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