| Being under investigation ISN'T a conviction until the courts decide that he's 'a threat', the guy has EVERY RIGHT to continue his job. What gives comcast, or anyone , the right to discriminate against anyone just because they are 'accused'. I thought this was the US, and you were innocent until PROVEN guilty. The fact that he was under investigation didn't make him guilty.
It pains me to see people post that comcast should have fired the guy. Sure, he was under investigation. But that's NOT A CONVICTION. Hell, I could accuse our favorite right wing nut job of something, and would that give me the right to terminate his employment? Absolutely not! So in spite of the fact that the contractor DID kill someone, I most certainly do not have the right to disipline him for some 'future crime' he might commit.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by karlmarx:until the courts decide that he's 'a threat', the guy has EVERY RIGHT to continue his job. What gives comcast, or anyone , the right to discriminate against anyone just because they are 'accused'. I thought this was the US, and you were innocent until PROVEN guilty. The fact that he was under investigation didn't make him guilty. You must be new.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
| reply to karlmarx
Karl, I agree with you on a lot of things, but you are way off base on this. This guy worked with the public representing Comcast. It doesn't matter if the police or John Q Public notified Comcast that this guy potentially harmed/harms customers while on the job. Comcast is required to remove him from the situation until they finish their investigation. If they choose to ignore it then they open themselves up to civil penalties. Yes, it would suck if someone falsely accused you of something that got you suspended from your job with pay, but you have recourse. If you are vindicated you get your job back, and you can sue the accuser. |
|
| reply to karlmarx
I think you are way off base here. I'm no less concerned about the rights of the accused than you are. Everything has its limits and rights have to be balanced with other rights. I agree with those above that talk about leave while the investigation continues. He didn't have to be fired, but it was unconscionable for comcast to continue to send him out into people's homes with such an investigation hanging over him. You can't treat all jobs the same. This is a job that involves people having to let a stranger into their home, where they are especially vulnerable once a predator gets in. He was already under investigation for a murder connected to another service call he had made while doing such contract work and comcast knew this. Suggesting that they should have no ability to act on this is an extreme interpretation of the rights of the accused. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to karlmarx
Normally I would agree, but with such a serious charge, and considering the danger to the customer, I would say suspend him.
I have a friend who's father was murdered at work by a co-worker who was a suspect in a murder investigation. Basically, the murderer was a suspect and going to trial for allegedly being a shooter in a drive-by murder. He of course proclaimed his innocence, and was allowed to continue working.
The suspect, seeing the writing on the wall during his trial decided he was going to run and be a fugitive. Of course he wanted money before he took off so he went to work one Sunday evening and knew there was weekend receipts in a safe that would be picked up by armoured car service the next morning. He waited until 3:00 AM when his accomplice (both involved in the drive by) came to the business. He let his accomplice in thru the door and this guy had brought a baseball bat. When my friend's father walked out of a back storage area they ambushed him and beat him to death with the bat. There was a security camera, but the murder occurred just off camera, but the microphone picked up everything--- the screams, and the thud of the bat beating him. The police said you could hear each thud, thud, thud, of the bat.... apparently over 50 times.... they dragged his body into the storeroom where it appeared the plan was to set the place on fire to cover up the evidence. They stole the safe using the freight dolly, but while they were loading it into their car they were spotted by a citizen who quickly called police. They must of seen him looking at them because they fled immediately with the safe instead of going back in and cleaning up the crime scene or starting the fire.
The sick thing is he beat a guy to death that he'd supposedly been on good terms with and had worked with for 2 years. It was really sick. The police had the tape and all the evidence they needed.... they did flee to California (the safe they dumped at his grandmothers, never opened) but were caught and extradited back and sent to prison.
So, yeah, I'd say if a employee (or contractor) is a suspect in murder or attempted murder or other very violent crime, he shouldn't be working until such time as they are cleared... or if convicted the termination is of course final.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
| Well said Krk, I'm sorry about the loss of your friends father. Give your friend and his/her family my condolences, best wishes and May God Bless. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to dwhayden
You are right except for one thing. They are not "required" to remove an employee because they are reported as a "suspect".. if someone is "potentially harmful" then it's the police department's job to "remove" the individual under suspicion or other charges they may be able to get him on.
Comcast is in a strange place on this one. If there is nothing formal against the employee, rather just a "hunch" then comcast opens themselves up for a law suite either way. An employee can call race against comcast, or the employee really kills someone and comcast gets sued too.
If I were in the place of the management at that division of CC, I would have err'd on the side of reassigning the employee temporarily. But again, if the police were that worried, they should have picked him up and held him to the extent the law allows.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown |
|
