Jump to content

Ban the Dollar Tree


deanmass

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

If they're smart, they'll threaten the lawyers and the insurance guys to pay or lose their contracts. They should have seen this one a mile away...

 

I'd say boycott them just because they tried it. How stupid were the key players who let those insurance and lawyer guys talk them into this one?

 

Should have called PR first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

But that's where I can buy a copy of TaxCut Basic for a dollar, on a CD. On the TAxCut web site, they release it for free a couple of weeks before the tax deadline, but otherwise, it costs $16 or so.

 

I'm a regular once-a-year Dollar Tree customer. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Boycott.


I guess I should be savvy and find whatever else they own.

 

 

A very holistic approach.

 

The real bastards appear to be the contracted WC administrators.

 

Specialty Risk Services

 

They are part of The Hartford. Of course The Hartford was one of the insurance companies that recently opportunistically bought banks so they could get (pause) Bailout money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't see how this is Dollar Tree's fault.

 

Let me get this straight: If Dollar Tree had not hired her, she wouldn't have had a job there and therefore would not have been at work there that day and therefore would not have been killed.

Some questions need to be asked:

 

1) did she or did she not apply for a job there on her own volition?

2) was race a factor in hiring her?

3) Is there a reasonable expectation that a business should be able to anticipate and prevent hate crimes?

 

Maybe her family should sue the manufacturer of her car too. After all, if it hadn't started and been dependable, she's have never made it to work that day.

 

 

I don't want to minimize a tragedy, because that's what it is. But people do all kinds of evil for all kinds of reasons, and often for no reason at all. Isn't it a bit unrealistic to expect every employer to foresee every motive for every nutjob out there? And if race was the motivation for the killing and that is found to be Dollar Tree's fault, are they then justifed in denying employment to someone in the future based on race because of what might happen? After all, wouldn't this set a precedent?

 

I feel bad for the woman's kid, but that's why everyone with a child needs to carry at least 250k term life insurance. It only costs someone in their 20s or 30s about ten bucks a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What's the responsibility of a company to provide a safe workplace?

 

Dollar Tree's policy of minimally staffed 10000 to 15000 sq ft storefronts provided a very soft target with easy ingress egress.

 

Really if they want litigate this miserable case. Let 'em.

 

They are bully boys if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

What's the responsibility of a company to provide a safe workplace?


.

 

 

That's the question, isn't it?

 

There are all kinds of laws on the books regarding fire suppression systems, safety equipment, proper handling of product etc etc. But if we are now going to say that every retailer in the country is going to have to anticipate something like this, what then? Will every store, office, and fast food joint be required to provide armed guards? How many? At what cost? How far do we go in sacrificing liberty to minimize risk?

 

Something about this story doesn't sound right. It would not surprise me if there was more to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

That's the question, isn't it?


There are all kinds of laws on the books regarding fire suppression systems, safety equipment, proper handling of product etc etc. But if we are now going to say that every retailer in the country is going to have to anticipate something like this, what then? Will every store, office, and fast food joint be required to provide armed guards? How many? At what cost? How far do we go in sacrificing liberty to minimize risk?


Something about this story doesn't sound right. It would not surprise me if there was more to it.

 

 

The actions of the case are a little better described over here:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6324068

 

The responsibility of an employer is reasonably heightened at store opening and closing. This was at open. They are stretching the statutory language regarding a "personal connection".

 

Really this is not going to go well for them. They are just intimidating the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It was never going to go well for them the minute a lawsuit was filed. They will settle out of court.

 

 

The family was just waiting for the 250K. The Judge told them to get a lawyer when it was denied. Those are some stupid heel dragging lawyers. This was from March of 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The family was just waiting for the 250K. The Judge told them to get a lawyer when it was denied. Those are some stupid heel dragging lawyers. This was from March of 2006.

 

 

Well if DT and their insurance provider are too stupid to settle out of court then they deserve to get hosed for twice that much plus legal fees. I'd NEVER let a case like this go to jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the point here is that Dollar Tree is denying the benefit expressly on the argument that the murder was racially motivated and not, I guess, in the course of a robbery. So from this infer that every QuikMart employee and what have you is entitled to the death benefit by CA law if murdered "in the line of duty."

 

We could argue--cool headedly and with valid arguments on all sides--whether the death benefit is fair to employers who may not be at fault, what the other implications of the law might, whether (further) reform might be in order.

But in this case, the benefit exists, and DT is trying to circumvent it with some pretty heinous legalizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The "motivation" for the murder is irrelevant, especially from a P.R. standpoint.

 

You have an employee

 

That employee gets killed while in your employ and performing their duties

 

Your insurance pays the benefit to the family

 

All the rest is distraction.

 

I am amazed, yet I should not be, at the common knowledge stupidity of people like the Dollar Tree management and the risk management company. the latter clearly do not understand that the riskier proposition is dealing with public outrage over this. What is feasible under the technicalities of the legal system does not mean that that should be the ultimate path pursued based on the long term damage it will do to the 'brand' of Dollar Tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The "motivation" for the murder is irrelevant, especially from a P.R. standpoint.


You have an employee


That employee gets killed while in your employ and performing their duties


Your insurance pays the benefit to the family

 

 

Wrong. Read the article. It states specifically, that if the murder is a personal issue (ie, the killer wanted to kill that particular person, and just happened to kill them at work) it is different than somebody who is killed while at work incidentally to a robbery or some such.

 

From a PR standpoint is another issue, but that is the insurance company's decision, not Dollar Tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I can understand an exemption for coverage if the employee was, for example, killed by her boyfriend while at work. But if she was killed by a stranger just because she happened to be at the jobsite, the killer's motive should not be relevant. The job put her at risk, not her personal life. It is a de facto racist strategy to deny her compensation. Both the insurance company and Dollar Tree deserve a boycott since Dollar Tree appears to be supporting the insurance company's position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well, that's for the court to decide. If the killer said, "I'm going to kill somebody who works at Dollar Tree," the case would be clear. He could have stabbed sombedoy on the street, the bus, his mailman, whatever. DT's position is her working that day was coincidental to the killing.

Drivel.

 

 

This is exactly the type of double speak bull{censored} that enables many lawyers to exist, and allows companies, both the insurance company and the Dollar Tree rationalize their positions. I do not accept it. It is morally reprehensible.

 

If the woman had left the premises and was killed, I can see that argument absolving the insurer. That is not what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Another great step for California...........what a disgrace of a state....they seam to make up the rules as they go. And its lack of appretiation for anything. Wait a while and the gay right to marry law that got voted down will be overturned by some judge.......even after the people have spoken. Washington State is almost as bad.......almost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Another great step for California...........what a disgrace of a state....they seam to make up the rules as they go.

 

 

Yes! And the real rules are written by the almighty God! There is only one God, of course. And if you are gay or eat shrimp, you are an abomination to the Lord almighty!

 

No rules should be made up, of course. They should just exist, from the beginning of time, which was 6,000 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So how do you keep workers safe from insanity? Give everyone a psyche test before they can come into the store? Seems like everyone has gone insaine thinking they can soak anyone for anything weather that be a small or large business. If the insurance policy spells it out in detail it should be obvious. Many dollar stores are in distressed area an attract those who dont have the means like street bums. If a store was to say you cant come in because you might kill one of our workers it would be a form of discrimination.

Guess the only answer is to have workers armed and make sure everyone knows it. it would keep the riff raff away and shoppers would feel secure.

Plus if they knew the guy who was at that KMart was packing, I gaurantee he wouldnt have been trampeled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

This is exactly the type of double speak bull{censored} that enables many lawyers to exist, and allows companies, both the insurance company and the Dollar Tree rationalize their positions. I do not accept it. It is morally reprehensible.


If the woman had left the premises and was killed, I can see that argument absolving the insurer. That is not what happened.

 

 

 

Accept what you want, there is a contract (from the insurance company) and at least one law in effect. That's why we have courts. I personally, would have poted to to pay this out. It's not a camel's nose, and the negative publicity is surely more costly than the insured sum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...