theacoustician said:Isn't this one obvious? Get the dude to take some camphone pics.
Yeah, that's what I was saying in my first post. It's the only way to be sure short of seeing it yourself.
theacoustician said:Isn't this one obvious? Get the dude to take some camphone pics.
FlamingGlory said:+1 on the cameraphone pics
I would call if it is true. I use to call about dogs chained up outside in the winter on my paper route. Although the sheriff handled it there, not animal control.
fly said:What can calling animal control hurt here guys?
fly said:What can calling animal control hurt here guys?
fly said:What can calling animal control hurt here guys?
Hahahaha.. what a good puSarcasmo said:Contrary to popular belief animal control does not appreciate being sent out on wild goose chases.
Shit, nevermind.Sarcasmo said:No pun intended.
Does the word "litigation" mean anything?fly said:What can calling animal control hurt here guys?
Just like they do for anonymous tips to the IRS?theacoustician said:Does the word "litigation" mean anything?
You don't think this person will figure it out? If there's any chance that this person figures out that it was Candy's business that turned them in and it ends up being wrong, I can promise someone will be on the horn to their lawyer and there will be a business no more.fly said:Just like they do for anonymous tips to the IRS?
A different perspective and a very good point.Floptical said:It seems you have grounds not only for the pets in question but also for your technician's safety and security while on the job. The technician making the complaint to you now brings a possible negative situation with his working environment. If you do not make some sort of documented attempt to clear this issue up the "drama queen" could have goods against you or the company if he ever has to go back into that environment again. So just protect yourself and make the call.
They invited the technician in.theacoustician said:You don't think this person will figure it out? If there's any chance that this person figures out that it was Candy's business that turned them in and it ends up being wrong, I can promise someone will be on the horn to their lawyer and there will be a business no more.
that, My friend, is Bullshit. I worked at 3 petstores for over 2 years. 2 to a cage at most and that is if they are small breed dogs.BeeRad said:Dont do anything until you see it with your own eyes PLZ!!!!!!!!!
It is not right of you to accuse people of animal cruality if you have not seen anything of the nature and are going on hear/say. Ever walk into a puppy store? They have like 7 pups to a cage and it always smells horrid in there.
Probably it does. Otherwise it wouldn't really be a word.theacoustician said:Does the word "litigation" mean anything?
Whistleblowers are getting cracked down on more and more lately, so you never know. Regardless, you'll still have to spend money to defend yourself against some jackhole and that goes on your professional insurance coverage. When the rates go up, either the business starts charging more and becomes less competitive or they fire someone. That someone usually ends up being the person that caused the litigation.FlamingGlory said:They invited the technician in.
The animals are in plain sight.
If the animals are in plain sight there is no reason why she couldnt have seen them any number of other ways.
She's acting as a person, independant of the company, on her own time.
It really depends on how stupid the courts around there are.