McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at Work

[naked gent]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

All the more reason to manage the claims paid very carefully. Payments into the trust would be a % of payroll. Payments out of the trust have to be carefully managed - if not, the trust goes broke and nobody collects a claim.

Actually Henry since they are legally required to carry workman's comp there is zero chance the fund will go broke.......they may have to pay more into the fund if they poorly manage their claims but unless they close their restaurants the fund will survive.

Rich people or companies are not obligated to pay out sums of cash they believe are unreasonable. What's implied by your emoticoms is indicative of the same problem crippling America right now -- entitlement to grab from a perceived big pot of goodies whether or not it's earned or deserved.

For us here in the peanut gallery this is about doing the right thing or maybe not but I'm not sure this is a case of the kind Nick indicates where someone is trying to get money they are not entitled to.

There are three interested parties here, the victim, the franchise owner and McDonalds corporation and all of them are looking out for their individual interests only referencing right or wrong when it benefits them.

Henry takes the corporate position and perspective but he seems to think that perspective is identical to that of the franchisee which, as a matter of business I don't think it is at all.

I think the franchisee would come down firmly on the kids side and not because its the right thing to do but because it is in his interest to do so. From his perspective the cost of paying the claim spread over 30,000 restaurant is a lot less to him than the possible cost to him of lost customers and disgruntled employees.

The quotes from him in the linked story certainly seem to indicate that he thinks the claim should be paid. And why not which McDonalds would you rather own the one where employees feel fairly treated and customers feel safe or the one where both feel neither?

In business customers matter as much as the bottom line as evidenced today by companies like Target, Walmart and Amazon who are sacrificing profit margins in order to keep sales from dropping.

Also I'd point out that, assuming the kid had no health insurance on his own, that hospital will never see that $300,000 bill paid in full. If it becomes a comp case they will be lucky to get $200,000 and if it isn't I doubt the young man will be paying that bill in full either.

 

[Glafna]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

You took the bait.

Hmm, so I'm a baiter now am I....

 

[Glafna]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

Though your statement is true, there is a question as to whether his injury involves workplace safety. Best I can determine, this incident represents a reportable injury under OSHA requirements and is therefore [arguably] related to workplace safety.

http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/handbook/index.html​

Very good point, but from the technical standpoint, he was in the parking lot when he was shot, which would give the Insurance Company enough grounds to dismiss his claim.

Going anywhere is dangerous, hell, I could walk out my front door, and some idiot could run me over with his bike, or I could get shot by some kids playing with their dads gun. Just because it is, doesn't mean we can become reckless and expect people to wait on us like we're some kind of hero. Again, he done a brave act, but it was not necessarily one that was needed. He could have just approached with a customer or another staff member and politely yet firmly ask the man to leave, and if he doesn't, inform him that the police were called and he is on candid camera(if he can't figure that out already). At my work, I've done that with shoplifters and dumb asses harassing people over their looks or who their with, and if they cause problems, they get hit with a trespass order.

 

[opinterph]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

What's your point?

Rich people or companies are not obligated to pay out sums of cash they believe are unreasonable. What's implied by your emoticoms is indicative of the same problem crippling America right now -- entitlement to grab from a perceived big pot of goodies whether or not it's earned or deserved. Corporations are in business to make profits, not be charity organizations. Make an argument that proves McDonald's should pay this claim if you can, but they're not beholden to pay out a dime just because they're a successful business.

Though nobody caught my decimal error, the final line of my post merely illustrates the correlation between costs of the medical treatment for this injured employee and the most recent annual corporate net income. Assuming that the employee is NOT entitled to workers comp compensation, I wonder how this one-one hundredth of one percent of the bottom line could adversely affect future sales. Rather than considering the issue purely through the question of entitlement, I imagine the company is also interested in considering the public relations component created by the publicity surrounding this dispute.

After the 1984 “San Ysidro McDonald's massacre” the company (which owns the land at all its US store locations) tore down the restaurant and donated the land to the city. In terms of profit maximization, that action seems to make no sense. Is it fair to argue that the city was not entitled to “grab” the land “from a perceived big pot of goodies?” The comparison of that incident to this employee’s circumstance is not necessarily appropriate, but it serves to demonstrate that corporate attention to a company’s image is often a valid consideration when weighing affective decisions.

McDonalds targets most of its advertising to children. Hence, their target market is likely unconcerned about matters relating to employee disputes. On the other hand, motivated parents may be inclined to substitute an alternative restaurant for their children’s preference. Considering that McDonalds [corporate] spent $806 million on advertising, production, and related costs in 2007 (annual report) and considering that Mr. Haskett’s contested workers comp claim represents only four-hundredths of one percent of that year’s advertising budget, the company may be inadvertently incorporating the cost of this employee’s misfortune into their bottom line, notwithstanding the more obvious calculations of profit maximization.

Appropriate or not, many people develop or sustain their brand loyalties based upon such things as the charitable activities associated with the companies with which they choose to do business. Not unlike politics, public sentiment plays a role that sometimes exceeds the rigor of principle.

 

[NickCole]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

Though nobody caught my decimal error, the final line of my post merely illustrates the correlation between costs of the medical treatment for this injured employee and the most recent annual corporate net income. Assuming that the employee is NOT entitled to workers comp compensation, I wonder how this one-one hundredth of one percent of the bottom line could adversely affect future sales. Rather than considering the issue purely through the question of entitlement, I imagine the company is also interested in considering the public relations component created by the publicity surrounding this dispute.

After the 1984 “San Ysidro McDonald's massacre” the company (which owns the land at all its US store locations) tore down the restaurant and donated the land to the city. In terms of profit maximization, that action seems to make no sense. Is it fair to argue that the city was not entitled to “grab” the land “from a perceived big pot of goodies?” The comparison of that incident to this employee’s circumstance is not necessarily appropriate,

It's not appropriate.

This employee took it upon himself to endanger himself and place others at risk at that McDonald's by exaserbating a violent situation rather than calling police for professional intervention. His heart was in the right place but he was not a passive victim, he made himself a participant and but for his actions the assailant might never have pulled a gun. Objectively speaking, he made the situation worse.

but it serves to demonstrate that corporate attention to a company’s image is often a valid consideration when weighing affective decisions.

I understand. It's called goodwill. Businesses use it all the time. I'm not opposed to McDonald's responding that way, and in fact I think it's what they ought to do. But my point is just because that's a good gesture on their part doesn't mean they're evil if they decide not to do it. First, there could be legitimate concern about what kind of precedent it would create. Corporate McDonald's apparently does not provide insurance for employees that covers this circumstance and does not encourage employees to take this kind of risk. Further, the employee used poor judgment by placing himself and everyone else at risk rather than calling the police, and therefore a fair argument could be made that no matter where it happened the employee made a personal decision and is himself responsible for the costs of his action.

 

[snapcat]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

It's interesting to read how some people spin doing the right thing into such foolishness. It makes me yearn for the day when common sense was more readily available to the general population.

What a very sad statement on how far society has regressed.

 

[levenshulme31]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

The situations aren't even remotely analogous or equivalent.

The taxpayer funded system of courts will spend taxpayer money to prosecute and hopefully incarcerate a violent criminal - thereby protecting society as a whole from further violence.

Why not have a system of crime insurance? The level of cover you could afford would determine what level of protection you get. "Sorry, you couldnt afford the 'being stabbed' cover, maybe next time you'll be lucky and just get burgled."

How is it good for society to catch and incarcerate criminals but not good for society to not let huge numbers of people suffer and die prematurely because they can't afford medical bills?

The guy was on the premises of his employer, perhaps even, on the clock. He was not, however, performing his assigned duties.

You may call this nit-picking, but it is precisely this kind of fine point which keeps layers in business.

He was trying to protect one of his emplyer's customers. As for keeping lawyers in business, I would argue that it is the lack of universal healthcare which has been feeding the ambuilance chasing legal profession for decades (while also adding to the cost of insurance to pay the legal costs of fighting for the payment of medical bills. Both could be swept away by a universal healthcare system.

 

[NickCole]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

It's interesting to read how some people spin doing the right thing into such foolishness. It makes me yearn for the day when common sense was more readily available to the general population.

What a very sad statement on how far society has regressed.

He may have had good intentions but he did not do the right thing. The right thing would have been to call the police, which would have a greater likelihood of diffusing the violence rather than escalating an assault into a shooting, endangering everybody in the vicinity.

You're right to yearn for more common sense because this story is one of poor judgment.

 

[Glafna]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

It's interesting to read how some people spin doing the right thing into such foolishness. It makes me yearn for the day when common sense was more readily available to the general population.

What a very sad statement on how far society has regressed.

Stupidity and Bravery go hand in hand.

Yes, he done a good thing, but it was NOT the intelligent thing. As I said before, he should have informed the authorities, or had them informed, immediately, then approached the man as though he DID have a gun drawn, so he would not be intimidated to use his weapon.

 

[fjancsi80]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

Probably American police is better but here in Hungary the police never comes in a situation like this. When you call them their first question: Is there any blood flowing? If not, they won't come.

 

[NickCole]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

Stupidity and Bravery go hand in hand.

Yes, he done a good thing, but it was NOT the intelligent thing. As I said before, he should have informed the authorities, or had them informed, immediately, then approached the man as though he DID have a gun drawn, so he would not be intimidated to use his weapon.

We agree, and I hope you don't mind if I use what you said to further clarify my point.

The first part of what I bolded is right; a trained police officer always approaches hostile people as if they have a weapon. And that's an important part of what I'm taking issue with here: there is cheering in this thread for a man who "did the right thing" even though his inexperience led him to make choices that were not in the best interest of the common good.

The second part also illustrates how a trained cop would handle the situation more effectively, but it's slightly off. The assailant did not use his weapon because he was intimidated, he used it because he was startled, frightened, angry. A police officer uses his training, his uniform, his possession of a weapon, his bearing, the tone of his voice, having back-up, all the tools to subdue and intimidate, which is what has the best chance of diffusing the drama and preventing further violence. The McDonald's employee didn't subdue or intimidate the man; the employee startled him into taking action either to defend himself or to lash out in an escalated way from hitting to shooting.

The McDonald's employee didn't only risk his own life, his action endangered everybody else in the vicinity. As I've said, his heart was in the right place but he did not do the right thing.

 

[Willie Boy]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

The McDonald's employee, although he may have had good intentions, di a very foolish thing.

What if the assailant had gone psycho and, after shooting the employee, continued firing at anything that moved?

The point is, he decided to play hero without taking consequences into consideration. His foolhardy actions could very easily have cost quite a few innocent civilians their lives (or left them alive, but crippled for life!), and many of you want to pin a medal on his chest? You think that his proving his manhood is worth someone else's life? Thankfully we didn't have to read about the worst case scenario having happened, but this fool is no hero. He had no clue what he was doing and caused his own injuries, why should he be rewarded for that?

It is possible that he acted out of good intention (I wiil accept that), but we all have heard that old axiom about the road that good intentions pave, haven't we.

One last thought: I wonder how many of you who are insisting he is a hero would still make that claim if his intervention had caused a pregnant woman to be shot in the abdomen killing both her and her child. Please think about that.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

This is silly.

What if the assailant had gone psycho and, after shooting the employee, continued firing at anything that moved?

What if little green Martians had appeared and started ass probing everyone?

If, perhaps, maybe, might have been.

The point is, he decided to play hero without taking consequences into consideration. His foolhardy actions could very easily have cost quite a few innocent civilians their lives (or left them alive, but crippled for life!), and many of you want to pin a medal on his chest? You think that his proving his manhood is worth someone else's life? Thankfully we didn't have to read about the worst case scenario having happened, but this fool is no hero. He had no clue what he was doing and caused his own injuries, why should he be rewarded for that?

Do you live inside his head? How do you know what his motives were? You don’t. Who’s trying to reward him? Is there a mayor somewhere with a ribbon to be cut and a key to the city, to be given out? If his medical bills are payed, how much cash will he have left over?

It is possible that he acted out of good intention (I wiil accept that), but we all have heard that old axiom about the road that good intentions pave, haven't we.

Actually the axiom is about people intending to do good works – good works like, like you know helping someone in need – but never getting around to actually doing good works. You should listen more in Sunday school. That’s why it uses the word intentions, and not actions.

One last thought: I wonder how many of you who are insisting he is a hero would still make that claim if his intervention had caused a pregnant woman to be shot in the abdomen killing both her and her child. Please think about that.

What if little green Martians had appeared and started ass probing everyone?

If, perhaps, maybe, might have been. I wonder if you would still be insisting he’s not a hero if his interference saved small pink bunnies.

What if means nothing, it's no argument, no position - because it didn't happen.

 

[Willie Boy]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

This is silly.



What if little green Martians had appeared and started ass probing everyone?

If, perhaps, maybe, might have been.



Do you live inside his head? How do you know what his motives were? You don’t. Who’s trying to reward him? Is there a mayor somewhere with a ribbon to be cut and a key to the city, to be given out? If his medical bills are payed, how much cash will he have left over?



Actually the axiom is about people intending to do good works – good works like, like you know helping someone in need – but never getting around to actually doing good works. You should listen more in Sunday school. That’s why it uses the word intentions, and not actions.



What if little green Martians had appeared and started ass probing everyone?

If, perhaps, maybe, might have been. I wonder if you would still be insisting he’s not a hero if his interference saved small pink bunnies.

What if means nothing, it's no argument, no position - because it didn't happen.

No, it didn't happen. But the point was, that it very easily could have because the employee, like you, did not stop to think things through before acting. Thank you for so vividly proving the point I was making.

BTW, what if is the beginning of wisdom, the mark of an intelligent mind preparing to act rationally. Those who don't stop to think of the consequences of their words or actions prove themselves to be without brain matter.

 

[naked gent]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

One last thought: I wonder how many of you who are insisting he is a hero would still make that claim if his intervention had caused a pregnant woman to be shot in the abdomen killing both her and her child. Please think about that.

While I'm thinking about that you can think about this. How about the woman was pregnant and after getting hit in the face she falls to the floor and the guy starts kicking her in the abdomen.

Do you think limiting your response to calling the police will save that baby's life and if not do you think action on your part is called for?

BTW, what if is the beginning of wisdom, the mark of an intelligent mind preparing to act rationally. Those who don't stop to think of the consequences of their words or actions prove themselves to be without brain matter.

By that measure the courageous often act without benefit of wisdom but I wouldn't want to say they lack brain matter......although it might appear that way to a coward.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

No, it didn't happen. But the point was, that it very easily could have because the employee, like you, did not stop to think things through before acting. Thank you for so vividly proving the point I was making.

BTW, what if is the beginning of wisdom, the mark of an intelligent mind preparing to act rationally. Those who don't stop to think of the consequences of their words or actions prove themselves to be without brain matter.

...as long as we're makin' shit up...

So what if the guy with the gun came in an killed several pregnant women a nun and three grannies with walkers because no one chased him outside, then he tossed a baby into traffic and slapped a retarded kid, who's the hero then huh?

AN then he dropped three puppies down a well, all because no one stopped him?

...and what if intervention stopped the gunman- who obviously didn't have a problem shooting people, from killing everyone in the McDonald's;

And What if there were pie;

And what if...................................

The point was that you don't have a point.

 

[NickCole]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

...as long as we're makin' shit up...

So what if the guy with the gun came in an killed several pregnant women a nun and three grannies with walkers because no one chased him outside, then he tossed a baby into traffic and slapped a retarded kid, who's the hero then huh?

AN then he dropped three puppies down a well, all because no one stopped him?

...and what if intervention stopped the gunman- who obviously didn't have a problem shooting people, from killing everyone in the McDonald's;

And What if there were pie;

And what if...................................

The point was that you don't have a point.

Not only did he have a point, he had a valid one:

"The point is, he decided to play hero without taking consequences into consideration."

There's a lot more wisdom and common sense in that one sentence than in everything you've written here.

Your fantasy notwithstanding, this McDonald's employee took matters into his own hands and rather than diffusing the violence he exaserbated it and potentially endangered innocent bystanders. That's not heroic. And now he expects McDonald's, which had nothing to do with the way events unfolded, to pay for his recklessness and poor judgment.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

You don't live in his head either, you don't know if he thought about it, how much escalation there was, whether he knew there was a gun or not, his state of mind, what happened beyond the tape, you don't know anything about what he was thinking, or what he "took into consideration."

You're just making that up to suit yourself.

And deciding that he should be punished for his "recklessness."

 

[NickCole]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

You don't live in his head either, you don't know if he thought about it, whether he knew there was a gun or not, his state of mind, what happened beyond the tape, you don't know anything about what he was thinking.

You're just making that up.

I know that he injected himself into a private altercation in a public place and because of his actions a man hitting a woman escalated to gun shots that seriously wounded him and could easily have wounded others or killed people.

His action did not make the situation better.

 

[NickCole]

Re: McDonald's Denies Claim For Employee Shot at W

And deciding that he should be punished for his "recklessness."

I didn't say he should be punished for his recklessness.

I said he's responsible for the consequences of his actions.

McDonald's had nothing to do with what happened or the decisions this employee made, and yet he (and others here) think McDonald's is responsible for paying for the consequences of his choices.

Same irresponsible entitled response mechanism that too many Americans keep demonstrating today.