Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Sorry, don't see it that way. There is no law being enforced by the consumer contacting an employer. The consumer is merely stating their displeasure and the liklihood of ceasing to buy their product or employ their services. There is no legal compulsion to fire the employee. That's up to the employer and whether or not he/she is prepared to have their bottom line affected.

One of the few powers left with the consumer. I'm glad to see it exercised once in a while.

   

Well I guess when you're in a minority you can't be wrong. It's got to be the preponderance of opinion that's wrong.

   

Who's the consumer? Someone living in a foreign country that will never have any dealings with this car dealership is not a consumer. If I owned the car dealership and received the e-mail sent by Martin, my reply would have been "Fuck off and mind your own business. I wouldn't sell a car to a douchebag like you at any price." Nothing personal, Martin, no offence intended.

   

You're not alone in this one.
When someone gets in his car after a night out with 2 drinks too many, he is participating in an illegal activity. I don't think many people will call his boss to fire him the next day. They might call the cops to stop him from driving drunk, but that's all.

I find it very funny that so many people call for their "deaths" or "long prison sentences" and "destroy their careers" while a murderer gets out in 5 years, and no body cares about the next door neighbour who gets mugged right at this moment.

   

Maybe. Or maybe I just grew up with the misconception that there's no honour in being a taddle-tale. Maybe I'll grow into a rat in my old age.

   

Fair enough. Then Martin would have posted that reply on CKA, Facebook, Twitter, Linked In etc and one person's snotty response would have been shared with hundreds - maybe it goes viral with thousandso tens of thousands.

Not a very good business solution in this day and age of social media. That's just simply the facts.

It reminds me a bit about that thread DerbyX posted about the author losing her shit over a poor review. Instead of saying thanks and moving on, she handled it badly. That one pissing contest suddenly was viral and thousands saw it. Bad press for a struggling author.

Your email, Lemmy the business owner, would garner you a similar reaction and you'd likely as not fire the guy and have a bunch more damage control on top of it all.

   

Betcha if some punk burned your car and your buddy knew who it was but wouldn't tell, your stance might change.

   

Lots of assumptions being made in that post. Lots of 'em.

   

Maybe. That doesn't make it right.


As the business owner, I'd absolutely fire the employee. I'd find out what they did when they were convicted. I wouldn't need the e-mail from someone with no interest in my business to make that decision. If anything, such an e-mail would make me consider keeping the person on just to spite the writer for sticking his nose into something that's none of his business.


Tell who? I'd want them to tell the cops, not the punk's boss.

   

So? All the people who's pictures are posted who were downtown Vancouver and are "outed as rioters" online who may not have had anything to do with it could be ruined. Why? Because they watched a hockey game.

The kissing couple, for instance. Rumours were going around she was stabbed and there was no one to help her, but her boyfriend. She was pushed over. But she did not riot. How many more did not riot, but are outed as rioters?
Are you going to call their bosses too?

   

And you'd take issue with both being told?

And how does that fit against the whole not being a tattle-tale moral highground you've taken?

   

I think they take the chance of being ruined not because they watched a hockey game, but instead because they participated in a riot, or shall we say, an illegal gathering.

Besides, drama aside, I have yet to see one photo posted of some dude/chick just standing around looking bored with no end of comments calling for blood.



Answered above.

   

Clearly. And how's he going to pay for the tort judgement I'm going to win against him when he gets out of jail if he's unemployed? We have courts to deal with these things, both criminal and civil. We don't need Oliver Crangles.


I think I've been pretty clear that I fully support a good citizen assisting police in the execution of their investigation.

   

When she acted in a mob mentality and got involved in a riot and then goes online and publically does what she just did, she opened the door for others to finger point, express their opinions and do what they can legally do.... which is refuse to spend their money somewhere and express why..... that's capitalism.

If she can express herself so openly and finger point at everybody else, then so can the rest of us. She's the one who opened this can of worms.

And based on my observations over the years, I have seen plenty of people call for harsher punishments for drunk drivers..... I have also saw many people make demands for them to lose their jobs.

Nobody in here that I have seen has demanded her death..... they want some level of legal punishment or community service and they wanted her to lose her current job as icing on the cake to possibly stick the message a little harder to her forehead. Nobody is saying she shouldn't ever work again and be tossed out on the streets, forever being punished into living a crappy life.

She'll get another job, she'll learn a valuable lesson and her life will go on..... cripes, you make it sound like she's getting her hand lopped off for stealing.

When you commit offences against the public/community, don't be so shocked and surprised when the public/community responds as they do......

Don't like it?

Don't pull a stupid stunt like this then.

It's pretty simple.... it's not rocket science, it's mere brain surgery.

Keep in mind, if she originally left it as just a public apology like it currently is on her link & left all the excuses and blame shifting out.... none of this would be happening right now and she wouldn't be getting the crap tossed her way that's currently happening. So don't go blaming others for their reactions to what she originally created.

Maybe you think you're on the higher moral road by trying to turn the other cheek..... but others in here, including myself, believe in stiff consequences for one's actions.

You and I both know she'd only get a slap on the wrist and perhaps a small fine.... in her mind and in her own original confessions/words, she never truly accepted responsibility, she blamed it on everybody else and used every excuse under the sun to play the poor victim...... thus she never truly learned her lesson, thus the next best thing to send that lesson home to her is to do what others have done here.

Otherwise she'd never truly learn from her mistakes and possibly end up committing similar acts later down the road, continuing to think the consequences are minimal or non-existent so long as she simply apologies.

^ And that's the real problem..... that's the point others in here are trying to make.

You may not agree with it, but them's the breaks.

   

Not on here, but have you seen the CTV picture page? CKA is VERY civil, compared to the rest of the internet.

I only quoted this part of your post, because that is the only part I kinda don't agree with.
The rest, I pretty much agree. You also say (if I read correctly) that the police should do their jobs, and that there is no problem with bringing your evidence/knowledge to the police.

What I just do not agree with, is that people call their bosses, and "demand" (or "suggest", or "stress", give it a name) them to fire all the people in their business that were there that night.

If I were a boss, I would like to make my own decisions. I don't need some stranger telling me how to run my business and who to hire or fire. My stockholders can hold me accountable. Anyone else, mind your own business and let me mind mine...

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next