Lot Attendant Hates My Mustang (Dashcam video)

[CEHollier]

And I hope next time you slip and have a bad day you lose your employment/business without a second chance for cursing; especially if it's in private by yourself. Oh wait you wouldnt do that to yourself now would you. It's hypocritical.

I feel bad for your employees.

Sweet. You accuse me of not knowing you in another post. I feel bad for your customers. The standard I hold employees to I also follow. But then you don't know me.

Sponsored

 

[Blk2015GT]

Would be a good test case. The dash cam is in open and clear view. In Louisiana you do not need a reason to fire someone. So in my little piece of paradise he would be gone.

Unlike talking to your lawyer or playing one on TV I actually am one. So trust me, the law doesnt care. The PA statute from actually reading it very clearly uses the word "consent" over and over. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=57

It does not contain an exception for open and obvious recording devices. The ONLY legal exceptions where consent is not an issue are truly public places, literally in public, or a store for security purposes. Police have exemptions for safety too. That's what their cams are for.

In fact GM had/has this problem in many states where the C7s valet mode is illegally recording per state law http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ecording-tech-could-be-a-felony-in-12-states/

For an example of damages, another case of a audio recorder in a teddybear at a daycare. $120k in damages n Massachusetts. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/modern-divorce-wiretapped-teddy-bears-120000-in-fines/

And as I edited my last post to add- believe it or not if this guy was a member here or saw this on youtube could sue OP for $1,000 plus attorney's fees and costs per PA statute; as well as loss of his employment and lost salary until he can find a new job- and maybe even punitive damages. The statute is very clear.

 

[347CobraII]

Sweet. You accuse me of not knowing you in another post. And you spew this tripe. I feel bad for your customers. The standard I hold employees to I also follow. But then you don't know me.

RIGHT what are you robot

 

[Waylap1]

There was nothing at all during the entire recording that gave me the sense that he even knew about the camera and that it was recording. You know guys....not everyone is tech savvy!! Most of us adults don't play video games, don't use computers much other than emIl or forums and certainly don't have a clue about go pros, or anything like that!
The guy sounded like he wasn't exactly the brightest bulb out there and not young either. He's a freaking LOT attendant! He moves cars and washes them for a job.
And he was talked to himself in a normally expected private setting.
He may be a doosh but unless he said things in a public area or around other employees, he's done NOTHING wrong and if you complained to get him fired then YOU would be the a**hole.

 

[Socalmustang]

He's bad mouthing the company...how many business owners here would tolerate any employee doing that?

I would fire that guy instantly for being unprofessional, getting caught on camera, and most of all for now knowing the character he possesses.

 

[Waylap1]

Would be a good test case. The dash cam is in open and clear view. In Louisiana you do not need a reason to fire someone. So in my little piece of paradise he would be gone.

And if you showed your grandma that camera and ask d her what it was....she would just jump right up and say hell to the yeah, that's a GoPro model xps123 homie!
Come on guys...not everyone knows what the heck those things are!

 

[foghat]

Would be a good test case. The dash cam is in open and clear view. In Louisiana you do not need a reason to fire someone. So in my little piece of paradise he would be gone.

Have you sat in our cars with the dash cam mounted behind the mirror? From the drivers seat you absolutely cannot see it. Unless he saw it from the outside, I'd say there is a good chance he didn't know it was there.

 

[Blk2015GT]

He's bad mouthing the company...how many business owners here would tolerate any employee doing that?

I would fire that guy instantly for being unprofessional, getting caught on camera, and most of all for now knowing the character he possesses.

From the other thread on this (wish mods would combine these). The recording was done illegally per PA law (and most states too). The employee, upon learning of the video and reason for being fired, could very possibly find it online or is a member here and sue OP for illegally recording and subsequent loss of his employment, plus damages, attorneys fees, costs, etc. VERY bad slipper slope to start on.

The PA statute from actually reading it very clearly uses the word "consent" over and over. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=57

It does not contain an exception for open and obvious recording devices. The ONLY legal exceptions where consent is not an issue are truly public places, literally in public, or a store for security purposes. Police have exemptions for safety too. That's what their cams are for.

In fact GM had/has this problem in many states where the C7s valet mode is illegally recording per state law http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ecording-tech-could-be-a-felony-in-12-states/

For an example of damages, another case of a audio recorder in a teddybear at a daycare. $120k in damages n Massachusetts. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/modern-divorce-wiretapped-teddy-bears-120000-in-fines/

And as I edited my last post to add- believe it or not if this guy was a member here or saw this on youtube could sue OP for $1,000 plus attorney's fees and costs per PA statute; as well as loss of his employment and lost salary until he can find a new job- and maybe even punitive damages. The statute is very clear.

Tell the service manager and ask them to say something but DO NOT coax this guy into getting fired. Nor is it fair for something said in complete privacy alone in a car.

 

[Naudica]

I would report it for a few reasons. You are doing the company a favor by not allowing the brand to be tainted because if other customers see that behavior they might not appreciate it and the dealership will be branded for bad attitude service reps. I do not think he should be fire over it but a behavior correction to let him know that in a customers car that it's their property and they could be recording you. Companies usually want to have great customer service and experience so customers are not worried doing transactions and getting service at there establishment. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Socalmustang]

How is he illegally recording? It's the customers car...he can record, it's his property. You don't need to tell the dealership that you have a dash cam installed.

That's like saying you walk into a store and there has to be notices around the store saying there are cameras and you are being recorded.

I've heard people say that he can't be fired legally in court, what if he's caught stealing or doing something abusive to the car?

I guess the court would just dismiss that right?

Fun conversation though lol

 

[Blk2015GT]

How is he illegally recording? It's the customers car...he can record, it's his property. You don't need to tell the dealership that you have a dash cam installed.

That's like saying you walk into a store and there has to be notices around the store there are cameras and you are being recorded.

I've heard people say that he can't be fired legally in court, what if he's caught stealing or doing something abusive to the car?

I guess the court would just dismiss that right?

Fun conversation though lol

It doesnt matter if it's his property. You can't record someone else without their consent, period. This is what the law says in most 2 party states; I didn't write it.

The store is allowed to for security purposes; under an exception. Plus employees typically have consented to being recorded in their employment contract. Very different.

Yes, if I walked into your house in a 2 party recording state anything you recorded would not be admissible against me in any type of court case as obtained illegally. I could also sue you civilly if I had any damages or for the statutory penalty.

As stated, in an at-will employment state the employer doesnt need to state a reason for firing someone- it can simply be I dont like you. As long as it's not a discriminatory reason or against a protected class of people. So yes he COULD be fired; not that it's the right move IMO.

BUT hypothetically say this guy gets fired and happens to be a member here, or just on youtube and sees the video. He is more than free to sue OP under PA statute for the loss of his employment, statutory damages, attorneys fees, costs and maybe punitive damages.

PA statute where this happened:

§ 5725. Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communication.
(a) Cause of action.--Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person:
(1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher.
(2) Punitive damages.
(3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Again, hate the law but it is what it is.

 

[foghat]

I've heard people say that he can't be fired legally in court, what if he's caught stealing or doing something abusive to the car?

I guess the court would just dismiss that right?

Fun conversation though lol

How the heck are you making this leap?

 

[Socalmustang]

It doesnt matter if it's his property. You can't record someone else without their consent, period. This is what the law says in most 2 party states; I didn't write it.

The store is allowed to for security purposes; under an exception. Plus employees typically have consented to being recorded in their employment contract. Very different.

Yes, if I walked into your house in a 2 party recording state anything you recorded would not be admissible against me in any type of court case as obtained illegally. I could also sue you civilly if I had any damages or for the statutory penalty.

As stated, in an at-will employment state the employer doesnt need to state a reason for firing someone- it can simply be I dont like you. As long as it's not a discriminatory reason or against a protected class of people. So yes he COULD be fired; not that it's the right move IMO.

BUT hypothetically say this guy gets fired and happens to be a member here, or just on youtube and sees the video. He is more than free to sue OP under PA statute for the loss of his employment, statutory damages, attorneys fees, costs and maybe punitive damages.

PA statute where this happened:

§ 5725. Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communication.
(a) Cause of action.--Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person:
(1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher.
(2) Punitive damages.
(3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Again, hate the law but it is what it is.

So you're saying anytime you get any kind of dealer service done, you have to let them know that they're being recorded inside the car? I don't believe this to be true.

There was just a recent video on the news about a kia customer who left her car at the dealership for some repairs had a dash cam camera....only to find out that one of their employees drove the car for 200+ miles and used it for personal necessities.

Well Kia fired him!

Personally, if I was in the same situation as the OP, I wouldn't demand the man to be fired. I would make them aware of that and probably not come back again.

How the heck are you making this leap?

My extreme example is due to people saying dash cam evidence can't be used in court because it's illegal.

I'm saying it can!

 

[foghat]

So you're saying anytime you get any kind of dealer service done, you have to let them know that they're being recorded inside the car? I don't believe this to be true.

There was just a recent video on the news about a kia customer who left her car at the dealership for some repairs had a dash cam camera....only to find out that one of their employees drove the car for 200+ miles and used it for personal necessities.

Well Kia fired him!

Personally, if I was in the same situation as the OP, I wouldn't demand the man to be fired. I would make them aware of that and probably not come back again.





My extreme example is due to people saying dash cam evidence can't be used in court because it's illegal.

I'm saying it can!

I don't think anyone is saying you can't use dash cam evidence in court. Only that you cannot record someone without their consent (be it via dash cam mic or otherwise). These are very different.

I don't know any of the details of the kia case. But it sounds to me to be completely different than this one. Perhaps in the Kia case the guy driving the car was not actually recorded. Or maybe whatever State it happened in does not have the same consent laws.

 

[Blk2015GT]

So you're saying anytime you get any kind of dealer service done, you have to let them know that they're being recorded inside the car? I don't believe this to be true.

There was just a recent video on the news about a kia customer who left her car at the dealership for some repairs had a dash cam camera....only to find out that one of their employees drove the car for 200+ miles and used it for personal necessities.

Well Kia fired him!

Personally, if I was in the same situation as the OP, I wouldn't demand the man to be fired. I would make them aware of that and probably not come back again.





My extreme example is due to people saying dash cam evidence can't be used in court because it's illegal.

I'm saying it can!

Well it is true. You cannot record someone or their voice without consent. Period. Looks at the GM C7 issue with the valet mode in 12 states. Recording the road facing front now with no sound is COMPLETELY different.

If the cam showed the road in front with time stamps etc and no voice and it was clear the car was taken off the lot there was no invasion of privacy of the person driving so it's not even an issue to begin with.

And no, it could not be used as evidence of damaging the car or abuse. Again, the law is clear it is illegal without 2 person consent and not out in public as an exception. Although you use a legal theory that the damage could not have happened any other way- res ipsa loquitur. Or a security camera at the dealership since the employee consented to being recorded by working there. There are many ways around that issue that a case is not simply tossed out; but that video/audio would be excluded yes.

I don't think anyone is saying you can't use dash cam evidence in court. Only that you cannot record someone without their consent (be it via dash cam mic or otherwise). These are very different.

I don't know any of the details of the kia case. But it sounds to me to be completely different than this one. Perhaps in the Kia case the guy driving the car was not actually recorded. Or maybe whatever State it happened in does not have the same consent laws.

Agree on both points.

People are confusing firing an employee with a lawsuit in court. Exclusion of evidence/recordings being discussed is purely an in-court issue; not a private issue between employee and employer. In a right to work state or at-will) the firing was fine.

The sad truth is the employee could then sue the car owner for illegal recording if it's a 2 party consent state in civil court for damages- namely loss of income, statutory penalties, his attorney's fees and court costs. Isn't that ironic?

Sponsored