The comparative working conditions you site are simply a matter of degrees of jeopardy. You have no reason to assume that I want the employee fired. In fact, in an earlier post I stated that I would not fire him. I continue to feel that choice should be made by the owner. If the owner were a friend of mine, I would waste no time in doing so and I imagine that's true of others on this list. In my mind, there is no justification for making that distinction.
Jack --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only reason you could have for telling the store owner, is for > the store > owner to be able to fire the employee. It follows from this that if > do tell > the owner, and he does indeed fire the employee, then you are > responsible > for the employee losing his job. > > Knowing that this is a very strong possibility, you would not tell > the owner > unless you wanted the employee to lose his job. > > There are some situations in which it would be your duty to tell the > employee, the police and so on. For example, if this person was > working with > children then despite the fact that he has not been convicted of > anything it > is clearly better to give the children the benefit of the doubt. > > However, this person is working in a professional photo shop, which > is not > the sort of place where children hang out, so there is no duty. On > the > contrary, you have a duty not to inform on people in cases where you > know > next to nothing of the circumstances involved. That's why our > countries are > governed by the rule of law, not by lynch mobs. If you want to know > what > societies are like where people regularly inform on their neighbours, > ask > some of your fellow PDMLers who lived under communist regimes. > > You can be certain that the police and local authorities know where > this > person is, and where he is working. They will have made a decision to > tell > the shop owner or not about his employee's background, and they are > (one > assumes) professionally competent, so your involvement in this > process would > be unwarranted interference. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 08 January 2006 22:26 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded > > > > Why do you conclude that the shop owner will fire the > > employee prior to the court's decision? Would you? I > > wouldn't, nor would I bear any responsibility if he did. > > Advising the owner is the "responsible" thing to do. > > > > Jack > > > > > > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The shop owner isn't in jeopardy. All he did was hire someone, > > > apparently after any alleged misdeeds took place. Until > > proven guilty, > > > the accused should be allowed to earn a living. The world > > is plagued > > > with busybodies who can't keep their nose out of other people's > > > business. > > > Paul > > > On Jan 8, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > > > > > In this case, Paul, the shop owner is in jeopardy and deserves > to > > > be > > > > alerted. > > > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I've found that unless someone has been placed in jeopardy, > it's > > > best > > > >> > > > >> to mind one's own business. As others have said, "innocent > until > > > >> proven guilt." > > > >> Paul > > > >> On Jan 8, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Kevin, > > > >>> Understand your dilemma, but even though you don't know yet > "who > > > is > > > >>> working for him", due to this photo related situation, I'd > let > > > the > > > >>> owner know before too many others make the connection. > > > >>> Are you certain this is the same person and that the owner > won't > > > >> fain > > > >>> shock and surprise? > > > >>> > > > >>> Jack > > > >>> > > > >>> --- Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I recently walked into a large Sydney camera store and > ventured > > > to > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> "pro section" to purchase some Fuji Provia. I was > > astounded that > > > >> the > > > >>>> person serving me was an ex-photog who is currently in > > the midst > > > >> of > > > >>>> a child porn investigation. He worked with his uncle who has > > > been > > > >>>> charged > > > >>>> and a trial is due. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> My question is, should I make the store owner aware of who > is > > > >> working > > > >>>> for him? > > > >>>> Am I being vigilant or is it sheer bloody mindedness > > on my part? > > > >>>> Is this really none of my business? > > > >>>> I must admit this sort of thing boils my blood quickly. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Kind regards > > > >>>> Kevin > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have > for > > > >> lunch. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> __________________________________________ > > > >>> Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. > > > >>> Just $16.99/mo. or less. > > > >>> dsl.yahoo.com > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > > > > Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. > > > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > > > > dsl.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > > Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > > dsl.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
