Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | Karl, you have proof that COMCAST published it?
Or did rogue employee(s) do it. My silly guess is that publishing a customers check is a violation of numerous Comcast management policies.
Accuracy in your reporting would help your credibility when it comes to cable fanboys crying anti-cable bias.
If it's rogue employees, you should say as much in your sensationalized headline. If it's Comcast policy (like the capping or TSing) then and only then is it "Comcast" doing it. |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| IF this sub sent her payment like must people, then this payment went to a lockbox which processes thousands of payments via machines. If machine can't process payment than it most likely spit it out to be processed manually. Either person who handled check saw what was on it figured it couldn't be cashed anyway and made copy of it before destroying it or they sent it to Comcast for further inquiry. This is of course assuming that the check ever made it to lockbox to begin with.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather  :Or did rogue employee(s) do it. My silly guess is that publishing a customers check is a violation of numerous Comcast management policies. Accuracy in your reporting would help your credibility when it comes to cable fanboys crying anti-cable bias. If it's rogue employees, you should say as much in your sensationalized headline. If it's Comcast policy (like the capping or TSing) then and only then is it "Comcast" doing it. Like it or not, employees on company time and using company resources are representing the company. That's how it works. You can boo hoo all you like, but that doesn't change that LEGAL fact.
The title of the thread is legally accurate. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | No guy, just because Comcast corporate is financially responsible doesn't mean Comcast corporate did it.
It's like if your kid TPs a house. You as a parent are financially responsible to clean it up but it doesn't mean YOU did it. To the contrary, you prohibit such behavior just as Comcast certainly prohibits forwarding copies of customer checks. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by Dogfather :No guy, just because Comcast corporate is financially responsible doesn't mean Comcast corporate did it. It's like if your kid TPs a house. You as a parent are financially responsible to clean it up but it doesn't mean YOU did it. To the contrary, you prohibit such behavior just as Comcast certainly prohibits forwarding copies of customer checks. If you take "Comcast corporate" and subtract the employees from it, there is nobody left except for passive investors.
When an employee acts, he or she acts for the company. We need to accept that people make mistakes, including mistakes in judgment.
If someone got fired over this single incident, that's quite seriously too bad. He or she probably thought the check was an expression of humor, and she passed on the expression of humor to others who might enjoy it.
That was a dumb mistake, for all of the ID-theft reasons mentioned already. If it was one in a series of dumb mistakes, then maybe a new career field is in order.
But anyway -- "Comcast" did this -- not by "policy and procedure" but likely by an exception to it. And Comcast recognized this and made it right.
So quit taking Karl to task for something that Comcast has accepted and corrected.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | Comcast didn't do it...a rogue employee did.
Comcast raises rates.
Comcast has phantom caps.
Comcast engages in predatory pricing.
Comcast doesn't post people's checks online.
And absolutely I'm going to call Karl to task when he says "Comcast" did something that "Comcast" didn't do. |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| You may not be aware...
but when you are an employee of the company, you are acting on behalf of that company. That's why they're called "representatives" - you represent the company. One ignorant sort can cause a company black mark - which is why they have employee policies against such things.
Comcast IS to blame, even though "the company" didn't do anything...a representative of the company, while IN THE EMPLOY of said company, did. That makes them to blame by proxy. It's their fault for not having the proper controls in place to assess people's work properly...to prevent things like this from happening. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Read the thread. Comcast didn't do it. A rogue employee acting in violation of Comcast policies did.
Is Comcast liable? Yes, just as a parent is liable for the actions of their teen kid.
IOW, "Comcast" is liable, but not to blame. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| said by Dogfather :Read the thread. Comcast didn't do it. A rogue employee acting in violation of Comcast policies did. Is Comcast liable? Yes, just as a parent is liable for the actions of their teen kid. IOW, "Comcast" is liable, but not to blame. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence···ployment
Explain the difference? Comcast is to "blame" for shitty employee practices, period. If their management can't manage their employees to not circulate customer checks on the internet, torture cats, etc., then they are to blame for the backlash of negative PR about their company, which in turn will affect their bottom line through customer disconnects. They need to do a better job in their hiring, training, and retention of employees.
Why not just blame Beavis and Butthead? "Comcast didn't do it, Beavis and Butthead did!" |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| Read the thread, I've already explained it a few times but I'll explain it again.
You are a parent of a teen. That teen TPs a house. You are LIABLE for cleaning it up but YOU didn't do it...the teen did. You forbid some behavior and will discipline your teen for doing it, but the law says YOU, not the teen are liable for the damage. Same goes for Comcast. "Comcast" didn't do it, a rogue employee did. Comcast is liable, but Comcast didn't do it. |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| Down where I come from we call that semantics. Your analogy is flawed.
The kid is not "representing" the parent in that case. There's a difference between a parent who is liable for the actions of their child and a company who has an employee (meaning they pay that person to represent them in official matters) that does something wrong. You can't give Comcast a pass just because an individual did something stupid.
Are you telling me that just because the director of IT/ CIO/CTO/whoever decided not to purchase solid encryption, if a disk with customer NPI is stolen, that it's the individual's fault for making the decision? No. It's a reflection on the company. The COMPANY made that decision.
In the eyes of the general (read: normal) public, COMCAST did this, because Comcast didn't do enough to prevent it from happening in the first place.
You're turning terminology into semantics my friend. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | There is no difference. You are liable for the actions of your kids just as Comcast is liable for the actions of their employees, no matter whether you or Comcast condone such behavior.
In circulating the check, that employee was not representing or executing the policies of Comcast. From the looks of it, the employee either stole or made a totally unauthorized copy of the check then without Comcast corporate knowledge or approval, circulated it online. And when Comcast found out, according to the blog, those employees were terminated and Comcast gave the customer hundreds of dollars in credits.
It was a violation of Comcast policy to do it and Comcast didn't authorize it. It was a rogue employee, not Comcast.
Comcast may be legally liable because that is statute, but Comcast in no way shape for form authorized it.
I give Comcast a pass in terms of Karl's headline being total bullshit.
Comcast has caps.
Comcast engages in predatory pricing.
Comcast lied about traffic shaping.
Those are/were all company policy.
Comcast did not circulate a customer's check. Period. And all yer hating of Comcast doesn't change this very simple fact.
I've defended many of Karl's anti-Comcast headlines, but this one is indefenseable and absolutely biased.
But it doesn't matter; in the eyes of the Comcast haters, Comcast is the reason why it rains and why their coffee gets cold. |
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :No guy, just because Comcast corporate is financially responsible doesn't mean Comcast corporate did it. It's like if your kid TPs a house. You as a parent are financially responsible to clean it up but it doesn't mean YOU did it. To the contrary, you prohibit such behavior just as Comcast certainly prohibits forwarding copies of customer checks. I have to agree with him, the employee is representing Comcast regardless. |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| reply to Dogfather
"Comcast did not circulate a customer's check."
- The employee WORKS FOR COMCAST.
- The employee USED COMCAST RESOURCES TO DISTRIBUTE THE CHECK.
- Comcast DID NOT PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING.
What does that mean? It means that because a representative of Comcast did something, Comcast did something.
Don't ignore my IT analogy; it's the same thing. Just because an individual employee of a company makes a decision doesn't give the company a pass. If your representative does wrong, YOU do wrong. The child analogy doesn't fly because the child is NOT representing the parents; the child isn't under contract or employ to his/her parents!!
Read just about any employee handbook and you'll see the same section. Why do you think companies have Codes of Conduct?? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :Read the thread, I've already explained it a few times but I'll explain it again. You can say it 10,000 times, say it backwards, put it in capital letters. It doesn't change anything.
I agree with you that an employee acted out of bounds. That doesn't change the fact that in both fact and effect, Comcast owns the whole schmole'.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | reply to ReVeLaTeD
It's EXACTLY like a parent/child liability and there are no "codes of conduct" for children because by statute a parent is liable for all the actions of their children. Unlike employees, children are legally under the direct control of parents and the responsiblity of parents 24/7/365.25. But again, just as parents may be liable for the acts of their kids, the parents aren't the ones committing the acts.
And no, if the representative (which not all employees are representing the company 24/7) does wrong, the representative does wrong.
It's also not a given that Comcast is actually liable for this at all and are giving credits to keep the customer from cancelling. They very well may be liable, but at least in Calfornia, they may not be liable for the criminal acts of employees unless the crime is committed during the scope of business AND the employer was negligent in hiring or retaining the employee. For the employer to be liable, it would have to be proved the Comcast was "careless" in hiring the circulator of the bill.
In stealing Comcast property, and possibly taking it home and posting it online, that employee is not performing the duties of the company and isn't on the clock. The employee postings is being done outside the control of Comcast.
Whether Comcast is even liable is questionable (and the blogger acknowledged as much as she couldn't find a lawyer to take her case) and Comcast certainly didn't distribute the check.
Given this headline, it is my opinion that Karl has a bias against Comcast corporate and will twist headlines to further that agenda. It's simply not an accurate headline and I believe that was done by design.
I'm no fan of Comcast but unlike the haters I have objectivity. There are things done by Comcast and there are things that are beyond the control of Comcast. This act was done beyond the control of Comcast and no reasonable unbiased person could expect Comcast to have been able to prevent it. That's all I have to say on this as I'm already repeating myself again and again. Some Comcast haters will blame Comcast for everything no matter what the reality is. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | reply to funchords
It is pointless arguing with people that will blame the Sun going down on Comcast corporate.
Reality to these people is irrelevant and they lack any objectivity. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to Cheese
said by Cheese :said by Dogfather :No guy, just because Comcast corporate is financially responsible doesn't mean Comcast corporate did it. It's like if your kid TPs a house. You as a parent are financially responsible to clean it up but it doesn't mean YOU did it. To the contrary, you prohibit such behavior just as Comcast certainly prohibits forwarding copies of customer checks. I have to agree with him, the employee is representing Comcast regardless. Not if he violates Comcast policy in stealing Comcast property and distributing it him/herself outside the scope of his/her duties.
It is not Comcast policy, Comcast didn't distribute the check. An employee of Comcast, stole Comcast property and did this and was terminated (according to the blog) for it.
Meanwhile I haven't seen the check. How do we know if this story is even true?
Comcast no more distributed the check than a parent TPed someone's house. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :Read the thread, I've already explained it a few times but I'll explain it again. You are a parent of a teen. That teen TPs a house. You are LIABLE for cleaning it up but YOU didn't do it...the teen did. You forbid some behavior and will discipline your teen for doing it, but the law says YOU, not the teen are liable for the damage. Same goes for Comcast. "Comcast" didn't do it, a rogue employee did. Comcast is liable, but Comcast didn't do it. Maybe in the pre 1980's world, but not now. Corporations are entities with legal rights of their own. Your analogy is totally flawed. Kids and corporations are two different things altogether. Comcast's employees ARE Comcast, get it? |
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :said by Cheese :said by Dogfather :No guy, just because Comcast corporate is financially responsible doesn't mean Comcast corporate did it. It's like if your kid TPs a house. You as a parent are financially responsible to clean it up but it doesn't mean YOU did it. To the contrary, you prohibit such behavior just as Comcast certainly prohibits forwarding copies of customer checks. I have to agree with him, the employee is representing Comcast regardless. Not if he violates Comcast policy in stealing Comcast property and distributing it him/herself outside the scope of his/her duties. It is not Comcast policy, Comcast didn't distribute the check. An employee of Comcast, stole Comcast property and did this and was terminated (according to the blog) for it. Meanwhile I haven't seen the check. How do we know if this story is even true? Comcast no more distributed the check than a parent TPed someone's house. Sigh......you don't get it, and your analogy TBH, sucks. |
|
