Did you explain to the paranoid owner that you believed she had been abused by someone and was trying to get away from her abuser? That seems like a very relevant argument.
Yes in fact he came in just as i was giving her the keys. he asked what was wrong and she said she had a "rough" day. As soon as she was gone, i told him what happened and he got very upset. he said "i dont care if she was in trouble, no cash business". Easy for him to say he is a millionare.
Even if she was a battered woman, she could've gone to a different hotel. I doubt yours is the only hotel in town. It wasn't your fault she didn't have a credit card, you should have explained the policy, and directed her to another hotel. At least that's what I would've done.
Two miles from my hotel is the scottsdale stadium where the Oakland A's play there spring training games. Naturally this is the "busy" time of year for tourism and what not and usually all the hotels are booked solid. my hotel has changed owner ship twice in the last year and a half so customers and guests dont know were there. We usually only sell about half the rooms, then fill another quarter of the hotel with walk-ins from people off the street. If i would have sent her else where she would not have found a place to go.
Really, who cares about rules, especially rules related to money, when someone's life is potentially in danger. I'm glad there are still people in the world that would rather lose their job than look the other way.
Ah, the differnce between doing what is right and what is in the rules. I do agree you did something right but you also broke the rules. You made a hasty decision, but I believe it was the right one. Better to get a new job where the people will honor good decisions than keep working at that place. And if anyone says they wouldn't hire this man because he broke a rule, you seriously need to get off your high chair, cause we've all broken rules before, and at least he did it for a moral reason.
and now we got more anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't have given her a room, I woulda explained the policy then asked what was wrong and listened to see what I could do and refer her to a place she could go and call 'er a cab. After all you chose to break a rule, for every choice: a consequence.
Thats the one thing that i would have done was try to see if she would have told me whats wrong
Are you guys ****ing retarded? While it's possible that the bruises were caused by something else, I think you would at least give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had been caused by something malicious.
While I agree that he probably should have consulted his boss, I think that in the heat of the situation it's completely possible that, for whatever reason he didn't. If you've ever been in a situation like this I think you'll know what I mean.
And as for the fact that he shouldn't be fired, if anything I would be more likely to hire someone like this simply because that they'd be of better moral character, something more important than turning any sort of profit.
Forget them, release, you did the right thing, be happy with yourself.
I don't think you did anything wrong. Against the hotel rules sure, but who gives? Your own personal ethics, morals and standards should never be compromised, especially not for a job. If your ok with what you did you don't need to ask any of us here.
i agree. i dont think people realize how big of a problem domestic violence is i mean in the united states one in four women will be assulted by there partner in there life time. 30 to 65% of all murderd women were killed by there partner. just something to think about.
i have to aggre that wha tyou did was wrong, under working situations you are required to act professionally, that meens obeying the rules set by the uper department even if it is agaisn't your moral code.
you could actualy save your job like others said before either leting her stay on the premises or offer her another lodging area that would accept her, hack you can even offer to pay with your credit card that way you won't have to feel bad and it's tecnicaly not agaisn't policy.
though no mater what never assume a situation, as my dad would say "if you assume you're making an ass out of you and me"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
cookie wizards of the the simic
Quote from !Chucklez! »
In summation: You are not inherintely superior for using a rogue deck.
your problem is the distinction with what you thought was morally right and what was actually the correct procedure.
i personally think you did the wrong thing, as those are the rules. if you had some moral issue, you should have explained that you couldnt do it, adn why, then point her in the right direction or another venue to stay at.
the thing is, that it could have turned out terribly.
exspecially due to some sort of abuse. if te other person had found out they were there, the room could have been destroyed. that would have been terrible, and your boss would have held you responsible.
You were in the wrong here IMO. You have a job and you are working to do that job. You flatly disobeyed orders. If you worked at my job I would fire you too.
Besides why should you care about somebody you dont know like that. Its even worse to put your job on the line because of it.
I thought that compassion was a virtue, and that helping people in danger, regardless of who they were was also a good thing. Just because he didn't know the person doesn't mean she should mean nothing to him.
I think that you did the right thing, but that there were other things that you could have done that would have been better, like calling the police.
I don't think you did anything wrong. Against the hotel rules sure, but who gives? Your own personal ethics, morals and standards should never be compromised, especially not for a job. If your ok with what you did you don't need to ask any of us here.
I understand what you're saying, but first of all he had other options and secondly he put other people in jeopardy by doing what he did. He promised not to do as he did. Who would be stuck with the bill if she did end up trashing the place? Probably not him, probably the owner/manager. Who would be blamed if one of the workers had to be let go to cover the costs? Again, probably not him.
i believe there is no true right or wrong. right and wrong
So, for you, choosing whether or not to murder all of your friends and rape their mothers afterwards is kind of like choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream?
So, for you, choosing whether or not to murder all of your friends and rape their mothers afterwards is kind of like choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream?
that is a real bad analogy, besides that the concept of right and wrong is depandent on what the vast majority of the society think is "right" or "wrong", lets say if the society accepts and encorage that the killing of ones friend and rapeing their mothers later is not only acceptable it is encourage among the society, then it is in fact "right" and not doing so might be even seen as blasphemous. (though the fact that such a society won't last long is besides the point.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
cookie wizards of the the simic
Quote from !Chucklez! »
In summation: You are not inherintely superior for using a rogue deck.
Thiers alot of choices out thier, and to be fair, what is the right ones will sometimes break the rules. You did what you thought was right, I would've done the same thing to be fair, but you were fired for risking the hotel. It would've been nice for the hotel to have given you the benifit of the doubt, but we all must remember that corporate rarely lets anything go that thier lawyers won't approve of.
I have been "punished" too for "going against store policies", what I thought was minor or that the rules could "bend" for a curtain situation. I've also had to inforce rules on my cashiers that I thought were stupid or I wanted to let slide. My feelings are everyone on this forum will do/have done/ a similair "rule" break at thier jobs, minor, to get yelled at, or major, to get fired.
In looking for a new job, I would suggest seeing your old managers and making sure you can get a good referance from them. If not, it's still ok, but it's good to have your old direct managers having your back despite of what corporate made them do to you.
You did what you thought you had to do, and they did what they thought they had to do too. You shouldn't have any regrets about what happened.
Another obvious solution to all of this is to just offer your own credit card as insurance. If you really cared about this woman's well being, and was sure that she wouldn't trash the place, why not put your money where your mouth is and use your own card? She even had cash for the room, so it's not like you would have to pay for anything. That way, she gets a room, you keep your job, and everyone is happy. Worst case she does trash the room and you are liable, but I seriously doubt a single battered woman would do that.
Well, come on people. Are you going to tell me none of you have ever broken a rule out of self-interest? How are you going to criticize someone who did it in a compassionate act?
Maybe his course of action given the avaible information can't clearly be defined as right or wrong. What is wrong, though, is telling him he was at fault for trying to help a distressed person (this is the subway hero thing all over again).
I think the moral of this story is that there are more than two sides to a given situation. This one clearly was not simply accept the woman or turn her away. There were other options that probably would have been a lot more beneficial in the long run for both of you than giving her the room.
I think if it were a black and white situation between giving her the room and turning her away, I'd give her the room. However, if I were the hotel manager, I would and SHOULD fire you. You violated the rules in a way that caused risk to the hotel.
This is what I'm curious about: Why didn't you put up your own card for this woman, in essence renting her the room on your own tab?
the thing is, that it could have turned out terribly.
exspecially due to some sort of abuse. if the other person had found out they were there, the room could have been destroyed. that would have been terrible, and your boss would have held you responsible.
you just have to think
not likely we only have like 200 rooms and there are 2 security guards on every night, so yeah the room could have been a little damaged but i doubt that it would get like demolished before security heard things breaking
In looking for a new job, I would suggest seeing your old managers and making sure you can get a good referance from them. If not, it's still ok, but it's good to have your old direct managers having your back despite of what corporate made them do to you.
You did what you thought you had to do, and they did what they thought they had to do too. You shouldn't have any regrets about what happened.
i dont have any regrets and i would do it agian, only a little smarter this time. As for my managers, they love me they told me letting me go was something they were being forced to do by the owner. i know they are going to give me a good ref.
Some of you guys are fundamentally, morally retarded, and I mean that in the most literal of senses. Seriously. This is ethics 101. It is not only an option, it is your duty to disobey unjust laws and unjust commands. Rules exist in order to protect the right. When laws clearly go against what is right, they have failed their function and lost their validity. If you support unjust laws and unjust rules you are no better than they are. Look, just... read this. It's one of the most important documents in modern philosophy. I'll let someone more eloquent than myself explain it.
Quote from A Letter from a Birmingham Jail »
MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN: While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Brimingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self- purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro .leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.
Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants --- for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttles worth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.
As in so many past experiences, our hopes bad been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves : "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic with with-drawl program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.
Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-oat we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved South land been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken .in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor. will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited .for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God- given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six- year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "******," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal .law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I- it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's anti religious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.
I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to 6e solid rock of human dignity.
You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best- known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do-nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.
If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black- nationalist ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or. unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.
But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some-such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle---have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty ****** lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.
Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a non segregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.
But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative .critics who can always find. something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who 'has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leader era; an too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.
In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.
I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious. irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Walleye gave a clarion call for defiance and .hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great- grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.
Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it vi lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.
Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom, They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.
I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, ham and all over the nation, because the goal of America k freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.
Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if .you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true that the police have exercised a .degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face Jeering, and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My fleets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They viii be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he k alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?
If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.
I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us. all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.
In this particular case, you were absolutely right to take her in. Although you should have then called the police to report what you believed to be a case of domestic abuse. You should still go down to the police station and tell them all the facts of the case that you know of. This is a serious matter. Someone is apparently in fear for their health and life, with apparent good cause. You should be taking action to help, and your boss should be held accountable for not doing so.
Bear, for God's sake, put spoilers around that quote. I'm not even going to attempt to read that until you do.
I think the fact that you're putting this as casually as "ethics 101" is also a little childish. It's extremely easy to make releasethedogs as the hero and the boss as Pontius Pilate in this case. However, I don't see this as so. Recognize that this woman could have done ANYTHING within that hotel, and if an incident had occurred, his boss would, or at least should, have been held just as accountable as he was. How a person's employees screw up reflect the person managing them.
My point is that yes, I would argue releasethedogs did a good deed. However, he should have been fired. He violated the rules of his job. He seems to see this as an ok tradeoff, and power to him, but whenever you find yourself between two sets of rules and deciding which one to break, you don't do so and expect no punishment.
Not to mention ethics 101 fails whenever you're faced with multiple solutions to the same problem. He should have approached the woman and called the police. And I agree, releasethedogs, you should still report the incident.
MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail has nothing to do with this situation. There are still way too many unknowns in this story for anything to be simple Ethics 101.
As far as any of us know, she attacked someone else and while that person defended themself they caused all of the bruises to her - hence the "rough" day comment.
Releasethedogs saw someone that he felt needed help. He did what he thought would to help her. Unfortunately for him, what he did was against his hotel's policies and caused him to get fired from his job - even though his managers didn't want to let him go. There's not really much more to the story.
He violated the rules of his job for a very good reason, both morally and frankly from any objective financial position. Forget about the damage to a room- do you have any kind of idea the PR involved in your hotel chain gaining the reputation of turning battered women away into the cold streets? I would never stay at a hotel that functioned that way, it's horrifically immoral.
I have not read the entirety of the thread, so forgive me if this contradicts any facts above.
I think you did what you thought was right, but you could have handled the situation differently. Calling the cops and waiting with her while they came would have been the better course of action, because they can actually do something about it. You would have kept your job as well. With everything else equal, that would be the optimum course of action, so you probably didn't do the actual right thing, even though you had her best interests at heart.
He violated the rules of his job for a very good reason, both morally and frankly from any objective financial position. Forget about the damage to a room- do you have any kind of idea the PR involved in your hotel chain gaining the reputation of turning battered women away into the cold streets? I would never stay at a hotel that functioned that way, it's horrifically immoral.
1. We know nothing about this woman.
2. Explain to me how exactly this woman is better off now than she was then?
1. We know nothing about this woman.
2. Explain to me how exactly this woman is better off now than she was then?
1) We have reason to believe she was battered. That alone is enough to offer help, even were she penniless.
2) She had one night at least where she wasn't sleeping in a gutter? I agree that more should of, and still should be, done in this case. But clearly turning a woman who has been a victim of violence and is afraid for her life away is grossly immoral.
To IBA's response to Point 1; We also have a reasonable alternative explanation to those bruises, proposed by Misterpid. We have equal evidence to support the idea that she was battered and the idea that she was injured while mugging an innocent tourist. If we have equal chances of both, I believe we must follow Murphy's Law, and assume she was injured mugging somebody. Would you like your hotel to become known as a hide-out for criminals?
What evidence is there to support the battered woman theory? The bruises on the chest. Conveniently, the chest is also where attackers usually are injured by victems, which supports the mugger theory. Neither theory can be proven at this point, and it is also clear that while Release did what he believed to be right, there were better alternatives.
I wouldn't call this a case of doing what's right and being punished for it, as much as a case of making a crucial decision based on too little evidence, and facing the consequences.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Its real easy to make these kind of decisions when you don't have rent or bills to pay. Do you have a mortgage or rent? Wife or children to support?
i do have rent, and bills no children but i do have a fat cat to feed... i mean i am 25 years old after all. i dont still like with my parents. How ever i do know how to save money (except when a new set comes out ) and i have a nice cushion if i cant find a job for some time. i doubt that will be the case how ever because i have allready lined up some interviews for monday morning.
He violated the rules of his job for a very good reason, both morally and frankly from any objective financial position. Forget about the damage to a room- do you have any kind of idea the PR involved in your hotel chain gaining the reputation of turning battered women away into the cold streets? I would never stay at a hotel that functioned that way, it's horrifically immoral.
and i did think about getting the hotel some bad PR, but it would also hurt the other people who work there most of which are my friends. Plus im not a vindictive jerk face. im a happy go lucky irish boy with a good heart, some thing that does not seem to go well in american business. serious id be the first to be fired on the apprentice. proud of it too.
she was injured while mugging an innocent tourist.
Occam's razor says more likely she was assulted by her partner then by a tourist who was defending themselfs. Especially in scottsdale ... the hotel is like a block away from 8 million dollar condos. Not the rough part of town. Its like the brentwood of Arizona. I doubt there are a lot of muggings in brentwood.
funny, never thought this thread would get so many responces. Im glad and happy with the level of the debate that has gone on. Oh yeah and if typeing my whole name out is too long "RTD" will do
To IBA's response to Point 1; We also have a reasonable alternative explanation to those bruises, proposed by Misterpid. We have equal evidence to support the idea that she was battered and the idea that she was injured while mugging an innocent tourist. If we have equal chances of both, I believe we must follow Murphy's Law, and assume she was injured mugging somebody. Would you like your hotel to become known as a hide-out for criminals?
This is some of the most disingenuous reasoning I've ever seen. The two theories are not even remotely near as likely. This isn't grade school. We're not going to just give every theory equal credence to make you feel good. misterpid's theory doesn't make a damned bit of sense. You're saying that an unarmed woman decided to mug a random tourist and got the crap justly beaten out of her? How many muggings do you know of that occur against victims that are clearly able to outclass their unarmed assailants? To what level do you have to distort reality to come up with this scenario in order to defend your poorly conceived initial stance?
From the ground, it was conceivably possible that all the Jews in the concentration camps were really criminals, or that the genocide in Rwanda was really a two sided conflict and not just a massacre of innocents, but those certainly weren't reasonable assumptions to make. They were bull**** excuses people used to justify their own selfish inaction. Much like this. If you were to be intellectually honest for one moment, you would simply admit that the chances are vastly in favor of the idea that she was attacked, rather than incompetently attacking another- and in either case, the morally correct path is still to allow her to check in and than alert the police, either for her protection or for another's.
Because if she was armed, the mugging would not have proceeded;
Step 1) She tries to mug the person,
Step 2) They beat her up and she runs away.
Someone would've gotten much more seriously hurt, or, more likely, the person wouldn't have offered resistance. Certainly the cops would have been called.
Yes in fact he came in just as i was giving her the keys. he asked what was wrong and she said she had a "rough" day. As soon as she was gone, i told him what happened and he got very upset. he said "i dont care if she was in trouble, no cash business". Easy for him to say he is a millionare.
Two miles from my hotel is the scottsdale stadium where the Oakland A's play there spring training games. Naturally this is the "busy" time of year for tourism and what not and usually all the hotels are booked solid. my hotel has changed owner ship twice in the last year and a half so customers and guests dont know were there. We usually only sell about half the rooms, then fill another quarter of the hotel with walk-ins from people off the street. If i would have sent her else where she would not have found a place to go.
Thats what i was thinking
thanks, Id probally do it agian too.
How true.
Thats the one thing that i would have done was try to see if she would have told me whats wrong
thanks man
i agree. i dont think people realize how big of a problem domestic violence is i mean in the united states one in four women will be assulted by there partner in there life time. 30 to 65% of all murderd women were killed by there partner. just something to think about.
ever hear about the Good Samaritan? Were all in this together.
you could actualy save your job like others said before either leting her stay on the premises or offer her another lodging area that would accept her, hack you can even offer to pay with your credit card that way you won't have to feel bad and it's tecnicaly not agaisn't policy.
though no mater what never assume a situation, as my dad would say "if you assume you're making an ass out of you and me"
cookie wizards of the the simic
The extendo siggy thingy currently dead
i personally think you did the wrong thing, as those are the rules. if you had some moral issue, you should have explained that you couldnt do it, adn why, then point her in the right direction or another venue to stay at.
the thing is, that it could have turned out terribly.
exspecially due to some sort of abuse. if te other person had found out they were there, the room could have been destroyed. that would have been terrible, and your boss would have held you responsible.
you just have to think
3 Nether Shadow BETA
2 Plateau
2 Bayou
HAVES:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=71454
Power does not corrupt, power attracts those that are inherently corruptible.
The powerful prognosticative powers of Leonginus - a "force" indeed!!
I thought that compassion was a virtue, and that helping people in danger, regardless of who they were was also a good thing. Just because he didn't know the person doesn't mean she should mean nothing to him.
I think that you did the right thing, but that there were other things that you could have done that would have been better, like calling the police.
I understand what you're saying, but first of all he had other options and secondly he put other people in jeopardy by doing what he did. He promised not to do as he did. Who would be stuck with the bill if she did end up trashing the place? Probably not him, probably the owner/manager. Who would be blamed if one of the workers had to be let go to cover the costs? Again, probably not him.
So, for you, choosing whether or not to murder all of your friends and rape their mothers afterwards is kind of like choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream?
that is a real bad analogy, besides that the concept of right and wrong is depandent on what the vast majority of the society think is "right" or "wrong", lets say if the society accepts and encorage that the killing of ones friend and rapeing their mothers later is not only acceptable it is encourage among the society, then it is in fact "right" and not doing so might be even seen as blasphemous. (though the fact that such a society won't last long is besides the point.)
cookie wizards of the the simic
The extendo siggy thingy currently dead
I have been "punished" too for "going against store policies", what I thought was minor or that the rules could "bend" for a curtain situation. I've also had to inforce rules on my cashiers that I thought were stupid or I wanted to let slide. My feelings are everyone on this forum will do/have done/ a similair "rule" break at thier jobs, minor, to get yelled at, or major, to get fired.
In looking for a new job, I would suggest seeing your old managers and making sure you can get a good referance from them. If not, it's still ok, but it's good to have your old direct managers having your back despite of what corporate made them do to you.
You did what you thought you had to do, and they did what they thought they had to do too. You shouldn't have any regrets about what happened.
Maybe his course of action given the avaible information can't clearly be defined as right or wrong. What is wrong, though, is telling him he was at fault for trying to help a distressed person (this is the subway hero thing all over again).
Of course, about 10 minutes ago, however if I get caught I have to accept the consequences.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
I think if it were a black and white situation between giving her the room and turning her away, I'd give her the room. However, if I were the hotel manager, I would and SHOULD fire you. You violated the rules in a way that caused risk to the hotel.
This is what I'm curious about: Why didn't you put up your own card for this woman, in essence renting her the room on your own tab?
not likely we only have like 200 rooms and there are 2 security guards on every night, so yeah the room could have been a little damaged but i doubt that it would get like demolished before security heard things breaking
why would some one else get let go for my actions?
i dont have any regrets and i would do it agian, only a little smarter this time. As for my managers, they love me they told me letting me go was something they were being forced to do by the owner. i know they are going to give me a good ref.
and i did
i dont have a credit card, only debit card and it has to auth for 500 a night. i dont have 500
In this particular case, you were absolutely right to take her in. Although you should have then called the police to report what you believed to be a case of domestic abuse. You should still go down to the police station and tell them all the facts of the case that you know of. This is a serious matter. Someone is apparently in fear for their health and life, with apparent good cause. You should be taking action to help, and your boss should be held accountable for not doing so.
I think the fact that you're putting this as casually as "ethics 101" is also a little childish. It's extremely easy to make releasethedogs as the hero and the boss as Pontius Pilate in this case. However, I don't see this as so. Recognize that this woman could have done ANYTHING within that hotel, and if an incident had occurred, his boss would, or at least should, have been held just as accountable as he was. How a person's employees screw up reflect the person managing them.
My point is that yes, I would argue releasethedogs did a good deed. However, he should have been fired. He violated the rules of his job. He seems to see this as an ok tradeoff, and power to him, but whenever you find yourself between two sets of rules and deciding which one to break, you don't do so and expect no punishment.
Not to mention ethics 101 fails whenever you're faced with multiple solutions to the same problem. He should have approached the woman and called the police. And I agree, releasethedogs, you should still report the incident.
As far as any of us know, she attacked someone else and while that person defended themself they caused all of the bruises to her - hence the "rough" day comment.
Releasethedogs saw someone that he felt needed help. He did what he thought would to help her. Unfortunately for him, what he did was against his hotel's policies and caused him to get fired from his job - even though his managers didn't want to let him go. There's not really much more to the story.
I think you did what you thought was right, but you could have handled the situation differently. Calling the cops and waiting with her while they came would have been the better course of action, because they can actually do something about it. You would have kept your job as well. With everything else equal, that would be the optimum course of action, so you probably didn't do the actual right thing, even though you had her best interests at heart.
1. We know nothing about this woman.
2. Explain to me how exactly this woman is better off now than she was then?
1) We have reason to believe she was battered. That alone is enough to offer help, even were she penniless.
2) She had one night at least where she wasn't sleeping in a gutter? I agree that more should of, and still should be, done in this case. But clearly turning a woman who has been a victim of violence and is afraid for her life away is grossly immoral.
To IBA's response to Point 1; We also have a reasonable alternative explanation to those bruises, proposed by Misterpid. We have equal evidence to support the idea that she was battered and the idea that she was injured while mugging an innocent tourist. If we have equal chances of both, I believe we must follow Murphy's Law, and assume she was injured mugging somebody. Would you like your hotel to become known as a hide-out for criminals?
What evidence is there to support the battered woman theory? The bruises on the chest. Conveniently, the chest is also where attackers usually are injured by victems, which supports the mugger theory. Neither theory can be proven at this point, and it is also clear that while Release did what he believed to be right, there were better alternatives.
I wouldn't call this a case of doing what's right and being punished for it, as much as a case of making a crucial decision based on too little evidence, and facing the consequences.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
i do have rent, and bills no children but i do have a fat cat to feed... i mean i am 25 years old after all. i dont still like with my parents. How ever i do know how to save money (except when a new set comes out ) and i have a nice cushion if i cant find a job for some time. i doubt that will be the case how ever because i have allready lined up some interviews for monday morning.
and i did think about getting the hotel some bad PR, but it would also hurt the other people who work there most of which are my friends. Plus im not a vindictive jerk face. im a happy go lucky irish boy with a good heart, some thing that does not seem to go well in american business. serious id be the first to be fired on the apprentice. proud of it too.
Occam's razor says more likely she was assulted by her partner then by a tourist who was defending themselfs. Especially in scottsdale ... the hotel is like a block away from 8 million dollar condos. Not the rough part of town. Its like the brentwood of Arizona. I doubt there are a lot of muggings in brentwood.
funny, never thought this thread would get so many responces. Im glad and happy with the level of the debate that has gone on. Oh yeah and if typeing my whole name out is too long "RTD" will do
This is some of the most disingenuous reasoning I've ever seen. The two theories are not even remotely near as likely. This isn't grade school. We're not going to just give every theory equal credence to make you feel good. misterpid's theory doesn't make a damned bit of sense. You're saying that an unarmed woman decided to mug a random tourist and got the crap justly beaten out of her? How many muggings do you know of that occur against victims that are clearly able to outclass their unarmed assailants? To what level do you have to distort reality to come up with this scenario in order to defend your poorly conceived initial stance?
From the ground, it was conceivably possible that all the Jews in the concentration camps were really criminals, or that the genocide in Rwanda was really a two sided conflict and not just a massacre of innocents, but those certainly weren't reasonable assumptions to make. They were bull**** excuses people used to justify their own selfish inaction. Much like this. If you were to be intellectually honest for one moment, you would simply admit that the chances are vastly in favor of the idea that she was attacked, rather than incompetently attacking another- and in either case, the morally correct path is still to allow her to check in and than alert the police, either for her protection or for another's.
In fact, how do you know anything about her or her situation?
Step 1) She tries to mug the person,
Step 2) They beat her up and she runs away.
Someone would've gotten much more seriously hurt, or, more likely, the person wouldn't have offered resistance. Certainly the cops would have been called.