View Poll Results: Is the McDonald's employee entitled to workers' compensation?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 73.33%
  • No

    4 26.67%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

  1. #11
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,755

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't see why this would undermine their policy. They could still encourage their employees not to be heroes, yet honor his claim. I doubt anyone else would be discouraged from following the policy, as most people aren't thinking about workers' comp when they make these kind of decisions.

    Besides, I don't see why they would not be legally obligated to honor this claim. He was injured on the job.
    Good point, and I think he will get his worker's comp because of my own experience. My first part time job was when I was 16 years old, and it was as a dishwasher at a Big Boy's Restaurant. One day, the dishwasher broke. I repaired it. It took me 2 hours, and I was not paid for those 2 hours because I was "not doing my job". My father filed a complaint with the Labor Relations Board in Michigan, and I was fired because of it. However, I was awarded those 2 hours plus unemployment for 13 weeks.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I think most McDonalds are franchise owned.
    Most of the franchised owned fast food restaraunts carry insurance via the corporation they are franchised with. It may vary between companies, but most franchise owners are usually free to purchase third party, private insurance, but they rarely do.

    I should know, I tried to crack into the franchise restaraunt insurance market. It was one of my focus groups for about 1 year. Never got a McDs, but I got a few DQs, and Subways.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  3. #13
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't see why this would undermine their policy.
    It would absolutely undermine their policy because they are rewarding an employee who broke policy and got shot and nearly killed. Why would they even consider absorbing $300 thousand dollars in medical bills for an employee who broke policy? It opens the door by setting a precedent within the corporation. Corporations aren't in the business of doing the right thing, they are in business of maintaining the company bottom line.
    They could still encourage their employees not to be heroes, yet honor his claim.
    I don't see how. Policy is in place for a reason. And a company as big as McDonalds opens themselves up to all kinds of exposure if they start selectively discarding policy.
    I doubt anyone else would be discouraged from following the policy, as most people aren't thinking about workers' comp when they make these kind of decisions.
    I would tend to agree. Still doesn't shore up the case for discarding corporate policy though.
    Besides, I don't see why they would not be legally obligated to honor this claim. He was injured on the job.
    There is a case to be made for his claim being honored as a "good samaritan" act that was done in the best interest of the company. However, simply being injured on the job does not entitle you to workers comp benefits. If you are:
    • engaging in behavior that is not a part of your job duties,
    • and, you are doing so of your own accord with no directive from your employer,
    • and this behavior is specifically forbidden by company policy,
    • and, you are injured as a result of this behavior...

    The company has a very solid defense with which to challenge your claim.
    *insert profound statement here*

  4. #14
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Perspective people.

    When I worked for Best Buy they made it clear you do not interefere with a criminal, you could even be fired, adn should attempt to stop a shoplifter or robber and get injured the company won't pay. It's in the contract, and I'm BETTING McD's has the same.

    So no, as much as it might seem assholish to say this, he has no case other then emotional appeal. They can't pay this guy, or allow such behavior.

    Why?

    It would endanger other employees, some of whom might get really hurt or killed trying to stop a roober, and conversely, they might be liable for injury TO a robber by an employee.

    So no, this guy should lose his case outright.
    Well I wish we had more people like him in our world.
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  5. #15
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I voted yes but feel there should have been a "yes, but..." choice.

    I think what we have here is what you would consider a typical response by the corporation when faced with $300 thousand dollars in medical bills. Let's face it, their attorneys are doing their jobs. And certainly that job is distasteful and I don't agree with what they are doing, but this isn't surprising. We've all heard stories about convenient store clerks who fight off robbery suspects only to be fired because they violated corporate policy relating to what they are supposed to do in a robbery. This is no different. And this young mans injuries are precisely why those corporate policies exist. Can you image any company that said "hey, if someone is wielding a gun, take 'em out if you get a chance." Or "protect our property at all costs." Can you imagine the liability involved? It's why they specifically say "don't be a hero, the money isn't worth your life, give it up, we have insurance."

    The obvious difference here is this man was defending a woman who was being battered. This man was doing the right thing and I'm glad he did. I'm sorry he got shot and hope the coward thug that did it spends the rest of his life in jail. But seriously, I can see why McDonalds is denying the claim. If McDonalds were to set a precedent and honor this man's claim, it really puts them in a trick bag. They can't go back on their own policy, a policy designed to protect their employees and limit corporate liability.

    What I think McDonald's should do is deny his claim, but hold a company wide fund raiser to help this hero employee pay his medical bills and recover from his injuries. Maybe a good Samaritan award is in order.
    Yes. You said it all.

    OBL 11/24/02

  6. #16
    Advisor SWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    If love was cow blood, I'd be a slaugterhouse.
    Last Seen
    01-20-10 @ 08:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    310

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Perspective people.

    When I worked for Best Buy they made it clear you do not interefere with a criminal, you could even be fired, adn should attempt to stop a shoplifter or robber and get injured the company won't pay. It's in the contract, and I'm BETTING McD's has the same.

    So no, as much as it might seem assholish to say this, he has no case other then emotional appeal. They can't pay this guy, or allow such behavior.

    Why?

    It would endanger other employees, some of whom might get really hurt or killed trying to stop a roober, and conversely, they might be liable for injury TO a robber by an employee.

    So no, this guy should lose his case outright.
    In this case, though, there was no robbery. It was a person being beaten. McDonald's may have a clause stating that its employees should not interfere with someone being assaulted within the restaurant, I don't know, but if they do I imagine it's going to come under some heavy fire. Here is a relevant piece of the article:

    Quote Originally Posted by Haskett's Lawyer
    "McDonald's position now is that during thirty-minute orientation Mr. Haskett and the other individuals going through the orientation were supposedly told that in the event of a robbery or anything like a robbery . . . not to be a hero and simply call 911. Mr. Haskett denies that anything like that was even mentioned during orientation or at any time during his employment with McDonald's."
    It's not for me to say whether or not Haskett is telling the truth in this case; there's no way for me to know. I imagine that you will maintain that he is lying, so let's assume that he was in fact told that he should not be a hero "in the event of a robbery or anything like a robbery."

    Careful words. If he was told only that he should not interfere with a robbery, that clearly does not cover this event, as it was not a robbery. Case closed. If it were McDonald's policy to tell employees that they should not interfere with the physical assault of another person on the premises even if they feel like they could prevent or put an end to the assault, then that's that. Case closed. But McDonald's would never have such a policy, because it would be a PR disaster. Accordingly, that haven't claimed that Heskett was told that during orientation. In consequence, it appears that they've chosen to employ a seemingly innocuous phrase that they hoped might be ambiguous enough to cover an action that they were not willing to explicitly prohibit. Pretty shady. Will it hold up in court? I suspect it won't, but we'll see.

    If we're talking about a company's money, and the company that employs me is asking me to allow their money to be taken in the event of a robbery, which nearly all retail companies do, that's different - it's their money. That's a smart policy. In the event of an assault on a person on the premises, I would argue that expecting me to not attempt to stop violence against another person if I feel I can do so is an unreasonable request. Why? Because that's what we've been taught decent human beings do. If you feel you have the power to stop senseless violence against another person, you do so. As the article states, the courts have come to the same conclusion a number of times.

    I'm not sure what I would do in such a situation, as I've never been in one like that, but if I felt like I could stop a victimization and accordingly chose to interfere in an attempt to keep another human being from sustaining harm, I would be stunned to learn that I could be disciplined or fired for such an action, and I would be very surprised that my worker's comp policy does not cover me for acting in a way that is widely thought of as honorable and entirely reasonable behavior, unless that policy specifically stated as much. And if it did, I would probably not be working for that company.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    One human being taking a bullet for another... such bravery is uncommon these days. I don't really care what McDonalds does... I don't need further proof to know its status quo. What I would care about is if a corporation were telling employees not to do this sort of thing. Of course it shouldn't be EXPECTED that someone take a bullet like this, but there shouldn't be a corporate policy against such a human act.

    What is wrong with the world, seriously.

  8. #18
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    03-02-09 @ 06:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    What I would care about is if a corporation were telling employees not to do this sort of thing. Of course it shouldn't be EXPECTED that someone take a bullet like this, but there shouldn't be a corporate policy against such a human act.
    I think the issue here is more whether the employer is liable for the unjuries sustained when the emplyee undertook a "folly of his own" To which the answer would be "no". The emplyoee doe have a case for a suit in that the event ocurred in the workplace, it is prima facie evidence of a failure to provide a safe working environment.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I think most McDonalds are franchise owned.
    If this is the case, that franchise owner is about to find out how it feels to lose his business because of his ridiculous level of greed.

    No more free cheeseburgers for his sorry ass.

  10. #20
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: McDonald's: No workers comp for employee shot protecting patron

    First, I love what the employee did. No question he has an exceptionally good heart.

    However, having said that, reading the description of what he did looks like he was outside the scope of his employment. It would be one thing if he took the woman and locked himself in a bathroom with her to PREVENT the guy from continuing to attack her. But he physically assaulted the guy. To me, he went overboard, IMHO (that's what I would argue if representing McDonald's ). I can't blame McDonalds for rejecting the workers comp claim.

    Again, I think what the employee did was truly exceptional, but he could have protected this woman in a better manner than he did.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •