Get the evidence or get the kid?

Poll choices
9 Comments

  • Ann Sparke - 4 years ago

    As the child was not in danger, the mother was right to film the evidence.

  • Carrie Jensen - 4 years ago

    I would have told someone to hold my phone and taped it for evidence as I went and got my child of the wall that way my kid is off the wall and not crying and I have the evidence. But ultimately get the my kid my kid off the wall.

  • Kerry - 4 years ago

    The mother may know the child is not in danger, but the child herself certainly does not know that. She is terrified and what she is experiencing is that two adults, who are supposed to be her guardians and keeping her safe, are oblivious to her distress. I pity the child who has a mother so petty and vindictive that she is content to let her child suffer to ensure that an employee of whom she doesn't approve gets fired. As a parent, my first instinct is to rescue or, at least, be there to assure my child that things are under control and she will be okay. In the unlikely event that the employee's supervisor does not take my word that the staff person was negligent due to being on her phone, so be it. I wouldn't particularly want the girl to be fired, just make sure she knew she had behaved badly.

  • Jack - 4 years ago

    I'm with the Mom. The child was in some distress, yes, but in no danger. In order to show that an employee is ignoring the rules, the Mom had no choice but to record the incident. This could possibly prevent some future situation in which the employee was ignoring the rules and actually putting a child in danger.

  • Kytriya - 4 years ago

    Naysayers would be amazed at what NO video evidence does when you need to get an employee fired.

    1. In order for an employee to be fired the SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER MUST CATCH THE EMPLOYEE IN ACTION.
    2. Video evidence will suffice IF AND ONLY IF THAT VIDEO ACTUALLY SHOWS EVIDENCE OF THE ACT THAT VIOLATES COMPANY POLICY.

    THUS, if the mother would NOT have made that video, and security cameras did not catch the act, then that employee would still be working there. Why? No legal ground to fire the employee. I know. I used to work at a McDonalds but without evidence, we could not fire the manager who was doing drugs, trying to serve bad food. If he was fired with no evidence that would hold up in court, he could then sue McD's and win. That is the issue that no one realizes is the case here.

  • CINDY - 4 years ago

    As pointed out in the article, the child was not in any danger. The video is only about a minute long-- it isn't as though she was dangling there for 20 minutes. I don't think mom should have rushed over the second the girl started crying just to give the kid a minute to maybe figure it out on her own. The employee -- who was getting paid to monitor and assist the child-- should have been paying attention and at least looked up and given some encouraging words, however. I wonder if the management would have believed the mother without the video evidence? I wonder if the management would have busted the employee even if no one complained?

  • Daphne Cothren - 4 years ago

    There's quite a passivity in the now-common thinking "must get evidence" on the smartphone (while doing essentially nothing) rather than wading in and fixing the problem--which the mother could have easily done directly. While video evidence has certainly turned the tide of opinion in some cases, here one would think that a simple verbal complaint from a customer to a manager ought to have carried sufficient weight. As an overall trend, it makes for a nation of onlookers.

  • Deborah Hebblethwaite - 4 years ago

    Society has gone mad in my opinion. I remember a life before cell phones. Much nicer

  • Mike Mazz - 4 years ago

    She is really crying because her mom named her Sephora. But really as a parent I would have gone up to the instructor and said hey can you get off your phone and pay attention to the kids.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment