Forgiveness and consequences

[wiggin]

There's a interesting little story that has cropped up in my neighborhood in the last few days. It revolves around a 77 year old woman who worked in the overcrowded Trader Joe's in the center of our neighborhood for quite a number of years. I remember her well - she always had a kind word to say about my kids and was always friendly and upbeat. I certainly enjoyed interacting with her.

A few days ago, she was fired. Her offense? She knowingly sold alcohol to a minor - in this case, a family member who was several months shy of his 21st birthday.

There's been a minor uproar in the community. News stories were written, people have contacted the store, and a GoFundMe started for her benefit has already accrued nearly $40k in the space of a few days. Most of the messages in the GFM alternately blame TJ's for firing her or suggest that there should be more 'forgiveness'. The original text of the GFM calls it a 'simple serious mistake'.

I don't really know how to think about this whole scenario. On the one hand, I do indeed think she was an asset to the store and would hope there was some scope for forgiveness and leniency on the part of management - clearly many people thought she was fantastic. But on the other hand, this wasn't minor, nor was it really a mistake. She knowingly broke the law, for a family member, in the process endangering the store's liquor license (which would likely make it unprofitable) and potentially exposing them to substantial fines. There should be consequences for such an action, and while there may be mitigations I can certainly see why a store would want to fire her (not to mention that it is likely spelled out clearly in their disciplinary policies).

But if she should have been fired - what is the role of the rapidly growing GFM? Is it a consolation prize, an expression of love for her long service, or is it a way to let her escape the justified consequences for her lawbreaking?

I'm not sure I have articulated to myself a sufficiently complete framework to understand the role forgiveness - both institutional and personal - plays in mitigating the consequences of a bad action. Should forgiveness erase the original misdeed, or should it parallel real consequences that arise from said misdeed?

[RandBlade]

When I ran a business with a licence I would have considered somebody knowingly jeopardising my licence, my business, and exposing us to substantial fines to be gross misconduct, meaning instant dismissal.

The GFM seems at least in considerable part about her being 77 though. Had it been a 22 year old fired for breaking the law to aid a younger friend or relative I doubt there'd be much sympathy.

Not sure about US law but under British law disciplinary action is supposed to be consistent and it's illegal to discriminate based on age. Personally I would find someone being 77 a mitigation, and would desire maybe to give a warning instead, but not firing someone because they're 77 and then firing someone else if they did the same things, would be illegal age discrimination.

I wonder if a secondary factor may be if Americans (as I do) find it silly that selling alcohol to twenty year old adults is illegal? But it is the law.

[wiggin]

I think her age certainly factored into the story in two ways: first, she had a long tenure at TJs (over 15 years?), something a 20-something wouldn't have. Second, her current job prospects are obviously quite thin and it sounds like her financial situation is not great.

More broadly, someone that age being so energetic and engaged with the customers is pretty nice, frankly (though obviously I'd prefer if she didn't feel as if she had to work at her age).

That being said, I think the issue isn't that she gave alcohol to a 20 year old relative - most people have given alcohol to people who are underaged. The issue is that she used her position at the store to sell said alcohol to an underage person, to the substantial risk of her employer's business. That has less to do with the age of drinking in the US and much more to do with the misuse of authority in a way that's detrimental to others.

[RandBlade]

Indeed. The potential fine for getting caught selling to children here is £20,000 for the business on the first offence. Had someone been caught stealing even a fraction of that there'd be no sympathy.

If the public don't want businesses acting based on the law then change the law.

[Timbuk2]

I feel for the old lady but to a large degree she must have known the (definite? probable?) consequence of her actions but did so anyway.

My first reaction was, well, given her length of service, her frail age, that she is an obvious asset to the store, and (my projection) would be devastated at being fired: was there no leeway for a ticking off, a last warning, you may keep your job but stick to the rules kind of thing. But then that may set a precedent, particularly if this is a chain store with standard policy enforced across all branches rather than a local mom'n pop store.

Agree it's a tough one.

Insofar as the GFM, overall it's people expressing their sympathy with an old dear who made a silly mistake. No issue from me really, people can do as they please with their money.

[Aimless]

I feel for the old lady but to a large degree she must have known the (definite? probable?) consequence of her actions but did so anyway.

My first reaction was, well, given her length of service, her frail age, that she is an obvious asset to the store, and (my projection) would be devastated at being fired: was there no leeway for a ticking off, a last warning, you may keep your job but stick to the rules kind of thing. But then that may set a precedent, particularly if this is a chain store with standard policy enforced across all branches rather than a local mom'n pop store.

Agree it's a tough one.

Insofar as the GFM, overall it's people expressing their sympathy with an old dear who made a silly mistake. No issue from me really, people can do as they please with their money.

Her decision is forgivable, the store's decision is understandable, and the gofundme is commendable. Just wondering about the 20-y-o who bought the beer—and about the person who reported the lady.

[RandBlade]

Her decision is forgivable, the store's decision is understandable, and the gofundme is commendable. Just wondering about the 20-y-o who bought the beer—and about the person who reported the lady.

The person who reported it might have been under a legal obligation to do so, depending upon what happened. Not sure about the USA, but believe it or not in the UK employees have a legal duty to try to prevent the sale of alcohol to children even by their colleagues, if they are in a position to do so and choose not to then that is against the law. If someone you know to be underage comes where you work and you turn a blind eye to the sale then you have broken the law, even if you were not engaged in the sale at all, as an employee who knew they were underage you had a legal obligation to step in to prevent it.

Say I was running a business and you and Tim work for me. Tim is going to sell alcohol to someone you know to be underaged without checking ID. You have a legal responsibility to attempt to prevent that sale. Typically in my experience by whispering to him to Check ID, or by telling a manager who can tell Tim to do so.

If the sale goes ahead then I as business owner, Tim as the person who made the sale, the child who bought the alcohol and you as an employee who knew the person to be underage but did not step in to prevent the sale have all broken the law and could all theoretically be prosecuted. You and Tim in that situation could theoretically face a fine of up to £5,000 that you are personally liable for while the business could be fined £20,000 and jeopardise the licence.