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..
Anyone else notice how happy everyone looks? Crazy how your happiness goes through the worth when you're not trying to control what everyone else does...
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.
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.
I always enjoy when people lash out with 'you must be smarter' troll bait from a simple observation.
Side note; I've stayed in Strongsville many times when traveling for work in Cleveland. It's not a huge burb by any means, and it's also not 'empty' or completely devoid of life. I certainly wouldn't think there were areas I could crash my car and not have anyone report it over half an hour.
FYI I'm only replying to you to hopefully educate you. If you pop your mouth off with more trollish bullshit it's just going to be insta ignore. But by all means...
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..