Any one else notice that we keep having ‘news’ stories about peoples opinions? I was watching the actual news (don’t do that much lately) and the 80% of their ‘reporting’ was getting peoples hot takes on what happened. Like, wtf do I care what some random fuck who was filling their gas tank up while you were on site ‘reporting’ thinks about some kids stealing shit from that gas station?

Yeah I enjoyed OW for a bit. Me and the gf would play mayhem mode when it was up. We stopped playing when they forced the change to OW2 and took some of the skins. I miss ow, but have no desire to play OW2.

I ran out of popcorn kid, my give a shits meter of what some rando on the internet thinks regarding my life is at 0. But hey, you do you fella! Ever wonder why you get passed up for any promotions that involve managing people? Because your decisions are a liability to your company! Now you know.

Well, I’ll go ahead and stick with my own experience over some random dude on the internet. You jumped from harassment, to criminal harassment (yes, these are different levels of harassment), saying taco bell needs to handle criminal levels of harassment, to now not answering the question completely about who has the responsibility to take criminal harassment to the authorities. BTW, my experience is about 15 years in mid and 10 years in upper level management. I’m guessing you read something or talked to some buddies to get your levels of experience.

So you believe it’s taco bells responsibility to get the authorities involved, not the victim?

I’m pretty sure you insinuated that Taco Bell should handle criminal harassment in another post, so I’m going to go ahead and just assume you’re a troll and not reply.

CORRECT, certain levels of harassment ARE CRIMINAL. Then guess who gets to deal with that level of harassment? *Hint- It’s not taco bell EDIT: I had to come back on this one and ask, did you even read your own post? Are you really saying it’s taco bells job to get involved in criminal harassment? Are you trolling…?

This is indeed the correct thing to do, if the harassment can be verified or is at a level that merits such termination. I once was involved in a disciplinary case where a group of unionized employees claimed one employee was harassing them by having a bad odor every day. They put to their steward that this was a hostile work environment. I documented several times where I personally talked to the employee, never smelt a thing. Should I have fired or moved that employee? A lot of people here make quite a few assumptions on the extremely limited info provided…

It doesn’t make your terrible ideas any less terrible. So far I’ve given you several reasons why they are terrible, and you have replied with nonsense about your age as if it’s relevant. Hint: It isn’t EDIT: Also, I asked you in my post (it was the only question that was asked in the entire post) “Have any of you actually worked before…?” To which you *replied * “Umm, no.” So tell me again how I made an assumption and don’t know shit about your experiences. I will make one assumption, you’ve been having trouble with communication ever since you started working at 12.

That’s cool. When you do get into the workforce, you’ll find it’s never as black and white as it seems. I’ve run into just as many people claiming victim when in reality they are the problem. Not saying that is the case with this person, but moving everyone that they claim is harassing them is foolish and leaves your company open to retaliation claims. Now you know.

Umm, no. Someone being forced to move to a different location based on accusations is about as silly as firing them over accusations. They can and will file a complaint with the state labor board. Have any of you actually worked before…?

That’s not strategy bud, that’s American workplace law. Not sure what you do in your country, but here when there are claims of harassment, you provide a safe work environment. Obviously since claims of harassment are hard to substantiate unless there are eye witnesses or video evidence, moving them to a location they couldn’t be harassed was the best idea. Not sure how you equate whatever you are trudging up with the Catholics to this workplace issue. Sounds a bit idiotic to me but…whatever.

Yeah, I said that… Those would be the people she still worked with that were pissy she narced… Taco bells job is to provide a safe work environment, which they did by offering to move her to another location to combat this.

Eh, not really sure what she is suing taco bell for. They fired the people involved, who then harassed her (but they’re fired so…). Some of the people she still worked with were pissy that she narced, so they then harassed her. Taco bell then offered to move her to another location. Sounds to me like taco bell did what they could for her…

My hard disagree wasn’t with the actual gov murder of innocents, it was with dragging that into the debate.I did reread how I worded it and even confused myself so I can see I didn’t express it correctly. I guess a better way for me to have worded that is, if we’re going to wax apathetic about government murder of innocents, fix that problem separately. It has nothing to do with cases where there is obvious guilt.

It has nothing to do with the suffering… It is the most economical and straightforward way to deal with the punishment. If I had personal ties to it, I would probably want them to be alive and suffer Clockwork Orange style…

“It’s never the answer because we can never be 100% correct.” The only argument I partially concede to. We as humans abuse systems to achieve our own goals, and ‘truths’ are all a matter of perspective. “And the government putting innocent people to death is horrific.” Hard disagree. They do it all the damn time and at least it would be under the guise of justice in this case.

“It’s also more expensive so the ONLY reason to put people to death is to satisfy bloodthirsty vengeance.” You seem pretty biased here. Any time someone tries to debate a point with the words ‘only’ or similar but then base it off perspective, is a flawed debate.

That sounds like a system issue and a cause of groups attempting to make the death penalty less attractive. Once there is irrefutable proof that a horrific crime such as this has been committed, there is no argument thus far that has convinced me death isn’t the most logical punishment. I’ve heard them all, for…a long time. The only thing that keeps me from the 100% point is that, like I said, humans have a history of abusing it when it comes to minority’s or the ‘irrefutable proof’ part.

Murder and justice are two different types of killings, in my opinion.

I don’t know why taxpayers need to pay to shelter and feed this woman for 78 years… I get it, humans abuse the death sentence, but there are plenty of cases where it’s the answer.