Kentucky Factory workers threatened with firing if they left before tornado - 8 Dead

[Breccia]

Can you link your source for what constitutes tornado alley? Because it didn’t used to include Kentucky…

It didn't, yes. Times change.



Also, there's Dixie Alley. So there's that.

"Tornado Alley" was coined in 1952 by the USAF.

[D3thray]

I’m reminded of the last time I was at work when the sirens went off; cars wrapped around the building trying to pick up their medications at the drive thru. Angry that we had the gall to suggest they not drive to the pharmacy during a tornado warning.

That’s just how a lot of people treat that situation around here. Look outside and if the sky isn’t green they don’t pay much attention to a warning. It’s hardly unique to take shelter at work and then return to working when the warning lifts. I can’t think of a single business that would send workers home during a warning. That would be highly irresponsible as others have pointed out.

As for effective tornado shelters, you’re talking basements or cellars. Just about anything (maybe a bank vault?) above ground is worthless during an EF4 or EF5. And those are expensive. A lot of people don’t have those at home let alone businesses. I’m not sure a requirement for every building to have a basement is even feasible or practical.

Its a roll of the dice and odds are pretty good you’re not the one getting hit, whereas with a significant earthquake, every structure in a large area is affected. Typical tornadoes only potentially cause significant damage in the narrow area they pass over.

It’s tragic what happened and it was wrong to threaten employees like that to get them to stay, but going having them go back to work after the first siren (and three to four hours before the second would sound) is normal behavior in tornado prone areas.

[muto]

Anyone know when it truly migrated east? Because all these cries about “the building is in tornado alley!” feel potentially off the mark. If it was built before shit got bad in Kentucky there wasn’t a lot of reason to force people to build tornado safe warehouses.

It’s not necessary to build a tornado safe warehouse; all that would need to be done is to dig out a bunker. As long as you’re underground your chance of survival goes way up.

[Shalcker]

By the time tornado sirens sound a tornado has been spotted near by. To leave would have been irresponsible. Hindsight tells us they had time, but if management let them leave and 74 died on their way home, people would be angry the company didn't have them shelter in place.

I think the bigger issues are the threat of firing, $8/hr, mandatory overtime, and potential substandard tornado protection in an area known for tornadoes.

There were two sirens. After first warning passed people asked to leave, and were threatened with being fired if they did.

On second warning people died.

So, there was time to leave safely in that particular case with candle factory.

[Beefhammer]

Anyone know when it truly migrated east? Because all these cries about “the building is in tornado alley!” feel potentially off the mark. If it was built before shit got bad in Kentucky there wasn’t a lot of reason to force people to build tornado safe warehouses.

The 80s. That's when we had more than enough signs climate change was changing things.

[Zan15]

An Amazon warehouse got hit and demolished by the same tornado, with similar outcomes (most people inside dead), and similar antagonism and misanthropy from their employers refusing to let workers shelter properly or leave the workplace for safety before the storm came.

although numbers have not come out i highly doubt "most people inside dead" (amazon warehouse) means what i think it means because i would assume both warehouses have way more than the number of people that died working at the time.
Might just be wording and my misunderstanding of what you are trying to say

also, it sounds like Amazon tried to get people to shelter areas and the candle company told people to stay at workstations. completely different reactions by both companies.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s not necessary to build a tornado safe warehouse; all that would need to be done is to dig out a bunker. As long as you’re underground your chance of survival goes way up.

From reports they state the area is flood prone so they could not bunker it. I find that hard to believe with $$$$ i assume they could come up with a solution that's not a huge underwater grave.

[cubby]

*Bringing this over from another thread*

- - - Updated - - -

Strange there seems to have been plenty of people who left.
There also seems to be conflicting accounts of what threats were leveed and if anyone would have been punished.

Seems very basic. Someone tells you to do something that puts you in a dangerous situation, you have choices.


https://www.courier-journal.com/in-d...do/6502207001/

** In fact, two employees told The Courier Journal they were warned about possible penalties if they left. But another said supervisors gave people the option of leaving during the night shift, and a fourth said the only time she heard supervisors stop people from going was when they were being told to shelter.

** “A lot of people just walked out was like, ‘screw you guys. I'm walking out. You can't tell me I have to stay,’” she said. “I was so torn … I need my job. If I lose it, where else am I supposed to go?”

** Scott Johnson, a wick operator at the plant, didn't work that Friday. But the coworkers and supervisors he's talked to since have said people did have the option to leave.

** NBC News reported that other workers said they and their colleagues were warned they could be fired if they left. Ferguson, the company spokesman, denied those claims and said they are “incredibly false.”

“Employees can go home at any time without any penalty,” Ferguson said. “Since COVID has made it so difficult to find employees, we have mended our practices.

"If someone comes to work, and three hours into the shift, they say ‘I want to go home,’ they're free to go home without penalties, and they can come back to work the next day and start.”

Finally you seem to be getting it. The above bolded by myself are evidence of "forced". If you don't understand the nuances of that word, we can have an aside chat.

[Zan15]

*Bringing this over from another thread*

- - - Updated - - -



Finally you seem to be getting it. The above bolded by myself are evidence of "forced". If you don't understand the nuances of that word, we can have an aside chat.

As I said there is conflicting information, but they still had every right to leave. You bolded the parts you liked but did not bold the parts that said people still left. People didn't have to stay. People still left after being told there would be actions taken against them.

That more sounds like personal choice vs force, since based on the accounts in that story many people took the option to leave.

https://www.courier-journal.com/in-d...do/6502207001/

** But another said supervisors gave people the option of leaving during the night shift

** “A lot of people just walked out was like, ‘screw you guys. I'm walking out. You can't tell me I have to stay,’”

** But the coworkers and supervisors he's talked to since have said people did have the option to leave.

** NBC News reported that other workers said they and their colleagues were warned they could be fired if they left. Ferguson, the company spokesman, denied those claims and said they are “incredibly false.”

“Employees can go home at any time without any penalty,”

"If someone comes to work, and three hours into the shift, they say ‘I want to go home,’ they're free to go home without penalties, and they can come back to work the next day and start.”


So, tell me which is right. The claims they could not leave or the claims and examples where people in fact did leave?


I don't want to get into the nuances of that word because everyone understands the context in which that word is being used in these warehouse disasters.

[Edge-]

As I said there is conflicting information, but they still had every right to leave. You bolded the parts you liked but did not bold the parts that said people still left. People didn't have to stay. People still left after being told there would be actions taken against them.

That's...not a defense. When you need your job and the options are, "Walk out and potentially lose your job, your only income, right before a hurricane so that you'll have nothing to return to afterwards." or "Stay here and risk your life, but ensure that you'll have a job to come back to when the warehouse is running again." then yeah, some folks are going to be able to leave without worrying a ton about their future and others won't.

This is all the "soft" language that employers use around shit like this. I'm also not sure I'd believe company spokespeople on this, especially from corporate, as we've seen like...they often literally have no clue what's going on on the ground and also have like, a vested interest in making it seem like they didn't threaten their workers with layoffs if they left early during a tornado warning.

This is functionally the, "You have a choice of if you work or not!" argument where the choice is, "Work a shit job and be able to pay for shit while being exploited" or "Literally starve and go homeless." It's a false choice.

[cubby]

As I said there is conflicting information, but they still had every right to leave. You bolded the parts you liked but did not bold the parts that said people still left. People didn't have to stay. People still left after being told there would be actions taken against them.

That more sounds like personal choice vs force, since based on the accounts in that story many people took the option to leave.

https://www.courier-journal.com/in-d...do/6502207001/

** But another said supervisors gave people the option of leaving during the night shift

** “A lot of people just walked out was like, ‘screw you guys. I'm walking out. You can't tell me I have to stay,’”

** But the coworkers and supervisors he's talked to since have said people did have the option to leave.

** NBC News reported that other workers said they and their colleagues were warned they could be fired if they left. Ferguson, the company spokesman, denied those claims and said they are “incredibly false.”

“Employees can go home at any time without any penalty,”

"If someone comes to work, and three hours into the shift, they say ‘I want to go home,’ they're free to go home without penalties, and they can come back to work the next day and start.”


So, tell me which is right. The claims they could not leave or the claims and examples where people in fact did leave?

What's concerning to me and I think others in this thread is that you can't see that both can be correct at the same time. This isn't a binary solution.

(I love that you removed all the previous quotes that essentially prove my point, save one)

I don't want to get into the nuances of that word because everyone understands the context in which that word is being used in these warehouse disasters.

Everyone but you, apparently. Forced doesn't always means physical coercion.

Like I said, you don't seem to understand how this word works in the english language. Maybe english is your second language, and that's awesome - we need more bilingual+ in this world. But here you are missing how the word works, so like I said, if you want some direction or help, PM me and we can discuss.

[Zan15]

What's concerning to me and I think others in this thread is that you can't see that both can be correct at the same time. This isn't a binary solution.

(I love that you removed all the previous quotes that essentially prove my point, save one)


Everyone but you, apparently. Forced doesn't always means physical coercion.

Like I said, you don't seem to understand how this word works in the english language. Maybe english is your second language, and that's awesome - we need more bilingual+ in this world. But here you are missing how the word works, so like I said, if you want some direction or help, PM me and we can discuss.

hmm, very interesting how you worded that but i am not going to open that can of worms in this thread no matter how ridiculous it is. Don't even need the requirement of English to understand that word since it predates what you would consider "English". It was a wonderful, veiled attempt.....

That's...not a defense. When you need your job and the options are, "Walk out and potentially lose your job, your only income, right before a hurricane so that you'll have nothing to return to afterwards." or "Stay here and risk your life, but ensure that you'll have a job to come back to when the warehouse is running again." then yeah, some folks are going to be able to leave without worrying a ton about their future and others won't.

This is all the "soft" language that employers use around shit like this. I'm also not sure I'd believe company spokespeople on this, especially from corporate, as we've seen like...they often literally have no clue what's going on on the ground and also have like, a vested interest in making it seem like they didn't threaten their workers with layoffs if they left early during a tornado warning.

This is functionally the, "You have a choice of if you work or not!" argument where the choice is, "Work a shit job and be able to pay for shit while being exploited" or "Literally starve and go homeless." It's a false choice.

and how is your family going to do after you get mowed over by a tornado and the roof? You could choose to walk out and still at that point be alive and able to get another job. Especially in this economy and labor situation it's not as dire as it's been in the past for people and their options.

They give you options and personal choices are made. No, it's not an easy choice in a lot of situations but it's still a choice. Yes, those choices can cause some very bad situations to occur to yourself and your family members. But it's not like they were without choice, such as the case of "physical force" where the doors were chained shut.



There are most likely individuals who were in extreme dire circumstances you speak of and still chose to put personal safety above staying at work.

Maybe there needs to be a lot of functional and societal changes around employment and unemployment in this country, so the choices are easier to make.

But let's be honest there also needs to be a lot of changes at the employee level too since there are many problems with employees taking advantage of every little thing, they can just to get time off for no real reason. They abuse the system just as much as corporations do.

[cubby]

hmm, very interesting how you worded that but i am not going to open that can of worms in this thread no matter how ridiculous it is. Don't even need the requirement of English to understand that word since it predates what you would consider "English". It was a wonderful, veiled attempt.....

It's only ridiculous if you're not open to learning something new or possibly being wrong. You literally do not understand the "forced", and several people in this thread and the other have tried to explain it to you - including the person you replied to below here. And instead of addressing the issue, you start yet another unrelated diatribe and then bail completely on addressing your problems.

The people in that factory, by their own pre-tornado landing messages, were forced to stay by way of threats to their livelihood, when they wanted to leave.

You also casually ignored the fact that you seem to view this entire situation as binary. Which is an even greater perception problem you seem to have. Why is that you think? Why do you think there can only be "did it happen this way or not"? I'm referring to your statement here:

So, tell me which is right. The claims they could not leave or the claims and examples where people in fact did leave?

All of those claims can be correct at the same time - they are NOT mutually exclusive. When you understand that piece of it we can move to your other issues. Again, PM me if you want to discuss offline. I'm happy to help.

[Edge-]

and how is your family going to do after you get mowed over by a tornado and the roof? You could choose to walk out and still at that point be alive and able to get another job. Especially in this economy and labor situation it's not as dire as it's been in the past for people and their options.

Still get another job? In a disaster zone where rebuilding will take ages? I mean, great if you're in the construction biz, not great otherwise.

They give you options and personal choices are made.

"Leave and you might not have a job to come back to." isn't a real optoin.

But it's not like they were without choice, such as the case of "physical force" where the doors were chained shut.

Again, poverty is a thing and determines a lot of peoples choices. This should have been an actual choice, not a "choice" where the options were "risk my job and longer term safety" or "risk my job to prioritize my immediate safety".

[Shadowferal]

Still get another job? In a disaster zone where rebuilding will take ages? I mean, great if you're in the construction biz, not great otherwise.
"Leave and you might not have a job to come back to." isn't a real optoin.
Again, poverty is a thing and determines a lot of peoples choices. This should have been an actual choice, not a "choice" where the options were "risk my job and longer term safety" or "risk my job to prioritize my immediate safety".

Never knew Zan was more sympathetic to businesses.

If you're making min wage life already sucks.
Sucks even harder when the options are starve or potentially die.

[Zan15]

Still get another job? In a disaster zone where rebuilding will take ages? I mean, great if you're in the construction biz, not great otherwise.

"Leave and you might not have a job to come back to." isn't a real optoin.

Again, poverty is a thing and determines a lot of peoples choices. This should have been an actual choice, not a "choice" where the options were "risk my job and longer term safety" or "risk my job to prioritize my immediate safety".

Well, they sure as hell are not going to get another job at that candle factory that no longer exist right?

Even the people who did leave, don't necessarily have a job to "come back to". But at least they apparently were safer and can now walk away and possibly find another job somewhere else?

"Leave and you might not......die and have the ability to get another job."

If I didn't have to go to work soon (at the warehouse ironically (not amazon or candles, paper in fact)) I would google job openings in the area. It will be interesting later if I have time at work to see what "options" people had outside of these two warehouses especially at this time in the shopping season.

Again, poverty is a thing and determines a lot of peoples choices. This should have been an actual choice, not a "choice" where the options were "risk my job and longer term safety" or "risk my job to prioritize my immediate safety".

Again, I still point out that a lot of reports are saying people did have a choice without any threats or reprimand on their job status. That is how this whole argument/discussion even started because its hard right now to even tell which is true, or both might be true or neither. They have not even started to fully investigate what actually happened and what actions were taken.

- - - Updated - - -

Never knew Zan was more sympathetic to businesses.

If you're making min wage life already sucks.
Sucks even harder when the options are starve or potentially die.

Those are/were not the only two options.

Not more sympathetic at all but pointing out that it's not always 120% the evil corporation's fault.

[Santti]

Well, they sure as hell are not going to get another job at that candle factory that no longer exist right?

Even the people who did leave, don't necessarily have a job to "come back to". But at least they apparently were safer and can now walk away and possibly find another job somewhere else?

"Leave and you might not......die and have the ability to get another job."

I don't think anyone was expecting for the factory to get destroyed like it did. Obviously. It's really not much of an argument you are making here.

[Edge-]

Well, they sure as hell are not going to get another job at that candle factory that no longer exist right?

No, but you can get emergency funds/benefits if your place of work is destroyed vs. if you quit right beforehand.

Even the people who did leave, don't necessarily have a job to "come back to". But at least they apparently were safer and can now walk away and possibly find another job somewhere else?

Many may have been in a better financial situation where they could afford to walk off the job like that. Not everyone has that luxury, sadly.

If I didn't have to go to work soon (at the warehouse ironically (not amazon or candles, paper in fact)) I would google job openings in the area. It will be interesting later if I have time at work to see what "options" people had outside of these two warehouses especially at this time in the shopping season.

Usually in areas like that, not a whole lot outside of businesses supported by the local employees. I can't say for certain, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised if those warehouses were critical to the local economies and that they'll be hurting badly without financial assistance as they get back on their feet. Again, unless you're in construction. Then you're gonna see some booming business.

Again, I still point out that a lot of reports are saying people did have a choice without any threats or reprimand on their job status. That is how this whole argument/discussion even started because its hard right now to even tell which is true, or both might be true or neither. They have not even started to fully investigate what actually happened and what actions were taken.

Sure, but given all recent history I'm inclined to believe the workers that said their jobs were threatened if they walked off. I see absolutely no reason to trust corporations, ever, or middle management, ever. My default is to believe the workers that made the claims their jobs were fired, and if verifiable information comes out that disproves that I'll happily change my opinion.

[Zan15]

It's only ridiculous if you're not open to learning something new or possibly being wrong. You literally do not understand the "forced", and several people in this thread and the other have tried to explain it to you - including the person you replied to below here. And instead of addressing the issue, you start yet another unrelated diatribe and then bail completely on addressing your problems.

The people in that factory, by their own pre-tornado landing messages, were forced to stay by way of threats to their livelihood, when they wanted to leave.

You also casually ignored the fact that you seem to view this entire situation as binary. Which is an even greater perception problem you seem to have. Why is that you think? Why do you think there can only be "did it happen this way or not"? I'm referring to your statement here:

All of those claims can be correct at the same time - they are NOT mutually exclusive. When you understand that piece of it we can move to your other issues. Again, PM me if you want to discuss offline. I'm happy to help.

Oh here we go again with the "never being wrong" thing. Time to move on. My post history if you care to look through it will show I've been wrong a lot and don't have a problem with it.

So anywhoooooo, What you are saying is, people could have left but chose not to. Thanks that was the point I was trying to make. Glad you understand now.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think anyone was expecting for the factory to get destroyed like it did. Obviously. It's really not much of an argument you are making here.

if they were not expecting the factory to get destroyed then why would they want to leave? Not sure what you are trying to say? That was the exact reason they wanted to leave; they felt the factory was not safe place to be.

[cubby]

Oh here we go again with the "never being wrong" thing. Time to move on. My post history if you care to look through it will show I've been wrong a lot and don't have a problem with it.

So anywhoooooo, What you are saying is, people could have left but chose not to. Thanks that was the point I was trying to make. Glad you understand now.

No, I'm not saying that. Please stop gaslighting this thread and forum. If you don't want to have the conversation about what forced means in context, you can just stop replying. I've offered to help, I've patiently explained the point over and over - as have others, but you seem to just push aside the adult responses and continue with your juvenile posts.

Since you're obviously not open to learning new things, we can be done.

[Zan15]

No, but you can get emergency funds/benefits if your place of work is destroyed vs. if you quit right beforehand.

Many may have been in a better financial situation where they could afford to walk off the job like that. Not everyone has that luxury, sadly.

Usually in areas like that, not a whole lot outside of businesses supported by the local employees. I can't say for certain, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised if those warehouses were critical to the local economies and that they'll be hurting badly without financial assistance as they get back on their feet. Again, unless you're in construction. Then you're gonna see some booming business.

Sure, but given all recent history I'm inclined to believe the workers that said their jobs were threatened if they walked off. I see absolutely no reason to trust corporations, ever, or middle management, ever. My default is to believe the workers that made the claims their jobs were fired, and if verifiable information comes out that disproves that I'll happily change my opinion.

As it stands right now there are workers saying both they were threatened and not threatened. they were told they could leave, and some were told they would lose their jobs if they left. The company says their policy would not cause these people to lose their jobs and no one has yet found any policy to dispute this.
So, do you only believe the employees who said they were threatened?



Also, if you leave your job, it's not always an immediate job loss.

I think they would also have one hell of a case with emergency funds/unemployment if the facility gets destroyed right after you walked off your job because of a fear of your safety. you think the company is going to appeal your unemployment filing because you walked off the job right before a tornado destroyed it? you think the state is going to deny this claim?