snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 08 July 2014, 10:07 PM
Mad Jay's Avatar
Mad Jay Mad Jay is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Whether it is policy to allow them to ask or require them to, any harm should be covered under the general workman's compensation like any other workplace related injury would be.
Yes, but I believe the employer increases the amount of liability that they take by by asking (or even permitting) the employee to do something, Say , if there was a hazardous chemical spill in front of a convenience store. The most prudent thing for the employer to do will be to tell the employees "Stay away from the spill. We will get it cleaned as soon as possible". If an employee does get hurt, and sues them for worker's comp, the employee needs to prove that either the spill was caused by employer's negligence, or the employer could have handled the cleanup better. OTH, if the employer tells the employee (or even permits) the employee to clean up the spill, the employer opens a whole can of worms. The employer is now responsible for providing the right equipment, and also training the employee in cleanup. An employee who burns herself while cleaning the spill can easily prove that the employer was negligent in not providing the training/equipment.

It seems rather stupid for any employer to permit one of it's employees to enforce a no-gun policy, unless the employee has been properly trained. If the employer is doing that, they have most certainly not thought things through.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08 July 2014, 10:15 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,367
Default

That's not how workers compensation works. The point of workers comp is that employees don't have to prove fault, and employers have the damages they could be subject to limited. The employee (in rough terms) only has to show that they were injured at work and within the scope of their employment. Once that's shown, the employee is awarded defined compensation based on the type of loss.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08 July 2014, 10:51 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Jay View Post
It seems rather stupid for any employer to permit one of it's employees to enforce a no-gun policy, unless the employee has been properly trained.
YMMV, but asking someone not to carry a firearm is not the same as enforcing such a policy. Enforcing the policy would be the job of the police who were called to remove a trespasser (IMS, an ignored request to leave a place of business is trespassing).
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09 July 2014, 05:10 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Jay View Post
...Say , if there was a hazardous chemical spill in front of a convenience store. The most prudent thing for the employer to do will be to tell the employees "Stay away from the spill. We will get it cleaned as soon as possible".
No, no, no. Sorry about the hijack here, but this is so wrong. A hazardous spill is not in any way something that you could say avoid the spill and we'll clean it up as soon as we can. The prudent thing to do is evacuate the store, evacuate people in an area defined by the chemical that has been spilled, and immediately call in a qualified team to contain and clean the spill.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09 July 2014, 05:22 PM
dfresh dfresh is offline
 
Join Date: 11 November 2005
Location: Oxford, PA
Posts: 4,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
The employee (in rough terms) only has to show that they were injured at work and within the scope of their employment.
I think Mad Jay would be correct. If the employee goes and cleans it up on their own, that would NOT be withing the scope of their employment, and so the employer wouldn't be covered. If the boss told the employee to do it, then it would be within the scope of their employment.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09 July 2014, 05:54 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
No, no, no. Sorry about the hijack here, but this is so wrong. A hazardous spill is not in any way something that you could say avoid the spill and we'll clean it up as soon as we can. The prudent thing to do is evacuate the store, evacuate people in an area defined by the chemical that has been spilled, and immediately call in a qualified team to contain and clean the spill.
It depends on the 'hazardous spill.' If a customer dripped blood for some reason, it should be treated as hazardous, but there's no reason to evacuate. Bleach spilled indoors might require evacuation, particularly in a smaller facility, but not if it were in a large store, depending on the amount of spill. There are websites with information about safe response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfresh View Post
I think Mad Jay would be correct. If the employee goes and cleans it up on their own, that would NOT be withing the scope of their employment, and so the employer wouldn't be covered. If the boss told the employee to do it, then it would be within the scope of their employment.
Erwins was right as far as the description went. But you are right also that if an employee's actions are a sufficient departure from the job, then s/he is no longer covered by WC until s/he returns to job activities. There are grey areas, of course. I could well see situations being held to be on-the-job where the manager says about a spill, "Don't try to clean that, we'll get pros in." but the employee decides s/he knows how to handle the spill. After all, the efforts are still in furtherance of the business's interests. The employee's actions were not some 'frolic and diversion' (a term often used here in Georgia for activities wholly unrelated to the job). I could also see it going the other way, and it probably depends on the state WC jurisprudence and the details of the incident.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10 July 2014, 02:44 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,968
Default

In answe r to some of the speculation about my comment: Our instructions were: "If you(the employee) feel uncomfortable with a person carrying a gun you have permission to tell the customer that you are uncomfortable and politely ask him to not bring his weapon in when you (the employee) are on duty". It is not company policy, it is a permission granted to us as associates for our comfort. If it was company policy they would post a damn sign on the door.

Spills: The spill that we most often deal with are gasoline spills. We are trained at least once a year to judge the size and severity of a spill. Depending on those two specifics we can A) Small spill clean up with gas dry/gas diapers. or B) Large spill: close off area and call emergency hazmat company that we contract with to clean it up.

We are trained in any number of issues that we come across. We do not have a manager on duty 24/7, so we have a bit more autonomy than some other business models. We are trained in things ranging from emergencies including spills, fires, and severe weather to how to deal with angry customers, how to deal with alcohol and tobacco regulations, and money laundering prevention.

Believe me, our company has an army of lawyers, and is very careful about what is legal, illegal, or leaves them open to litigation.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10 July 2014, 09:02 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
It depends on the 'hazardous spill.' If a customer dripped blood for some reason, it should be treated as hazardous, but there's no reason to evacuate. Bleach spilled indoors might require evacuation, particularly in a smaller facility, but not if it were in a large store, depending on the amount of spill. There are websites with information about safe response.
What I responded to was specifically a chemical spill, rather than biological, so I wasn't thinking of blood. What I was thinking of was what the HAZWOPER certification classes call a hazardous spill. I agree that in a large facility, or with relatively benign chemicals, you would not have to evacuate the entire facility. But unless the person making that call is HAZWOPER certified, the prudent thing to do is evacuate. Based on the latest comment, it appears that Sylvanz has at least some degree of training - I'm not sure if it is in house or HAZWOPER - and they have clear guidelines to make the call.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10 July 2014, 09:44 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfresh View Post
I think Mad Jay would be correct. If the employee goes and cleans it up on their own, that would NOT be withing the scope of their employment, and so the employer wouldn't be covered. If the boss told the employee to do it, then it would be within the scope of their employment.
As ATNM said, it will vary a bit by state, but scope of employment is not synonymous with "following instructions." It's part of the trade-off of workers comp that it doesn't usually matter if the employee is in fact expressly disobeying orders. What does matter is that they weren't doing something completely unrelated to their job--like leaving the worksite to sneak in a movie, say, and on the way getting hit by a car. The question is more like, was the person being an employee at the time? Here, IIRC, a car salesman was covered for an injury he sustained while riding a bicycle around the car lot, doing tricks. All the salesmen were fooling around on the bike during down time, and it was a common practice there to find activities to keep busy during down times. It didn't matter that fooling around on a bike is not part of his job description.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10 July 2014, 10:04 PM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,968
Default

This is true my boss was on a ladder leaning against the crawl space above our walkin cooler. The ladder slipped out from under her and she received a compound fracture of her lower leg bone. I saw it and it was pretty graphic. She received full workman's compensation. Even though she was violating safety rules that she was well aware of.

Incidentally, she left a plate sized puddle of blood behind that a coworker donned gloves and cleaned up with bleach.

Most of our training is provided by government approved videos, sometimes we attend classes. Most of our training is repeated every six months to once a year. Our food prep team are all Serve Safe certified by the end of six months of employment. All of us have to have attended and be certified for level one food safety.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
eBay hacked, requests all users change passwords erwins Business Bytes 8 22 May 2014 06:46 PM
The Best Way to Handle the Coming Cicada Invasion? Heat Up the Deep Fryer A Turtle Named Mack The Bad Gastronomer 8 23 April 2013 02:22 PM
Cherry Hill and Franklin Mills Mall Shoppers warning snopes Crime 4 06 November 2007 11:02 AM
Take a cold shower after being out in the heat and you'll sweat more? zman977 Old Wives' Tales 13 09 August 2007 11:46 PM
Keep your heat below 69 degrees and you'll get in trouble with DCFS zman977 Crime 40 11 July 2007 09:20 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.