M.lynch managing director, will he get fired?

[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).

An adult chose to misbehave and got his due desserts, or should I say smoothies. The girls did not initiate this nonsense. It’s time entitled people like you realize things are changing.

[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.

Finally, another person who is reasonable. I cannot believe the herd mentality here making someone out to be complete villain and justifying the teens' actions. I really wish that dad had not thrown the smoothie and sent it for testing instead. The smoothie store would have received some bad publicity, which they deserve. If I ask for something with no peanut butter, it means exactly that. I don't care how you contaminated it, and that smoothie place is responsible. Those kids were so dismissive. Maybe a lawyer can chime in and say if the son has a case against that place (after all he was taken by ambulance to the hospital and there is proof that his smoothie was contaminated based on the girls video interview and the father throwing a tantrum)

ML fired him for bad publicity and the smoothie place is backing these kids because media is portraying them as heroes.

[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.

Is this sarcasm? If not, how are you privy to such a tape and please post it to set the record straight.

And, how to you mentally get past the racist statements?

[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).

His life is not ruined. But he can't continue to represent ML. That is not what they are looking for. That is far from ruined.

And maybe he won't pull another stunt like that so progress.

[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.

Finally, another person who is reasonable. I cannot believe the herd mentality here making someone out to be complete villain and justifying the teens' actions. I really wish that dad had not thrown the smoothie and sent it for testing instead. The smoothie store would have received some bad publicity, which they deserve. If I ask for something with no peanut butter, it means exactly that. I don't care how you contaminated it, and that smoothie place is responsible. Those kids were so dismissive. Maybe a lawyer can chime in and say if the son has a case against that place (after all he was taken by ambulance to the hospital and there is proof that his smoothie was contaminated based on the girls video interview and the father throwing a tantrum)

ML fired him for bad publicity and the smoothie place is backing these kids because media is portraying them as heroes.

You’re an idiot if you go to Robek’s with a peanut allergy! There are some places that are not safe.

[Anonymous]

PPs are so dumb. Saying "no peanuts" is not the same as sharing that the customer's life will be endangered by any contact with traces of peanut. No one at a smoothie chain was going to have the smoothie sent out for testing! There is no legal claim for "negligence" and the only negligence here is the parent whose kid has a life-threatening peanuts allergy getting takeout from a shop that uses peanuts.

The guy is a jerk - who on earth would want to defend him??

[Anonymous]

If he not white the store employee would be arrested for attempted murder

[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.

Finally, another person who is reasonable. I cannot believe the herd mentality here making someone out to be complete villain and justifying the teens' actions. I really wish that dad had not thrown the smoothie and sent it for testing instead. The smoothie store would have received some bad publicity, which they deserve. If I ask for something with no peanut butter, it means exactly that. I don't care how you contaminated it, and that smoothie place is responsible. Those kids were so dismissive. Maybe a lawyer can chime in and say if the son has a case against that place (after all he was taken by ambulance to the hospital and there is proof that his smoothie was contaminated based on the girls video interview and the father throwing a tantrum)

ML fired him for bad publicity and the smoothie place is backing these kids because media is portraying them as heroes.

We will never know what *might* have happened if Mr. Ianazzo had acted reasonably, now, will we? I imagine if he had called corporate to complain he probably would have gotten a sincere apology and some free smoothies, which certainly would have been a better outcome for him. Probably the staff would have had to go through some extra training, too.

And I still don't think anyone is portraying them as heroes, but certainly as victims of a very scary torrent of abuse from a clearly unhinged person. The video doesn't lie.

[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.

Finally, another person who is reasonable. I cannot believe the herd mentality here making someone out to be complete villain and justifying the teens' actions. I really wish that dad had not thrown the smoothie and sent it for testing instead. The smoothie store would have received some bad publicity, which they deserve. If I ask for something with no peanut butter, it means exactly that. I don't care how you contaminated it, and that smoothie place is responsible. Those kids were so dismissive. Maybe a lawyer can chime in and say if the son has a case against that place (after all he was taken by ambulance to the hospital and there is proof that his smoothie was contaminated based on the girls video interview and the father throwing a tantrum)

ML fired him for bad publicity and the smoothie place is backing these kids because media is portraying them as heroes.

The father was extremely irresponsible to put his son at risk by buying food at a place that serves peanuts, if indeed his son was all that allergic. Bad parenting and now trying to pass the blame.

[Anonymous]

When your kids have those kinds of allergies you have to change your lifestyle. And strongly reinforce to your child eating at home is the only option. And teaching them not to accept food from other...It's common sense, and he is yet another idiot who is failing his kid. Only one responsible is the dad.

[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.

Finally, another person who is reasonable. I cannot believe the herd mentality here making someone out to be complete villain and justifying the teens' actions. I really wish that dad had not thrown the smoothie and sent it for testing instead. The smoothie store would have received some bad publicity, which they deserve. If I ask for something with no peanut butter, it means exactly that. I don't care how you contaminated it, and that smoothie place is responsible. Those kids were so dismissive. Maybe a lawyer can chime in and say if the son has a case against that place (after all he was taken by ambulance to the hospital and there is proof that his smoothie was contaminated based on the girls video interview and the father throwing a tantrum)

ML fired him for bad publicity and the smoothie place is backing these kids because media is portraying them as heroes.

Only ONE kid made the smoothie. Why are you blaming all the girls? It doesn’t take 4!people to make one smoothie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not on the video.

He actually does say “my f*****g son ALMOST went to the f*****g hospital” more than halfway through.
https://heavy.com/news/james-iannazzo/amp/

[Anonymous]

I do not support what the guy did but I would avoid that smooth place.

[Anonymous]

The first line in the entire video is "please don't yell at us".

Not please don't f-ing yell at us, or shut up, or shut the F up, etc.


It just starts. "Please don't yell at us".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not support what the guy did but I would avoid that smooth place.

Good. Just leave them alone.