Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Really?
    Umm... yes. It is a very interesting concept to me, alright.

    Clearly, when the guy signs on with a corporation... he waives all his rights while "at work". But, if he's getting a 30 min lunch break... is he really "at work"? I mean, I understand the guy is most likely getting paid to take that break, but sheesh...

    To think that you waive the right to protect yourself while off corporate property is a novel concept to me.
  2. #22  
    Most of this time the policies exist not to protect the wrong doer, but to protect the company. If the companies employee gets hurt trying to stop a shop lifter it could cost the company of hell of a lot more than the hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars worth of merchandise the thief took. There is the risk of the employee suing the company, or their family suing the company (if they are killed or end up in a coma or something). Therefore the policy is in place - to protect the employee, and the company.
  3. #23  
    ... which is why it's so confusing to me that a guy cannot protect himself while at the bank, even tho his employer is 3 and a half miles away.

    How is obeying the corporation when the corporation is 3 and a half miles away logical in anyway?? ... other than the fact that the guy signed away his rights while he's "at work".

    If he's at the bank, getting paid for his FREE time, off company property.... I'm not sure why you guys think it's appropriate to not protect himself and worry about corporate liabilities in such a situation.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by grndslm View Post
    Umm... yes. It is a very interesting concept to me, alright.

    Clearly, when the guy signs on with a corporation... he waives all his rights while "at work". But, if he's getting a 30 min lunch break... is he really "at work"? I mean, I understand the guy is most likely getting paid to take that break, but sheesh...

    To think that you waive the right to protect yourself while off corporate property is a novel concept to me.
    Huh? No rights were waved. And they weren't defending themselves. Am I in the right thread?

    All we're talking about here corporate policy, and the right for Sprint to deal with employees that break those policies.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Huh? No rights were waved.
    If you sign on the dotted line to uphold corporate policy, and corporate policy is to ignore your rights... yes, rights were waived. Happens all the time. Even if not explicitly stated that you have no rights, it is implicitly implied that you have NONE. See the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 1-207 to understand that if you sign a contract with your employer, and you don't reserve your rights.... you inherently waive them.

    Same goes with a commercial court of your local municipality. If -- "I reserve all my rights" -- isn't the first thing out of your mouth in the courtroom... you implicitly waive them!! By not speaking up, you are making a VERY BOLD STAND that people can walk all over you.

    Similar to how selling a used car without the words "AS IS" can get you in a lot of trouble. It's unconscionable to sell a car that breaks on your buyer within 2 days, and if you don't have the words "AS IS" in that bill of sale, you can get in some deep doo-doo if that buyer knows anything about anything.

    So, you sign a contract... and don't explicitly claim your rights, then you have NONE. Understand? The Uniform Commercial Code is a son of a beach, but it can be used to your benefit if you actually take the time to read and understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    And they weren't defending themselves. Am I in the right thread?

    All we're talking about here corporate policy, and the right for Sprint to deal with employees that break those policies.
    You're in the right thread alright. Did you skip my hypothetical situation in which a person drives to a bank, while on his 30 minute break, and does not have corporate permission to use the gun that he can rightfully carry, so long as he's not "at work"???

    That's the meat of it all. If I were on break, off company property, would I get fired if I *had* to fire a gun from somebody mugging me in my car?? Heck, maybe I just went to the car to get an apple & gatorade... maybe a little smoke break... and then somebody sees that they like my BMW. Can I, in my own PRIVATE PROPERTY, pull out the gun that I have a right to carry while in my private property, in order to defend myself.... all while I didn't explicitly claim / reserve all my rights when initially contracting with my employer in such situations while "at work"??

    The answer seems to be "not if I want that same job".
  6. Kedar's Avatar
    Posts
    994 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,071 Global Posts
    #26  
    The whole "we were on a break" reminds me of Friends, Ross and Rachel.

    Anyway... did you guys see my post on page 1?
    Sprint got sued off the **** for having two employees chase down a man who "had a heart attack because he was because of the employees."

    So Sprint's liable for all this, and I sort of understand they're stance on this.

    But you know what's messed up?
    The fact that the guy can sue Sprint for such a stupid thing. He stole... who gives if he had a heart attack when the employees were trying to get the stolen stuff back?
    Maybe I'm just too harsh.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #27  
    Dang grndslm, but you can type fast. You put me to shame.

    Anyway, I hear what you're saying, but I'm still kind of confused on which "right" it is that they gave up?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedar View Post
    Sprint got sued off the **** for having two employees chase down a man who "had a heart attack because he was because of the employees."

    So Sprint's liable for all this, and I sort of understand they're stance on this.
    Not quite. The guy who had the heart attack was an entirely different incident.

    Sprint is liable for ANYTHING that their employees do. I understand that part.

    It's when their employees do something that they're NOT liable for, and, in fact, SHOULD be proud of.

    I like the last bit of that article the best:

    "Whether the good Samaritans in Denver deserved to be terminated is another question; how you train your staff to handle loss prevention is one of those tricky matters you probably never considered when you first started your business."

    I was never told to let thieves walk away with merchandise when being robbed. I probly would have shouted at the manager if the guys hadn't slapped a $20 in my hand. I was just so dumbfounded that I didn't really know what to do. And when I told the manager, he said I did the right thing!!! Pretty crazy situation I was put in. I more than likely would have done the same exact thing, except not been so morally puzzled about the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Anyway, I hear what you're saying, but I'm still kind of confused on which "right" it is that they gave up?
    All of them.

    But the meat of "rights" comes down to property. Every right that we have is based on property. Life -- I control it, because it's my body; Liberty -- I control the choices that I make, because it's my life I'm acting thru my body that I own; Property -- Clearly, it's mine... so end of discussion.

    That's why it would appear to me that I am no longer obligated to follow my corporate master's policies if I'm not on his property, but then the whole contract thing comes into play. If I'm in my own car (private property again).... but I'm on break (contract here)... what would my employer think about me having to defend myself with a weapon?? ... or preventing a mugging of an old lady I was just speaking to 2 minutes earlier that reminded me of my sweet ol' grandmother??

    Somewhere the corporate policy has got to end when you're on break, and that policy would seem to me to be the property line.

    I just don't understand why Sprint wouldn't keep the guys around, but use them as an example of what not to do, and take that time to refresh people in "proper corporate policy", whatever that might actually be. I think the article ended it best, that if the guys were never taught proper policy, they shouldn't be held liable for doing a good deed that caused NO HARM to Sprint.

    If I were one of those guys formerly employed by Sprint, I would be taking action against them. But that's just me.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions