police officers were refused service by several employees at the Five Guys restaurant

[holdover]

Thats true, but in most cases its completely ignored.

If you refuse to back up your fellow officer , or refuse to answer a lot of calls , you wont be working long . Tell that to the supervisory officer when you didn't respond to call for help. because you were not obligated to.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Very rarely have the police been able to stop a mass shooting IN PROGRESS if that is the argument. It’s almost always impossible unless there happens to be a cop next door or in the establishment itself. If they had teleport abilities, that argument could be used.

The one that can be used however that actually makes sense is that they may not respond to disorderly.

 

[holdover]

Well they stopped plenty of other crimes in progress so your point is moot.

 

[Marine Cpl]

More often than not, they usually get there afterwards.

 

[holdover]

Now they dont get there at all.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I doubt that. Like you said. They’d eventually get fired for not going. They may get there dragging their feet to prevent discipline and possibly do a shitty job in catching the criminal but they’ll get there.

 

[tony]

But even if the police try to detain the suspect or disorderly person how do you cuff someone who doesn't want to be cuffed???

What are the "new" rules of engagement?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

What are the "new" rules of engagement?

 

[tony]

Huh?

 

[spat]

Not showing up isn't enough.

It needs to be made common knowledge that they *won't* show up, or investigate anything afterwards.

The restaurant wouldn't last a week after that.

The original meaning of "outlawed".

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Huh?

What he is talking about, which is being proposed in San Francisco, is the new direction things are headed in. That was the point I was trying to make. The rules of engagement will likely be absurd.

 

[Tisto]

So how soon do the employees of 5-guys start getting pulled over on a V-T stop after closing for the night ? What is that smell ?

The franchise owner should axe the whole group. All at once. (S)He has spent a shit-ton of money to buy a franchise, a location, and equipment only to have the business be put in jeopardy by a few idiots.

Having owned a business myself, you can not tolerate any action by an employee that might sink your enterprise. I had to clean house because of stupid shit like this before. It wasn't any fun, but it was absolutely necessary.

 

[GOPerfect]

More often than not, they usually get there afterwards.

Absolutely false information.

 

[GOPerfect]

So how soon do the employees of 5-guys start getting pulled over on a V-T stop after closing for the night ? What is that smell ?

The franchise owner should axe the whole group. All at once. (S)He has spent a shit-ton of money to buy a franchise, a location, and equipment only to have the business be put in jeopardy by a few idiots.

Having owned a business myself, you can not tolerate any action by an employee that might sink your enterprise. I had to clean house because of stupid shit like this before. It wasn't any fun, but it was absolutely necessary.

Owning these franchise's is stupid expensive. Regardless if he agrees with his employees, he needs to fire them all. There are plenty of decent people that will come to work to work.

$152,000 and $360,000. Candidates are asked to have $150,000 liquid assets available. The royalty fee is 6-8%.

This is a lot of money. I know a few people that own franchises, not this one, but others. Their entire life is built into and around these investments. Employees like this will ruin a business.

As for these Police officers, foolish to eat out these days.

 

[Acer-m14]

If I were the owner of that 5 guys, those employees would be let go.

Also, what a lot of people don't realize, is that the police are under no obligation to help you.
Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Ryan McMaken

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So treating them like shit, when they have done nothing to hurt you personally is dumb. You can fight injustice in ways that don't penalize individuals who haven't personally hurt you and are just trying to serve the community.

So true. They have no obligation to help you.

So the idiots that say "When a crackhead breaks in, who you gonna call? Popeyes!? " should be answered with "Why not? They have the same duty to protect you."

just wondering .. can this be applied to the Gov't too catching my drift lol ..

 

[Cooolone]

Do you kneel during the "black anthem"? Or stand for that one?

Hahahaha hahahahahaha...

First Amendment rights apply to the government limiting of speech, so yes, they do have first amendment rights while employed.

The owner can tall them what to say or not to say however.

Ummmmm no, so you contradict yourself, that they have a right, but then the owner can tell them what they can or cannot say... Then it is not a Right!

They of course can chose any action they want. In a way, if course you're correct. But it's a very small slim margin of what they can and or cannot do. Again, while "EMPLOYED"...

Same goes for those Whole Foods employees who want to wear BLM facemasks and think it's ok... Simply amazing!

Or would you think it's ok for them to hand out a flyer, promoting BLM to every customer who received their order at 5 Guys too? I mean, that's 1st Amendment exercise right there, no...? How about being Pro-Life and handing out abortion pictures on a flyer voicing their displeasure with those views in every bag a customer receives because the employee want his/her voice to be heard on an issue?

They have a voice, but while employed, it is limited to representing their employers interest, not theirs! When we talk about "Rights" you are implying that they can say, wear, do what the want as a matter of expression and then the employers actions are then restricted because they have Rights! *It is this point which is incorrect.

So yeah, they can speak, but they have no Right to do so with impunity! Their action can lead to termination, and as a matter of fact, in States like NY, with "at will" hiring laws, their termination requires no cause.

Additionally, if their action was in conflict with a company policy, which they violated, they could be held responsible for damage to the store (Franchise), or even Brand for their actions, if they do chose to exercise their voice in such a manner that caused harm.

Lastly, the absurd argument that the Rights, and or Restrictions on which they may be applied, is only applicable to the Government is a long gone process. Otherwise how do we explain the Baker's who were sued for exercising their Religious beliefs? Lol...

Is all good, I think we all agree that it doesn't matter what they do, as long as they understand that they're responsible for the consequences of their actions, and nobody else!

 

[Darth]

Hahahaha hahahahahaha...



Ummmmm no, so you contradict yourself, that they have a right, but then the owner can tell them what they can or cannot say... Then it is not a Right!

They of course can chose any action they want. In a way, if course you're correct. But it's a very small slim margin of what they can and or cannot do. Again, while "EMPLOYED"...

Same goes for those Whole Foods employees who want to wear BLM facemasks and think it's ok... Simply amazing!

Or would you think it's ok for them to hand out a flyer, promoting BLM to every customer who received their order at 5 Guys too? I mean, that's 1st Amendment exercise right there, no...? How about being Pro-Life and handing out abortion pictures on a flyer voicing their displeasure with those views in every bag a customer receives because the employee want his/her voice to be heard on an issue?

They have a voice, but while employed, it is limited to representing their employers interest, not theirs! When we talk about "Rights" you are implying that they can say, wear, do what the want as a matter of expression and then the employers actions are then restricted because they have Rights! *It is this point which is incorrect.

So yeah, they can speak, but they have no Right to do so with impunity! Their action can lead to termination, and as a matter of fact, in States like NY, with "at will" hiring laws, their termination requires no cause.

Additionally, if their action was in conflict with a company policy, which they violated, they could be held responsible for damage to the store (Franchise), or even Brand for their actions, if they do chose to exercise their voice in such a manner that caused harm.

Lastly, the absurd argument that the Rights, and or Restrictions on which they may be applied, is only applicable to the Government is a long gone process. Otherwise how do we explain the Baker's who were sued for exercising their Religious beliefs? Lol...

Is all good, I think we all agree that it doesn't matter what they do, as long as they understand that they're responsible for the consequences of their actions, and nobody else!

First Amendment rights deal with government censorship of speech. They have first amendment rights on the job.

We explain the baker thing like this: It was ruled they do not have to bake the cake, and rightfully so.

 

[Calculon]

Umm...no?

First of all you have no idea of the views of the franchise owner, secondly anybody has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason (or they should, but that's gotten muddied in the recent years.)

They can be reprimanded, but they are no more "forced" to serve someone than you are "forced" to sell ammo to someone with a BLM shirt on.

I’ll agree that a store doesn’t have to serve anyone it doesn’t want to but it must accept the consequences that result. The owner should have procedures and expectations in place as to how employees deliver service as a reflection of the owner himself. If the owner is a cop-hater and encourages this type of behavior then fine - but be ready to accept the backlash (or support) that accompanies it. However, allowing staff to determine who to serve based on their own biases is a disaster waiting to happen.

So my statement still stands - if it were my franchise they would be terminated for damaging my business reputation.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I’ll agree that a store doesn’t have to serve anyone it don’t want to but it must accept the consequences that result. The owner should have procedures and expectations in place as to how employees deliver service as a reflection of the owner himself. If the owner is a cop-hater and encourages this type of behavior then fine - but be ready to accept the backlash (or support) that accompanies it. However, allowing staff to determine who to serve based on their own biases is a disaster waiting to happen.

So my statement still stands - if it were my franchise they would be terminated for damaging my business reputation.

That's how I see it. If the owner directed his or her staff to not serve certain people, then that is the store policy and they should follow it as per the terms of their employment. If members of the stores staff are exercising their own perogative in who they choose to serve without approval from the owner, then they are harming the owner's business and that should not be tolerated.
Unless the law is different where this instance took place, employment like that is usually "at will". So employees can leave the job when they want for any reason they want and the employer can terminate employment for any reason at any time.

 

[prambo]

Wow!!!

This thread has a plague of trolls.

Use this!!!! It works!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

I’ll agree that a store doesn’t have to serve anyone it don’t want to but it must accept the consequences that result. The owner should have procedures and expectations in place as to how employees deliver service as a reflection of the owner himself. If the owner is a cop-hater and encourages this type of behavior then fine - but be ready to accept the backlash (or support) that accompanies it. However, allowing staff to determine who to serve based on their own biases is a disaster waiting to happen.

So my statement still stands - if it were my franchise they would be terminated for damaging my business reputation.

This. Consequences. Just like Dick’s Sporting Goods.

 

[Airborneguy]

Update. Some got fired, some suspended. So clearly the owner was not part of the woke mob.

 

[CarpNY]

On the rights issue, the 1st does indeed protect from government restricting free speech. Among other things, the government cannot make laws that sensor/restrict speech (other than safety issues, such as screaming "fire" in a crowded room, or apparently hate speech), they cannot send agents to stop someone from speaking out, they cannot arrest you for saying things that they don't like, etc.

An employer cannot restrict or prevent this right, in any way shape or form. However, they can have terms of employment that include not publicly saying something they don't want their employees saying (e.g., a private university with Catholic affiliation that I know of has specific language in their contract that employees cannot speak out against the Catholic church) and can fire employee for saying things that they don't agree with (including posts on social media.) It doesn't restrict the employees right because they don't have to work there and an employer cannot have them arrested for saying anything. This will get you fired, but you won't go to jail ...

 

[Blimey]

Update. Some got fired, some suspended. So clearly the owner was not part of the woke mob.

And even if he was, he was smart enough to know better than to condone this sort of thing at his business.

Only time i've seen people recently being political at work was somebody with a BLM facemask at mcdonalds' drive thru.

 

[Criticalt]

Hahahaha hahahahahaha...



Ummmmm no, so you contradict yourself, that they have a right, but then the owner can tell them what they can or cannot say... Then it is not a Right!

They of course can chose any action they want. In a way, if course you're correct. But it's a very small slim margin of what they can and or cannot do. Again, while "EMPLOYED"...

Same goes for those Whole Foods employees who want to wear BLM facemasks and think it's ok... Simply amazing!

Or would you think it's ok for them to hand out a flyer, promoting BLM to every customer who received their order at 5 Guys too? I mean, that's 1st Amendment exercise right there, no...? How about being Pro-Life and handing out abortion pictures on a flyer voicing their displeasure with those views in every bag a customer receives because the employee want his/her voice to be heard on an issue?

They have a voice, but while employed, it is limited to representing their employers interest, not theirs! When we talk about "Rights" you are implying that they can say, wear, do what the want as a matter of expression and then the employers actions are then restricted because they have Rights! *It is this point which is incorrect.

So yeah, they can speak, but they have no Right to do so with impunity! Their action can lead to termination, and as a matter of fact, in States like NY, with "at will" hiring laws, their termination requires no cause.

Additionally, if their action was in conflict with a company policy, which they violated, they could be held responsible for damage to the store (Franchise), or even Brand for their actions, if they do chose to exercise their voice in such a manner that caused harm.

Lastly, the absurd argument that the Rights, and or Restrictions on which they may be applied, is only applicable to the Government is a long gone process. Otherwise how do we explain the Baker's who were sued for exercising their Religious beliefs? Lol...

Is all good, I think we all agree that it doesn't matter what they do, as long as they understand that they're responsible for the consequences of their actions, and nobody else!

There seems to be some mis communication here.
The employees have their 1st amendment rights while at work.
They can say anything they want and the GOVERNMENT cannot punish them. Thats what the 1st amendment covers.
Then, the owner has the right to fire them.
This has nothing to do with rights, just business and doing the right thing.

And, an employer can tell you what to say as a condition of ypur employment....."good afternoon, welcome to 5 guys, may I take your order?"
The employee is under no obligation to say this but they will be fired.
The employer can only take appropriate action for not saying what they want.....terminate, reprimand.....
They cannot have you punished by the government.

 

[spat]

There seems to be some mis communication here.
The employees have their 1st amendment rights while at work.
They can say anything they want and the GOVERNMENT cannot punish them. Thats what the 1st amendment covers.
Then, the owner has the right to fire them.
This has nothing to do with rights, just business and doing the right thing.

And, an employer can tell you what to say as a condition of ypur employment....."good afternoon, welcome to 5 guys, may I take your order?"
The employee is under no obligation to say this but they will be fired.
The employer can only take appropriate action for not saying what they want.....terminate, reprimand.....
They cannot have you punished by the government.

I've always heard it explained like this:

They have a right to say whatever they want.

They do *not* have a right to continued employment by that business.

 

[SonOfSun]

They do have a right to not serve but don’t be surprised when that place burns down and no one cares. When doing business keep politics and personal emotions aside.

Not so sure on that. The business owners have a right not to serve any patron they want that isn't for a protected reason. Being a cop isnt a protected group. The employees? Yes they can on their own not service a customer, but they wouldn't be protected from justly being let go ftom their job either.

 

[meketrefe]

It has been said before but...
any private business can deny service or entrance for whatever situation or circumstance they consider necessary.
Normally this is done to people who are soliciting, disturbing other customers, create problems and even situations
where security or police might be called to assist.
In this case they absolutely have the right to ask a client to leave but they also need to understand the consequences
of such actions, including a HR investigation, potential termination and even worse consequences.
They are protected for their right to ask anyone to leave as they are representing the business that is in private property.
Now after they exercised their right and because of the frivolous nature of the request they must deal with
whatever the consequences.
As simple as that.

If a business is going to discriminate people based on their job, race, religion, etc... is going to look horrible so I don't think a corporate
counsels and PR managers are going to let those things proliferate. If they do that is good too but I don't think they will.
The businesses contracts and employee policy books are full of clauses to protect customers.

Companies soon are going to realize that, if they do nothing, the Hollywood style PC BS is going to hurt them a lot more
in the long run.

 

[Saltwater60]

They do have a right to not serve but don’t be surprised when that place burns down and no one cares. When doing business keep politics and personal emotions aside.

While they do have the right to not serve them 5 guys corporate can fire them for not doing their jobs too. I doubt that will happen in this climate though.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I've always heard it explained like this:

They have a right to say whatever they want.

They do *not* have a right to continued employment by that business.

Yep.

You have every right to say whatever you think it'll take to get you fired.