231
submitted 7 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dimok@reddthat.com 35 points 7 months ago

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..

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

Associates of those fired created issues. Those associates were (and remain?) employees.

[-] Dimok@reddthat.com 2 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago

You've got a bright future in the Catholic Church with those strategies.

[-] Dimok@reddthat.com 5 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago

How is moving the victim even remotely the same as that?

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 14 points 7 months ago

Because you left the problem in a position to do the bad thing to someone else. It's not rocket surgery.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

How so? I doubt the employees are going to be shitty to a new hire that didn't "rat" on anyone.

Bad work relationships exist everywhere and one valid solution is to split the offending parties up. That's not "leaving the problem" as is, it's an active attempt to address the problems at hand.

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

I guess it is rocket surgery. Harassment isn't a "bad work relationship," it's a crime. If you and I worked together and I broke a window on your car and instead of me getting fired and/or arrested, you get moved to another branch, you cannot tell me you wouldn't feel cheated at the very least.

[-] Dimok@reddthat.com -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

CORRECT, certain levels of harassment ARE CRIMINAL. Then guess who gets to deal with that level of harassment? *Hint- It's not taco bell EDIT: I had to come back on this one and ask, did you even read your own post? Are you really saying it's taco bells job to get involved in criminal harassment? Are you trolling..?

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago

You really think I'm saying there's a taco bell jail or are you the troll?

[-] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

If they’re shitty to a person that reported something like this then they’re shitty people who will be shitty to everyone. Fire the lot, start that Taco Bell over. Pull the franchise from the owner over it and sell it to someone else as well

this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
231 points (98.7% liked)

News

21821 readers
6036 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS