Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2878-2882 (19-23 January 2015)
plusorminus:
--- Quote from: qc001 on 19 Jan 2015, 23:11 ---
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1123 - She already sort of did that, though Angus did not mention that he was lactose-intolerant prior to her making that particular drink (though unless he got his coffee black every day - which perhaps he did, since he would just throw it out - Angus likely would have asked for non-dairy creamers in his beverages, which he always ordered from Faye...)
--- End quote ---
I hear you on that, but causing someone to get the runs is not on the level of causing someone to go into anaphylactic shock. I know you're not equating the two, and I'm not trying to dismiss your point. It's just that as you said, Angus didn't specify. It could be argued that Faye should have asked, but he didn't make it clear and it was an honest mistake. If Faye, impaired by liquor, were to add dangerous, life-threatening substances to a customer's drink after said customer alerted her to a severe allergy would be grounds for Dora's arse to be nailed to the wall.
I'm sensitive about this because my fiance has a nut allergy and in college was nearly murdered by an asshole server who thought my guy was "being difficult" about asking how the food was prepared because of said allergy and deliberately doused his food in peanut oil. My fiance did not sue the restaurant, though I think he should have (this was before we met). The server was fired, however, word got out, and the business went under about a year later.
But, to take your point, if Faye were to do that again, and instead of the runs, the customer got severe cramping and vomitting requiring hospitalization... yeah. No good. This is a shop that handles foodstuffs, some of which are served at extremely hot temperatures. There can't be anything left to chance here. An impaired employee is just asking for trouble.
I also resent that it seems Dora can't win for losing in this case. If she shrugged it off and Faye caused mayhem, then she would have been lambasted as too permissive. There was actually nothing that Dora could do in this case that wouldn't result in some sort of (IMO unfair) backlash against her, and as a fan of hers, it gets tiresome. I'm all for holding her accountable when she does something irredeemably dumb (the "hug" incident, ignoring Marten's stricture to stay out of his porn, the Sven stuff), but it just is frustrating as hell that there is such a large and vocal contingent of people who will use any logic to justify their dislike of her.
MrNumbers:
--- Quote from: TRVA123 on 19 Jan 2015, 23:15 ---Mr Numbers, out of curiosity, why is it so important to you that Faye not be fired?
Especially, as numerous people have pointed out, Faye could be rehired when she gets her shit back together. At this point it almost seems like a semantics argument; "It would be just like Faye was fired, but without Dora having to say the word fired!"
--- End quote ---
Genuinely because I purely think it's a poor business decision made more out of hurt than calm thought. Or maybe Dora thinking she's trying to be calm and rational and overshooting the mark.
If I genuinely thought Dora was doing this just so she could hire Faye back, well... I don't think that's the case. Dora isn't the kind of person to do that. For one thing, it's incredibly dishonest, and for another, Dora doesn't have that subtlety. Faye's gone. That's it.
If she was just going to be hired back, then it would be better to be upfront about that and hammer in that this is an intentional punishment rather than lie about it for shock/scare value because... do I really need to explain that one?
And if you honestly believe that it would be better that Faye be hired back, why are you so determined to argue against me that a two weeks unpaid vacation combined with a hefty salary cut wouldn't be good enough?
--- Quote ---there is a difference between threatening someone with a weapon in a clearly sarcastic way
--- End quote ---
I have PTSD. A surprising amount of people do. If you waved a weapon at any of those people in a 'sarcastic way', your attorney would be facepalming so goddamn hard.
"Why did a coffee shop need a broadsword anyway?"
"We use it to threaten customers whose drink order is too complicated, or if they use a Starbucks coffee size." <- Remember that? That happened.
Warning - while you were typing 3 people overtook you. Fire that blue shell you've been saving.
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 19 Jan 2015, 23:21 ---I am amused by all the emotion this stirred up. I don't know why.
--- End quote ---
Probably because you're a baaad person?
explicit:
See, that's what I feel is weird. If you state this is poor business decision I'm going to have to vehemently disagree.
Say if I'm a business owner, an employee of mine is drunk on the job; unless there was a work sponsored event with alcohol just before that that person is getting so very fired. With the amount of money Dora is working with that's basically all she can do. She does not have the resources to see someone through a detox program and even if she did she'd still be in the right simply because being drunk at work is pretty... pretty bad... Again, it only takes Faye to fuck up once while she's drunk and the business will probably be destroyed (through the process of law). That's a huge risk for little reward, the two things you usually aren't looking for in "good business decision".
Regardless of friendship or feelings, the decision ought to be the same.
qc001:
--- Quote from: plusorminus on 19 Jan 2015, 23:22 ---I hear you on that, but causing someone to get the runs is not on the level of causing someone to go into anaphylactic shock.
--- End quote ---
Oh, believe me, I completely agree. Food alterations leading to anaphylaxis are no joke, regardless of whether it occurred due to a purely innocent accident, alcohol/chemical-induced negligence, or malicious intent.
On a not-really-related note, I would love to see a strip or two that shows what Angus has been up to since we last saw him in http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2815.
MrNumbers:
--- Quote from: explicit on 19 Jan 2015, 23:32 ---See, that's what I feel is weird. If you state this is poor business decision I'm going to have to vehemently disagree.
--- End quote ---
You don't have to put Faye through a detox program. You don't have to spend any money. Hell, cutting her salary but keeping the same level of competent employee, since they have that incident hanging over their head, is tantamount to a bargain, with faint undertones of blackmail...
If Faye ever, ever, did this again, I'd be completely agreeing with you. But a lone incident should not a years-long career inherently break.
EDIT:
Let's put this in the context of being caught drink-driving, a situation which very realistically gets people killed.
Here in Australia a drink-driving offense has an immediate 250 dollar fine, $500 dollars maximum if the court finds you off, for a first offense. You also get five demerit points: About the same as going 35 kilometers - about 20 miles - over the speed limit.
You need to lose 12 in a three year period before you lose your license.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version