Do You Think This Is Grounds For Termination?

[The Enforcer]

Today at work, my boss stopped by and told me that I have to do one hour of sensitivity training at the agency's local office. It's really to cover both our asses in case the Area Vice President finds out so I think it's a good idea. Will probably have to see a video or something.

[Johnny JJ]

They'll make you hold hands with a guy for an hour

[theconstipated1]

You are going to be the only straight person in that room. They are gonna have you watch a video with a bunch of gay people just to see how you react towards them. After that they are gonna come on to you,if they don`t get any reaction out of you,you are good to go back to the field.

[Maelstrom]

They'll make you hold hands with a guy for an hour

Perhaps the guy you discriminated against? LOL


Seriously, you're employed to ensure your clients SOP's are enforced/applied, the fact that you not only applied an unfair standard you also displayed your personal opinions before the client's staff in an unprofessional tone/manner... would you have made a female surrender their purse prior to entry? BTW never hear of Man bags? (70's trend)


Todays keywords are "impartial application of client policies"

[YANG]

Yes. Most definately. I would of fired you.

[CameraMan]

Our yearly sensitivity training is not one but two lawyers lecturing us for an hour on what you can and cannot say to a customer or to a fellow employee, what a supervisor can and cannot say to you, what rights you legally have as an employee, where to go to complain (Human Resources), what legal rights you have if Human Resources doesn't do anything, and where you go to file a legal complaint against the company.

Followed by 30-45 minutes of my beloved fellow employees asking the craziest, raunchiest, most insane questions they can think of, follwoed by "...so, is that allowed?". This goes on until someone cracks up and the boss chases us out.

[The Enforcer]

[QUOTE=Maelstrom;70958]Perhaps the guy you discriminated against? LOL


... would you have made a female surrender their purse prior to entry? QUOTE]

As I stated earlier, I would love to be able to pull everybody's purse that enters the store to provide an obstacle for shoplifters (women with huge purses are among the worst) but the management of the stores I work at does not allow me to do that.

[Curtis Baillie]

[QUOTE=The Enforcer;70988]

Perhaps the guy you discriminated against? LOL


... would you have made a female surrender their purse prior to entry? QUOTE]

As I stated earlier, I would love to be able to pull everybody's purse that enters the store to provide an obstacle for shoplifters (women with huge purses are among the worst) but the management of the stores I work at does not allow me to do that.

Who would be responsible for the purses? Picture this! From a female customer, after receiving her purse back when leaving the store ....... Someone ..... quick call the police. I had a $10,000 ring in my purse and now it's gone. Here's my receipt for the ring. (Pulling it from her pocket). Guess who has a problem? BTW - this really happened. The chain no longer requires customers to leave bags at the service desk.

Bottom line - if your policies require their customers to leave their bags at a service desk you (the company) is responsible for claims of missing items.

Not a good idea.

[Yardstick]

Today I did the Security Officer Basic Course. I was told the quickest way to get fired was to discriminate at work.

[integrator97]

I don't know how anyone can discriminate. Me, I'm not prejudice AT ALL. I hate everybody.

[HotelSecurity]

I don't know how anyone can discriminate. Me, I'm not prejudice AT ALL. I hate everybody.

Hey! That's my expression!!

[The Enforcer]

[QUOTE=Curtis Baillie;71024]

Who would be responsible for the purses? Picture this! From a female customer, after receiving her purse back when leaving the store ....... Someone ..... quick call the police. I had a $10,000 ring in my purse and now it's gone. Here's my receipt for the ring. (Pulling it from her pocket). Guess who has a problem? BTW - this really happened. The chain no longer requires customers to leave bags at the service desk.

Bottom line - if your policies require their customers to leave their bags at a service desk you (the company) is responsible for claims of missing items.

Not a good idea.

Techinically when I take any bag, per company policy, neither the agency nor the store assumes responsibility for the bag in question or the items in it (as I was told by several store managers). It is the customer's choice whether they want to bring bags into the store (presently excluding females with purses due to the many complaints it elicits). If they want to shop in the store without being constantly monitored and followed by me at a three foot radius until they are finished, they will leave the bags up front and I will store them in a safe place. There was, however, one manager that was concerned about the store's liability for customers' items and simply made me check everybody's bags on the way in and out without taking them.

[Curtis Baillie]

[QUOTE=The Enforcer;71036]

Techinically when I take any bag, per company policy, neither the agency nor the store assumes responsibility for the bag in question or the items in it (as I was told by several store managers). It is the customer's choice whether they want to bring bags into the store (presently excluding females with purses due to the many complaints it elicits). If they want to shop in the store without being constantly monitored and followed by me at a three foot radius until they are finished, they will leave the bags up front and I will store them in a safe place. There was, however, one manager that was concerned about the store's liability for customers' items and simply made me check everybody's bags on the way in and out without taking them.

You and your "managers" are very wrong on this. The "dollar" company you are posted at is a litigators dream come true. If this is a chain-wide policy it will take just one big payout and their policy will change - fast.

[sgtnewby]

[QUOTE=The Enforcer;71036]

Techinically when I take any bag, per company policy, neither the agency nor the store assumes responsibility for the bag in question or the items in it (as I was told by several store managers). It is the customer's choice whether they want to bring bags into the store (presently excluding females with purses due to the many complaints it elicits). If they want to shop in the store without being constantly monitored and followed by me at a three foot radius until they are finished, they will leave the bags up front and I will store them in a safe place. There was, however, one manager that was concerned about the store's liability for customers' items and simply made me check everybody's bags on the way in and out without taking them.

OMG, wake up... Are you serious? When you take possesion, you assume responsibility. I fully agree with Mr. Baillie.

[SecTrainer]

[QUOTE=sgtnewby;71053]

OMG, wake up... Are you serious? When you take possesion, you assume responsibility. I fully agree with Mr. Baillie.

Have you ever read the small print on the back of your ticket when you park in a commercial parking lot? You'll see that this legalese specifically states that parking your car shall NOT be considered creation of a bailment (which is transfer of possession for safekeeping), and specifically states that the parking lot assumes no responsibility for your vehicle or its contents. This is exactly analagous to checking a bag: All that would be necessary is a similar disclaimer on the bag claim ticket given to a customer when they check their bag (plus, perhaps, some appropriate signage), to the effect that there is no bailment being created and that the store assumes no responsibility for bag or contents.

In the same vein, it used to be common for nightclubs to have "hat-check" or "coat-check" service, and the ticket you got for your property always had a similar denial of responsibility printed on it.

How can the parking garage/store/nightclub do this? Well, a bailment is essentially a special form of contract that both parties must agree to in order to be created, and all they have to do is to specifically deny that any such agreement will be implied on their part by the fact that you have temporarily placed your property in their custody. In other words, they basically refuse to accept possession, in a legal sense. Absent such a bailment, which if created would have to specifically state exactly what responsibility the possessor is assuming, by the way, there is no transfer of possession for safekeeping...in the legal sense of possession. There is no such thing as a unilateral transfer of possession (where one party forces possession on another), because all it takes is for one party to refuse to accept legal possession.

Have such terms been challenged? Yes, but such challenges are rarely successful unless there is shown to be some very egregious form of negligence on the part of management.

Check it out for yourself. Next time you park in a lot, tell the attendant that your digital camera was stolen out of your car and you want the garage to pay for it. (Be sure to wear cotton in your ears so the attendant's laughter doesn't damage your hearing.)