Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do You Think This Is Grounds For Termination?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • integrator97
    replied
    Originally posted by Swifty View Post
    Yes, there is not a federal statute against discrimination based on sexual preference in a public place but from the civil side there is precidence for lawsuits and to a business owner or company that is where your mind needs to be.

    There are also statutes in several states (CA,CT, DC, MA, MN, NH, NJ, RI, VT, WS) that prohibit discrimination in public accommodation and under Washington law every "open to the public" business falls under public accommodation.

    Further more who cares what the law says when you put the company you work for on the 5 o'clock news?
    But they say even bad press is good press.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swifty
    replied
    Originally posted by thefatboy View Post
    On one hand, your opinions and your duties should never mix. Security officers "observe and report". I would not have fired you, because you would have gotten unemployment, and I don't like paying unemployment claims. But I would have given you a stern written warning, placed you on 90 days probation, and you would be hanging by a thin thread.

    Playing devil's advocate however, there is no federal statute banning discrimination based on sexual persuasion, so everyone's argument that he might as well have called the guy a racial slur is inaccurate.
    Yes, there is not a federal statute against discrimination based on sexual preference in a public place but from the civil side there is precidence for lawsuits and to a business owner or company that is where your mind needs to be.

    There are also statutes in several states (CA,CT, DC, MA, MN, NH, NJ, RI, VT, WS) that prohibit discrimination in public accommodation and under Washington law every "open to the public" business falls under public accommodation.

    Further more who cares what the law says when you put the company you work for on the 5 o'clock news?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck Williams
    replied
    On one hand, your opinions and your duties should never mix. Security officers "observe and report". I would not have fired you, because you would have gotten unemployment, and I don't like paying unemployment claims. But I would have given you a stern written warning, placed you on 90 days probation, and you would be hanging by a thin thread.

    Playing devil's advocate however, there is no federal statute banning discrimination based on sexual persuasion, so everyone's argument that he might as well have called the guy a racial slur is inaccurate.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Originally posted by hemi444 View Post
    As a security officer you are in a nuetral position and should not make judgement on other people for who they are. For future reference I would really consider what you would type on this forum by using such a respectful word with substituting it with something else. We have a diverse membership here on this forum and one of our members could well be gay.
    While I agree with you in general, had he not used his actual words in posing his situation, it would not have shown the same impact. I think when addressing an actual situation, we should use what was actually said and done, to show the context of the situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • hemi444
    replied
    Originally posted by The Enforcer View Post
    To make it clear, I did not personally call the guy a faggot; all I did was tell him to leave his purse up front. Only women are allowed to carry purses in the store. Otherwise, any bag is to be left up front until the person leaves. I was simply upholding the store policy. My comment was made the following day during a conversation.
    As a security officer you are in a nuetral position and should not make judgement on other people for who they are. For future reference I would really consider what you would type on this forum by using such a respectful word with substituting it with something else. We have a diverse membership here on this forum and one of our members could well be gay.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Enforcer
    replied
    Originally posted by sneakybstrd View Post
    Wow..OK. Interesting thread everyone.

    Enforcer, I am not going to continue to run through the same things everyone else said, rather I want to see if you'll look at your attitude and behavior this way:

    1. The private security industry gets a lot of gaff and is continuing to promote and establish professionalism and acceptance in the criminal justice world. I don't know if you're planning on this job being the start of a long career in private security or maybe public law enforcement, or any other plans.

    You must remember that everyone you deal with only really sees the badge and uniform, their experiences with you will reflect on all your peers.

    2. I don't know if your current situation would allow you to make arrests, but it may in the future. Now (I don't know how old you are, you might not remember) try to remember the cluster that started off with a Defense lawyer asking the simple question, "Have you EVER used the 'N-word'?"

    Private or public law enforcement you must always remember that what happens today might come back to bite you hard in the future. What happens if tomorrow you end up arresting a possibly gay man with a sorta purse full of merchandise and a pound of coke? All I see is, "He hates gays and planted that stuff on me when he popped me shoplifting" (Then you'll be arrested for violating this guys civil rights and be forced to enjoy the companionship of your fellow man....)
    I am not allowed to 'arrest' people for stealing but if they get too combative when I request they give up or attempt to retrieve the merchandise, I can defend myself and possibly detain them. Such situations (any touching of people without consent) are seriously frowned upon by my agency and it has not ever come to that for me yet. As far as the guy accusing me of planting the stuff in his purse, it ought to be his word against mine (I would never actually do something of that nature even if I had a personal dislike for a person, let alone somebody I have never met).

    Leave a comment:


  • sneakybstrd
    replied
    Wow..OK. Interesting thread everyone.

    Enforcer, I am not going to continue to run through the same things everyone else said, rather I want to see if you'll look at your attitude and behavior this way:

    1. The private security industry gets a lot of gaff and is continuing to promote and establish professionalism and acceptance in the criminal justice world. I don't know if you're planning on this job being the start of a long career in private security or maybe public law enforcement, or any other plans.

    You must remember that everyone you deal with only really sees the badge and uniform, their experiences with you will reflect on all your peers.

    2. I don't know if your current situation would allow you to make arrests, but it may in the future. Now (I don't know how old you are, you might not remember) try to remember the cluster that started off with a Defense lawyer asking the simple question, "Have you EVER used the 'N-word'?"

    Private or public law enforcement you must always remember that what happens today might come back to bite you hard in the future. What happens if tomorrow you end up arresting a possibly gay man with a sorta purse full of merchandise and a pound of coke? All I see is, "He hates gays and planted that stuff on me when he popped me shoplifting" (Then you'll be arrested for violating this guys civil rights and be forced to enjoy the companionship of your fellow man....)

    Leave a comment:


  • The Enforcer
    replied
    To all who made a mention of it, no ticket is given. Either myself or the cashier take the bags and put them in a safe place or behind the register respectively. 99% of the time, people will willingly surrender any non-purse related item until they leave the store. One time, a lady actually insisted that I take her big purse to the front of the store so that I wouldn't follow her around.
    Last edited by The Enforcer; 08-24-2008, 11:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maelstrom
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    That's why I specifically said "...other than an ordinary standard of care", and in the case of bailments this ordinary standard of care often does NOT include any responsibility for the contents of your car, your purse, or whatever.

    Think about it. All anyone would have to do in many of these situations is simply claim that an item was stolen or that something was damaged and the facility would have no defense. If so, we would have NO commercial garages, NO lockers in athletic clubs, NO checked bags on buses, trains, airplanes, etc. Obviously, this would not be a desirable social outcome. So, the law permits such facilities to limit their liability, and rightly so.
    Interestingly such facilitators will still TRY and include personal injury protection clauses into their 'use of' terms & conditions

    An example of such can be seen here @ Wilson Parking Australia

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    That's why I specifically said "...other than an ordinary standard of care", and in the case of bailments this ordinary standard of care often does NOT include any responsibility for the contents of your car, your purse, or whatever.

    Think about it. All anyone would have to do in many of these situations is simply claim that an item was stolen or that something was damaged and the facility would have no defense. If so, we would have NO commercial garages, NO lockers in athletic clubs, NO checked bags on buses, trains, airplanes, etc. Obviously, this would not be a desirable social outcome. So, the law permits such facilities to limit their liability, and rightly so.
    I agree as far as when you use a car park or locker. But someone says "you have to leave your packages up here at the front", without providing lockers, I think they assume liability, especially of they are not denying it in any way.
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    Nothing much protects anyone in any situation from the consequences of gross negligence, regardless of what we're talking about. Even here, though, there are certain situations where immunity is created by law even for gross negligence. This usually happens when a very hazardous undertaking is felt to be highly desirable for society. For instance, when railroads were blasting their way through the mountains a century ago, they couldn't have paid enough to get insurance for their blasting liability. Therefore, Congress gave them absolute immunity from being sued for any adverse consequences arising from their blasting, even if they were grossly negligent in how they did it. As a result, railroads were built, and a very good thing that was.
    Yea, tell that to the chinese labor killed in the blasts.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Maelstrom View Post
    AFAIK Australia doesn't except that line of defense either, nor do those disclaimers on the back of parking tickets protect the car park facilitators from gross negligence, I often see signs in shops detailing a "no items return policy" this is also invalid due to consumer protection legislation
    That's why I specifically said "...other than an ordinary standard of care", and in the case of bailments this ordinary standard of care often does NOT include any responsibility for the contents of your car, your purse, or whatever.

    Think about it. All anyone would have to do in many of these situations is simply claim that an item was stolen or that something was damaged and the facility would have no defense. If so, we would have NO commercial garages, NO lockers in athletic clubs, NO checked bags on buses, trains, airplanes, etc. Obviously, this would not be a desirable social outcome. So, the law permits such facilities to limit their liability, and rightly so.

    Nothing much protects anyone in any situation from the consequences of gross negligence, regardless of what we're talking about. Even here, though, there are certain situations where immunity is created by law even for gross negligence. This usually happens when a very hazardous undertaking is felt to be highly desirable for society. For instance, when railroads were blasting their way through the mountains a century ago, they couldn't have paid enough to get insurance for their blasting liability. Therefore, Congress gave them absolute immunity from being sued for any adverse consequences arising from their blasting, even if they were grossly negligent in how they did it. As a result, railroads were built, and a very good thing that was.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 08-22-2008, 01:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Originally posted by Blade Runner View Post
    Well, I guess ASSHOLE is an appropriate word then? Hmmmm, read through a few of the other posts, then come back and tell me what I posted was inappropriate. Oh, BTW.....Whatever happened to the Freedom of Speech? Damn Nazi....
    Careful now. I got banned from another board for a lot less than that. Not worth digging a grave over.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maelstrom
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
    Quebec law does not accept the "owner is not responsible" signs.

    AFAIK Australia doesn't except that line of defense either, nor do those disclaimers on the back of parking tickets protect the car park facilitators from gross negligence, I often see signs in shops detailing a "no items return policy" this is also invalid due to consumer protection legislation
    Last edited by Maelstrom; 08-22-2008, 01:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blade Runner
    replied
    Originally posted by Blade Runner View Post
    ---edited----
    Well, I guess ASSHOLE is an appropriate word then? Hmmmm, read through a few of the other posts, then come back and tell me what I posted was inappropriate. Oh, BTW.....Whatever happened to the Freedom of Speech? Damn Nazi....
    Last edited by Blade Runner; 08-22-2008, 12:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
    Quebec law does not accept the "owner is not responsible" signs.
    I am not familiar with any jurisdiction where a disclaimer sign, per se, would be sufficient to extinguish or limit the owner's responsibility to exercise ordinary care in most cases of bailment. Many things come into play to determine the duty of a bailee to a bailor (the owner of the property).

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X