It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:19 AM

Originally posted by LostNemesis
This employee was not acting on his job requirements when he was shot, and therefor his own choice to act is his own responsibility.

I respectfully disagree, because McDonald's has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent its customers from being abused on their property. Kicking out a wife-beater is a reasonable step to protect patrons. Even if an employee does something they were not specifically instructed to do, but is doing something that their company is legally obligated to do, then they are performing a job requirement. It may not be specific to their job, but it is specific to THEIR company. So while it is true that he was not performing his job function, it was true that he was performing a company job function.

This would apply to trivial matters as well. If I were filling out an SEC 10(k) form (which every public owned company is required to do), and I got a paper cut while doing so, I would be performing a job function even if I was never once told to fill out a 10(k) form and my only stated job was to flip burgers. So while I wasn't specifically instructed to fill out the 10(k) my company would be liable for the papercut.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:56 AM

Originally posted by LostNemesis
This employee was not acting on his job requirements when he was shot, and therefor his own choice to act is his own responsibility.

Seriously, I am surprised McDonald's is not being sued. Employees like this are a liability.

You bring up a sticky point here. I guess that's what McD's is banking on.

I myself have no idea how complex the laws are on an instance like this.

I view it like this. He never left the building, according to the article. Therefore he he was on McDonald's property and most importantly...he was on the in "punched in".

If he was off the clock I could see a case for McD's but not in this case.

It's just my opinion.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:59 AM

Originally posted by franspeakfree
I gave up mcdonalds just after the SUPER SIZE ME documentary came out. I have never looked back. On a side note this particular chain has many fingers n many pies and is well worth researching.

Conspiracy after conspiracy.

Hey there Fran,

That was a scary film wasn't it. I love watching it though and seeing what that poor guy endured.

I think that was the reason that "Super Size" portions are no longer around...right??

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:09 AM

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Why should McDonalds pay compensation? They ought to give him an award, possibly a promotion and higher wages.

But "compensation" implies that McDonalds was at fault. It was not. He just happened to be working in one of their branches when he intervened. What if the man had been working in a small bookstore and been shot? Would you expect the owner of the small bookstore to pony up the compensation? All of you are too eager to jump and slam the corporations just because they are the big, easy target. Liberals will never understand this concept, but just because they can afford to pay doesnt mean they should be forced to do so.

How about we blame and penalise the person who committed the crime, rather than the faceless corporation.

Logic and law dictates that the only person who should have to pay compensation is the gunman.

Hey there 44soulslayer,

I see where you're coming from but I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't think that it's a slam on McD's. It's their insurance companies and their internal policies.

This guy (the employee) was in the building, he never left the building and was shot in the building. In the doorway, according to the article.

He was on the clock so anything from a fall to a cut is covered by workman's comp. That has to include this incident. If he was not punched in, well then that would make all the difference. Then I would agree with your take on this.

The article states that he isn't looking for cash. He just wants his medical covered.
I really don't think that it's too much to ask for.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:58 AM
Wasn't his job to break up fights.
Call the cops.
This is why company's tell employees NOT to do this stuff.
So they don't get killed.
Why didn't he call the cops?
Because he wanted to be a hero.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:59 AM
This is totally wrong. The underlying fact here is that the "insurance industry" will do anything to avoid paying out claims to anyone. Whether it be from a car accident, life insurance, a fire in your house, even injury compensation. They will dig deep to find any little technicality or obscure law that allows them to not pay.

The insurance industry is a legal extortion scam. I've paid in my life over $40,000 in insurance for nothing. And the government mandates that you have it so you have no choice. No different from organized crime extortion where you pay or you get beat up, you pay insurance or you get a serious fine (car), or can't buy a house (home). Total scam.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:01 AM
McDonalds should have claimed that years of eating their food gave him an iron stomach that enabled him to survive!

I guess the corporation is probably right, but in a sense it exposed a potential murderer. I mean if hes willing to shoot a McDonalds employee doing the right thing, who else might he have shot?

I think its sick he only got charged with battery, too.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by wolf241e

Ah well in that case, his healthcare costs ought to be reimbursed. However any "compensation" over and above costs seems inappropriate.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:48 AM
What an aboslute disgrace

This guy put his own saftey on the line, at his place of employment. How can that not be in the job scope?

It wouldve made mcdonalds look bad if all their employees just stood back and watched that coward beat that por woman....yet instead of rewarding him, they pull this crap

I hope he wins that money back, and mcdonalds should be ashamed of intself

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:48 AM
Double Post

[edit on 23/2/2009 by OzWeatherman]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:52 AM
reply to post by BorgHoffen

The man worked for minimum wage he probably worked for a franchise owner. McDonalds corporation usually pays not much but above minimum wage.

I don't know how it is now but 3 years ago and longer back the only safety issues dealing with customers were primarily dealing with people that were going to rob the store. McDonalds has a set bunch of rules for opening and closeing the stores to protect the store from robbery.

It's the managers responsibility to control what goes on in stores. The manager should of been the one that stepped in our called the police. But the manager might of had a standing rule that males in the work place stepped in. I've seen many female managers that do that.

I use to be a fast food manager for McDonalds. Each store handles it their own way. Each manager handles it in their own way. Odds are this wasn't the first time this store had trouble in it. Just the first time a trouble maker retaliated.

Questions should be..was it common practice for the help to step in?

Was it common practice for the door to be guarded after an incident?

Where was the manager, McDonalds is always to have at least 2 managers on duty on every shift. A front end manager and a back end manager. Where were they?

Oh wait I forgot most of them run for the back when there is trouble. They may have a cell phone on their hip but for some reason they need to use the office phone to call police leaving the crew to deal with what is going on.

Now why would McDonalds pay workers comp? Geez they don't even like to pay workers comp for employees that get hurt on the job doing duties in their job discription.

I might of made good money when I was a manager for McDonalds but the way McDonalds treats their crew members gets worse and worse all the time. That is usually the fault of the franchise owners. They want to make that profit and they are making it on the backs of the crew members.

I have seen corporate step in and try to get better pay and benefits for franchise owners workers but in the end result the franchise owner is the one with the say.

Search it out and find out if the store was owned by McDonalds or just carries the name. If its owned by a franchise owner then people in that a community need to step up and boycott all that franchises stores. Even protest and picket outside of the owners house if thats what it takes.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by LostNemesis
reply to post by thesearch

As far as I know, Domestic Abuse is not actually against the law, unless charges are pressed by the victim.

It is in Ontario...likely Canada as a whole because too many victims recanted their stories after bail had been posted. As to the employee's fault for coming to the woman's rescue?

Really? Are you saying he's the last hero?

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:17 AM
Well I guess I will have to teach my six year old duaghter the meaning and methods of protest as McDonalds will be her first.

So that is going to be one happy meal and two adult meals per month gone from thier revenue.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:20 AM
reply to post by LostNemesis

I agree- if the employee thought there was a problem, then he should have called 911. I realize that he was the good samaritan to the customer, but he was acting on his own. It's not like he was shot during a robbery attempt. Can't pay the bill, file bankruptcy like everyone else does and move on.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:22 AM
reply to post by LostNemesis

And yeah, in psychology class, my teacher calls it the 'bystander effect' when somebody is being attacked or stolen from in front of MANY people and they all just watch thinking someone else will do something.

Isn't that called the Homer Simpson Syndrome ?
Why can't someone else take care of it ?

Dude, when you see someone getting slapped about, you do what you can to stop it.

That could have been my wife, mum, sister friend, daughter and I would have been glad of anyones' intervention should I have not been there.

We all seem to have the same attitude toward the likes of Iraq,Afghanistan,Palestein etc. We see the unacceptable violence against others but turn our heads asking why someone else do something about it.

It's appalling to think that only one person took some action in this incident, but it sums up the mentality of those who live off "Crap in a Bap".

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:24 AM

Originally posted by TheComte
The underlying fact here is that the "insurance industry" will do anything to avoid paying out claims to anyone.

Yes, but the trade from Micky-D's is worth something too. They could say "fix it!", and the insurance company would scamper. The words on the release form with the cheque would read 'without precedent or prejudice', and the deed is done.

So McD's is not helpless here, cuz you can always move along to the next insurance company.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:32 AM
The last time I was in a McDonalds was in 1986 when I bought a root beer. I'd be happy to see them all vanish overnight. I'm hoping that this generates some negative publicity.

Usually in retail, if there's some disturbance on the shop floor, it's someone on a lower rung that is sent to sort it out before one of the managers are called in. I don't see this as being any different. If something had happened where McDonalds were reproached because the woman had been hurt, it would be the staff on the floor who didn't respond to it that would have been in the firing line (no pun intended) waaaaay before a manager. I see this man in a 'no win' situation where he'd have been damned if he had or damned if he hadn't.

I'm not sure exactly what McDonalds owe this guy, but they owe him something.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

What input did McDonalds have when filling out the insurance forms that had to go in?

Rule number 1 always make it look like the employee was at some fault for whatever happened on the insurance forms.

Rule number 2 Make sure it looks like the employee was doing this on own accord not from direction or past direction of supervisors.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by wolf241e

Oh this makes sense. Give millions to a woman who didn't know coffee was hot but dismiss compensation to an employee shot on the job.

I'm not usually like this (sue happy) but it is not impossible for the man to fight fire with fire. He could sue as a person and not as an employee. Stranger suits have been filed and won (like the woman who was stabbed in a bar and sued the club for not providing security). Although I don't think it was the club's or McDonald's responsibility, I'm just saying this is one way the man could go for blood.

He seems above that, though, and is only trying to be reimbursed for his medical expenses.

Also, not sure if anyone noticed (some were asking for the video): It is at the very bottom of the article. You can see the original security footage, a newscast, and an official view/defense of the man and a possible outcome to the events.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:43 AM
Last I checked, any injury that happens while working is paid by the State, usually by Worker's Comp. All employers that have a minimum number of employees pay into it. It does not matter if the injury was the result of performing typical job duties or horseplay or anything else that is against an employer's policies. Only exceptions are if the employee is impaired by drugs or alcohol at the time of the injury. Thus if you smoke "something" and it is in your system when tested, sorry about your luck.

All that said, I worked as security at a hospital. It was an unarmed security job. Our policy was that we could not attack to break anything up. We could threaten and intimidate, but could not cross the line. The exception was if it came to self defense. So if nurse was being pounded in the ground, all I could do is say "stop that". Unless of course I "somehow" shifted his focus to me, then I could defend myself.

In four years, I only had to draw back my hand once to prepare. That person later ended up having 3 police officers, 2 nurses and a doctor to restrain him. I had been relieved at the time by the officers to prepare for a medvac helicopter due to land.

In my opinion, there may be something else going on with this McDonald's story not being mentioned. Best guess would be that they failed to have a urine test ran, or that this particular store kept their numbers below minimum required to pay for coverage or that the worker did not qualify due to not enough working hours for coverage.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in