nsx

You are asking a legal question. Since I'm not a lawyer, I can only answer that as a moral matter, I believe that a company can subcontract work but cannot dodge liability. The company is liable for the actions of its agents. The company can then sue the agents for reimbursement of the damage.

If there was sloppy work (and this applies to any aspect of any business), the business is probably liable. Maybe it can recover from the subcontractors or the employees at fault, maybe not.

magiciansampras

That is pretty much my understanding and view of it as well. Separate from the legal liability issue, I think as a moral matter, the company can't dodge liability.

craz

Only! if it was done in house re; background checks, or they had prior knowledge of what that employee had done while working over at AW, or even if they used an Unreputable firm to carry out the checks, or even if they had warnings about the employee, or if they caught that employee trying to do other things even if not Illegal by law but against the betterment of the company. YEP Ill give You a ^ and JB a . I'd like to think I'm fair.

Thats why above I asked You what I did about if You knew if they did it In House or Outsourced it. Cause I dont know!!! But till I do Im not willing to Bash anyone or anything.

Its too easy to jump to conclusions w/o knowing all or any of the true facts, yet it might come out they knew about for a while and say teh Police asked to let it continue otherwise they wont get them all. Sort of like an Undercover selling Drugs in order to learn whos the people on top and to find the trail. Some will not be held and let go or never arrested, other times it will be noted and they will be rounded up at an appropiate time so as not to let out thats theres an investation on going

magiciansampras

I guess my position is similar to yours, with a couple of minor variations.

I would say:

If B6 knew about the criminal activity of the employee(s):

If B6 didn't know about the criminal activity of the employee:

So, there is still a thumb's down because ultimate moral responsibility rests with the core company, but not nearly as much so if they knew there were problems in the past.

craz

what you said is True.

also If a car that is operated by an employee of say NYC while being Drunk lets say. Yes NYC can and will be sued. But I dont feel NYC is responsible for that employee having becoming drunk and operating the car that they did. I wouldnt say Mayor Bloomberg is responsible since hes the Mayor of NYC.

or say that the driver was working for a contracted company doing work for NYC, again any lawyer will sue the City along with the Employer. But again I wouldnt hold the Mayor responsible nor teh city.

Now if said employee was known to being drunk while working and NYC knew of it and didnt do anything about it, then YES I would say NYC was responsible as they had the info and could have prevented things from happening if they had acted on the info they had. If teh Mayor had had prior knowledge I would say that then he too would hold certain responsibilty for that employees deeds

craz

OK we still would disagree about that 1 , but had you posted what you just did as you did, I would not have accused You of BASHING for BASHING sake. And would have RESPECTED!!your opinion even thou I disagreed with it.

nsx

You guys need to stop agreeing so violently.

magiciansampras

Fair enough, but all I remember posting was that line from the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and her friends finally arrive at the Emerald City to see the Wizard of Oz, and the doorman is none too willing to let them in. When Dorothy tells him that she was sent by the Good Witch of the North, the doorman asks her to prove it. The Scarecrow chimes in and tells him that Dorothy is wearing the Ruby Slippers that Glinda gave her. The doorman responds by saying, "Oh, so she is! Well, bust my buttons! Why didn't you say that in the first place? That's a horse of a different color! Come on in!" Then Dorothy and her friends are picked up by a cabby in a horse drawn carriage. Dorothy notices that the horse is now a different color than when she first saw it and asks, "What kind of a horse is that? I've never seen a horse like that before!" To which the cabby responds, "No, and never will again, I fancy! There's only one of him, and he's it. He's the Horse of a Different Color you've heard tell about!" MGM used gelatin to dye the Horse of a Different Color its various shades. And, rumor has it that they had a hard time keeping it on because the horse kept trying to lick it off.

craz

But would You say thats a bad mgmt team thats in place?

nsx

We have insufficient information on that, but I certainly doubt that anyone past middle management had any involvement whatsoever.

craz

now if someone is trying to sell me that horse and im not buying it and leaves and brings it back in in a different color hoping Id buy it now. Then they would be trying to pull something on me. Or even dress it up to look like a cow and tries to sell me a cow when in fact its a horse and the same one I didnt want to begin with.

My point I dont think theres a single person who reads this Forum who doesnt already know of your shall we say Dislike for JB. And you have a right to have such feelings, even if they shouldnt be justified. However dont try and sell us your Dislike and try and get us to Dislike JB as well, and if we arent buying it then retry again over and over again, by using a different colored paint each time

Wanted to add, the same should be with those Cheerleaders of be it JB or AA or Hilton, not everyone will be a fan of everything, they too should respect that not everyone will see things as they do

magiciansampras

I don't mind people knowing that I don't like B6. But people should know two things:

1) I'm trying to change my opinion. That is why I am here. I don't get my jollies antagonizing you people; that is what OMNI is for.

2) My like or dislike (including yours and everyone else's) should be separated from the validity of the things they say in their posts. This is why I think it is utterly irrelevant to call anyone's responses "bashing." For instance, if you go to the UA forum, you'll find all kinds of negativity. People are constantly .....ing about things. But no one calls it "bashing." I call it cathartic. Maybe it is because B6 is relatively new and going through some hard times that people are a bit sensitive, but I think separating the person from the idea is a good habit to get into (not just you, but the entire forum).

craz

A personal Thanks to the Mods for having NOT closed this thread. I think this Forum will be much better off in the long run for having made that decission

craz

I for 1 hardly get onto the UAL arena. I do have 150k with them but not from flying wanted to beable to get to OZ (no pun intended) and a friend wanted to go with UAL.

I havent fliown JB but have directed numerous people to do so. I get onto AA at times since I still have 800k with them mostly from flying an dIm a Life Plat with them, but havent flown them except for a flight here or there. At present Im putting my Butt in COs seats and wishing eveytime I do that JB flew to the places I do Intl, as Id love to get away from CO and their 31" pitch in Coach where I usually end up on those 12 hr+ flights that I fly and have flown for the past 30 yrs (Ok I came out of the closet Im no kid although I do try to act like 1 whenever I can)

Left BA once they started up with the 25% EQMs on the El Cheapos, Boy do I miss their 1st Class, talk about Bashing just drop over to the BA forum hope your skin is 10 feet THICK. But when they do it its not usually simply based on hate or dislike but Sound reasons, Ok not with them all, but then again you have to be able to understand their language and being that I speak American its hard at times.

craz

but I could argue that Top Mgmt is Responsible for Middle Mgmt , so thusly Top Mgmt is Responsible. thats why I disagree withn that 1 that mgmt was responsible.