Members UstadKhanAli Posted December 7, 2008 Members Share Posted December 7, 2008 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. Look, I don't know the full details of this case. But can't you try and help the kid in some way, or indicate that you're going to try and do everything you can to protect your employees? Who do these lawyers work for? Who hired them? Why is this happening? Why wouldn't you say, "You know what, we're going to do everything we can to try and help...stay tuned, we're sorting out the details." I know, I know...pie in the sky. Bleeding heart liberal. Socialist. Not a pragmatist. I know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted December 7, 2008 Members Share Posted December 7, 2008 Look, I don't know the full details of this case. But can't you try and help the kid in some way, or indicate that you're going to try and do everything you can to protect your employees? Who do these lawyers work for? Who hired them? Why is this happening? Why wouldn't you say, "You know what, we're going to do everything we can to try and help...stay tuned, we're sorting out the details." I know, I know...pie in the sky. Bleeding heart liberal. Socialist. Not a pragmatist. I know.... Hey I'm with you...I just know that in legal matters, using your heart instead of your head can get you into a worse situation. As the old saying goes: No good deed (especially regarding legal issues) goes unpunished! The press is filled with stories of people trying to extend kindness and do what anyone would think is 'the right thing' only to be destroyed later because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WRGKMC Posted December 8, 2008 Members Share Posted December 8, 2008 I'm sure there are laws as to what kind of insurance Employers are required to offer its employees. You cant offer fake insurance for example. If the insurance is lacking its an issue with what the law requires employers to carry for employees or what the insurance providers are providing. You can also make the case theres always going to be Lawyers drilling new loop holes any way they can to steal a buck from innocent bystanders like Dollar Tree. Blue Strat is also dead on about what Dollar Tree can do or not do. Being charitable can have dire consiquences and should not be touched untill after the lawsuit is over. The Lawyers and Judge will tell them that if they havent already. Once the lawsuit is over they can do or say anything they want. Most of those dollar stores are franchises anyway. If you understand anything about franchises you would know that lawsuits probibly wont go beyond the individual store. Unless they sell a defective or dangerous product the suit will never get to the supplier which is where the real money is. even if it does there are many ways to incorporate which make leagal claims against companies limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted December 8, 2008 Members Share Posted December 8, 2008 Perhaps a friendly gesture right after the incident could have alleviated the lawsuit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WRGKMC Posted December 8, 2008 Members Share Posted December 8, 2008 Doubt it. The knee jerk reaction by alot of neighborhoods now days is to put the blame anywheres but where it belongs. Parents are the ones who should have a life insurance policy to cover their families. It isnt that expensive especially if your young and it doesnt matter how you're killed unless its suiside or your spouce murders you or something like that. I think I pay maybe $20 a month for $150K and I'm 51 yrs old. People could forgo a Big Mac or two and keep theyre family secure instead of always blaming someone else because theyre poor. Its very possible this woman could have tried harder in school and gotten a better job in a better neighborhood and not gotten shot by a nut as well. Sorry to rant. I just feel theres a whole generation of people who think fleacing companies is actually a moral thing to do. Then they try to convince themselves and others they are being moral in doing so. As far as I'm concerned its all just convoluted doubble talk and theres no basis for this company to pay a dime to anyone. Beyond that if you really DO feel for the family, turn over a few of your own paychecks to help them out or apply for adoption insted of condoning the fleecing. You'll be a better person than anyone here for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deanmass Posted December 8, 2008 Author Members Share Posted December 8, 2008 Fleecing..?????? Grrrrrr... Sigh.... Shrug...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hard Truth Posted December 8, 2008 Members Share Posted December 8, 2008 Sorry to rant. I just feel theres a whole generation of people who think fleacing companies is actually a moral thing to do. Then they try to convince themselves and others they are being moral in doing so. As far as I'm concerned its all just convoluted doubble talk and theres no basis for this company to pay a dime to anyone. . Recognizing that many work places are dangerous and that it is not uncommon for employees to be injured on the job, laws were passed requiring workman's comp insurance. The insurance protects the employee and their familly from extreme poverty in the event of an injury and protects the business from claims from injured employees. In this case, neither the employee nor the employer did anything negligent that caused the job-related injury. The injury would not have happened if the employee was not at work. The insurance company should pay. They took a calculated risk when they gambled that their insurance rates would cover their costs. The occassional payout won't hurt them if the company made their calculations properly. Getting the payout you deserve from an insurance company is not fleecing. The fleecing in the this case is being done by the insurance company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny-Boy Posted December 8, 2008 Members Share Posted December 8, 2008 I'm wondering if there would still be a problem if a random murder that wasn't racially motivated occurred in this store. Would the insurance company in this scenario pay-out??? John:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted December 8, 2008 Members Share Posted December 8, 2008 Recognizing that many work places are dangerous and that it is not uncommon for employees to be injured on the job, laws were passed requiring workman's comp insurance. The insurance protects the employee and their familly from extreme poverty in the event of an injury and protects the business from claims from injured employees. In this case, neither the employee nor the employer did anything negligent that caused the job-related injury. The injury would not have happened if the employee was not at work. The insurance company should pay. They took a calculated risk when they gambled that their insurance rates would cover their costs. The occassional payout won't hurt them if the company made their calculations properly.Getting the payout you deserve from an insurance company is not fleecing. The fleecing in the this case is being done by the insurance company. That's what the court has to decide-whether the killing was work related or not. You may think that if the woman had not been at work, she wouldn't have been killed; ergo responsibility lies with the employer. What of she were killed on the freeway on the way to work? If she hadn't been on the way to work she wouldn't have been killed, right? What if she slipped in the tub and broke her neck while getting ready for work? After all, wouldn't the job be the reason she was getting cleaned up to leave in the first place? Workman's comp is carried by employers to cover the employer in the event that an injury happens to the employee in the course of their duties-straining a back muscle, falling off a ladder, etc. There is no provision in most comp insurance to compensate from damages inflicted by someone not working for the company. In this case the employee was singled out randomly by someone else and was killed quite apart from performing any duties. Is merely being there on the clock enough to warrant worker's compensation? What if it happened 5 minutes before punching in or after punching out? In the parking lot instead of the store itself? What if the perpetrator were had been her ex husband or boyfriend? Is it still a comp claim? If so why and if not why not? These are all questions that have to be decided legally. Determining fault and liability is no small thing and involves a lot of different considerations. I know I wouldn't't want to be the judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deanmass Posted December 9, 2008 Author Members Share Posted December 9, 2008 YES!!!! BTW, I sent a letter to Dollar Tree Investor relations. I will now send one thanking them for doing the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WRGKMC Posted December 9, 2008 Members Share Posted December 9, 2008 Getting the payout you deserve from an insurance company is not fleecing. The fleecing in the this case is being done by the insurance company. I agree, Its not what I posted but it sure seems like people cant separate company from the insurer. The Insurance companies name is NOT Dollar Tree. The tendency for people to go after companies when theyre insurance is inadiquite is what I tried to point out in case I wasnt clear. I also agree about the Insurance company trying to rip people off with a bogus case. In this case I believe its Hartford Group which should be the title of the thread to begin with. Insurance companies have good Lawyers and help to write alot of the policies which is the biggest part of the problem here. Its very possible they wrote this clause in specifically for these kind of situations and wanted to try it out in court, But that assumption might be just as wackey as saying dollar tree is responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hard Truth Posted December 9, 2008 Members Share Posted December 9, 2008 The threat of a boycott worked on Dollar Tree! I hope the insurance company will feel the pressure also and do the right thing. Thank them at http://www.dollartree.com/comment.cfm SF Gate:Meanwhile, some customers have called for a nationwide boycott of Dollar Tree, and protesters picketed the Fairfield store two Sundays ago. "In Monday's statement, Timothy Reid, Dollar Tree's vice president for investor relations, said the company had offered to pay "the full workers' compensation benefit permitted under California law." "Taneka Talley was the victim of a despicable crime," Reid said. "While we were advised that the claim would not be covered under the state workers' compensation law, we feel this is the right thing to do for Taneka's son."" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.