It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shell station in Denmark fires employee for stopping DUI driver

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Firstly, sorry for the Google translation. It was the best I can do...

Basically, a Shell station employee had a customer who was so intoxicated that she saw fit to prevent the individual from continuing to drive off.
In response, the station manager fired her with immediate effect due to Shells own regulations that state that employees may not interfere in affairs that could be dangerous to themselves or others.

The public didn't take this lightly..... the station's Facebook page is being hammered by angry people who pretty much show their disagreement with Shells decision. A lot of people are now even cancelling their Shell cards out of anger.

Interestingly enough the local police have offered the former employee a reward of 100 dollars for doing her civil duty.
The organisation for Road Safety in Denmark has also stated that what she did was the right thing to do...

I'm just thinking..... where are we, if we can't make judgement call, and prevent a very serious accident from happening by simply withholding an individual until help arrives? How can a private company's own set of rules EVER trupmh the rules and laws of society.

Especially in Denmark where we have a ZERO tolerance for DUI.

Google translate of the affair.
edit on 12/6/15 by flice because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/6/15 by flice because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: flice

Well, the law is what it is of course, but a persons contract with their employer is their primary source of funds for sustenance, utility payments, tax payments, and so on. Threaten to take that away from someone, and they will suddenly find that for all that the right thing to do is always the right thing to do, they may not wish to do the right thing, owing to the circumstances which will prevail over them should they do so.

What needs to happen is that the law needs to change to prevent employers from wording their contracts and regulations, in such a way as to hamstring employees, and prevent them from doing their civic duty at all times.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Although it seems silly to me that the employee was actually fired, almost all large chain gas stations have clauses like this. In the eyes of the contract writer, the employee is basically a walking insurance liability. This means that they should not put themselves directly in harms way for any reason. Insurance payouts are expensive. Had the drunk decided they were going to drive, and there was no way the employee was going to stop them, and the employee sustained injury, this contract, at least without a huge legal battle, precludes them from offering financial restitution.

It's the same reason they don't want you to stop a gas their, or deny a robber whatever cash you have in the till. It's always cheaper than an insurance spike; or, as they will put it to an employee : Your life is worth more.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I am not sure if this is the case, but I had to fire an employee here in the US for being charged with false imprisonment. He was a supervisor and suspected his employee was under the influence of drugs. We were going to have him tested for suspicion and he tried to bolt the workplace. The supervisor chased the employee down and then put him in an office. The supervisor sat by the door so the employee could not leave. The employee filed charges of false imprisonment, the charges stuck. What always sucked was if the employee had bolted and jumped in his car and had a wreck, we would have been liable for that also. Sometimes you have to go with your gut and face the consequences, sometimes you just cant win.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: flice
Firstly, sorry for the Google translation. It was the best I can do...

Basically, a Shell station employee had a customer who was so intoxicated that she saw fit to prevent the individual from continuing to drive off.
In response, the station manager fired her with immediate effect due to Shells own regulations that state that employees may not interfere in affairs that could be dangerous to themselves or others.

The public didn't take this lightly..... the station's Facebook page is being hammered by angry people who pretty much show their disagreement with Shells decision. A lot of people are now even cancelling their Shell cards out of anger.

Interestingly enough the local police have offered the former employee a reward of 100 dollars for doing her civil duty.
The organisation for Road Safety in Denmark has also stated that what she did was the right thing to do...

I'm just thinking..... where are we, if we can't make judgement call, and prevent a very serious accident from happening by simply withholding an individual until help arrives? How can a private company's own set of rules EVER trupmh the rules and laws of society.

Especially in Denmark where we have a ZERO tolerance for DUI.

Google translate of the affair.


It's due to litigation. If she had tried to stop the drunk and he beat the crap out of her, Shell would be liable as well. Blame lawyers and stupid lawsuits.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Having a zero tolerance policy is better for safety of everyone on roads. My cousin works with a DUI attorney Los Angeles and was telling me back there, no one seems to be interested in raising the limits so laws can be made more stringer. Quite sad but I am happy Denmark has done it already.



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join