Companies do NOT care...

[Kaneman]

Your mother's back tit feels strange.

[shmike]

Try them from the other side.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

Well? Is it a secret? You told us the hard parts about the injuries to the kids, why not explain what happened to cause the situation? Obviously, if you can't or don't want to, I'll understand but it all is kinda feeling a little strange...

Sorry, I was just fuckin' with you cause I was about to sit down to breakfast.

Anyway, I don't know the specifics, the names of the policies, or that stuff. She says she's supposed to be covered and she's not getting paid, I take her word for it.

To me, the specifics don't matter because I feel the company should take care of her. A few years ago the powers that be at the company would have agreed with me, but that's all changed and I think that sucks.

I'm not saying I think Fed Gov should come in and seize the company and force them to pay out, or that laws should be passed or anything like that. I'm just advocating for companies to stand by their employees when they say they will. This company is all about "core values" and family, being a great place to work, doing the right thing for the employees, etc. etc. Those aren't things I'm making up, its all part of the bullshit they push on everyone from the moment you sit down for your first interview. The CEO himself comes down from Germany now and then and echos the same things.

Then, when the shit hits the fan, and you need them to be there for you they're nowhere to be found. Oh, that's ok, I don't need to keep paying for my house or my car though...no biggie. This type of situation isn't something that happens very often, and we aren't talking about someone who just started. This is a 10 year employee who has always done the right thing in her role for the company and who has been assured they will be there for her with anything she needs during this difficult time in her life. A few months pay of her meager salary would cost them next to nothing and would show that they really are there for the employees, greatly improving everyone else's pride in the company....instead of making them ashamed to be there. Pretty big difference in productivity if you ask me...

I guess these motherfuckers don't realize April Fools is only for one day of the year.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

Sorry, I was just fuckin' with you cause I was about to sit down to breakfast.

Anyway, I don't know the specifics, the names of the policies, or that stuff. She says she's supposed to be covered and she's not getting paid, I take her word for it.

To me, the specifics don't matter because I feel the company should take care of her. A few years ago the powers that be at the company would have agreed with me, but that's all changed and I think that sucks.

I'm not saying I think Fed Gov should come in and seize the company and force them to pay out, or that laws should be passed or anything like that. I'm just advocating for companies to stand by their employees when they say they will. This company is all about "core values" and family, being a great place to work, doing the right thing for the employees, etc. etc. Those aren't things I'm making up, its all part of the bullshit they push on everyone from the moment you sit down for your first interview. The CEO himself comes down from Germany now and then and echos the same things.

Then, when the shit hits the fan, and you need them to be there for you they're nowhere to be found. Oh, that's ok, I don't need to keep paying for my house or my car though...no biggie. This type of situation isn't something that happens very often, and we aren't talking about someone who just started. This is a 10 year employee who has always done the right thing in her role for the company and who has been assured they will be there for her with anything she needs during this difficult time in her life. A few months pay of her meager salary would cost them next to nothing and would show that they really are there for the employees, greatly improving everyone else's pride in the company....instead of making them ashamed to be there. Pretty big difference in productivity if you ask me...

I guess these motherfuckers don't realize April Fools is only for one day of the year.

That's cool, I just keep wondering if they were wearing their seat belts, what kinds of speeds we're talking here, what kind of vehicle and where was it hit? I guess I just have a morbid curiosity about these types of things.

I understand your pov but why should a company pay for you to sit at home because a family member is in the hospital? I honestly don't get that. That's why you buy insurance imho. It's not the company's fault that her kids were injured. In fact, didn't you say that they paid her for the first couple weeks? In stead of hating them for not wanting to keep paying, why not give them credit for what they have done for her? Oh and again, you buy insurance on your loans/credit cards to cover disability... I don't know but I honestly believe that whomever was the cause of the accident and the kids injuries should pay the bills. Let's say for the sake of argument, that she is completely at fault for the boy's injuries, now the company should pay her to take off work while they are in the hospital?

Originally Posted by Kaneman

Your mother's back tit feels strange.

You can't even see it unless she shaved it... WOW she must have really liked you!

[Kaneman]

She's not sitting at home, she's at the hospital taking care of her son. If your kid was hurt would you want to leave him alone in the ICU with a bunch of strangers, in and out of consciousness, terrified, confused, in pain? No, of course not, that would be horrible for a kid. It was an accident, there were no drugs or alcohol involved. Both parents were uninjured, both kids in critical condition. The driver (her husband) is considered at fault as there were no other known factors to cause the collision.

As I explained, I'm not saying this should be law or mandatory, I'm saying its the right thing to do for a company who claims to be there for their employees to keep paying their salary during a leave of absence in a case like this. That's all. And it is certainly something they would have done, and have done, in the past.

The vehicle was airborne and perpendicular to the road, mid-flip, when it hit a telephone pole flush with the roof, directly over the rear passenger compartment, giving both kids head injuries and broken necks/backs. You can see in the picture here how there is a perfect imprint of a telephone pole in the rear of the vehicle. This was a mazda hatchback of some kind. Everyone had seatbelts on.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

She's not sitting at home, she's at the hospital taking care of her son. If your kid was hurt would you want to leave him alone in the ICU with a bunch of strangers, in and out of consciousness, terrified, confused, in pain? No, of course not, that would be horrible for a kid. It was an accident, there were no drugs or alcohol involved. Both parents were uninjured, both kids in critical condition. The driver (her husband) is considered at fault as there were no other known factors to cause the collision.

As I explained, I'm not saying this should be law or mandatory, I'm saying its the right thing to do for a company who claims to be there for their employees to keep paying their salary during a leave of absence in a case like this. That's all. And it is certainly something they would have done, and have done, in the past.

The vehicle was airborne and perpendicular to the road, mid-flip, when it hit a telephone pole flush with the roof, directly over the rear passenger compartment, giving both kids head injuries and broken necks/backs. You can see in the picture here how there is a perfect imprint of a telephone pole in the rear of the vehicle. This was a mazda hatchback of some kind. Everyone had seatbelts on.

Looks like a Mazda 3.

That picture is crazy. The kids are lucky to be alive.

I can't believe the caption says they escaped serious injuries.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by shmike

Looks like a Mazda 3.

That picture is crazy. The kids are lucky to be alive.

I can't believe the caption says they escaped serious injuries.

I know right. Then in the article it talks about the boys being flown to the hospital.

Title Fail.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

She's not sitting at home, she's at the hospital taking care of her son. If your kid was hurt would you want to leave him alone in the ICU with a bunch of strangers, in and out of consciousness, terrified, confused, in pain? No, of course not, that would be horrible for a kid. It was an accident, there were no drugs or alcohol involved. Both parents were uninjured, both kids in critical condition. The driver (her husband) is considered at fault as there were no other known factors to cause the collision.

As I explained, I'm not saying this should be law or mandatory, I'm saying its the right thing to do for a company who claims to be there for their employees to keep paying their salary during a leave of absence in a case like this. That's all. And it is certainly something they would have done, and have done, in the past.

The vehicle was airborne and perpendicular to the road, mid-flip, when it hit a telephone pole flush with the roof, directly over the rear passenger compartment, giving both kids head injuries and broken necks/backs. You can see in the picture here how there is a perfect imprint of a telephone pole in the rear of the vehicle. This was a mazda hatchback of some kind. Everyone had seatbelts on.

They don't consider the kids to have been seriously injured? Btw you know and I know that if some jerk had ran a red light or something and plowed into them, it wouldn't have been "just an accident"...

Hmmm, well that changes things for sure but still their auto policy should be responsible for any expenses associated with the accident. Oh and again, perhaps the company deserves praise for providing that level of personal service and support in the past...maybe they can't do it anymore or quite honestly, maybe they got tired of being taken advantage of by unscrupulous employees.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

They don't consider the kids to have been seriously injured? Btw you know and I know that if some jerk had ran a red light or something and plowed into them, it wouldn't have been "just an accident"...

Hmmm, well that changes things for sure but still their auto policy should be responsible for any expenses associated with the accident. Oh and again, perhaps the company deserves praise for providing that level of personal service and support in the past...maybe they can't do it anymore or quite honestly, maybe they got tired of being taken advantage of by unscrupulous employees.

Nah, Chrysler took them over and put an end to any and all things that would be considered human, it was the first step into their spectacular fail. Once they de-merged the Chrysler-era policies stayed in place. They don't deserve anything but a quick kick to the nuts.

The article talks about the injuries, it was just a poor title. If some jerk had run a red-light and caused it then that's something totally different. I don't even know why you referenced that.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

Nah, Chrysler took them over and put an end to any and all things that would be considered human, it was the first step into their spectacular fail. Once they de-merged the Chrysler-era policies stayed in place. They don't deserve anything but a quick kick to the nuts.

The article talks about the injuries, it was just a poor title. If some jerk had run a red-light and caused it then that's something totally different. I don't even know why you referenced that.

Ah I see about the changing of the guard...still the "old" company was to be praised and the "new" company is the norm, unfortunate but not necessarily to be hated imho.

I made that comment because it seemed that you were "covering" for the driver a little when he was at fault for the accident. I drive a lot for my job and it never ceases to amaze me the reckless way people will drive with children in the vehicle. looking at the picture tells me that he must have been going pretty fast... I'd love to read the entire article if you have it.