M.lynch managing director, will he get fired?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I am a parent of a girl. If my DD made a mistake that could have caused someone's life, I would hope I raised her well enough to show some concern and not be flippant about it.

So you raised your kid to let someone rage at her when she didn't actually make a mistake? They made the smoothie as per the request: no peanut butter. Nobody ever mentioned an allergy to them.

Those kids made a mistake, otherwise his kid would not be in the hospital.

The girl said in the interview that she was not sure if someone added peanut butter. Kids are liars and I bet they made a mistake and were covering themselves. He asked for no peanut butter, but he did get peanut butter in it if his son landed up in the hospital after 2 epi-pen shots.

And no, I am not related to him.

you need a psychiatrist if you think it's the kids fault. I hope you don't have children

Too late for that. I already have kids and I don't want them to be arrogant with a don't care attitude like those kids. It is both the kids' and the guy's fault. I don't see why his life has to be ruined while those kids are considered heroes (like the crazy poster above talking above a blue hoodie girl and polling people).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was wrong. No amount of rationalization will excuse what he did.

I can agree he was wrong while also:
1. Thinking that being wrong in this way should not merit you losing your job.
and
2. Thinking that the blue hoody girl is not someone I would want to employ since she cannot keep her cool while an employee. I definitely think the "so what" kind of attitude of the kids contributed to the escalation rather than if they had apologized profusely, called the manager, etc. And Yes i have a daughter, yes i worked in restaurants, and behaving professionally even when a minimum wage employee and teen is important.

+1

You must be men. It is not her job to manage his emotions. He was out of control from the minute he got there.

Sorry to disappoint you. I am a woman with a daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was wrong. No amount of rationalization will excuse what he did.

I can agree he was wrong while also:
1. Thinking that being wrong in this way should not merit you losing your job.
and
2. Thinking that the blue hoody girl is not someone I would want to employ since she cannot keep her cool while an employee. I definitely think the "so what" kind of attitude of the kids contributed to the escalation rather than if they had apologized profusely, called the manager, etc. And Yes i have a daughter, yes i worked in restaurants, and behaving professionally even when a minimum wage employee and teen is important.

+1

The 16 year old Roblek’s employee should control and deescalate the situation? Whereas the wealthy, highly educated middle aged man can be excused for yelling and threatening and throwing something at a person, because the employee had a “so what” attitude?

Hmmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he ever mention the son during the tirade?

Not on the video.

Please remember there is some unedited video which will set the record straight. You know where he comes in calmly and it is the teens who start dropping f-bombs, calling names and throwing things at him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was wrong. No amount of rationalization will excuse what he did.

I can agree he was wrong while also:
1. Thinking that being wrong in this way should not merit you losing your job.
and
2. Thinking that the blue hoody girl is not someone I would want to employ since she cannot keep her cool while an employee. I definitely think the "so what" kind of attitude of the kids contributed to the escalation rather than if they had apologized profusely, called the manager, etc. And Yes i have a daughter, yes i worked in restaurants, and behaving professionally even when a minimum wage employee and teen is important.

+1

You must be men. It is not her job to manage his emotions. He was out of control from the minute he got there.

Sorry to disappoint you. I am a woman with a daughter.

Well one turned himself in after committing a crime. Do you know which one? 🤷🏼‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Serious question: why would someone specify "no peanuts" in a smoothie UNLESS the drink was for someone with allergies? I mean would someone walk in and say "Kale and spinach smoothie, no peanuts" just because they don't like peanuts? Would the store print that request on the receipt as happened here? And if there is some other reason to specify no specific ingredient, should the server ASK if there is an allergy?

I agree that the dad acted badly. But I do not think he should have lost his job. I DO think the kids should lose their jobs. Why the difference? The dad's bad behavior wasn't related to his job at all. If people want to chose another fin adviser they can, but the rate of return his customers get from their investments is not affected by what he did. Nobody can sue Merrill Lynch based on what the dad did. ML is firing him due to the bad publicity.

The kids' mistakes were related to their jobs. There is no question that there was a 911 call from the dad's home about 45 minutes after he bought the smoothie. If the son died, the smoothie store would be facing a wrongful death action. As it is, the son probably has a case for negligence against it.

The fact that the kids' attitude was so cavalier indicates that they had not received sufficient training from their employer about food allergies. That is negligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was wrong. No amount of rationalization will excuse what he did.

I can agree he was wrong while also:
1. Thinking that being wrong in this way should not merit you losing your job.
and
2. Thinking that the blue hoody girl is not someone I would want to employ since she cannot keep her cool while an employee. I definitely think the "so what" kind of attitude of the kids contributed to the escalation rather than if they had apologized profusely, called the manager, etc. And Yes i have a daughter, yes i worked in restaurants, and behaving professionally even when a minimum wage employee and teen is important.

+1

The 16 year old Roblek’s employee should control and deescalate the situation? Whereas the wealthy, highly educated middle aged man can be excused for yelling and threatening and throwing something at a person, because the employee had a “so what” attitude?

Hmmmm.

DP. I think both the man and the employees are at fault. Both were screaming profanities and acting unhinged. Yes, I’d expect better behavior from a middle aged man, but the young girls working weren’t exactly well behaved either.

I’m definitely not raising my girls to behave like that to talk that way to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he ever mention the son during the tirade?

Not on the video.

Please remember there is some unedited video which will set the record straight. You know where he comes in calmly and it is the teens who start dropping f-bombs, calling names and throwing things at him.

Where’s this video?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I am a parent of a girl. If my DD made a mistake that could have caused someone's life, I would hope I raised her well enough to show some concern and not be flippant about it.

So you raised your kid to let someone rage at her when she didn't actually make a mistake? They made the smoothie as per the request: no peanut butter. Nobody ever mentioned an allergy to them.

Those kids made a mistake, otherwise his kid would not be in the hospital.

The girl said in the interview that she was not sure if someone added peanut butter. Kids are liars and I bet they made a mistake and were covering themselves. He asked for no peanut butter, but he did get peanut butter in it if his son landed up in the hospital after 2 epi-pen shots.

And no, I am not related to him.

you need a psychiatrist if you think it's the kids fault. I hope you don't have children

Too late for that. I already have kids and I don't want them to be arrogant with a don't care attitude like those kids. It is both the kids' and the guy's fault. I don't see why his life has to be ruined while those kids are considered heroes (like the crazy poster above talking above a blue hoodie girl and polling people).

I don't think they're heroes and I don't see why you put so much stock in some site called thetealmango.com. But it's not the job of a bunch of teenagers to manage the anger of a man who storms in and starts screaming and throwing things. I don't have daughters but I absolutely would not raise them to take that kind of abuse from any customer. Nobody needs to be screamed at like that. That is the kind of behavior seen in mental institutions and prisons, not suburban strip malls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would someone specify "no peanuts" in a smoothie UNLESS the drink was for someone with allergies? I mean would someone walk in and say "Kale and spinach smoothie, no peanuts" just because they don't like peanuts? Would the store print that request on the receipt as happened here? And if there is some other reason to specify no specific ingredient, should the server ASK if there is an allergy?

I agree that the dad acted badly. But I do not think he should have lost his job. I DO think the kids should lose their jobs. Why the difference? The dad's bad behavior wasn't related to his job at all. If people want to chose another fin adviser they can, but the rate of return his customers get from their investments is not affected by what he did. Nobody can sue Merrill Lynch based on what the dad did. ML is firing him due to the bad publicity.

The kids' mistakes were related to their jobs. There is no question that there was a 911 call from the dad's home about 45 minutes after he bought the smoothie. If the son died, the smoothie store would be facing a wrongful death action. As it is, the son probably has a case for negligence against it.

The fact that the kids' attitude was so cavalier indicates that they had not received sufficient training from their employer about food allergies. That is negligence.

Of course you can ask to hold an ingredient for reasons other than allergies. No red onion, please. Not because I'm deathly allergic, but because I don't like them. Seriously, how do you exist on this planet while not knowing how the world works?

[Anonymous]

My sister works at Disney world. They have very strict protocols for food allergies. The chef handles them personally, and they are prepared in a different section of the kitchen, with separate equipment.

She had a customer get very upset about her teen eating a dish. She complained my sister did not tell her one of the items had pineapple topping, and her son was allergic. She had to calmly explain to the woman that two other dishes that they had already consumed had pineapple in them, and this is why telling the server about food allergies is so important. It happened another time, when a woman didn’t mention her allergy, and the sauce for the dish ordered had fish sauce in it. The lady had to use her epipen in the dining room.

Tell. Your. Server. About. Your. Allergy.

Never assume looking at a menu is a complete list of ingredients, or protection from cross contamination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was wrong. No amount of rationalization will excuse what he did.

I can agree he was wrong while also:
1. Thinking that being wrong in this way should not merit you losing your job.
and
2. Thinking that the blue hoody girl is not someone I would want to employ since she cannot keep her cool while an employee. I definitely think the "so what" kind of attitude of the kids contributed to the escalation rather than if they had apologized profusely, called the manager, etc. And Yes i have a daughter, yes i worked in restaurants, and behaving professionally even when a minimum wage employee and teen is important.

+1

The 16 year old Roblek’s employee should control and deescalate the situation? Whereas the wealthy, highly educated middle aged man can be excused for yelling and threatening and throwing something at a person, because the employee had a “so what” attitude?

Hmmmm.

I am raising my daughter to stand up for herself. He threw a drink at her.

DP. I think both the man and the employees are at fault. Both were screaming profanities and acting unhinged. Yes, I’d expect better behavior from a middle aged man, but the young girls working weren’t exactly well behaved either.

I’m definitely not raising my girls to behave like that to talk that way to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would someone specify "no peanuts" in a smoothie UNLESS the drink was for someone with allergies? I mean would someone walk in and say "Kale and spinach smoothie, no peanuts" just because they don't like peanuts? Would the store print that request on the receipt as happened here? And if there is some other reason to specify no specific ingredient, should the server ASK if there is an allergy?

I agree that the dad acted badly. But I do not think he should have lost his job. I DO think the kids should lose their jobs. Why the difference? The dad's bad behavior wasn't related to his job at all. If people want to chose another fin adviser they can, but the rate of return his customers get from their investments is not affected by what he did. Nobody can sue Merrill Lynch based on what the dad did. ML is firing him due to the bad publicity.

The kids' mistakes were related to their jobs. There is no question that there was a 911 call from the dad's home about 45 minutes after he bought the smoothie. If the son died, the smoothie store would be facing a wrongful death action. As it is, the son probably has a case for negligence against it.

The fact that the kids' attitude was so cavalier indicates that they had not received sufficient training from their employer about food allergies. That is negligence.

Because he ordered a smoothie that contains peanut butter and asked for them to hold the peanut butter.

He reacted like that because he was upset with himself for being an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: why would someone specify "no peanuts" in a smoothie UNLESS the drink was for someone with allergies? I mean would someone walk in and say "Kale and spinach smoothie, no peanuts" just because they don't like peanuts? Would the store print that request on the receipt as happened here? And if there is some other reason to specify no specific ingredient, should the server ASK if there is an allergy?

I agree that the dad acted badly. But I do not think he should have lost his job. I DO think the kids should lose their jobs. Why the difference? The dad's bad behavior wasn't related to his job at all. If people want to chose another fin adviser they can, but the rate of return his customers get from their investments is not affected by what he did. Nobody can sue Merrill Lynch based on what the dad did. ML is firing him due to the bad publicity.

The kids' mistakes were related to their jobs. There is no question that there was a 911 call from the dad's home about 45 minutes after he bought the smoothie. If the son died, the smoothie store would be facing a wrongful death action. As it is, the son probably has a case for negligence against it.

The fact that the kids' attitude was so cavalier indicates that they had not received sufficient training from their employer about food allergies. That is negligence.

Of course you can ask to hold an ingredient for reasons other than allergies. No red onion, please. Not because I'm deathly allergic, but because I don't like them. Seriously, how do you exist on this planet while not knowing how the world works?

And YES, if you order a burger from McDonald's it says No Slivered Onion right on the receipt. And I know that if I was deathly allergic to onions I should not take that receipt as gospel truth that that burger will not contain any onion molecules. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Robek's released a statement?

I'm curious too. I hope these teens were also fired for putting peanut butter in the smoothie. They deserve to be fired for negligence too.

Dream on. They made an honest mistake if they did. If your kid is deathly allergic to peanuts be a responsible parent and don’t buy food at a place that serves peanuts. It’s not rocket science.[/quote

Exactly. If your child has a peanut allergy you need to eat at home, and prepare the food yourself. Even if there was nuts the residue from the same mixing process could set off a reaction. Still not the servers fault. The idiot parent is not monitoring their child's food. When our kids were small the school tried to make us sign a form that we wouldn't put anything with peanuts in our kids lunch. Absurd, and most refused to sign it like myself. Finally one of the big brains at the school decided a peanut free table would be sufficient.
This nimrod is the only one to blame, he was very scary and threatening.