How is the company liable? It's their decision whether they want to fire their employee. At the most he violated their policies. It's not illegal. I find this hilarious. It's idiots like this woman who ruin our justice system.Solid_Snake325
Good point. I don't really know if what the guy did is illegal, the plaintiff is suing as a "discrimination" lawsuit, but I don't know if that legally constitutes "discrimination". To me it seems like something that should be handled between CVS, the employee and Lee, without the involvement of governments and judges.
Also I don't think it's really fair to hold employers liable for things like this that are not really their decision. If the employee does something like this, the blame should be on them, not on CVS as a whole.
I've seen people win more money with less.WSGRandomPerson
Cuz they got uh...really good lawyers. Anywho. Totally harmless, unless I hear the EXACT context and manner the phrase was said. And even then, $1 million is a ridiculous number that'll only get negotiated into some kinda flaccid settlement.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]This is absurd. There is absolutely no reason for CVS to be sued. Freedom of speech means a right to make jokes about race, regardless of who they offend. At most the guy should just be fired/reprimanded by CVS as a PR move. This lawsuit is immoral.worlock77
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of speech.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]This is absurd. There is absolutely no reason for CVS to be sued. Freedom of speech means a right to make jokes about race, regardless of who they offend. At most the guy should just be fired/reprimanded by CVS as a PR move. This lawsuit is immoral.Storm_Marine
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of speech.
Are you telling me that I could possibly get tons of money because someone called me a racial slur? Let me get out my phone book. But really? A million? I usually just get over it. I mean it's rude but some people are just douche bags. I would have went to the manager and if they didn't do anything like in this story I probably wouldn't bother anymore. I wouldn't have the time nor the money to sue someone for that.
[QUOTE="MistressMinako"]Are you telling me that I could possibly get tons of money because someone called me a racial slur? Let me get out my phone book. But really? A million? I usually just get over it. I mean it's rude but some people are just douche bags. I would have went to the manager and if they didn't do anything like in this story I probably wouldn't bother anymore. I wouldn't have the time nor the money to sue someone for that. This.
Companies get held liable for the actions of their employees all the time. The clerk is a moron and should be fired.
NEWMAHAY
getting fired for what the clerk did is definitely justified. I agreeI'm sorry but I just can't believe the people who are saying he deserves to be fired for a horribly timed joke are thinking this through fully. In today's economy, firing the guy has much bigger ramifications for him than a stupid racial joke had on this woman. He deserves to be punished as it was a stupid thing to do but being fired in this economy can be devastation for people. Of course, all this is assuming this was a first offense.
A million is silly, but a company is responsible for the conduct of it's employees while on duty. It really depends on what the company is willing to pay to mitigate bad PR. The employee should definitely get fired over this. If one of my employees insulted a client or customer, their ass would get fired on the spot.
CVS should fire the clerk. It's one thing to pay CVS for their high prices, then to be treated like shit, firing the guy is justifiable. It's bad enough some clerks don't say a word to you when you go through the register, but this is much worse. The clerk will learn and never do something like this again. The clerk has an easy job, be courteous and respectful and do your job.
ScreamDream
I think he could learn without potentially crapping out his life. Suspending him without pay for a week seems like it would get the point across fine. Again, the days of being fired and just getting a new job in a few weeks are long gone. This poor guy could be unemployed for a year or more in today's job market and since this would be firing with cause, he wouldn't be able to collect unemployment either.
If you would own a business, you would think otherwise. Customers are much more important than someone disrespting your customers. I wouldn't trust this guy just for his morals.
If I owned the store I might...but I wouldn't just rush to firing the guy. This will be forgotten about by the end of the week. Suggesting firing someone is very easy to do when you aren't the one being fired or even doing the firing. While the bottome dollar is what matters most, part of being a good manager and/or owner is understanding that your employees are human beings with lives also. Firing someone in these times is not the same as firing someone pre-2008.
If you would own a business, you would think otherwise. Customers are much more important than someone disrespting your customers. I wouldn't trust this guy just for his morals.
ScreamDream
If I owned the store I might...but I would just rush to firing the guy. This will be forgotten about by the end of the week. Suggesting firing someone is very easy to do when you aren't the one being fired or even doing the firing.
I would have to know the guy. If he's really courteous to all customers than maybe it's something to think about (but I doubt he is) but the story doesn't tell you about him and if this was a fluke. From reading the story, he's gone.
Exactly. I'm assuming this was a first offense and just a stupid mistake like we ALL make. Firing should always be the last resort. If this is a common theme with this guy then, yes, he should be fired.
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]If I owned the store I might...but I would just rush to firing the guy. This will be forgotten about by the end of the week. Suggesting firing someone is very easy to do when you aren't the one being fired or even doing the firing.
Pirate700
I would have to know the guy. If he's really courteous to all customers than maybe it's something to think about (but I doubt he is) but the story doesn't tell you about him and if this was a fluke. From reading the story, he's gone.
Exactly. I'm assuming this was a first offense and just a stupid mistake like we ALL make. Firing should always be the last resort. If this is a common theme with this guy then, yes, he should be fired.
I would think he would have to be above and beyond courteous. Say hello, thank you or just one of those. See him helping customers, etc. If he doesn't do that he's still gone. He would have to be above common for me to keep him there.
I would have to know the guy. If he's really courteous to all customers than maybe it's something to think about (but I doubt he is) but the story doesn't tell you about him and if this was a fluke. From reading the story, he's gone.
sSubZerOo
Exactly. I'm assuming this was a first offense and just a stupid mistake like we ALL make. Firing should always be the last resort. If this is a common theme with this guy then, yes, he should be fired.
:| Â This wasn't a mistake this was blatant and intentional.. Or Pirate do you have to catch your self when typing in racist nicknames because your incapable of typing their real names in?
I don't mean mistake like an accident. A mistake as in it was a stupid lapse in judgment. And you know what I meant about us all making mistakes, so give me a break. I think a punishment is in order. I'm just not carefree with firings.
CVS should fire the clerk. It's one thing to pay CVS for their high prices, then to be treated like shit, firing the guy is justifiable. It's bad enough some clerks don't say a word to you when you go through the register, but this is much worse. The clerk will learn and never do something like this again. The clerk has an easy job, be courteous and respectful and do your job.
ScreamDream
I think he could learn without potentially crapping out his life. Suspending him without pay for a week seems like it would get the point across fine. Again, the days of being fired and just getting a new job in a few weeks are long gone. This poor guy could be unemployed for a year or more in today's job market and since this would be firing with cause, he wouldn't be able to collect unemployment either.
If you would own a business, you would think otherwise. Customers are much more important than someone disrespting your customers. I wouldn't trust this guy just for his morals.
If the customers are so important, why not pay a livable wage in the first place do you can actually get employees who can offer exceptional customer service. Firing him isn't going to do shit since chances are, he will just be replaced with yet another button pusher with the minimum wage mentality. I also take much more pride in my job making $15 an hour than I did back when I was making $5.50 years ago at another job. This is CVS were talking about. They price gouge everything to begin with. Its not like they can't afford it. But like so many other businesses in this country, they expect a good outcome from cheap labor. You get what you pay for.
If you would own a business, you would think otherwise. Customers are much more important than someone disrespting your customers. I wouldn't trust this guy just for his morals.
ScreamDream
If the customers are so important, why not pay a livable wage in the first place do you can actually get employees who can offer exceptional customer service. Firing him isn't going to do shit since chances are, he will just be replaced with yet another button pusher with the minimum wage mentality. I also take much more pride in my job making $15 an hour than I did back when I was making $5.50 years ago at another job. This is CVS were talking about. They price gouge everything to begin with. Its not like they can't afford it. But like so many other businesses in this country, they expect a good outcome from cheap labor. You get what you pay for.
So it's acceptable if you were an employer and could only pay slighter higher than minimum wage for employees to act like this?
These companies can afford it. They just choose to exploit the workforce instead. Funny now Kroger pays my girlfriend almost 18.00 an hour with full benifits while their competition pays their employees with similar experience, 8.00. Ironically because of such good customer service, they also have a huge and loyal customer base and their prices are cheaper as a result. The 10.00 six pack of regional craft beer rang up by a minimum wage Walmart worker with little training or experience is only $8.00 and rang up by somebody who has been working there five to ten years with a maximum wage topping off at over $15 an hour with full benefits at Kroger. And companies who pay a low wage have a much higher turn over than a company that offers a good wage or at least exceptional incentives, raises and promotions. That's much less money spent on constant training, less money spent on employee theft, less money spent on damages, cashier errors, customers not returning to the store, etc, etc, etc. And it also raises the morale and motivation of other employees as well. And just look at Costco. The average worker makes 45k a year. Yet they still manage a net income of 1.7 billion a year.
CVS should fire the clerk. It's one thing to pay CVS for their high prices, then to be treated like shit, firing the guy is justifiable. It's bad enough some clerks don't say a word to you when you go through the register, but this is much worse. The clerk will learn and never do something like this again. The clerk has an easy job, be courteous and respectful and do your job.
CVS should fire the clerk. It's one thing to pay CVS for their high prices, then to be treated like shit, firing the guy is justifiable. It's bad enough some clerks don't say a word to you when you go through the register, but this is much worse. The clerk will learn and never do something like this again. The clerk has an easy job, be courteous and respectful and do your job.
ScreamDream
I think he could learn without potentially crapping out his life. Suspending him without pay for a week seems like it would get the point across fine. Again, the days of being fired and just getting a new job in a few weeks are long gone. This poor guy could be unemployed for a year or more in today's job market and since this would be firing with cause, he wouldn't be able to collect unemployment either.
CVS should fire the clerk. It's one thing to pay CVS for their high prices, then to be treated like shit, firing the guy is justifiable. It's bad enough some clerks don't say a word to you when you go through the register, but this is much worse. The clerk will learn and never do something like this again. The clerk has an easy job, be courteous and respectful and do your job.
Pirate700
I think he could learn without potentially crapping out his life. Suspending him without pay for a week seems like it would get the point across fine. Again, the days of being fired and just getting a new job in a few weeks are long gone. This poor guy could be unemployed for a year or more in today's job market and since this would be firing with cause, he wouldn't be able to collect unemployment either.
If you would own a business, you would think otherwise. Customers are much more important than someone disrespting your customers. I wouldn't trust this guy just for his morals.
CVS should fire the clerk. It's one thing to pay CVS for their high prices, then to be treated like shit, firing the guy is justifiable. It's bad enough some clerks don't say a word to you when you go through the register, but this is much worse. The clerk will learn and never do something like this again. The clerk has an easy job, be courteous and respectful and do your job.
Pirate700
I think he could learn without potentially crapping out his life. Suspending him without pay for a week seems like it would get the point across fine. Again, the days of being fired and just getting a new job in a few weeks are long gone. This poor guy could be unemployed for a year or more in today's job market and since this would be firing with cause, he wouldn't be able to collect unemployment either. I agree with the sentiment. Personally, I've felt like firing someone was taken too lightly in the past as well even prior to 2008. As for the lawsuit itself, I'm sure it will get settled out of court for a much lesser amount almost strictly as a PR move by CVS. The woman will have a difficult time proving she incurred substantial damages, and I don't think hefty punitive fines are likely given the store's written policy and response. And to Laihendi: This is a civil case, not a criminal case.
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]I think he could learn without potentially crapping out his life. Suspending him without pay for a week seems like it would get the point across fine. Again, the days of being fired and just getting a new job in a few weeks are long gone. This poor guy could be unemployed for a year or more in today's job market and since this would be firing with cause, he wouldn't be able to collect unemployment either.
Pirate700
If you would own a business, you would think otherwise. Customers are much more important than someone disrespting your customers. I wouldn't trust this guy just for his morals.
If I owned the store I might...but I would just rush to firing the guy. This will be forgotten about by the end of the week. Suggesting firing someone is very easy to do when you aren't the one being fired or even doing the firing.
I would have to know the guy. If he's really courteous to all customers than maybe it's something to think about (but I doubt he is) but the story doesn't tell you about him and if this was a fluke. From reading the story, he's gone.
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]If I owned the store I might...but I would just rush to firing the guy. This will be forgotten about by the end of the week. Suggesting firing someone is very easy to do when you aren't the one being fired or even doing the firing.
Pirate700
I would have to know the guy. If he's really courteous to all customers than maybe it's something to think about (but I doubt he is) but the story doesn't tell you about him and if this was a fluke. From reading the story, he's gone.
Exactly. I'm assuming this was a first offense and just a stupid mistake like we ALL make. Firing should always be the last resort. If this is a common theme with this guy then, yes, he should be fired.
:| Â This wasn't a mistake this was blatant and intentional.. Or Pirate do you have to catch your self when typing in racist nicknames because your incapable of typing their real names in?
If the government comes after you, then it's not really free speech. If the consequence is that people start to not like you because of the things you say, that is free speech.Â
What's the big deal? If I were an employee at a company and I had to write down a black person's name and all I knew was that his last name was Jones, and I put "Buckwheat Jones", it would be unreasonable for overly sensitive Mr. Jones to take major offense to that, right? RIGHT? To be fair, I think the woman really shouldn't be suing, but I definitely can see why she's royally miffed.
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]I think he could learn without potentially crapping out his life. Suspending him without pay for a week seems like it would get the point across fine. Again, the days of being fired and just getting a new job in a few weeks are long gone. This poor guy could be unemployed for a year or more in today's job market and since this would be firing with cause, he wouldn't be able to collect unemployment either.
Murderstyle75
If you would own a business, you would think otherwise. Customers are much more important than someone disrespting your customers. I wouldn't trust this guy just for his morals.
If the customers are so important, why not pay a livable wage in the first place do you can actually get employees who can offer exceptional customer service. Firing him isn't going to do shit since chances are, he will just be replaced with yet another button pusher with the minimum wage mentality. I also take much more pride in my job making $15 an hour than I did back when I was making $5.50 years ago at another job. This is CVS were talking about. They price gouge everything to begin with. Its not like they can't afford it. But like so many other businesses in this country, they expect a good outcome from cheap labor. You get what you pay for.
So it's acceptable if you were an employer and could only pay slighter higher than minimum wage for employees to act like this?
A million dollars is excessive but that should wake CVS up. Dude should definitely be fired though, it doesn't take a genius to know the consequences of actions like that.
So it's acceptable if you were an employer and could only pay slighter higher than minimum wage for employees to act like this?
ScreamDream
These companies can afford it. They just choose to exploit the workforce instead. Funny now Kroger pays my girlfriend almost 18.00 an hour with full benifits while their competition pays their employees with similar experience, 8.00. Ironically because of such good customer service, they also have a huge and loyal customer base and their prices are cheaper as a result. The 10.00 six pack of regional craft beer rang up by a minimum wage Walmart worker with little training or experience is only $8.00 and rang up by somebody who has been working there five to ten years with a maximum wage topping off at over $15 an hour with full benefits at Kroger. And companies who pay a low wage have a much higher turn over than a company that offers a good wage or at least exceptional incentives, raises and promotions. That's much less money spent on constant training, less money spent on employee theft, less money spent on damages, cashier errors, customers not returning to the store, etc, etc, etc. And it also raises the morale and motivation of other employees as well. And just look at Costco. The average worker makes 45k a year. Yet they still manage a net income of 1.7 billion a year.
You didn't answer my question, here it is again. So it's acceptable if you were an employer and could only pay slighter higher than minimum wage for employees to act like this.
And like I said. You get what you pay for. Pay 8.00 an hour and you are going to get 8.00 in quality. If you can't handle that or are not able to expand your business to pay more, perhaps being a business owner isn't for you if you can't accept the low quality. For that amount of money, you are going to attract two kinds of people. People who are incapable or else they wouldn't be working for 8.00 an hour to begin with or people who just don't care but are in a temporary rut. And why should they care? Your paycheck is not doing anything to bring them above poverty level. Don't act like you are doing them any favors. Minimum wage jobs are a dime a dozen unless you truely live in a rural area outside of civilization. Why should they do you any favors while still having to cash a welfare check even when working full time or are losing sleep about their gas bill? And these same 7.40 to 8.00 an hour employers would be paying their workers 4.50 to 5.00 if the government allowed it.
[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] These companies can afford it. They just choose to exploit the workforce instead. Funny now Kroger pays my girlfriend almost 18.00 an hour with full benifits while their competition pays their employees with similar experience, 8.00. Ironically because of such good customer service, they also have a huge and loyal customer base and their prices are cheaper as a result. The 10.00 six pack of regional craft beer rang up by a minimum wage Walmart worker with little training or experience is only $8.00 and rang up by somebody who has been working there five to ten years with a maximum wage topping off at over $15 an hour with full benefits at Kroger. And companies who pay a low wage have a much higher turn over than a company that offers a good wage or at least exceptional incentives, raises and promotions. That's much less money spent on constant training, less money spent on employee theft, less money spent on damages, cashier errors, customers not returning to the store, etc, etc, etc. And it also raises the morale and motivation of other employees as well. And just look at Costco. The average worker makes 45k a year. Yet they still manage a net income of 1.7 billion a year.Murderstyle75
You didn't answer my question, here it is again. So it's acceptable if you were an employer and could only pay slighter higher than minimum wage for employees to act like this.
And like I said. You get what you pay for. Pay 8.00 an hour and you are going to get 8.00 in quality. I have to agree with this as a general rule. While it doesn't make it ok what this guy did, you shouldn't expect much more than the minimum for minimum wage. I don't think this applies under that though as you should still know right from wrong.
[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] If the customers are so important, why not pay a livable wage in the first place do you can actually get employees who can offer exceptional customer service. Firing him isn't going to do shit since chances are, he will just be replaced with yet another button pusher with the minimum wage mentality. I also take much more pride in my job making $15 an hour than I did back when I was making $5.50 years ago at another job. This is CVS were talking about. They price gouge everything to begin with. Its not like they can't afford it. But like so many other businesses in this country, they expect a good outcome from cheap labor. You get what you pay for.Murderstyle75
So it's acceptable if you were an employer and could only pay slighter higher than minimum wage for employees to act like this?
These companies can afford it. They just choose to exploit the workforce instead. Funny now Kroger pays my girlfriend almost 18.00 an hour with full benifits while their competition pays their employees with similar experience, 8.00. Ironically because of such good customer service, they also have a huge and loyal customer base and their prices are cheaper as a result. The 10.00 six pack of regional craft beer rang up by a minimum wage Walmart worker with little training or experience is only $8.00 and rang up by somebody who has been working there five to ten years with a maximum wage topping off at over $15 an hour with full benefits at Kroger. And companies who pay a low wage have a much higher turn over than a company that offers a good wage or at least exceptional incentives, raises and promotions. That's much less money spent on constant training, less money spent on employee theft, less money spent on damages, cashier errors, customers not returning to the store, etc, etc, etc. And it also raises the morale and motivation of other employees as well. And just look at Costco. The average worker makes 45k a year. Yet they still manage a net income of 1.7 billion a year.
You didn't answer my question, here it is again. So it's acceptable if you were an employer and could only pay slighter higher than minimum wage for employees to act like this.
I would have fired the employee. I don't why they thought they could do that without getting in trouble. Commander-Gree
Yeah.....I can see why she's upset...and were it me I wouldn't shop there anymore....but suing for a million makes me lose sympathy and patience with her.
Log in to comment