you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not claiming you said that. I'm saying if we take a very uncharitable reading of this article it seems like the employees were fired because calling the police was seen as "resisting". I doubt that is actually the case, but that's the impression I've gotten from the media buzz surrounding this, and so will probably be the story that most people assume happened.

The CEO when he gave his response said they had a "zero tolerance policy" which is why I used that term. It's been my experience that zero tolerance policies are an excuse for people to pretend to not be responsible for interpreting such policies in the most strict authoritarian means possible.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Except they didn’t just call the police, they gave chase and tried to tackle the thieves.

If they were sacked for just calling the police then the CEO is a cunt. But I’m sure I’ve seen it stated that they tried to physically intervene themselves.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In that case it's a perfectly justified firing.

I don't really buy the story that "they were fired for calling the police" that's obviously outrage bait. But that's the story getting reported and that's the story that people are going to repeat.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m starting to question everything I hear now, no matter which “side” is reporting it because stories are getting twisted up and then spread when key facts are left out purely to rage bait people.

I think it’s also worthwhile to discuss stories like this, as we have been doing, to hash out the issue. I think we actually agree on pretty much everything.