Author
|
Topic: Teen cashier slain on first night shift at gas bar
|
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953
|
posted 25 January 2006 06:24 PM
I am going to put this here because I am looking at this from a labour perspective. If Michelle or someone feels otherwise and wishes it moved that's cool.First the link. quote: “Shell's policy is to make sure we enforce provincial legislation. The legal age to work is 16 years old.”
Why can Shell not install a kind of "safe room" in these gas bars with only a Tim Horton's style window for monetary transactions for graveyard shift workers? People will not stop killing but Shell, and other companies who own these gas station/depanneurs can surely do something besides throw their hands up resignedly and quip "whatcha gonna do?"
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408
|
posted 25 January 2006 08:17 PM
The company really deserves to get it for this, big time. Sure, it wasn't her normal shift, she was covering for someone, but it should never have been allowed.I worked night shifts this past summer, it's really not fun and sometimes a little nerve-wracking (plus I've also been held-up - but not on the night shift). Our company's (Irving) policy was that A: the door was always operated from the inside (as it was in this case), B: only males worked these shifts and C: you got several nights of training with another employee, regardless of how long you had been working there on the other shifts. On top of that of course, you had to be 19 anyway in Newfoundland and Labrador, because you were selling beer and cigarettes. A 17 year-old girl should never have been working that shift I've never had anything good to say about Irving before, but I have to admit after reading this story and looking back, I really appreciate their night-shift policies and the attitude they took towards them. First things first, the store's management should lose their job, no question, the company sued, and the criminal punished severely when they're caught. Thanks for posting a topic on this, I saw the story not long ago and I've been really angry with it since. [ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446
|
posted 25 January 2006 09:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by lagatta:
Yes, the labour action would be organised by a group called Au bas de l'échelle (rank and file) that fights for the rights of minimum-wage and non-unionisted workers.
That is so cool. Quebec is so cool. We need one of those here in Halifax. I found their web page, but no English version. A similar group in Toronto called TOFFE [ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Privateer ]
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408
|
posted 26 January 2006 12:30 AM
quote: Originally posted by BlawBlaw: If you are thinking to yourself the a 17 year old girl should not be doing that shift then who should and should they get paid more? In other words should older males be given more opportunity to work and earn higher wages?
Alone? Of course not. At my old place it was possible that a female could work the overnight bakery shift, but they were never given the store-front job.Everything about this story seems to justify this policy decision - she wasn't just robbed, she wasn't even just straight-out murdered, no, it sounds like she was also assaulted, and just thinking about what that must be like is making me sick. Are policies like this another jab at women to keep them from being paid more? The shift differential is worth a grand total of $7.50 (before taxes) for the full 8-hour shift. Most people would happily pass that up in exchange for a saner sleep patern. I think the company really does bear a fair degree of responsibility for allowing her to work overnight. Yeah, by the sounds of it this could have happened to any employee working that shift - but perhaps not to someone older, someone more experienced or, dare I say, a guy.
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408
|
posted 26 January 2006 12:49 AM
quote: Originally posted by FabFabian: From what I saw on the news this evening, it was said that the kiosk could only be accessed by customers through the cash slot overnight. Employees are not to open the door to anyone they don't know.
Not necessarily someone they knew - this is a retail business serving the public, afterall.Generally, the door is locked from the inside and you're supposed to take a good look at each person when they stand there and wait to be buzzed in (and there was a camera mounted right there to capture everyone as well). Quite possibly the person who did this was simply just someone who didn't look dangerous - face not covered up, not acting strangely, etc. (we were explicitly told by management that we had the right to refuse entry to anyone we wished, if we felt at all uneasy about them, and there would be no repercussions - another thing that makes me wonder about Shell's policies). With luck, such a brazen criminal should be caught fairly easily. [ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962
|
posted 26 January 2006 06:12 AM
quote: I think the better question is "Why are we willing to sacrifice ourselves and our children to that great new god called capitalism?" At 3 a.m. we should be at home and our 17 year old daughters and sons should be at home, asleep. This 24/7 world is making everyone crazy.
While I take your point, to me it begs the question:Why is a 17-year-old girl working at 3am a problem, but a 12-year-old boy getting up at 4 or 5 to deliver the newspapers isn't? Nice, honest work, that, it's been going on for decades, faaar before the 24/7 world you have problems with was ever dreamed of. Taking that further, you could even argue that the '24/7' world is *safer*: there's more people about, more witnesses about, if anything *does* go wrong. Here in the UK they don't really do that 24/7 thing, except perhaps in London. Now, I live in a city the size of Saskatoon or London Ontario and it's a ghost town after about 11PM. If you're out after that and something happens to you, there would be zero witnesses around. I feel far safer in bigger and 'tougher' cities than this one, simply because there's more folk about the streets late at night!
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 26 January 2006 12:13 PM
Possible Break in Gas Bar Slaying Case quote: MONTREAL (CP) — Montreal police say they may have a lead in the murder of a 17-year-old who was slain working her first overnight shift at a gas bar.Police spokesman Olivier Lapointe says a witness has come forward to say he was served by two men at the gas bar-convenience store at 4 a.m. Lapointe says they could well be suspects in slaying of Brigitte Serre, who was supposed to be working alone at the gas bar.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nuclearfreezone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9059
|
posted 26 January 2006 05:19 PM
Posted by Fidel:"What if the kid comes from a poorer, working class family, or the kid's an orphan, or the young person wants to go to school and needs the cash for just about everything a student needs to get through four years of university ?. No, it's not that simple." I came from a poor, working class family from Montreal. As a matter of fact I lived in St. Leonard where this murder took place. There are plenty of day jobs. Poverty is not an excuse for putting yourself or your kids in harm's way. Like she has a chance to even finish university now! Was it worth it?
From: B.C. | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953
|
posted 26 January 2006 08:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tape_342:
By all accounts above, if she had been a 'he,' she'd be just as dead.
Also, it doesn't seem like if she was eighteen, instead of seventeen, she would be alive. In my opinion the main doors into the small stores should be locked period. No one should be "buzzed" in. What does a murderer look like? Putting the onus on the employee to determine if someone "looks shady" is wrong. Keep the doors locked and cut a hole in the side of the building and fit a small window, similar to a drive thru, with just a small sliding gap where people can put their money. These things already exist in places like Chicago or L.A. I was in L.A. one time and went into a small convenience store to buy cigarettes or something and was shocked at the sight of a lone cashier behind a ridiculously thick partition of plexi-glass, with nothing but a few holes for speaking, and a slot tray for the money. There was a muffler shop across the street that had a perimeter fence top with concertina wire. I guess Canada has "evolved" to the point where these kinds of measures may be needed.
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 January 2006 09:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by nuclearfreezone: I came from a poor, working class family from Montreal. As a matter of fact I lived in St. Leonard where this murder took place. There are plenty of day jobs. Poverty is not an excuse for putting yourself or your kids in harm's way.
I think laying blame squarely on the shoulders of the parents is pure folly. Like I said, what if the kid needed the money ?. Low wage philanthropy doesn't have the same purchasing power today as it did when you were young and needy. You'd be surprised by what it costs to goto school for four years nowadays. Did you realize that the time to payoff the average student loan in Canada (as well as the other two most politically conservative western nations)is somewhere between 15 and 20 years?. Talk to any poor Canadian kid, and "there are plenty of them around", what they think about facing that kind of debt sentence when they graduate. You'd be surprised at what groceries cost. There are girls younger than Brigitte Serre living on the streets all across Canada. Canada, in case you didn't realize it, owns one of the worst child poverty rates in the developed world. And here's something else to slip under your bonnet - studies show that poor kids too often grow up to be poor learners as well as poor adults.
from the article: quote: The murder renews concerns about young people working late shifts at gas stations and restaurants but it is not the first.An Ottawa teen disappeared last fall on her way home from a late night shift at a Wendy's restaurant. The body of Jennifer Teague, 18, was found last September along a hiking trail, 11 days after she went missing. In 2000, Tara MacDonald of Calgary was killed while working late at another fast food shop.
quote: Like she has a chance to even finish university now! Was it worth it?
You're right. Poor Canadian kids should just stay home. There are plenty of ditch digging jobs waiting for them, we're sure. Next to the Yanks, Canada has the largest number and percentage of total jobs that are non-unionized and lowly paid. Meanwhile, kids in nations from Sweden to Turkey to Cuba simply go to school because access to higher education is considered a priceless basic human right. [ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 27 January 2006 06:24 AM
A couple of posters mentioned this, but I think it's worth reiterating.No one should have to work alone in those circumstances, period. What do they do for bathroom breaks? What do they do for meal breaks. Seems pretty obvious that they can't take proper breaks if they're working by themselves. Two people in an establishment makes it much less of a target. And what would be the expense of that at say $12 @ hour for 8 hours (including benefits and paperwork). A hundred bucks. This is certainly not the first time a lone worker has been killed under similar circumstances. Seems to me the 'lone' part of the job is the most dangerous. That should be tackled first. Or perhaps, like the border guards, who seem to have a much safer work place, we should let them carry weapons.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408
|
posted 27 January 2006 01:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by maestro: What do they do for bathroom breaks? What do they do for meal breaks.
You go whenever you want - if a customer comes by they can just wait outside until the employee is ready to let them in. You eat whenever you want too. Unless it's a Friday or Saturday night, you serve the odd customer, do a few chores, and spend more than half of the shift just killing time.But yeah, it always does feel better with someone else there - our location had a bakery so there was usually two people there for most of the shift. quote: Originally posted by aRoused: Hell, even here in Blighty a lot of the 'late' night stores (ie, 11PM closing) you find the cashiers dropping your bills into a 'we couldn't possibly get access to this even if we wanted to' safe.
They do that everywhere, throughout the entire day. Usually every $200 or so the register will tell you to dump some of your cash. quote: Originally posted by Maritimesea: I was in L.A. one time and went into a small convenience store to buy cigarettes or something and was shocked at the sight of a lone cashier behind a ridiculously thick partition of plexi-glass, with nothing but a few holes for speaking, and a slot tray for the money.
I wish we had had that too, besides the added safety, it prevents you from having to do any work around the store - more time to read! quote: Originally posted by BlawBlaw: It appears that she knew her attacker because she let them in. Nothing wrong with company policy when the workers can't bother to follow it.
No, the company policy does stink: it appears that she had received no training for the night-shift (it was her first, I spend 5 nights in a row with another guy before working alone), and - though I'll be pilloried for this - they had a 17 year-old girl work overnight. Management simply wasn't thinking or they didn't care.
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 27 January 2006 06:16 PM
quote: Andrew_Jay quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by maestro: What do they do for bathroom breaks? What do they do for meal breaks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------You go whenever you want - if a customer comes by they can just wait outside until the employee is ready to let them in. You eat whenever you want too. Unless it's a Friday or Saturday night, you serve the odd customer, do a few chores, and spend more than half of the shift just killing time. But yeah, it always does feel better with someone else there - our location had a bakery so there was usually two people there for most of the shift.
I would think, in the case of a gas station the owners would want someone at the ready constantly to prevent fill'n dash. There's also the point about a place being less of a target with two people on duty. I believe someone planning a 'hit' would be more likely to target a place with one person on duty, than a place with two people on. And what is the cost of this? Almost nothing, in terms of total overhead. So for the sake of a hundred bucks, people are put 'in harms way'. The profit motive at work.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 27 January 2006 07:51 PM
In Ontario, the employer shall take all precautions reasonable in the protection of the worker.I doubt many would find it reasonable to put a 17 year old on the night shift alone at a gas bar. Therefore Shell would be found negligent and subject to fines in Ontario. Yes, as blawblaw pointed out, she may have violated company policy. But it is reasonable to assume that someone with little life experience might be prone to violating certain company policies under certain circumstances. She screwed up, and paid for it with her life. Shell screwed up... and will suffer no consequence.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 27 January 2006 11:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine: In Ontario, the employer shall take all precautions reasonable in the protection of the worker.I doubt many would find it reasonable to put a 17 year old on the night shift alone at a gas bar. Therefore Shell would be found negligent and subject to fines in Ontario. Yes, as blawblaw pointed out, she may have violated company policy. But it is reasonable to assume that someone with little life experience might be prone to violating certain company policies under certain circumstances. She screwed up, and paid for it with her life. Shell screwed up... and will suffer no consequence.
Tommy, thank you. This "blame the victim" crap really pisses me off. Its a refrain that seems to come up all too often whenever a worker dies on the job.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408
|
posted 28 January 2006 10:56 AM
quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine: Yes, as blawblaw pointed out, she may have violated company policy. But it is reasonable to assume that someone with little life experience might be prone to violating certain company policies under certain circumstances.
That is right, regardless of what she may supposedly have done (and I think Blawblaw is just stretching here), that should not and does not make a difference - how could Shell expect a 17 year-old without training to properly follow company policy to a T? The blame still rests in their hands. The family probably could make a lawsuit out of it. quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine: ........oh yeah, speaking of consequences, I predict the perpetrators, because they chose a working class girl to kill, will plea bargain down to manslaughter, get a three for one deal for time spent in pre trial custody, and at the end of the fucking day, probably end up with the Order of Canada.
Well, if you're going to pull the class-warfare crap; these guys don't exactly look like real winners either, so why not just claim that the big, bad, bourgeoise state is going to lock them away for a long time, like it does with all poor people? I imagine that these three (or maybe just two - the role of the guy who spoke with police isn't clear) will go away for a while. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that once they're caught the Crown has all it needs for a conviction, with no need to offer to a plea bargain. One of the two have already been arrested (the punk had fled as far as Edmonton). Charge? First Degree Murder. [ 28 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 28 January 2006 04:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Andrew_Jay: To be fair, the profit margin is pretty slim overnight because it isn't terribly busy.I know you'll just say "then why be open at all?" But I think part of it might have to do with contracts with certain customers who need someplace open all night (the police for one) or to maintain the customer base (for example; if the taxis can fill up at your place at 3.00am, they'll also come by during the day, etc.).
I take your point about the pumps being closed until someone allows them to pump. However, I suspect most employees would be expected to keep breaks very short, and certainly not allowed a half hour break for meals.
As far as the margins, a part of my point was that in order to make a profit, people have to be put at risk. However, in terms of total overhead, staffing with two people at night would make little difference. It is that little difference that the owner wants in their pocket, rather than in the pocket of staff. And it's that little difference that results in people being killed. It's interesting to me that many are willing to do a lot procedural things to safeguard employees, but not require the employer to institute the most significant safety factor, two employees.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|