StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Coyote wrote:Well, we can also look at it this way-- is the manager really going ot have to say, "Now, don't you go out saving someone's life on your next delivery!" This isn't the kind of thing that happens very often. It is, in fact, safe to assume that it wouldn't happen again.

So why does the manager have to fire her? He should commend her, knowing that it is unlikely to re-occur.

The manager has quite clearly demonstarted what his values are: money. Maybe, what, $16.00 for a pizza? Is that what someone's life is worth? A pepperoni with extra cheese? Sorry, folks, we have enough examples of Americans being portrayed as heartless money pigs. This manager is a grade-A cocksmoker.

No, no, no. She had a non-employee in her vehicle during work hours. She was giving her a ride. This is not acceptable. It isn't safe to assume that that wouldn't happen again. If she disregarded her responsibilities that much, she doesn't get to work there any more.
She violated her contract terms. She gets fired. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

Robert Treder wrote: No, no, no. She had a non-employee in her vehicle during work hours. She was giving her a ride. This is not acceptable. It isn't safe to assume that that wouldn't happen again. If she disregarded her responsibilities that much, she doesn't get to work there any more.
She violated her contract terms. She gets fired. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

Thank you, Robert. I've been trying to get people to see that, but they can't.

Darth Wong wrote:

Perinquus wrote:She lost him a sale?!? She lost him a sale?!?!

YOU GOTTA BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!

That is a reasonable justification for witholding lifesaving assistance? So you can make sure a fucking pizza parlor gets a few more lousy dollars? Better that extra ten bucks in the till than a human life saved?

Irrelevant. The question is not whether she did the right thing by saving a life.

If you're working as a security guard and you protect some woman by fighting off some would-be rapists in a back-alley behind a nightclub down the street, you would be a hero. Unfortunately, you would also be in gross dereliction of duty because you were supposed to be at the fucking warehouse, not at a local nightclub, and you would be deservedly fired.

Have you read the entire thread Mike? I agreed earlier that the woman should be subject to discipline for being out of her area, and for having an unauthorized passenger - though termination might not be necessary, depending on her work record.

But my shock and outrage came at the suggestion by some other members of this board that once she was onscene and aware of the distress of the victim, she should not intervene on his behalf because

#1 - she was on a delivery
#2 - she had someone else in the car
#3 - she lost him a sale
#4 - she lost him probably quite a bit of revenue concidering she was probably the only driver working.

Maybe she should never have been where she was in the first place (though I'm not sure from the story how far off her route she was; it might not have been far off at all), but according to some here, apparently, once she was there, she should have said to herself: "Sorry guy, I've got pizzas to deliver; can't help you."

Those concerns should stop you from goofing off at work or having unauthorized passengers; they shouldn't even enter into your head when deciding whether or not to help someone.

Coyote wrote:Well, we can also look at it this way-- is the manager really going ot have to say, "Now, don't you go out saving someone's life on your next delivery!" This isn't the kind of thing that happens very often. It is, in fact, safe to assume that it wouldn't happen again.

It's not about saving someone's life, it's about turning her delivery vehicle into a social club. He doesn't have to say "don't go saving someone else's life", but he should say "what were you doing giving people rides around town in your delivery vehicle? Last time I checked, that sign on top of the car does NOT say that you're a fucking taxi".

So why does the manager have to fire her? He should commend her, knowing that it is unlikely to re-occur.

Commending people is not a good way of making sure they will not repeat the behaviour. She will get lots of accolades for saving someone's life, but that is not relevant to the fact that she was not doing her job. If a homeless guy saved someone's life, he would get a commendation, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to give him money he hasn't earned. Why is this any different?

The manager has quite clearly demonstarted what his values are: money. Maybe, what, $16.00 for a pizza? Is that what someone's life is worth?

Prove that any lives will be lost as a result of firing her. Can't do it? Then this is a bullshit dilemma. This situation is HIGHLY anomalous and will likely not re-occur. However, an employee who unabashedly drives friends around in her delivery vehicle is QUITE likely to repeat this behaviour if it is not punished.

A pepperoni with extra cheese? Sorry, folks, we have enough examples of Americans being portrayed as heartless money pigs. This manager is a grade-A cocksmoker.

Please estimate the number of lives that will be lost as a result of his action.

Perinquus wrote:Have you read the entire thread Mike? I agreed earlier that the woman should be subject to discipline for being out of her area, and for having an unauthorized passenger - though termination might not be necessary, depending on her work record.

But my shock and outrage came at the suggestion by some other members of this board that once she was onscene and aware of the distress of the victim, she should not intervene on his behalf because

#1 - she was on a delivery
#2 - she had someone else in the car
#3 - she lost him a sale
#4 - she lost him probably quite a bit of revenue concidering she was probably the only driver working.

I read the thread up to the message I was quoting, and Kelly did not say that she should have ignored the person's distress once she got there. If someone else did, then you should have addressed your rebuttal to that person.

Darth Wong wrote:
I read the thread up to the message I was quoting, and Kelly did not say that she should have ignored the person's distress once she got there. If someone else did, then you should have addressed your rebuttal to that person.

Might not have said it explicitly, but that was the clear implication, otherwise, Kelly could have said: "you're missing the whole point, she was fired for being out of her area, and for having an unauthorized passenger. The issue of the victim and first aid was entirely incidental".

Intentionally or not, what Kelly did was run down a list of reasons not to get involved, and they're pretty poor reasons for not helping someone. Kelly then went on to say in a later post that once she had learned the person was injured

Had she been smart, she would have made her delivery, called her boss and told him what was going on and I'm sure he would have been reasonable enough to let her go since it was in her neighborhood.

Notice the sequence of events? First make the delivery, and then see what you can do about helping.

Well, sorry, but rendering aid should be priority number one once you are aware of the need for it.

Well, sorry, but rendering aid should be priority number one once you are aware of the need for it.

Why should it?

McAulay was on a shift for Frank's Pizza in Selkirk, some 30 kilometres north of Winnipeg, on Feb. 26 when a friend who was riding with her received a call that there had been a shooting near her home.

At no time was she aware anyone was hurt.

And all I have been saying from the beginning is that she never should have had another person in the car.

Perinquus wrote: Well, sorry, but rendering aid should be priority number one once you are aware of the need for it.

Yes, but she didn't know there was aid needed until she got there. SHe was already breaking a bunch of rules before she got there.

The woman was for some reason riding around in car with a friend. After a call got made about a shooting (no injuries mentioned), she decides to cruise on over with her friend. At this point she becomes aware of a shooting victim.

There are two good reasons to fire her:

1) She shouldn't have had her friend there to begin with

2) She shouldn't have been riding all over town with her friend


She got canned because she wasn't doing her job. She didn't stop to help some one she saw was injured on the way. She went to go gawk with a friend that she shouldn't have had with her and then found some one injured. It's pretty clear she wasn't doing her job well before she even became aware some one's life was on the line.

Perinquus wrote: Excuse me, but I tend to get rather worked up over the fact that somebody seriously considers selling a fucking pizza to be a more important consideration than saving a human life. Words simply do not express how much contempt I have for such a view. There is something wrong with you if you honestly think that.

I'm with Peringious here. While I may be at times a cold-blooded SOB,
that doesn't mean I'm totally devoid of compassion or mercy.

The fact of the matter is, she was company time. She shouldn't have had the friend with her in the first place; she's working. Second, she shouldn't have gone over to the place without informing her supervisor during work hours. You're not supposed to just run off from work, especially since she didn't know anyone was hurt.

*sigh* Nice to know people listen to the voice of experience....
So we just gonna watch Peringuus and Kelly slap the black off each other? *settlesin* Pass the popcorn.....

--It would appear many believe the woman was rightly termintated from her job. My position is subtle and I don't think it has been discussed (if I'm wrong and it has ignore this post). Anyway here's my position:

-I think it was unwise to fire her because she had to chose between saving someone's life and keeping her job and despite the personal cost she chose to save someone's life. For the sake of arguement let us assume she gained nothing by saving this person's life (not actually true since she gained peace of mind and status though no monetary compensation). What you have done is favored people who would not save another person's life if it cost them their job (since they incur no penaly while the life savers do). The way to avoid this problem is to reward her for saving that person's life (financially that is) and deduct from that reward the estimate cost of her driving her friends around (over the entire term of her employment).
-The analysis then becomes: (benefit of saving person's life) - (finacial cost to employer of driving people around) vs. (unmodified salary). Clearly saving the other person's life out weighs the finacial cost to the employer. Therefore, one should save the person's life despite the wage lose (from a monetary point of view).
-Before the analysis was (cost of lossing job) vs. (unmodified salary). Here the way to go is just to keep your job (from a monetary point of view).

-One should note that this arrangment is best if agreed to before the incident occurs. This would of course require the creation of a fund to pay the "good samaritans." The fund could be paid for by the public in general.

Nova Andromeda wrote:--It would appear many believe the woman was rightly termintated from her job. My position is subtle and I don't think it has been discussed (if I'm wrong and it has ignore this post). Anyway here's my position:

-I think it was unwise to fire her because she had to chose between saving someone's life and keeping her job and despite the personal cost she chose to save someone's life. For the sake of arguement let us assume she gained nothing by saving this person's life (not actually true since she gained peace of mind and status though no monetary compensation). What you have done is favored people who would not save another person's life if it cost them their job (since they incur no penaly while the life savers do).

No, you have favoured people who stick to their routes. If she happened to see this guy bleeding on the side of the street while doing her job and driving her route and stopped to help him, she would have had no choice and the chain would have had no justification to fire her. However, she was using her delivery vehicle as a damned taxicab, ferrying her friends around and rushing to crime scenes in order to gawk, only to be surprised that someone might actually need help. Also note that there's no evidence she actually saved anyone's life. Nowhere in the article does it state that her assistance was instrumental in saving anyone's life, since the professionals were already on their way (she only knew to go look at the crime scene because the call had already gone out).

Darth Wong wrote:

Nova Andromeda wrote:--It would appear many believe the woman was rightly termintated from her job. My position is subtle and I don't think it has been discussed (if I'm wrong and it has ignore this post). Anyway here's my position:

-I think it was unwise to fire her because she had to chose between saving someone's life and keeping her job and despite the personal cost she chose to save someone's life. For the sake of arguement let us assume she gained nothing by saving this person's life (not actually true since she gained peace of mind and status though no monetary compensation). What you have done is favored people who would not save another person's life if it cost them their job (since they incur no penaly while the life savers do).

No, you have favoured people who stick to their routes. If she happened to see this guy bleeding on the side of the street while doing her job and driving her route and stopped to help him, she would have had no choice and the chain would have had no justification to fire her. However, she was using her delivery vehicle as a damned taxicab, ferrying her friends around and rushing to crime scenes in order to gawk, only to be surprised that someone might actually need help. Also note that there's no evidence she actually saved anyone's life. Nowhere in the article does it state that her assistance was instrumental in saving anyone's life, since the professionals were already on their way (she only knew to go look at the crime scene because the call had already gone out).

--People who stick to their routes should be heavily favored. It doesn't matter that she went there to gawk with her friend in a company car on company time since that can be factored into the cost to the employer (even generous estimates for employer loss would not amount to the value of a human life). It does, however, matter if her value at the scene was minimal. In this case she would lose out (as is appropriate). I haven't read the article that close so I'm not sure what exactly the details are...

Maybe I should read more than the first line of the article before I post. Awe fuck it.

Of all people. of all places, in the last year we have had TWO fucking pizze delivary people assaulted and later died of wounds. Here some fucktard company fires a good samaritan. Okay, granted the pizza lady helped someone, but shit. It sorta works out the same. Anyways, I wonder how many fake order calls they've been getting? What's thier phone number? I got a hankerin for the works.

A pizza guy in Marion (the town that Cedar Rapids is next to/surrounds) was jumped and murdered for about $20 by a teenage boy (who when arrested looked like a girl) and an early 20s woman (who looked more like a man).

Pathetic.

Sokar wrote:*sigh* Nice to know people listen to the voice of experience....
So we just gonna watch Peringuus and Kelly slap the black off each other? *settlesin* Pass the popcorn.....

I know from experience as well, Sokar. Not a situation like this, but I have been in that position before. It's like with any managerial position. Of course, I don't believe anyone here has ever been in that position other than you and me.

Kelly Antilles wrote:

Sokar wrote:*sigh* Nice to know people listen to the voice of experience....
So we just gonna watch Peringuus and Kelly slap the black off each other? *settlesin* Pass the popcorn.....

I know from experience as well, Sokar. Not a situation like this, but I have been in that position before. It's like with any managerial position. Of course, I don't believe anyone here has ever been in that position other than you and me.

You don't think being a squad leader in the army counts as leadership or a position of responsibility?

Retail management is different. I didn't say it didn't require the same amount of resposibility. But the jobs are very different.

I wonder if she'll pay for the damage done to the manager (undelivered pizzas)? I wonder if she even offered.

Kelly Antilles wrote:Retail management is different. I didn't say it didn't require the same amount of resposibility. But the jobs are very different.

Apparently in being less terrified of lawsuits...

Digging open wounds, eh, Per?

Just fucking drop it.

Was I addressing you?