Holding employers responsible for actions committed by an employee?

Are you being sarcastic? It's absolutely absurd the company was held financially responsible. If you believe it's "obvious" the company should be held responsible, then people like you are operating off a very different value system and set of ethics than other people like me.

I suspect this is just more wacky Leftism. (Unless you were being sarcastic and obviously recognize how absurd this was)

 

You're just refusing to answer the question and being dumb.

I think the truth is, people like you just hate big corporations and big church organizations and are looking for any excuse to "take them down" and "hold them responsible", even if it is unjust and the actual logic does not totally follow.

I think once we understand that, maybe we can all understand what's actually happening here.

 

The question is all about what responsibilities employers should be held to.

I do not believe employers should be held responsible for EVERYTHING one of the people they have employed does.

Obviously if an employer is providing a service, like flying the customer in an airplane, or managing the customer's money, they have a responsibility to make sure that service is safe. That is different from an employee choosing to commit an intentional crime.

 

In the case which you quoted, the employer knew the guy was a ticking time-bomb, and continued to send him out to clients anyway and he ended up killing someone

At Charter, court records show Holden had racked up disciplinary actions and taken pictures of driver’s licenses and credit cards at the homes of two elderly female customers. He asked his operations manager for money and he requested mental health intervention through Charter’s employee assistance program.

Yet he continued to be sent on field calls. Holden was scheduled to work at Thomas' house on Dec. 11, 2019, at 1 p.m, according to the incident report by the Irving Police Department. He returned the next day and murdered her.

 

Okay, so anyone who is a "ticking time-bomb", no employer should ever hire them and they should never be able to have a job?

Please explain how that makes sense.

 

If you know the guy has mental issues, and you continue to send him to your clients, then yes, you'll probably get sued when he murders or rapes someone. It doesn't mean they can't have any job, but customer service is obviously not for them, especially when it means spending time in the customers homes.

 

I see. So I guess anyone with any mental issues just should be homeless or be kept in prison for the rest of their life.

(sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell)

For a lot of these specific people, it could be very hard to find a job for which they would be "suitable" for.

If you say they can't be trusted to interact with customers, can't be trusted around food, can't be trusted around valuable things, that really does not leave much left.

I think it is wrong to be implementing government policies that make employers afraid to hire these people.

(It may be understandable in very specific situations like jobs caring for children, but you are trying to make this far more broad)


I think the next logical step in this insanity is victims are going to start suing the government for not keeping the criminal in prison long enough.

 

not sure why I would defend their actions or anyone would

 

Oh sorry I forgot, if the company refuses to do a routine check of previous employment then someone kills the person after visiting them on company time, returns in a compoany van, off the clock, the Corp has no responsibility there *shaking head*

Bunch of woke liberals in Texas right?

"At Charter, court records show Holden had racked up disciplinary actions and taken pictures of driver’s licenses and credit cards at the homes of two elderly female customers. He asked his operations manager for money and he requested mental health intervention through Charter’s employee assistance program.

Yet he continued to be sent on field calls"

In March 2021, Charter tried to force the family into arbitration, by submitting documents to the court that showed Thomas had agreed to the company’s terms of service, which included an arbitration agreement, by checking a small box when she paid her bill online.

But that work order, which should have been signed after the job was completed, was signed at 12:59 p.m., just a minute before Holden was scheduled to start the job. When Thomas’ family members saw the signature, they knew it didn’t belong to her, Hamilton said. It was simply signed “Bety.”

Thomas’ attorneys also contacted Thomas’ credit card company, and found another discrepancy: She paid her bill over the phone, not online.

“So, we knew they weren’t telling the truth about that,” Hamilton said of Charter. The online terms of service documents also were copyrighted in 2021, two years after Thomas’ death.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...n-killed-charter-cable-repairman/10158999002/

 

The jurors found that the company ignored red flags about its employee and forged documents to minimize their liabilities.

....Returning to her home the next day, Holden arrived in his Spectrum car and uniform and told Thomas that he had to perform follow-up repairs, but he wasn’t on the clock. He stabbed her to death and stole her wallet and ID, reportedly using her debit card hours after her murder.


...According to the family’s lawyers, trial testimony revealed that Charter hired Holden without verifying his employment history and “ignored a series of red flags,” including the killer’s written pleas to upper management to help him with financial and family problems.

...In a special finding, jurors answered “Yes” when asked if Charter “knowingly or intentionally committed forgery of the terms and conditions of service” in order to compel the family into closed-door arbitration with “the intent to defraud or harm” them.

“Charter Spectrum had too many chances to prevent this tragedy, and the company showed a complete disregard for the safety of its customers. Worse, the trial reveals how vulnerable Charter Spectrum customers remain today at the hands of a company that appears not to care about public safety,” attorney Ray Khirallah, from the same firm, said in a statement. “This verdict fairly reflects the extent of the evidence against Charter Spectrum and the dangerous nature of the company’s serious misconduct and violations of the law.”
https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/dal...staller-robbed-and-murdered-an-elderly-woman/

 

Even if they forged documents to minimize their legal liabilities, that still does not mean they should have those legal liabilities.

You understand that, right?

Since when are employers responsible for verifying employment history?
(I can understand for certain jobs taking care of children or nurses in the medical profession, but not every job)

The employer SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE.

This is the type of thing government has certification and licenses for.

That sounds very weak to me.

If we go with policies like the ones you're advocating, employers are going to be afraid to hire whole swaths of the workforce, and it will exacerbate unemployment problems among certain workers and lead to greater inequality.

So you want to make employers terrified of hiring workers with any possible red flags, even more afraid than employers already are?

Think about the sorts of issues that would result in, from the perspective of people in the labor force.

 

There actually are, in all of Texas's big cities now.

 

Got it, you dgaf about others, just Corp profits. NEXT

 

It is called Vicarious Liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability and has been part of English Jurisprudence since the 1700 s

 

But I highly doubt it has traditionally been enforced in the way it is being enforced now.

I think there has of recent been a drastic change in how liability has been interpreted.

 

Progressives never think about all the consequences of their policies they advocate. That is definitely the case here.

Think about all those unfortunate employees who are going to get excluded from the workforce or be unduly discriminated against, due to having "red flags".
Think about how corporations are going to have to raise their prices to pay for assuming all that additional liability risk. And for what? For massive financial payouts to families if one of the members of their household was murdered by someone else? That doesn't seem like the type of thing that is benefitting society. In fact I think it is actually increasing inequality. It's almost like creating a lottery payout system.

 

Once more I get it YOU DGAF about people, only Corp profits