Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Nerdius Maximus, Jul 4, 2010.
I blame the natural gas.
In a world where people gather in large crowds to cheer on executions, support torture as an investigative technique, want the legal right to carry unregistered concealed weapons, dismiss the idea that mental illness is a factor in crime and and encourage lynch mob activity, this kind of "venting" is far from therapeutic.
High horse. You're also on it, and without much good cause, to be honest.
I think you'd probably be better off saving your righteous indignation for the dog beating scum mentioned in the OP.
The cries for beating the offender to death, etc, are so over the top/ridiculous they are laughable. Doesn't mean the full weight of the law shouldn't visit this animal, but talk about his bloody murder only lowers this thread to the level of a grade school playground discussion which understandably irks others involved in the thread -- including the moderators. This is the end of that extreme sort of hyperbole.
I don't understand why the employer should be sued. All it does is raise costs for the consumers, but we in the US haven't figured that out yet.
They should definitely be sued if they fail to fire him. Otherwise, yeah, they're not at fault. It's the individual who should face the consequences of his own actions. If they don't terminate him, though, they are complicit in those actions. There's no way they won't, though.
For employing people who beat small dogs to death and just walk away without notifying anybody. Was this the first time this happened? That's up to the jury to find out I guess...
[I'm guessing "guy who turns people's gas off when they don't pay the bills" is not a job description that attracts the most socially competent employees in general though]
So just for the record, then, it's a written rule somewhere, "Thou shalt not make comments that irk the Moderators"?
OK, I'm sorry for being logical, but people are hired to perform a job that entails a degree of personal responsibility, meaning the job does not require nor entail direct supervision. With that in mind, any employer can unknowingly end up hiring a sociopath or psychopath who gets his jollies out of killing an animal. Again, this begs the question -- why should the employer be sued? Are you advocating that for every position out there a worker should have a supervisor who holds his hand and monitors work performance? I seriously doubt this kind of individual will return from his rounds and say, "Oh, by the way, I had to beat a pug to death today".
Laws were broken that can be properly addressed, in a court of law, against the worker. The company can and most likely will take action against the worker, but overall should not be held accountable.
Well, the obvious answer is that Oklahoma Natural Gas is more likely to have money than dog-beater guy. But if it was just some freak incident of an employee going nuts without anyone having known that's he could do something like that then I guess they are not accountable. Can't hurt to sue them to make sure though.
A company that has the right to send workers on people's property against the owners' will also has the responsibility to make sure those workers aren't lunatics imo. The right thing to do for the worker would have been to call the police if he felt the dog was threatening to him.
Stop! That right there sums it up. Oklahoma Natural Gas is more likely to have money...Can't hurt to sue them to make sure though. Yes, let's go after money rather than accountability and responsibility, policy change, or anything else. Like I said, people in the US are so consumed to sue for money, and whomever has any, that they fail to realize that it drives up the costs for the consumers. If you haven't figured it out, ONG will not suffer any financial loss. It will be the consumer through paying higher rates.
So are you going to advocate that every company has to spend extra money and have every employee complete a psychological work-up every year? Honestly, explain how this can be guaranteed and don't rely on just throwing out a cure-all statement.
If the company is going to send agents/reps inside a fence or home when the owners are not present, the burden is on them to make sure that the agents/reps can be trusted
Yes, the talk of murder us somewhat over the top. I urge all Americans to lobby their congressman to establish a mandatory minimum sentence of slow and cruel dismemberment for those found guilty of animal cruelty. Murdering such offenders would be just plain wrong.
Isn't the company liable for acts committed by its employees?
I don't know, but if that company doesn't do it, they share some of the responsibility imo because they gave the offender the authority to enter private property without invitation to enforce the company's rights.
I just don't think it's such a leap of logic to blame the employer in cases like this - without absolving the individual who committed the crime of course.
If they are acting in an official capacity for the company, I believe so.
I'll bet ONG has explicit procedures laid out in training and the employee manual that state service personnel are not to enter a yard where animals are deemed a threat. So overall, the company has protected itself and the guilty meter reader is fully at fault. Again, suing the company is needless and counter-productive.
Not really, no. Cause he could have been under orders to enter the yard, in violation of any policy. Happens all the time in my neck of TN: The utilitiy company has a policy that meter-readers are not to enter an enclosed yard (animals or not) without the owner present or a liability waiver on file; they hop the fences and open the gates all the time when it comes time to read the meters- regardless of if there is a waiver or not. Complain on them and you'll get "We'll review the complaint and take appropriate disciplinary action" and never another word about it will be said.
So they may have a written policy, but their active-policy, what they do, might not be what they have in writing.
If it's in writing, then that's the policy. Since I live in Oklahoma, I'll say I'm familiar with some of the policies and procedures of various companies especially since I've interacted with members of the various trades. Each of these people has told me that their instructions are to not enter the yard, or exit the vehicle for rural property, if they deem there to be a dangerous animal on the premises. That covers gas, electric, cable, and propane.
Separate names with a comma.