1. Just because an employee violates a law doesn't immediately mean a company is liable for the actions of the employee. Especially if they have an affirmative defense such as a policy and/or procedure regarding what an employee should do in certain situations.
---------------
Because the gun shop has a policy that says no riddling customers with machine gun fire, they have no liability when it happens. Is that correct?
2. Just because something can be argued doesn't mean that it should or that it actually has any merit.
-------
The possibility that something may be found not to have merit is not in itself a reason to be wary of arguing it.
3. No line employee is considered to be an officer of the company.
------
If you want to take the term "officer" literally, then yes you're right. If you are the slightest bit inclined to understand what people are trying to infer without being led, it becomes obvious that "officer" and "representative" are interchangeable in this context.
Most McDonalds restaurants are franchises if I'm not mistaken, so it would be the franchise owner and not the corporation that would be liable if anybody.
Any way you want to turn it semantically though, the idea that gross employee misconduct, failure to ensure professionalism and weed out character defects, and maintain a crime-free and safe workplace is not in any way the responsibility of the company is absurd.
The employee messed up. Taking the phone was theft before it even got to the point of uploading the pictures. Theft committed on company property by a company employee should cause McDonalds to have to shoulder some of the blame (I don't know if it actually will). One could always say that better training or pre-employment screening would weed out employees with these tendencies. Whether it's true or not, it could be argued.
Whether some stranger stealing the phone would make them liable or not is irrelevant. There's no presumption of good conduct guaranteed by McDonalds that can be made by its customers about its other customers. Employees are lent a certain amount of trust by customers because they are officers of the company while on company property.
This is why for my husband, nude pics = false. Enjoy the live show instead!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by KaschaK.
Re: Re: McDonalds is sort of wrong
---------------
Because the gun shop has a policy that says no riddling customers with machine gun fire, they have no liability when it happens. Is that correct?
2. Just because something can be argued doesn't mean that it should or that it actually has any merit.
-------
The possibility that something may be found not to have merit is not in itself a reason to be wary of arguing it.
3. No line employee is considered to be an officer of the company.
------
If you want to take the term "officer" literally, then yes you're right. If you are the slightest bit inclined to understand what people are trying to infer without being led, it becomes obvious that "officer" and "representative" are interchangeable in this context.
Most McDonalds restaurants are franchises if I'm not mistaken, so it would be the franchise owner and not the corporation that would be liable if anybody.
Any way you want to turn it semantically though, the idea that gross employee misconduct, failure to ensure professionalism and weed out character defects, and maintain a crime-free and safe workplace is not in any way the responsibility of the company is absurd.
McDonalds is sort of wrong
Whether some stranger stealing the phone would make them liable or not is irrelevant. There's no presumption of good conduct guaranteed by McDonalds that can be made by its customers about its other customers. Employees are lent a certain amount of trust by customers because they are officers of the company while on company property.
This is why for my husband, nude pics = false. Enjoy the live show instead!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by KaschaK.
Submit a story now.