Ban the Dollar Tree

[oldnewbie]

I can't believe this has even turned into an argument

 

She was murdered on the clock.

 

It is called WORKER'S COMPENSATION is it not? She was a WORKER and her family deserves the COMPENSATION. This is why insurance companies exist.

 

Who gives a {censored} about the guy's motive. It was not a "personal" incident, he didn't know her and she didn't know him.

[Hard Truth]

ermghoti II described it as drivel my assertion that the denial of coverage was de facto racist. Let me explain. It is in fact (de facto) racist because her race is being used to deny her familly compensation. They are intentionally using hate crimes laws which are intended to protect people from racist terrorism to weasel out of paying compensation. A logical result if the insurance company is successfull is that all employers would have to pay for extra coverage for employees more likely to be the target of hate crimes or they would choose not hire risky employees. The result is racial discimination.

 

From SF Chronicle: the case "represents an attempt to set new limits on California's workers' compensation system, under which a company provides benefits to employees or their survivors for work-related deaths or injuries regardless of whether the firm was at fault."

 

This indicates that the employee's survivors have no obligation to prove that the employer was negligent.

[7sickstrings]

 

From SF Chronicle : the case "represents an attempt to set new limits on California's workers' compensation system, under which a company provides benefits to employees or their survivors for work-related deaths or injuries regardless of whether the firm was at fault. " This indicates that the employee's survivors have no obligation to prove that the employer was negligent.

 

 

Not true. In CA the employer has a responsibility to provide for the safety of their employees to a reasonable degree. That means that the employer must have in place rues, regulations, and policies to ensure the safety of the employees and customers/clients from any foreseeable harm. That means that if the employee does something that the company has determined is unsafe, they can be punished AND held liable for their own injuries. Saying that the company provides benefits for work related injuries or deaths "regardless of whether the firm was at fault," is misleading. That means that if an employee was injured as a DIRECT RESULT of the work they were doing.

That said, Dollar Tree has no explicit legal obligation in this case, primarily because there is, as far as I know, no precedent for a case like this. I do think that refusing to pay in this case is unethical, and I wouldn't be surprised if this case ended up being the one that actually sets the precedent for the future.

[Hard Truth]

 

Not true. In CA the employer has a responsibility to provide for the safety of their employees to a reasonable degree. That means that the employer must have in place rues, regulations, and policies to ensure the safety of the employees and customers/clients from any foreseeable harm. That means that if the employee does something that the company has determined is unsafe, they can be punished AND held liable for their own injuries. Saying that the company provides benefits for work related injuries or deaths "regardless of whether the firm was at fault," is misleading. That means that if an employee was injured as a DIRECT RESULT of the work they were doing.

 

 

That information was from the newspaper I don't know enough about the details of California labor law to agree or diagree with your statment. BUT I disagree with this statement:

 

"That said, Dollar Tree has no explicit legal obligation in this case..."

 

 

Dollar Tree has not alleged that the employee knew the pepetrator, has broken any rules, was off-duty or did anything to create an unsafe condition. The only reason the incident happened is because the employee was present at the jobsite while on-duty. The insurance company is using the employee's race and the perp's motives to weasel out of the payment. That violates anti-discrimination laws and the equal protection provisions of the constitution. If they succeed legally it would conflict with several laws and regulations protecting employees, and purchasers of insurance, from racial discrimination.

[7sickstrings]

 

That information was from the newspaper I don't know enough about the details of California labor law to agree or diagree with your statment. BUT I disagree with this statement: "That said, Dollar Tree has no explicit legal obligation in this case..." Dollar Tree has not alleged that the employee knew the pepetrator, has broken any rules, was off-duty or did anything to create an unsafe condition. The only reason the incident happened is because the employee was present at the jobsite while on-duty. The insurance company is using the employee's race and the perp's motives to weasel out of the payment. That violates anti-discrimination laws and the equal protection provisions of the constitution. If they succeed legally it would conflict with several laws and regulations protecting employees, and purchasers of insurance, from racial discrimination.

 

 

I didn't say it was "right," I just said it was in accordance with the law. Like I said, there is no legal precedent that exists, so maybe this will be the case that sets it.

You're absolutely right that the employee did nothing to create an unsafe condition. However, saying that the only reason she was killed is that she was at the jobsite is incorrect. Unfortunately, the fact that this nutbag says that he only killed her because she was black makes it a contributing factor that the employer could not foresee. That's what the insurance company is banking on. It is technically a valid argument under the law. The reasons it is valid are that the company cannot foresee someone killing an employee because of their race, then act to prevent it. If they did, then someone of any other race could claim they were being discriminated against because they aren't provided the same level of protection.

In the end, even though the insurance company is acting in a legal manner, I think they're going to end up paying, because their actions are unethical. I think what's going to end up happening is that it will be decided that an employer has an obligation to provide a reasonable degree of protection for its employees against random violence. basically saying that the employees have the same rights to safety on a jobsite that a customer or client would.

 

Regardless, I think that Dollar Tree is acting in extremely bad faith with their employees. Any company that would take this position should face consequences, whether in court or through boycott. I can tell you I won't be going there any time soon.

[ermghoti II]

 

From SF Chronicle : the case "represents an attempt to set new limits on California's workers' compensation system, under which a company provides benefits to employees or their survivors for work-related deaths or injuries regardless of whether the firm was at fault. " This indicates that the employee's survivors have no obligation to prove that the employer was negligent.

 

 

Yes. This case is part of the process of reigning in California's compensation law, which has been described earlier in the thread as notably excessive.

[amplayer]

Why ? Insane..

 

It was actually the Insurance Company that denied the benefit, not Dollar Tree.

 

The writer of the article is the one who lumps Dollar Tree as part of the payout denial, but from what I can tell, Dollar Tree had nothing to do with the denial. The only thing I can see that Dollar Tree ACTUALLY did was to remain tight lipped about it, and that is something they clearly should do until the matter is settled.

 

This article is a sorry example of how biased and unobjective journalism can be, and from the reaction of people, it is clear that the tactic worked.

[WRGKMC]

You're exactly right on Amplayer. Its amazing how people dont understand the difference between the two. Dollar was in no way neglegent. Whatever scams the insurance provider might be playing is a whole different story.

Lawers will play theyre slick tricks to get peoples sympathy on their side.

Weather it works will depend on the judges and jury. I definately dont think it should but then again this happened in California which has bankrupted itself with so many wierd items.

 

By the way isnt workers comp something you collect if you're hurt and cant work? I Always thought Its a thing called "Life Insurance" that covers your family when you die - Also wheres this kids Father? Does he pay Child support?

[Hard Truth]

 

It was actually the Insurance Company that denied the benefit, not Dollar Tree. The writer of the article is the one who lumps Dollar Tree as part of the payout denial, but from what I can tell, Dollar Tree had nothing to do with the denial.

 

 

The SF Gate story said "The opposition by Dollar Tree and its insurers to paying benefits to Talley's son represents an attempt to set new limits on California's workers' compensation system.."

 

The ABC story says that it is unclear who is the client of the Attorneys opposing the payout.

 

Even if Dollar Tree is not actively fighting the claim, in my view Dollar Tree shares the blame because they are not actively opposing the denial of benefits. They should be protecting their at-risk employees and helping them when there is an incident. Not only that, they are getting cheated out of insurance that they paid for.

 

The key is issue, that is being forgotten in this discussion, is whether a stranger committing a purely racially motivated killing should be considered "personal." The claim that it is "personal" is totally absurd and contradicts anti-discrimaination laws. I doubt that they will win in court, but they were probably hoping their obstruction will wear out the claimant so they can save some money and get away with racial discrimination.

 

The fact that anyone would defend this blatantly racist tactic, either morally or legally, is why I have trouble mustering any respect for conservatives and their consistent acceptance of injustice if it increases someone's profit margin.

[WRGKMC]

I think someone else hit it. The people who own Dollar are not Lawers. They were probbibly told to keep their mouth shut by their Lawyer. The Lawyer doent need them in on it weather they are for the compensation or not.

Its not their call and were told to let him do his job and not make it any more difficult. Lawyers are hired because they Know the Law and are paid to resolve these kinds of situations. If you ever need one you'll find that out.

[BlueStrat]

The SF Gate story said " The opposition by Dollar Tree and its insurers to paying benefits to Talley's son represents an attempt to set new limits on California's workers' compensation system.."

Well, that makes all the difference. God knows the media never get the facts of a story wrong.

[deanmass]

For the record, I knew it was the insurers. But, the insurers are not open to a reaction the way the retailer is, and the retailer has a responsibility to publicly come out either for or against this outcome, and they did nothing, which puts them at the front of the controversy, not behind the insurer.

 

But, wrong is wrong, and the insurers need to pay, and the dollar tree needs to ensure that this happens. That is the only thing that can right the situation in my mind.

[WRGKMC]

So basically what you're saying is you think dollar tree has to fight their own insurerance provider on behalf of an insuree for an insurance claim being presented by the womans family. Sounds convoluted to me. If I were the store I wouldnt care what the media says if my lawyer says I have no place in the case. You could just as easily say If a man was sitting in his truck was shot by a nut, Ford would be responsible for seeking an insurance claim the driver didnt have in that case. or if someone walks out they're front door and is shot, The neighborhood association is at fault.

The fact that people believe the store should pay anything shows ignorance on the part of the readers believing what they read. There again I think most Californians are on dope including they're governor and follow the media like zombees any way. (nothing personal there)

I would think the person wanting the money should hire someone to get it. Period. The only reason why dollar store is in the picture is because lawyers are shoving them into the picture because they need a big payday to make they're fee which is huge in cases like these. They're using the store because they have name recognition and people can put a face on it. If the story was about an insurance company only people would be Ho Hum about the whole thing. I say shame on the convoluted media and anyone who believes what they read there.

[Hard Truth]

Bottom line: If someone was injured on my property I would not accept my insurance company refusing to pay the injured person solely because of their race.

[deanmass]

 

So basically what you're saying is you think dollar tree has to fight their own insurerance provider on behalf of an insuree for an insurance claim being presented by the womans family. Sounds convoluted to me. If I were the store I wouldnt care what the media says if my lawyer says I have no place in the case. You could just as easily say If a man was sitting in his truck was shot by a nut, Ford would be responsible for seeking an insurance claim the driver didnt have in that case. or if someone walks out they're front door and is shot, The neighborhood association is at fault. The fact that people believe the store should pay anything shows ignorance on the part of the readers believing what they read. There again I think most Californians are on dope including they're governor and follow the media like zombees any way. (nothing personal there) I would think the person wanting the money should hire someone to get it. Period. The only reason why dollar store is in the picture is because lawyers are shoving them into the picture because they need a big payday to make they're fee which is huge in cases like these. They're using the store because they have name recognition and people can put a face on it. If the story was about an insurance company only people would be Ho Hum about the whole thing. I say shame on the convoluted media and anyone who believes what they read there.

 

 

What I am saying, without drawing non-related comparisons is...

 

The woman was murdered at work

 

The insurance purchased by the Dollar Tree was to cover employees

 

Race is irrelevant

 

Motive for the killing is irrelevant

 

The child has lost the financial support of his murdered mother.

 

If the mother had not been there, in the employ of Dollar Tree she would not have been murdered on the Dollar Store premises, would (likely) be alive, and the child would have her continued financial support.

 

In the event she was murdered somewhere else, it would not be the Dollar Tree's problem, and thus not the Dollar Tres insurer's issue.

[7sickstrings]

 

If the mother had not been there, in the employ of Dollar Tree she would not have been murdered on the Dollar Store premises, would (likely) be alive, and the child would have her continued financial support.

 

 

 

Assuming this isn't settled out of court, I think that's exactly what the court will find. I have a feeling it will end up being settled though, which is a shame since it leaves the question open for another case.

 

That, and I'd REALLY like to see this insurance company get a flying legal bitchslap for being a bunch of heartless ass hats.

 

 

 

 

Update - For anyone interested, the insurance company is called Specialty Risk Services, LLC. They operate as a subsidiary of the Hartford Group. That's the same Hartford Group that's lobbying to get up to $3.4 billion in bailout money. Despite amplayer's bash on the media earlier, according to CA state law, it's the employer's responsibility to pay workers' comp benefits. There's no distinction between the employer and the claims administrator. It's just like if you rear end someone on your way to work. If your insurance company says no, if you're judged to be liable, you get to pay.

 

If you want to tell Dollar Tree what a bunch of douchebags they are, Here is where you do it.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

What I am saying, without drawing non-related comparisons is... The woman was murdered at work The insurance purchased by the Dollar Tree was to cover employees Race is irrelevant Motive for the killing is irrelevant The child has lost the financial support of his murdered mother. If the mother had not been there, in the employ of Dollar Tree she would not have been murdered on the Dollar Store premises, would (likely) be alive, and the child would have her continued financial support. In the event she was murdered somewhere else, it would not be the Dollar Tree's problem, and thus not the Dollar Tres insurer's issue.

 

 

Legal issues and obligations aside, wouldn't it be simply a good thing for Dollar Tree to cover the expenses for this kid anyway? I realize this is really stupidly naive sounding...but I can't help but think this. And furthermore, even if Dollar Tree didn't care, wouldn't it still be in their best interest to pay it rather than suffer the bad publicity? I know...naive, pie in the sky, whatever...

[7sickstrings]

 

Legal issues and obligations aside, wouldn't it be simply a good thing for Dollar Tree to cover the expenses for this kid anyway? I realize this is really stupidly naive sounding...but I can't help but think this. And furthermore, even if Dollar Tree didn't care, wouldn't it still be in their best interest to pay it rather than suffer the bad publicity? I know...naive, pie in the sky, whatever...

 

 

The only part of that I disagree with is that it's naive. I don't think it's naive at all. Especially when you consider This.

[deanmass]

Ken...my bruthu...

 

That is it exactly..Dollar Tree could choose to do something positive easily. I mean, how easy would it be for them to run a chain wide fund raiser for crying out loud? They could make this kid 'their' kid, commit to the kid and

try to make something good come out of tragedy..

 

It just seems to me that greed again and again overtakes basic human kindness.

[deanmass]

7sickstrings--I just noticed your avatar...LOL!

[BlueStrat]

 

The insurance purchased by the Dollar Tree was to cover employees

While none of us have read the policy it is not uncommon for worker's comp policies to cover the employee only.

 

I work construction and over the years have filed a few worker's comp claims as I've requires stitches on occasion and once nearly severed a finger. One of the questions they ask on the benefit claim form is "did the worker die?" Why? because it then becomes a larger legal liability issue and one of life insurance, not worker compensation. It may seem like a hair splitting distinction to you and I but in the legal world it's apples and oranges. This is why insurance policies are written by lawyers and why buyers like Dollar Tree are wise to stay out of settlement claims (which any lawyer worth his salt would advise) until the dust settles.

 

Yes, it may seem decent to us for Dollar Tree to offer to pay for the kid's support, but that has to be negotiated: Will doing so be an admission of liability or guilt? How much support is warranted? For how long? Will this set a precedent? All these, and probably many more, are questions none of us who are not trial lawyers can imagine, which must first be answered and settled before anything can realistically be done.

 

I'll give you an example of how hastily offering to help people can turn on you:

 

A friend of mine was driving through a parking lot. A lady backed right out in front of him. He hit the rear quarter panel of her car fairly hard since he had no time to brake. His front bumper and turn signal light were damaged, but it was an older work truck and since her car took the lion's share of damage, and even though it was the woman's fault, he offered to let it go. They exchanged information but he agreed to not call the police and let the woman have her own insurance handle her car and not worry about his truck.

 

A week later he gets a phone call. That's right, the woman's insurance company, claiming that he was at fault for speeding through a parking lot (they claimed the woman had 'witnesses') and failing to file a police report in an accident. The woman was claiming bodily injury and claiming she'd been talked out of her rights by my friend. His insurance company ended up paying, his rates went up and he got hosed for trying to do the decent thing without realizing what could have happened. Lesson learned: never do anything that could be construed as an admission of culpability, no matter how noble and decent it may seem at the time, without having things settled legally first.

[spokenward]

BlueStrat, all of that is true. Absolutely true. And all of it points up the ways that this went wrong.

 

Chicken {censored} management - they don't have a real connection with their employees. In a good retail organization you have store managers and regional managers who should know their employees by name and know something about them. This is good practice on a lot of levels. And of course it cuts down on shrinkage.

 

A good regional manager should have been able to head this thing off instead of stalling for 2.5 years. A tutor for the kid through college and a prepaid 4 year college plan would have been well under 100K

 

SRS lawyers - Is this the time for a novel claim to "make law"? No f'ing way. Violence in a retail store is does more damage to the name on the door. This should have been buried and quickly.

 

It would have been cheaper to do the right thing first. If they litigate, they litigate. They were counting on the stall.

[UstadKhanAli]

The only part of that I disagree with is that it's naive. I don't think it's naive at all. Especially when you consider This .

 

Yeah, what a concept...being inclusive, familial, and treating people nice!

 

~~

 

If the Dollar Tree had said, "Hey, what happened is an awful tragedy. We're gonna step up and take care of this kid." Maybe they even had some commercials or press release about what they were going to do to help the kid. They would have done the right thing. They would have stepped up and helped some kid. They would have gotten good publicity. They would have had people thinking, "Wow, what a cool thing to do. Now that's a good company." It would have made the news. People would have wanted to kick in and help.

 

I mean, you can't BUY advertising that emotionally moving, that good, that virtuous.

 

Is that so difficult for the Dollar Tree to understand? Is it so difficult to try and do the right thing? Is it so difficult to try and help some little kid who lost a parent?

[BlueStrat]

Is that so difficult for the Dollar Tree to understand? Is it so difficult to try and do the right thing? Is it so difficult to try and help some little kid who lost a parent?

Their 'understanding' is irrelevant. Read my post above. Doing 'the right thing' could be catastrophic for them if not done properly. If I were their lawyer I wouldn't let them do anything until the legal issues were settled.

[UstadKhanAli]

I teach special education. I have three assistants. They will run through a wall for me, and actually, for the kids. I don't have to constantly tell them what to do because they take the initiative. Everyone always asks, "Hey, why do you always get all the good assistants?"

 

They are good assistants because I let them contribute ideas to the class. I constantly point out to them the positive impact that they had by doing something specific with the kids. I encourage them to talk to the kids, be silly, let them have fun with the kids, to joke around. I show trust in their opinions and give them some latitude. I give the assistants credit for their ideas...in public and one on one conversations. The assistants, in turn, WANT to assume more responsibility, take the initiative and come up with new ideas, help the kids out more. The class is set in motion.

 

In short, I "get" the best assistants because they actually give a {censored} about the kids and feel good about it. This doesn't always work. Sometimes, I get a knucklehead who doesn't care. But the large majority of the time, it works great.

 

Why do I mention this?

 

Because I could create another environment. I could constantly micro-manage and tell my assistants what to do at every step of the way. I could be punitive when they do something wrong. I could not trust them, instead, keeping a watchful eye over them. I can ignore their ideas since, after all, I'm the experienced educator with the Master's Degree in the room. I could berate them when they arrive five minutes late or do something wrong.

 

Does this not relate to the Dollar Tree? Which Dollar Tree would an employee rather have? Which Dollar Tree would get better publicity? You could get a Dollar Tree that tries to get people to care, tries to win their trust, tries to do the right thing...or you could get the punitive, "let's try and sic our lawyers on this whole tragedy and make it go away" sort of thing.

 

Which works better? Which gets more positive results? Which is the better thing to do in the long run or the short run? Which is the best thing to do?