Hypocrisy

[Thracian]

https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/March-2016/Supreme-Court-finds-Morrisons-liable-for-employee

So, somehow it is the employers fault for the way their employee behaves.

And yet our country wouldn't accept the liability for offences committed by those they chose to admit and nor would the Human Rights Court for enforcing laws which require companies to employ people based on criteria that they have outlined as lawful instead of allowing employers to chose all staff according to their own judgement. And yet the weaknesses of the laws have been shown up times and again.

I really don't understand it.

Surely the nation and the appropriate lawmakers should be responsible for people admitted to this country according to the laws and employed in this country according to those same laws.

Yes, I could understand a fault in a company which used its own processes in choosing to employ someone of their own choice. Any failure to notice or acknowledge the flaws of a freely chosen employee would suggest a problem with their processing procedures. But companies don't have a free choice.

Seems to me both hypocritical and a means of passing the proverbial buck.

Employ according to our directives but we take no responsibility. Some justice!

[Captain...]

https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/March-2016/Supreme-Court-finds-Morrisons-liable-for-employee

So, somehow it is the employers fault for the way their employee behaves.

And yet our country wouldn't accept the liability for offences committed by those they chose to admit and nor would the Human Rights Court for enforcing laws which require companies to employ people based on criteria that they have outlined as lawful instead of allowing employers to chose all staff according to their own judgement. And yet the weaknesses of the laws have been shown up times and again.

I really don't understand it.

Surely the nation and the appropriate lawmakers should be responsible for people admitted to this country according to the laws and employed in this country according to those same laws.

Yes, I could understand a fault in a company which used its own processes in choosing to employ someone of their own choice. Any failure to notice or acknowledge the flaws of a freely chosen employee would suggest a problem with their processing procedures. But companies don't have a free choice.

Seems to me both hypocritical and a means of passing the proverbial buck.

Employ according to our directives but we take no responsibility. Some justice!

 

If you employ someone and they act like a cvnt, then it means you've employed a cvnt and put them in a position to act as one.

 

Bear in mind this isn't a criminal case, the guy who attacked someone is still a criminal and will be prosecuted as one, and is not absolved of responsibility, just that Morrison's need to share some of that  responsibility.

 

It is about a business' duty of care to their customers. If you go into Morrison's and a stack of beer falls on you, then they are at fault, same if one of their staff attack you. If a school employs a teacher and he attacks a child, do you not think the school is partly to blame for employing that person?

[filbertway]

They should definitely do intensive psychological evaluations of all potential employees before hiring shelf stackers. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Why would you ask a petroleum station clerk if you could "print something off from your USB stick?"

And what drew you to that page in the first place Thracian, seems an odd place to find directly?

[Captain...]

Just to add I have deliberately ignored the bizarre point you seem to be making in relating this story to immigration, and responsibility of the state because it really is completely irrelevant to the story. 

[Rincewind]

Would you employ an ex-prisoner? Or someone who has panic attacks? A lot of places would not. Yet these are the people who are told there are plenty of of jobs and are expected to be taken on above other candidates.

It is not an easy situation for employer or those seeking work. The employer cannot take a person on who may be at risk and the seeker is not given a chance to prove different.

[Captain...]

Would you employ an ex-prisoner? Or someone who has panic attacks? A lot of places would not. Yet these are the people who are told there are plenty of of jobs and are expected to be taken on above other candidates.

It is not an easy situation for employer or those seeking work. The employer cannot take a person on who may be at risk and the seeker is not given a chance to prove different.

 

But if you do give a reformed criminal a second chance, or employ someone with health issues, then you have to see them as an increased risk  and make sure they aren't in a position to hurt anyone or, in the case of someone with health issues, themselves.

 

I do think in cases like this though, there needs to be some level of foresight before the company can be blamed. If you employ someone and they have been a model professional for decades, no signs of stress or strain nor any recent examples of worrying behaviour, they have regular psychological and medical check ups, the work environment meets all safety and security standards. Then out of nowhere they snap  and kill someone, should the employer be at fault if there was no way of predicting or preventing it?

 

It  doesn't really specify in the link if this was predictable, or preventable.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

It  doesn't really specify in the link if this was predictable, or preventable.

A key point indeed. I kept reading the article because i felt I was missing something!

This situation makes me think of the depressed co-pilot who sadly decided he'd had enough whilst flying that plane. I can't recall whether the victims families were going to / able to claim against the airline?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0087-judgment.pdf

I'm none the wiser from the case notes... although i did skip a lot of the president law in the middle to get to the conclusion!

Personally, I think this isn't a very safe judgement and that the previous cases had the position correct. It is very difficult to understand why the company could be deemed responsible for such a clear act of gross misconduct on the strength that it happened on their premises the person was wearing the companies uniform.

I think an area the case misses is although the person in question is wearing the companies uniform at the time, would any normal person believe his actions at the time were associated with his job role and representing the company? I would argue they were not.

[Thracian]

If you employ someone and they act like a cvnt, then it means you've employed a cvnt and put them in a position to act as one.

 

Bear in mind this isn't a criminal case, the guy who attacked someone is still a criminal and will be prosecuted as one, and is not absolved of responsibility, just that Morrison's need to share some of that  responsibility.

 

It is about a business' duty of care to their customers. If you go into Morrison's and a stack of beer falls on you, then they are at fault, same if one of their staff attack you. If a school employs a teacher and he attacks a child, do you not think the school is partly to blame for employing that person?

Only if they have completely free choice as to who they employ. And even then only maybe. Employees like drivers, are human beings. Sometimes they drive to work in a wonderful mood - all happy and positive and at others they might be angry or morose because their wife has just left them - or even changed her mind and decided to stay!

They may lose concentration through thinking about the argument, cause an accident and get blamed for the consequences. But by what you say, part of the blame would be down to the third party (the wife)for a) Contributing to his unsafe mood and b) allowing him to drive knowing he was upset.

Put into an environment like Morrisons if they had an angry employee on shift and he was antagonistic or even violent towards a customer as a result I don't see (so long as he didn't display his anger beforehand to the management) how they would be to blame in any way for his actions. Any shared blame would lie with the third party in the argument.

Some people can control their emotions brilliantly and I can't see that any individual or employer would necesssarily know that person was a loose canon.

With the stacking situation you mention they might well have some responsibility because, although the employee might have been trained to stack in a safe way it might be said that they, or more likely a supervisor or at least some other party, ,might be responsible for checking that the stacking was safe.

Although quite how you foolproof any stacking against idiots who don't think about what they're doing or who've done something even they know was stupid then sought to blame someone else I don't know.

I'm entirely unesy with the blame culture. Where genuine negligence is concerned I agree with it. Where people don't look where they're going or try to pull things without putting down whatever's in their other hand I think they should take a lot more if not all the blame for their own stupidity.

Not many employers deliberately employ c*nts. Hell we even have politicians who are serial C*nts but the electorate don't get prosecuted for their stupidity.

[Thracian]

Just to add I have deliberately ignored the bizarre point you seem to be making in relating this story to immigration, and responsibility of the state because it really is completely irrelevant to the story.

No it's not. Aspects such as equal opportunity (race and gender) come into it all the time. And there are many ways in which that might create problems, particularly where communication is concerned.

[Guest MattP]

If you employ someone and they act like a cvnt, then it means you've employed a cvnt and put them in a position to act as one.

 

It is about a business' duty of care to their customers. If you go into Morrison's and a stack of beer falls on you, then they are at fault, same if one of their staff attack you. If a school employs a teacher and he attacks a child, do you not think the school is partly to blame for employing that person?

 

As Thrac says though, if you want people to be responsible for who they employ, you have to give them the freedoms to employ who they want.

[Jon the Hat]

If I walk into a Morrison's petrol station surely they have a duty of care to me as their customer, and are responsible for my safety, whether that be from wet floor, falling products, fire or indeed violence from their employees?  Doesn't seem that weird to me.

 

I think you are seriously & deliberately exaggerating the requirements around employment.  Do you have any evidence at all that this is relevant?  That this employee was somehow forced upon Morrison's?

[Captain...]

No it's not. Aspects such as equal opportunity (race and gender) come into it all the time. And there are many ways in which that might create problems, particularly where communication is concerned.

 

If the employer is placing someone in a position where their race or gender or any other aspect of their being may cause problems then they are clearly at fault.

 

I have no idea how equal opportunity is relevant, employers are free to employ whoever they want, there are no quota systems and they will employ the best person for the job, regardless of race or gender and that is equal opportunity. Equal opportunity laws are there to stop people being excluded because of who they are and has nothing to do with being forced to employ someone.

[Bryn]

https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/March-2016/Supreme-Court-finds-Morrisons-liable-for-employeeSo, somehow it is the employers fault for the way their employee behaves.And yet our country wouldn't accept the liability for offences committed by those they chose to admit and nor would the Human Rights Court for enforcing laws which require companies to employ people based on criteria that they have outlined as lawful instead of allowing employers to chose all staff according to their own judgement. And yet the weaknesses of the laws have been shown up times and again.I really don't understand it.Surely the nation and the appropriate lawmakers should be responsible for people admitted to this country according to the laws and employed in this country according to those same laws.Yes, I could understand a fault in a company which used its own processes in choosing to employ someone of their own choice. Any failure to notice or acknowledge the flaws of a freely chosen employee would suggest a problem with their processing procedures. But companies don't have a free choice.Seems to me both hypocritical and a means of passing the proverbial buck.Employ according to our directives but we take no responsibility. Some justice!

Where does it say either of those two gentleman are anything other than British?

You really have got a screw loose..

[DJ Barry Hammond]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0087-press-summary.pdf

Press summary from the verdict... and having read the reference law in the full summary, I believe I understand where and why the decision has come from.

With this being a claim for damages, the judges in these verdicts are balancing whether it would be fairer for the employer to hold some account for their employees actions, thus giving the victim chance to receive appropriate damages OR not, in which case he victim is less likely to receive retribution. Christ some of the reference cases go back to 1600's and involve Master and his Servant!

Certainly an interesting case, none the less.

[Thracian]

If I walk into a Morrison's petrol station surely they have a duty of care to me as their customer, and are responsible for my safety, whether that be from wet floor, falling products, fire or indeed violence from their employees?  Doesn't seem that weird to me.

 

I think you are seriously & deliberately exaggerating the requirements around employment.  Do you have any evidence at all that this is relevant?  That this employee was somehow forced upon Morrison's?

a) They do have a duty of care. As you do to yourself given that your person is primarily your own responsibility and you chose to visit the garage with all the known attendant risks such as floors being washed, employees making mistakes, shelves having items stacked on them and so on.

At what point did your responsibility to yourself cease to the point of you ignoring the potential risks of your surroundings?

Would you walk through a forest and not imagine a branch might fall on you in a gale - or would you stay away? Or would you visit a race track and ignore the possibility of an accident that might send a flying tyre your way?

Me, if I walked into a garage shop and saw the floor being washed, I'd either go elsewhere or tread carefully. I wouldn't blame someone else cos I'd acted like an idiot and wanted them to take the blame.

b) I don't know if the Morrison's employee would have been their "free" choice given chance or not. He might have been the only applicant and they were left with scant choice. What should they do, give the guy a job and hope he comes through or tell him they don't want him even as the only option. Seems to me they showed good faith in giving him the work and now they've been kicked in the teeth for their good turn - and because of the employees action rather than their own. I'd happily conduct an experiment for anyone by posing as an employee and seeing if any judge in the land could guess I'd turn violent on someone or when. They'd have no chance. And I'd doubt Morrisons did.

[Thracian]

If the employer is placing someone in a position where their race or gender or any other aspect of their being may cause problems then they are clearly at fault.

 

I have no idea how equal opportunity is relevant, employers are free to employ whoever they want, there are no quota systems and they will employ the best person for the job, regardless of race or gender and that is equal opportunity. Equal opportunity laws are there to stop people being excluded because of who they are and has nothing to do with being forced to employ someone.

But they may be the only applicant and they may disguise the fact that they have some communication problems even if they speak the language fairly well. A company may also feel they ought to employ a particular person to help the diversity of their staff even though that person might not be the best choice. In other words their choice is compromised - and then they're shafted as a "thankyou". Might have nothing to do with this case buta totally unfair scenario which demonstrates the potential unfairness of the law.

[Thracian]

Where does it say either of those two gentleman are anything other than British?

You really have got a screw loose..

He may have been British - did I say he wasn't? But he wasn't Caucasian and it may be that the company wanted to employ a non-Caucasian for diversity reasons. The case is illustrated simply to highlight the flaws in the laws rather than this particular incident. Similar cases occur all the time and I don't understand the reasoning behind blaming companies for their choice of employees when they have choice guidelines to follow and where an incident is all but impossible to anticipate.

In what way is my "screw loose?"

Have you ever been the victim of such an action?

[Nick]

The article is posted on a particular site because they are trying to use for their own ends, no?

[Rincewind]

Employers advertise for positions which have to be available for anyone even if they have decided what type of person they want whether age race or gender. For instance a coffee shop would not want to employ a 60 year old if the majority of customers are 20-30 yr olds. But they cannot say they want a sexy 23 yr old female as it would be regarded as sexist and unfair. They will say to the 60 yr old sorry but you do not reach the requirements at this time we will let you know if an available position arises. .

[Captain...]

But they may be the only applicant and they may disguise the fact that they have some communication problems even if they speak the language fairly well. A company may also feel they ought to employ a particular person to help the diversity of their staff even though that person might not be the best choice. In other words their choice is compromised - and then they're shafted as a "thankyou". Might have nothing to do with this case buta totally unfair scenario which demonstrates the potential unfairness of the law.

 

It doesn't matter if they were the only applicant, if the only applicant to work at a school  was Adam Johnson, you wouldn't employ him. 

 

If he is not suitable for the job you don't employ him, and if you do then you are clearly at fault. Your fixation on this being an example of how diversity and equal opportunities are a bad thing is bizarre not least because it is all based on supposition.

 

NOBODY IS FORCED TO EMPLOY ANYONE, THERE ARE NO DIVERSITY QUOTAS!

 

If you are stupid enough to completely misinterpret  diversity and equal opportunity regulations and this results in you employing someone that is unsuitable for a job, then you are a moron and at fault should things go wrong.

[Thracian]

It doesn't matter if they were the only applicant, if the only applicant to work at a school  was Adam Johnson, you wouldn't employ him. 

 

If he is not suitable for the job you don't employ him, and if you do then you are clearly at fault. Your fixation on this being an example of how diversity and equal opportunities are a bad thing is bizarre not least because it is all based on supposition.

 

NOBODY IS FORCED TO EMPLOY ANYONE, THERE ARE NO DIVERSITY QUOTAS!

 

If you are stupid enough to completely misinterpret  diversity and equal opportunity regulations and this results in you employing someone that is unsuitable for a job, then you are a moron and at fault should things go wrong.

What an bad-mouthed individual you are.

There might be nothing to indicate that even a lone applicant was "unsuitable". Or are you the first person I've ever come across who can judge everyone you ever meet so flawlessly?

And while I well understand that no-one is forced to employ anyone, there is encouragement to employ a cross-section of people and if a company wanted to fill a gap they might well be inclined to do so even if they had reservations - perhaps even on the basis of giving someone a chance.

I've done it myself and regretted it 100-fold but my motives were the right ones and if they weren't then no-one on Earth would get a chance.

As to me or anyone else being "at fault" that's great in hindsight.

I just don't believe you can always anticipate the fault. And if that's the case there's no way I'd be at fault.

No wonder so many people are loathe to employ people. I've seen so many examples of unfairness to employers it's lamentable.

The blame culture! I suppose those who benefit - the lawyers - love it and will never stop defending the notion and improving their bank balances from those perceived to be able to afford it whether it costs other people their jobs down the line or not.

As for my views on "diversity" and "equal opportunity" it's positive discrimination. In other words discrimination made excusable by politicians.

Happily, I've never seen people that way or needed the encouragement of politicians to treat them, fairly.

They're all just people and they all impact differently whether I know their nationality, sex, skin-colour or not.

I imagine you're even wrong about Adam Johnson. If he'd applied for a position at a school, say, five years ago, and assuming the likelihood that he had no "previous" to refer to, he'd be exactly the kind of person who'd have been encouraged to coach at a school either part-time or full-time.

Are you seriously saying that without any evidence you'd have picked him out as a potential risk? In which case why didn't his club do that when he signed for them - especially with all their experience?

It isn't easy and it's no use pretending it is. Nor is it right that someone should wilfully commit a crime and a materially uninvolved third party should somehow be forced to take a sizeable portion of blame. For what? A mistake at most! Let's apply that concept across the board and see where it leads.

[Captain...]

What an bad-mouthed indivudal you are.

There might be nothing to indicate that even a lone applicant was "unsuitable". Or are you the first person I've ever come across who can judge everyone you ever meet so flawlessly?

And while I well understand that no-one is forced to employ anyone, there is encouragement to employ a cross-section of people and if a company wanted to fill a gap they might well be inclined to do so even if they had reervations - perhaps even on the basis of giving someone a chance.

I've done it myself and regretted it 100-fold but my motives were the right ones and if they weren't then no-one on Earth would get a chance.

As to me or anyone else being "at fault" that's great in hindsight.

I just don't believe you can always anticipate the fault. And if that's the case there's no way I'd be at fault.

No wonder so many people are loathe to employ people. I've seen so many examples of unfairness to employers it's lamentable.

The blame culture! I suppose those who benefit - the lawyers - love it and will never stop defending the notion and improving their bank balances from those perceived to be able to afford it whether it costs other people their jobs down the line or not.

As for my views on "diversity" and "equal opportunity" it's positive discrimination. In other words discrimination made excusable by politicians.

Happily, I've never seen people that way or needed the encouragement of politicians to treat them, fairly.

They're all just people and they all impact differently whether I know their nationality, sex, skin-colour or not.

I imagine you're even wrong about Adam Johnson. If he'd applied for a position at a school, say, five years ago, and assuming the likelihood that he had no "previous" to refer to, he'd be exactly the kind of person who'd have been encouraged to coach at a school either part-time or full-time.

Are you seriously saying that without any evidence you'd have picked him out as a potential risk? In which case why didn't his club do that when he signed for them - especially with all their experience?

It isn't easy and it's no use pretending it is. Nor is it right that someone should wilfully commit a crime and an materially uninvolved third party should somehow be forced to take a sizeable portion of blame. For what?A mistake at most! Let's apply that concept across the board and see where it leads.

 

As  you've clearly not read everything I have said in this thread I will repeat:

 

But if you do give a reformed criminal a second chance, or employ someone with health issues, then you have to see them as an increased risk  and make sure they aren't in a position to hurt anyone or, in the case of someone with health issues, themselves.

 

I do think in cases like this though, there needs to be some level of foresight before the company can be blamed. If you employ someone and they have been a model professional for decades, no signs of stress or strain nor any recent examples of worrying behaviour, they have regular psychological and medical check ups, the work environment meets all safety and security standards. Then out of nowhere they snap  and kill someone, should the employer be at fault if there was no way of predicting or preventing it?

 

It  doesn't really specify in the link if this was predictable, or preventable.

 

Your whole agenda seems to be that people are being forced to employ unsuitable to meet some diversity quota.

 

If anyone does that then they are an idiot as they are jeopardising their business for no reason other than an incorrect assumption, or a desire to be "right on".

 

Personally I view positive discrimination as just discrimination, and the only consideration for a job is ability.

 

I have since revised my view slightly after this post:

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0087-press-summary.pdf

Press summary from the verdict... and having read the reference law in the full summary, I believe I understand where and why the decision has come from.

With this being a claim for damages, the judges in these verdicts are balancing whether it would be fairer for the employer to hold some account for their employees actions, thus giving the victim chance to receive appropriate damages OR not, in which case he victim is less likely to receive retribution. Christ some of the reference cases go back to 1600's and involve Master and his Servant!

Certainly an interesting case, none the less.

 

Which I further agree with that a company like Morrison's will have insurance to cover the behaviour of their staff, whereas an individual may not have the capacity  to pay compensation to the victim, so in these cases the courts decide on what will best suit the victim, which is to pursue damages against a huge organisation, to ensure the best deal for the victim.

 

There is no mention of criminal responsibility, just financial.

[Thracian]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0087-press-summary.pdf

Press summary from the verdict... and having read the reference law in the full summary, I believe I understand where and why the decision has come from.

With this being a claim for damages, the judges in these verdicts are balancing whether it would be fairer for the employer to hold some account for their employees actions, thus giving the victim chance to receive appropriate damages OR not, in which case he victim is less likely to receive retribution. Christ some of the reference cases go back to 1600's and involve Master and his Servant!

Certainly an interesting case, none the less.

Thanks for your research. That's exactly what I believed the thinking was. Compensation linked. The real offender could likely never pay, so the employer gets shafted on the flimsiest grounds. Some justice.