Terminated

Hitting a pregnant guest with anything, let alone a cart, is a massive PR liability and would totally get you canned.

Next time you see a pregnant lady at work "accidentally" run into her with your cart. See what happens. Let's test the theory.

For science.
 
Hitting a pregnant guest with anything, let alone a cart, is a massive PR liability and would totally get you canned.
Next time you see a pregnant lady at work "accidentally" run into her with your cart. See what happens. Let's test the theory. For science.
In the past, I worked for an insurance company handling premises liability and personal injury claims, some of which went into court. Here's info from the other thread:
Today I was using the machine to push the carts. And I happen to accident hit a car denting it on the side. I dont know what's gonna happen with the situation I just want to know what is the worst outcome. Today was a busy day with all the cars driving by fast in the parking lot I thats to stop the machine many time and that's when the carts deattached and I happen to push the button and the deattached carts happens to ram into a guest car.
The thing is I did accident hit a customer only that it's on me because even though the customer was just standing there and on the phone and then called me an ass***because she was pregnant complain to my manager even though I apologized.i dont even know if they are gonna let this one go
(bold added for emphasis)
You can read more on this from the other thread. The cart attendant TM had been performing the job for 9 months and I take their comments about the abnormal parking lot traffic as reflecting several months' experience. "Massive PR liability" would be the Target Credit Card Data Breach of 2013, not a truly unfortunate but isolated accident involving premises liability. Target has plenty of insurance coverage and lawyers. With a huge company, this is a risk of doing business. This kind of stuff does happen. I think it's quite disturbing that the TM has been fired over this, given that no cart attendant in the world can absolutely predict the behavior of nearby motorists and pedestrians, or a split-second malfunction in the machine or a split-second hitting the wrong button on the machine.
 
Last edited:
It is disturbing, yes. But this is a world where someone can post something on social media that is 1% truth and 99% lies, and it will reach a wide audience so fast with the right words chosen to garner a deep emotional reaction. Complete strangers, truly believing the post to be truthful, will work in solidarity to punish the "wrongdoer" by boycott and convincing others to boycott. Some companies are responding by eliminating the visible source of the problem, so they can tell the public everything is fixed to avoid the boycotting and people getting in the habit of shopping elsewhere. Companies that don't respond in that manner often put out a statement where a single word or two can be twisted to fan the flames.

All it would take is one pregnant woman to demand both payment for doctors' bills and a ridiculous amount for emotional distress compensation, if what she is given is lacking in her eyes she turns to social media. 1% truth about what parking lot she was in, 99% lies that she was hit deliberately, she nearly lost the baby, Target won't pay for all her medical needs, local store management wouldn't even listen to her complaint, she's never going to Target again, she hopes that no one else will go to a company that thinks so little of their staff deliberately hurting people, and she's having flashbacks from the incident. At that point, corporate will demand blood so they can go back and say that they've fixed all the local store's problems that led to this.
 
In the past, I worked for an insurance company handling premises liability and personal injury claims, some of which went into court. Here's info from the other thread:
(bold added for emphasis)
You can read more on this from the other thread. The cart attendant TM had been performing the job for 9 months and I take their comments about the abnormal parking lot traffic as reflecting several months' experience. "Massive PR liability" would be the Target Credit Card Data Breach of 2013, not a truly unfortunate but isolated accident involving premises liability. Target has plenty of insurance coverage and lawyers. With a huge company, this is a risk of doing business. This kind of stuff does happen. I think it's quite disturbing that the TM has been fired over this, given that no cart attendant in the world can absolutely predict the behavior of nearby motorists and pedestrians, or a split-second malfunction in the machine or a split-second hitting the wrong button on the machine.

Target is not an insurance company. Your argument is outside the bounds of the situation.

You have a scale, on one side you have PR, on the other you have the team-member. The scale always tips to the PR side because to a major corporation, the value of PR is much higher than that of a single employee, regardless of the employee.

The cost of replacing an employee is quantifiable - the sunk cost of a terminated employee is essentially the cost to onboard them.
The cost of repairing PR is not inherently quantifiable - this represents a much larger risk.

The risk of negative PR in this situation calls for pre-emptive risk mitigation, and that mitigation is removing the source of the potential risk. It's really that simple.
 
Target is not an insurance company. Your argument is outside the bounds of the situation.
I strongly disagree. When companies are sued, the company shares the cost of legal defense with the insurance carrier because in 99.99% of cases. The number-one reason big companies will NOT volunteer up-front to pay claimants anything is because of their obligations to their insurance carrier. The insurance carrier ultimately pays for the pre-trial settlement OR, in the statistically rare cases which go to trial, the court ordered judgment. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE INSURANCE MONEY!

You have a scale, on one side you have PR, on the other you have the team-member. The scale always tips to the PR side because to a major corporation, the value of PR is much higher than that of a single employee, regardless of the employee.
Not "always". An aggrieved employee who successfully gets the ear of major news media, or whose story ultimately "goes viral" in social media, can cause enormous PR damage to the company. You are underestimating the risk to the company of bad publicity. Think about how a few seriously aggrieved employees at Wells Fargo ultimately got the fake-accounts scandal covered in the Los Angeles Times, followed by investigation and findings by the Consumer Financial Protection agency, and the enormous negative publicity, legal and regulatory punishment Wells Fargo has taken since then. The 24/7 media news cycle and enormous power of social media have made it far riskier for a company from a PR perspective to exterminate (that was not a typo) an employee than in the past.

The cost of replacing an employee is quantifiable - the sunk cost of a terminated employee is essentially the cost to onboard them..... The cost of repairing PR is not inherently quantifiable - this represents a much larger risk...........The risk of negative PR in this situation calls for pre-emptive risk mitigation, and that mitigation is removing the source of the potential risk. It's really that simple.
Read above. You and I may disagree on which is the more serious risk. The insurance carrier might well take a very, very dim view of a company which terminates an employee for a bona fide accident, due to the secondary liability which the company may face via employment law litigation and compliance with whistleblower complaints to State and Federal workplace safety regulators, labor regulators, and extremely negative coverage on news media and social media. And if the company fires an employee who is considered in a "protected class", what happens when some very public adversarial figure like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Alexandra Occasio-Cortes or Bernie Sanders goes public on the employee's behalf and really put's the company's management on the fire with TOXIC negative PR. How's this going to affect Target's stock price, Wall Street scuttlebutt, and (cough, cough) insurance carriers, who might even issue a "Reservation of Rights" when the company reports a claim issue.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top