M.lynch managing director, will he get fired?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes. All the time.

Absolutely. I don't like the taste of something, I just ask for it to be removed or subbed. Including types of nuts.

That smoothie shop btw has 3 smoothies with peanut butter. All of which use it as the base.

Judging by the fact that he ordered it for a 17-year-old teen boy, who love to 'bulk', I'm guessing it was the 800 LB Gorilla. The second ingredient (which means the second most plentiful) is peanut butter. Kid had a death wish.

Lots of stupid to go around, he didn't communicate to the stupid workers what happened so how are they supposed to learn

Turns out it gets worse. Out of the 3 smoothies identified it has been confirmed by actual on-camera reporters that this guy ordered...drumroll please...

a P'NUT POWER PLUS SMOOTHIE!!!

Yes. He ordered the smoothie with the name Peanut in its title for his deathly allergic son.

This has to be a joke! 😑

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes. All the time.

Absolutely. I don't like the taste of something, I just ask for it to be removed or subbed. Including types of nuts.

That smoothie shop btw has 3 smoothies with peanut butter. All of which use it as the base.

Judging by the fact that he ordered it for a 17-year-old teen boy, who love to 'bulk', I'm guessing it was the 800 LB Gorilla. The second ingredient (which means the second most plentiful) is peanut butter. Kid had a death wish.

Lots of stupid to go around, he didn't communicate to the stupid workers what happened so how are they supposed to learn

Turns out it gets worse. Out of the 3 smoothies identified it has been confirmed by actual on-camera reporters that this guy ordered...drumroll please...

a P'NUT POWER PLUS SMOOTHIE!!!

Yes. He ordered the smoothie with the name Peanut in its title for his deathly allergic son.

This has to be a joke! 😑

If you look at the menu and the picture of the girl with smoothie that he threw on her it is definitely the same color as the nut smoothies.

[Anonymous]

Just watched the video. Those girls were scared.
His lawyer is claiming that his parental instinct kicked in (!!) but to in turn abuse someone else's children is sickening.

And yes the smoothie had P-Nut in the title.

[Anonymous]

Thank goodness for cell phones and the internet. Those girls will have the satisfaction of seeing him totally lose that fight.

[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.

Yes. All the time.

+1

My oldest hates peanut butter. He is not allergic, but just HATES it, and will not eat or drink anything with peanut butter in it.

The “no peanut butter” is printed on the receipt because the order taker might not be the drink maker. The onus is on the customer to let people know they are allergic. There is someone allergic to literally every ingredient they sell. They aren’t going to ask every customer that says “no X ingredient” if they are allergic. This is a part of the issue - Dad isn’t an active parent. With a 17 year old deathly allergic to peanuts, it should be a reflex at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes. All the time.

+1

My oldest hates peanut butter. He is not allergic, but just HATES it, and will not eat or drink anything with peanut butter in it.

The “no peanut butter” is printed on the receipt because the order taker might not be the drink maker. The onus is on the customer to let people know they are allergic. There is someone allergic to literally every ingredient they sell. They aren’t going to ask every customer that says “no X ingredient” if they are allergic. This is a part of the issue - Dad isn’t an active parent. With a 17 year old deathly allergic to peanuts, it should be a reflex at this point.

It’s just idiotic to order “no peanuts” from a place that has so many smoothies with peanuts in them. Cross-contamination is always a risk. Those teens are not going to wash all the equipment just so that one customer can have “no peanuts”. The dad is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

So, wait -- three of the four performance smoothies have peanuts in them. He ordered the one that has "P-Nut" in the title for his son, but asked for no peanuts ... and his son has an anaphylactic peanut allergy severe enough to carry an EpiPen?

And he's mad at a bunch of teenage girls?

And people trust this guy to make good judgments with their money? Merrill Lynch had to fire him.

[Anonymous]

Dude’s an idiot. My spouse has a severe food allergy. My dad’s girlfriend has an extremely deadly food allergy. Whenever we go anywhere to eat, we make it VERY clear about the allergies and confirm multiple times that they can make an item without any risk of contamination. If there’s any question at all, we leave. I’d be even more precautious if it was my child.

God I hate a-holes like that guy who try to intimidate girls. Saw a gross old man like him do the same thing to a young female employee in a store when she asked him to wear a mask recently. When I intervened he suddenly backed down because he knew he’s not gonna intimidate a big old fat lady like he can a 19 year old girl who’s half his size. Guarantee if those employees were all 6’4 muscle heads he would have been respectful. Douche.

Happy he lost his job. He was a VP, right? When you have a high position like that, you are held to a higher standard than everyone else. If you don’t like being held to a code of conduct, don’t go for those jobs. Good for ML for firing him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, wait -- three of the four performance smoothies have peanuts in them. He ordered the one that has "P-Nut" in the title for his son, but asked for no peanuts ... and his son has an anaphylactic peanut allergy severe enough to carry an EpiPen?

And he's mad at a bunch of teenage girls?

And people trust this guy to make good judgments with their money? Merrill Lynch had to fire him.

The first ingredient isn't peanut butter in all four. Those are mostly fruit smoothies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, wait -- three of the four performance smoothies have peanuts in them. He ordered the one that has "P-Nut" in the title for his son, but asked for no peanuts ... and his son has an anaphylactic peanut allergy severe enough to carry an EpiPen?

And he's mad at a bunch of teenage girls?

And people trust this guy to make good judgments with their money? Merrill Lynch had to fire him.

The first ingredient isn't peanut butter in all four. Those are mostly fruit smoothies.

Right. Nobody said it did. Way to damn the dude with faint praise there, PP.

[Anonymous]

For those who can't believe he's 48. I'll just say you'd be surprised at how fast you age when you're consumed by unwarranted hatred. Take a look at the faces in Trump rallies—they might as well be called the convention of worn out and washed up people.

It's interesting that this chubby loser lives in a state that used to be one of the headquarters of the refined and tasteful WASPS who have always considered people with last names like his as nothing but low life interlopers which given his behavior, he truly is .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those poor girls!!! I really hope their company takes care of them and gives them any support they need to work through such a traumatic experience.

I’ve got no word for his behavior.

“Work through their trauma”?

AYFKM?

This is one of the things that’s wrong with this country. Assuming that people are so fragile they’d be scarred by a shouting match with some a-hole. Life is FULL of jerks like that. If people sought therapy every time they encountered one, they’d never have time to do anything else.

The Russians and Chinese are doubled over in laughter at how soft this country is becoming. It’s shameful.

Which China are you referring to ? The one that asked its men to stop being 'sissies' because they're deemed too feminine ???? You've just exposed your own ignorance on a topic you seemingly know nothing about . Please be quiet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Basically you can only insult straight white Christian people in America or you lose your job

Basically, there's virtually nothing 'christian' about straight white men in this country .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dude’s an idiot. My spouse has a severe food allergy. My dad’s girlfriend has an extremely deadly food allergy. Whenever we go anywhere to eat, we make it VERY clear about the allergies and confirm multiple times that they can make an item without any risk of contamination. If there’s any question at all, we leave. I’d be even more precautious if it was my child.

God I hate a-holes like that guy who try to intimidate girls. Saw a gross old man like him do the same thing to a young female employee in a store when she asked him to wear a mask recently. When I intervened he suddenly backed down because he knew he’s not gonna intimidate a big old fat lady like he can a 19 year old girl who’s half his size. Guarantee if those employees were all 6’4 muscle heads he would have been respectful. Douche.

Happy he lost his job. He was a VP, right? When you have a high position like that, you are held to a higher standard than everyone else. If you don’t like being held to a code of conduct, don’t go for those jobs. Good for ML for firing him.

This. My mom has a severe shellfish allergy, and in restaurants will grill the server about exactly what is in the seafood dishes, even things that shouldn't have shellfish. She won't order fish soup, just in case. Even if she's ordering chicken, she'll mention the shellfish allergy, just in case. There is no way he should have been ordering a smoothie with peanut in the title, or in the ingredient list, it's just too risky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, wait -- three of the four performance smoothies have peanuts in them. He ordered the one that has "P-Nut" in the title for his son, but asked for no peanuts ... and his son has an anaphylactic peanut allergy severe enough to carry an EpiPen?

And he's mad at a bunch of teenage girls?

And people trust this guy to make good judgments with their money? Merrill Lynch had to fire him.

The first ingredient isn't peanut butter in all four. Those are mostly fruit smoothies.

Right. Nobody said it did. Way to damn the dude with faint praise there, PP.

My point is that the names hardly matter. Pnut isn't how you spell peanut. They probably couldn't call it that because peanuts aren't the first ingredient. Arguing he should have expected peanut butter because it has Pnut in the name is silly. None of the names have any correlation to the actual ingredients.