how-to block ads
|
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
Re: Karl, you have proof that COMCAST published it?
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. | |
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| "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?? | |
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 | 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. | |
|
