoughts here... at moment, 3 family memebers are being charged with endergerment of a child etc, so to help with laywer fees for them, and medical expenses for her, first thing that came to mind was "lets cash in while we can"

Yeah and it wouldn't be the first time a company has apologised by donating money to help with the plight of a family. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that they could've foreseen this happening.

Edit:

In relation to your edit, they've already set up a donation page on Facebook!


#32 +LogicalApex

LogicalApex

    Software Engineer

  • 6,390 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 17 June 2014 - 19:45

so what if they brought a gun to work and started shooting people? there are lines...

from what i read from dozens of sites, I come to the conclusion it didn't happen. The grandma won't name a name or provide a description? why not?

so if an employee brings a gun to work and shoots someone, the company should be on trial for murder? there are limitations for different situations.


Corporations are not actual people so they can't be placed into prisons. They can be forced to pay civilly and in this case they would be. They are offering money to stop such an action from occurring.

If you want some understanding of this legal doctrine you can research Respondeat superior. I am mobile so I can't do the search for you.

#33 Secular Humanist

Secular Humanist

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 09

Posted 17 June 2014 - 20:08

Corporations are not actual people so they can't be placed into prisons. They can be forced to pay civilly and in this case they would be. They are offering money to stop such an action from occurring.

If you want some understanding of this legal doctrine you can research Respondeat superior. I am mobile so I can't do the search for you.

 

you can claim it all day long, but daily, employees do things that are looked at legally, and illegally and goes on a case by case basis. If it was a simple and black and white as your claim... and person can kill a company just by getting hired and then doing something awful to bring it down. 

 

Example: you work... (pretty sure i have seen posts about it), so what if at work, you made an illegal personal stock trade while on company time from a company phone wityh company clothes on? Guess your employer is responsible for that? Guess again. Could be that way in the states, but can't imagine it. 



#34 Hurmoth

Hurmoth

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,067 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 03
  • Location: Virginia

Posted 17 June 2014 - 20:09

The money is part of the apology. Yes it's generous and no they did not have to do that, but they have not addressed the actual problem - the employee.

KFC has said that they are investigating internally and will take appropriate actions once they're concludes. They probably won't announce who the employee is publicly, most companies won't do that for privacy reasons unless there's legal action taken.

#35 simplezz

simplezz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,070 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 17 June 2014 - 20:19

I don't know what's more disturbing, the fact that they said that in the first place, or that they think money can buy them a free pass and everyone will forget about it. Disgusting!

#36 Secular Humanist

Secular Humanist

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 09

Posted 17 June 2014 - 20:22

I don't know what's more disturbing, the fact that they said that in the first place, or that they think money can buy them a free pass and everyone will forget about it. Disgusting!

 

"they" didn't say it, it is an ongoing alleged complaint against a supposed employee.



#37 Hurmoth

Hurmoth

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,067 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 03
  • Location: Virginia

Posted 17 June 2014 - 20:26

I don't know what's more disturbing, the fact that they said that in the first place, or that they think money can buy them a free pass and everyone will forget about it. Disgusting!

So you don't think the family doesn't appreciate having that money to help with the girl's medical bills?  :rolleyes:



#38 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,017 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 17 June 2014 - 20:36

do not take only 1 source for your information. This is how misinformation is spread. Look around at dozens of sites. Also, reversely: "I can't see anything in the source article about them identifying the employee. "
"

 

The employee not being identified in the article is not the same as the employee not being identified.



#39 simplezz

simplezz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,070 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 17 June 2014 - 20:51

So you don't think the family doesn't appreciate having that money to help with the girl's medical bills?  :rolleyes:

Of course not. What I don't like is the fact that a company like this thinks it can buy absolution and assuage the threat of boycott with money instead of firing the employee(s) involved and taking real steps to ensure something like that never happens again.

"they" didn't say it, it is an ongoing alleged complaint against a supposed employee.

A company is responsible for the actions of an employee while performing job. I don't believe in limited culpability.

Edit: The original article quotes her grandmother as saying:

They just told us, they said, 'We have to ask you to leave because her face is disrupting our customers.' (Victoria) understood exactly what they said."

Victoria cried all the way home, Mullins said.

'We' is a plural. It wasn't 'I'.

#40 Yazoo

Yazoo

    Just a regular guy

  • 1,763 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 01

Posted 17 June 2014 - 20:59

so what if they brought a gun to work and started shooting people? there are lines...


from what i read from dozens of sites, I come to the conclusion it didn't happen. The grandma won't name a name or provide a description? why not?


so if an employee brings a gun to work and shoots someone, the company should be on trial for murder? there are limitations for different situations.

The company will be responsible for allowing its employee to bring a weapon to work and will be held liable while the employee will be convicted as a criminal.  Dude this not me making a decision this is the law.



#41 Yazoo

Yazoo

    Just a regular guy

  • 1,763 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 01

Posted 17 June 2014 - 21:03

you can claim it all day long, but daily, employees do things that are looked at legally, and illegally and goes on a case by case basis. If it was a simple and black and white as your claim... and person can kill a company just by getting hired and then doing something awful to bring it down. 

 

Example: you work... (pretty sure i have seen posts about it), so what if at work, you made an illegal personal stock trade while on company time from a company phone wityh company clothes on? Guess your employer is responsible for that? Guess again. Could be that way in the states, but can't imagine it. 

That does happen and the after the company is fined they sue the ex-employee.  On your second point just read up on what happened with the Libor case with the Banks. Who was made responsible? 



#42 meelahi

meelahi

    Neowinian

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 14

Posted 17 June 2014 - 21:49

Yes, I know...then call the employee out.  It just says "They"  They could be a person or persons, or the company itself.  Just more sensational this way I guess.

But unless the companyn itself is calld out, they'd have no incentive to take action, and said employee may go unpuinished. If employees are allowed to hide behind company's name all the time, such incidents shall keep happening. I too work part-time for a chain, and one of the lessons taught us is that out actions reflect on the company.



#43 Secular Humanist

Secular Humanist

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 09

Posted 17 June 2014 - 23:59

The employee not being identified in the article is not the same as the employee not being identified.

true, but in some other websites that are reporting, KFC was allegedly reported to say that the grandmother will not identify the employee.

 

'We' is a plural. It wasn't 'I'.

 

 But in the same breathe, she also says it was a lone employee.

 

 

That does happen and the after the company is fined they sue the ex-employee.  On your second point just read up on what happened with the Libor case with the Banks. Who was made responsible? 

 

While it did happen in one case, it happens millions of times a day where companies are NOT responsible of doing something that is obviously outside the companies protocols which would suit this exactly.



#44 MasterTargus

MasterTargus

    Neowinian

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07
  • Location: Canada
  • OS: Windows 8 Desktop

Posted 18 June 2014 - 00:53

I know I well never deal with KFC again till they make this right.

#45 Zlain

Zlain

    Neowinian

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:00

It was clearly an over the top reaction, but did this really need to reach headline news?