S/O what would you eexpectif a dog damaged your vehicle?

[StephanieZ]

Did it ever occur to you that there are plenty of people in this world, including our country, who can't "just pay for it?"

 

Have you ever seen the stats/numbers of those living paycheck to paycheck (or worse)?

 

Did you ever think that someone doing some of these "menial" jobs just might be in that category and can't afford to have their things destroyed or damaged and "just fix it?"

 

We can handle "accidents."  Many can't - and no - it isn't necessarily their fault.  They are often working to try to make ends meet.  They don't need clueless employers whose dogs do damage.

 

Sure, but then again, I think that cosmetic scratches in my car's paint from a dog are both to be expected in general life and also not critical to fix. We get scratches in our cars' paint regularly, either from careless parking too near the bushes, or even from minor accidents. I don't think we've ever fixed a paint scratch in my many hundreds of thousands of miles of car ownership. It's not a critical thing. Scratches happen regularly, and, to me, it's a waste of money fixing them. I live in a rural area on a terrible road, with bad winters, lots of rough roads. 

 

If the car was truly damaged, then that'd be different. But, to me, the scratches that a dog's claws can do to a car are not something that needs to be fixed. Those sorts of scratches happen on our vehicles probably on average every 10,000 miles of driving. Fixing them would be a waste of money, IMHO. SO, to me, asking for payment for fixing them is just silly and petty and greedy since I think it's a waste to fix scratches. 

 

I just see those sorts of minor things as "life happens" and I don't look for others to pay for it. That's me. 

[StephanieZ]

Interesting.  I feel the same about those who either willfully or negligently damage the property of others and don't give two ****s about it.

 

LOL, nice come back. I would not willfully or (knowingly) negligently damage any one's property. In this particular example, I would solve the problem by not having the person with likely-damaged property on my own property, right after paying for the damages. 

[StephanieZ]

And hopefully your staff are well aware of any risks they may be taking with their personal property while on your premises. If everyone's cool with it, great. There's no problem.

 

However, I was stating a general principle, too, with regard to animals causing damage. Not sure what the other stuff you mentioned has to do with that.

 

If you (general you) have animals that can't be trusted not to jump on and scratch people's vehicles, it is as a matter of common decency to let those who come to your home or business know before an incident happens that they shouldn't park their vehicle in your driveway. If you have an otherwise well-behaved dog that does something uncharacteristic and causes damage, most peope would (I hope) take responsibility, apologize, and offer to repair the damage even if it's to an employee's property. That has nothing to do with having the skills needed to make the boss's life easier. It has everything to do with being a responsible pet owner.

 

ETA: I do realize you said you'd pay for the damage. However, you also said you'd fire the person for daring to ask. If the incident should not reasonably have been anticipated (i.e. the employee was warned ahead of time to park at her own risk), that comes across as retaliatory. But that's just my opinion. I understand it's not one you share.

 

I would not fire them for daring to ask. I'd fire them because having them on staff would create stress (the logistics of confining my dogs) for me, and I pay people to reduce my stress, not add to it. 

[StephanieZ]

So wait, you'd offer to pay for the damage, but then be upset they actually accepted the payment? 

 

If you dented their car with your car, same thing? If your kid hit a baseball into their window? 

 

Yes, letting your dogs damage other people's property is negligence. Period. My dogs, my responsibility. 

 

I think fixing paint scratches in a car is frivolous, and if someone asked me to fix scratches, it'd annoy me. And make me suspect their motives and trustworthiness. 

 

And, yes, I guess it is my social world view that it is polite to offer to pay for anything possible, but annoying if someone takes you up on it if it is frivolous. Maybe that is some weird social norm in my circle. But, in my circle, no one would take you up on paying for something like this unless it was catastrophic. We go with the "life happens" . . . I'm storing several pieces of power equipment (snow blower, generator, etc) for a friend. They eagerly agreed that we could use them as desired while we are storing them. I volunteered that, of course, if they died/damaged/etc while we had them, we'd fix them or replace them. The owners insisted "NO! Those things happen . . ." Of course, if one really does get damaged or die while we are using it, we will replace/repair it before the reclaim it, despite those protestations. Maybe this is just a really weird unwritten set of social rules in my friend/family circle. I could totally imagine that. 

 

A truly damaged car or a broken window must be fixed. Fixing that is not frivolous. I would insist on paying for the damages on those sorts of things if they happened. Hasn't happened to us, but that's what I'd do. 

 

I can't believe that all these posters actually pay people to fix minor scratches in their car's paint. We've never done that. Ever. We fix safety issues. We fix major damages. We don't fix minor cosmetic flaws in our cars. It's just not our thing. Maybe the rest of the world is much pickier about their car's appearance than we are. 

 

I suppose that if in your world view, whenever you get scratches in your car's paint, you run out and pay a body shop to repair it, then it is more conceivable that you'd want the repairs paid for. In that case, I will go along with the considering it like a broken window, etc., with expecting the at fault party to pay for damages. But, if one is like me, and generally ignores (or at most, uses a $5 pen from AutoZone to cover scratches to protect from rust), then, yes, I think it is greedy and petty to ask someone else to pay for damage the one time that someone is at "fault" instead of it being the 95% of other times when you just come back to your car and it's scratched in a parking lot or you get too close to the bushes, etc. That's petty. IMHO.

[creekland]

I just see those sorts of minor things as "life happens" and I don't look for others to pay for it. That's me. 

 

No one is saying you need to change how you handle things for yourself or what is important to you.  We all make our own choices.

 

It's far more major when you decide that everyone else needs to agree with you or they're... all that stuff you said about them.

 

Some people are far more into cars than others of us.  Some have sentimental value to things and the rest of us don't know the background.  It doesn't make them low-life.  Maybe it does in your eyes, but it's not that way in reality.

[hornblower]

some of this seems to depend on what type of car & whether you live in a rust region? 

Our cars for the past 20+ years just don't rust. They've been either Toyota or Honda & I think they're more plastic than anything & the paint seems tough so our scratches on the old van just don't seem to be deep enough to be causing rust.


Before that dh & I both had silly little Dodges and jeez louise those things were little rust magnets.   If every scratch meant a worry about rust, I'd be even more fussed about a situation like this. 

 

there's another thing too.... I have huge privilege. The kind of privilege which allows us to go to a car dealership wearing ancient runners with holes in them (because too lazy to go shopping & I went for a test drive right after a dog walk) and be treated with tons of courtesy because I'm paying cash. 

The richer you are, the more your old worn clothes & your scratched and dinged up Volvo or Toyota or whatever is like a reverse status symbol.

 

When you're poorer, you want your nice expensive things to stay nice looking because you're judged way more harshly.  I don't blame people for wanting things to stay nice. There's normal wear & tear & then there's Cujo trying to dig through your front fender.  Not really the same thing IMO.... 

 

[creekland]

I think fixing paint scratches in a car is frivolous, and if someone asked me to fix scratches, it'd annoy me. And make me suspect their motives and trustworthiness. 

 

...

 

I suppose that if in your world view, whenever you get scratches in your car's paint, you run out and pay a body shop to repair it, then it is more conceivable that you'd want the repairs paid for. In that case, I will go along with the considering it like a broken window, etc., with expecting the at fault party to pay for damages. But, if one is like me, and generally ignores (or at most, uses a $5 pen from AutoZone to cover scratches to protect from rust), then, yes, I think it is greedy and petty to ask someone else to pay for damage the one time that someone is at "fault" instead of it being the 95% of other times when you just come back to your car and it's scratched in a parking lot or you get too close to the bushes, etc. That's petty. IMHO.

 

You are aware that the OP mainly mentioned an apology, right?  I just reread it to make sure...

 

And you are aware that there are plenty of people who can't run right out to AutoZone to get a $5 pen to cover scratches too, right?  That $5 is probably needed elsewhere.

 

'Cause I know if I were the employer in the OP's situation, I'd definitely be apologizing, AND I'd be checking to see what I could do to fix their car if they wanted it fixed.  No one said it would need a whole new paint job, but if it looked like it did, yes, that's what it would get. If a little buffing or cover up is all it needed, then that's what it would get if they wanted it.  (It would really depend upon what the dog did TBH.)

 

In neither case would I think any less of the employee.

 

If it were a situation where the dog/car couldn't be kept separate, at that point we'd have a discussion about it not being a good match, but it certainly wouldn't be a "fire them" situation - and chances are - I'd give them some sort of severance.

 

But then again... my mom just paid her housekeeper for doing nothing for a week because we had come to visit and she didn't need her services, but knew she needed the income, so didn't want her going without.  I often leave relatively large tips for workers - and have chosen to do so at times even when we didn't get great service, sometimes even when we're not returning to a place (due to travel).

 

I think we were just raised differently and have different priorities in life.  I don't see everyone as "out to get me" or "causing drama."  There are some out there like that, but IME, it's not the majority of those working for a living, esp at lower paid jobs.

[TravelingChris]

 I have a person come to my house to clean it.  He is fine with my dog (who only jumps up for going out or feeding and only when we are sitting in the living room) and with my cat.  We couldn't hire a cleaner who was allergic to cats, for example.  (My dog is a poodle corgi mix with poodle hair and probably a lot less likely to trigger allergies).  But if my dog or cat did do some damage to something of my cleaner, I would expect to pay to repair it or replace it. I can't think of what that would be because he just brings cleaning supplies but I am also thinking of other people who come to the house (Air conditioning man, landscaper, plumber, etc).  My dog is well behaved and I do crate him if it is going to be disruptive for him to be milling about.  

 

I wouldn't want to work for anyone who had a dog that was jumping up and injuring me and didn't apologize and make sure that never happened again.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

LOL, nice come back. I would not willfully or (knowingly) negligently damage any one's property. In this particular example, I would solve the problem by not having the person with likely-damaged property on my own property, right after paying for the damages. 

 

I like how you are trying to twist this into the employee's fault for having the audacity to have their property damaged.

 

If you don't tell someone not to park in the driveway because you can't control your pet, I don't see why you would get butthurt if you were asked to pay for damage.

 

It isn't the same as an employee in a vet hospital who could get injured providing care, but even then, as an employer you do hold a certain level of responsibility.  While in many states you can fire someone after they get injured and file a workers' comp claim, anyone who would do that is a pretty scummy employer.

 

[StephanieZ]

I like how you are trying to twist this into the employee's fault for having the audacity to have their property damaged.

 

If you don't tell someone not to park in the driveway because you can't control your pet, I don't see why you would get butthurt if you were asked to pay for damage.

 

It isn't the same as an employee in a vet hospital who could get injured providing care, but even then, as an employer you do hold a certain level of responsibility.  While in many states you can fire someone after they get injured and file a workers' comp claim, anyone who would do that is a pretty scummy employer.

 

 

The OP indicated that the dog was a repeated concern. She didn't need to be told the dog was a problem because she already noted the dog was a problem. 

 

I personally don't have pets that would damage a vehicle or anything else. 

 

I'm not twisting anything. I'm stating that as an employer, I employ people to make my life easier, and so I wouldn't want an employee who needed me to change my habits. It's not the employee's fault that their car is damaged by the owner's pet. It's just not a good match. I would choose not to have someone come to my home who had requirements of that employment that were not compatible with my lifestyle/household. My original reply was intended to convey that there is a risk of being let go if you rock the boat. I am confident that I am not unusual in this regard, and I do not agree that it is unreasonable for an employer to choose to retain the services of staff who make their life easier and do not represent an elevated risk of financial claims and/or other liability claims. 

 

As an employer, I do have lots of responsibilities. Many more at my business than at my home. If this were a thing happening at a commercial business, I would definitely want to make sure it didn't happen and would take responsibility for ensuring it did not (and covering expenses for damage). At work, not only do we carry workers' comp insurance (as is legally required), we carry plenty of additional policies and we *require* staff to seek medical care (and utilize workers' comp) if/when they are injured on the job. And pay for their time. And offer additional paid time off to handle needed care. That is the right thing to do. 

 

As a private person hiring in home help, one generally does NOT have worker's comp. Labor law and insurance requirements are very different for household employees than from typical employers/ees.

 

At my *home*, I don't want to employ anyone who can't cheerfully manage all the craziness that comes with my home.

 

At our workplace, we likewise select employees who are a good match for our workplace. Working in a dangerous profession with many unpredictable hazards when you are handling thousands of stressed animals a year, occasional injuries are part of the job. As a business, we have a duty to make the workplace as safe as feasible and to carry appropriate insurance to cover these occasional injuries. At my home, insurance coverage is much more minimal, and there are not the typical work-place-safety regulations in place. Gladly, I don't have a duty to MSDS label every cleaner in my house, etc. Similarly, OSHA, DoL, etc, are not a typical concern for household employer/ees. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by StephanieZ

[creekland]

It isn't the same as an employee in a vet hospital who could get injured providing care, but even then, as an employer you do hold a certain level of responsibility.  While in many states you can fire someone after they get injured and file a workers' comp claim, anyone who would do that is a pretty scummy employer.

 

 

Ok, we're on the same side with the OP's issue, but I think implying Steph would do this is going a bit too far.

 

Many employers treat valued employees well.  It's the "lower level" employees they use as tools.

 

I agree overall though - and there are employers who do that - and yes they are scum.  We have some locally that are rumored to fire employees who have been with them for years because they got cancer and "can't do their jobs effectively anymore."  No, no they probably can't, but you're a major (big $) employer and they've been with you for YEARS, can't you do the "right" thing rather than the "makes you more money" thing?  (Not to mention what this does for their health care via insurance - esp in the old days - haven't heard of one since ACA.)

[creekland]

The OP indicated that the dog was a repeated concern. She didn't need to be told the dog was a problem because she already noted the dog was a problem.  

 

The OP is also asking in hindsight.  The other thread brought her incident to mind.

 

She's already asked that the dog be penned in the future and been told it will be.

 

MOST workers and/or delivery policies that I've seen from companies have asked that any dogs on the property be restricted while their employees are there.  This is common.

 

It's fine for you to run your household how ever you want to, and if your dogs are properly trained, they really shouldn't be a problem (ours never were), but that's just not the situation the OP is asking about.

 

Yes, if she complains she could get let go.  That's good to know in case she needs to bow down to get the money from the job she's had since before the dog came into the picture (learned later in the thread).

 

Personally, I'm glad the owner seems to be willing to assist.

[StephanieZ]

The OP is also asking in hindsight.  The other thread brought her incident to mind.

 

She's already asked that the dog be penned in the future and been told it will be.

 

MOST workers and/or delivery policies that I've seen from companies have asked that any dogs on the property be restricted while their employees are there.  This is common.

 

It's fine for you to run your household how ever you want to, and if your dogs are properly trained, they really shouldn't be a problem (ours never were), but that's just not the situation the OP is asking about.

 

Yes, if she complains she could get let go.  That's good to know in case she needs to bow down to get the money from the job she's had since before the dog came into the picture (learned later in the thread).

 

Personally, I'm glad the owner seems to be willing to assist.

 

I think a fundamental difference between/among us about this topic is that I just don't see it as "bowing down" to either accept (live with/accommodate) OR decline (quit) the conditions of your employment OR to attempt to negotiate them, while realizing that asking for accommodation (or compensation) may result in your employer making the decision to decline your continued employment. This is NOT, IMHO, an issue limited to low-paid/low-status workers. I think this is a universal issue. And I don't see any shame or bowing down in making the choice to suck up something you don't like. It's a choice; we make them routinely . . . in jobs, in relationships, in schools, in our community on the forums, etc. 

 

Dh and I were employees for decades before we were employers. We constantly assessed jobs/conditions of jobs when deciding whether to continue employment, end employment, or seek change from the employer. Some issues were sucked up (lots of issues), some were negotiated, sometimes we left a position for a better fit elsewhere. That's what employment is about. Dh never liked the "split shifts" that made him have 4 empty hours in the middle of the day -- a 40 minute and $4/toll ride from home, but he sucked them up. Dh never liked weekend call, but he sucked it up. I didn't like making the coffee for my boss (i didn't even drink coffee and hate the smell of it), but I sucked it up. There are lots of things we suck up at work and in life. There are plenty of things as an employer that one sucks up, both from clients and from staff and from governing agencies. 

 

From being on the other side of the employer/ee line, I have come to realize that the same goes for the employer. Sometimes we end a relationship, sometimes we suck it up, sometimes we try to change the relationship. Same three options.

 

I had a 7+ year housekeeper who used WAY too much lysol in the mop bucket. She'd use like a quart of lysol to a 2 gallon bucket. And she mopped that way twice a week. My house smelled like a chemical plant. I tried once or twice to suggest using less. Eventually, I took to watering down the concentrate. Same housekeeper routinely didn't check pockets for electronics, so we lost many phones and iPods to the wash. She was an hourly employee, and she *intended* to check pockets, but often missed things. I sucked it up. I reminded my kids to check pockets, and I just accepted that any damages were on me (despite her protestations and offering of payment). We also taught the kids (including the toddler) that anything they left on the floor might disappear into the housekeeper's vacuum. We often joked that we had to head count the kids to make sure none were in the vacuum. I would have liked her to pick up the floor first instead of just sucking all the legos, etc, into the vacuum. BUT, the tradeoff was worth it to me. I sucked it up. I had an elder-care/housekeeper aide who was wonderful in every way except that she spent about 30% of her paid hours (regular 6-8 hour shifts) playing on her phone or resting or taking other long rest breaks. I'd never had a staff member do this, but I couldn't think of a way to get her to actually work most of the time without being harsh, so I just decided that it was worth it to me to have her be great in general, with this one substantial flaw. (And she was paid 14/hr with benefits and paid leave, which as approximately 40% more pay and better benefits than she'd ever gotten before or gets now, and I made her schedule to suit HER preferences.) Other times, I've had staff who couldn't reliably show up when scheduled. After (many) repeated problems and discussions, I let them go because the disruption of the unpredictability was just too unpleasant to make it worth the trouble.

 

In the issue of the dogs-cause-problems-for-employee, I was simply suggesting that if the employer is discomfited by the request, they may terminate the relationship, so that is a risk that is worth considering. 

[creekland]

I think a fundamental difference between/among us about this topic is that I just don't see it as "bowing down" to either accept (live with/accommodate) OR decline (quit) the conditions of your employment OR to attempt to negotiate them, while realizing that asking for accommodation (or compensation) may result in your employer making the decision to decline your continued employment. This is NOT, IMHO, an issue limited to low-paid/low-status workers. I think this is a universal issue. And I don't see any shame or bowing down in making the choice to suck up something you don't like. It's a choice; we make them routinely . . . in jobs, in relationships, in schools, in our community on the forums, etc. 

 

Dh and I were employees for decades before we were employers. We constantly assessed jobs/conditions of jobs when deciding whether to continue employment, end employment, or seek change from the employer. Some issues were sucked up (lots of issues), some were negotiated, sometimes we left a position for a better fit elsewhere. That's what employment is about. Dh never liked the "split shifts" that made him have 4 empty hours in the middle of the day -- a 40 minute and $4/toll ride from home, but he sucked them up. Dh never liked weekend call, but he sucked it up. I didn't like making the coffee for my boss (i didn't even drink coffee and hate the smell of it), but I sucked it up. There are lots of things we suck up at work and in life. There are plenty of things as an employer that one sucks up, both from clients and from staff and from governing agencies. 

 

From being on the other side of the employer/ee line, I have come to realize that the same goes for the employer. Sometimes we end a relationship, sometimes we suck it up, sometimes we try to change the relationship. Same three options.

 

I had a 7+ year housekeeper who used WAY too much lysol in the mop bucket. She'd use like a quart of lysol to a 2 gallon bucket. And she mopped that way twice a week. My house smelled like a chemical plant. I tried once or twice to suggest using less. Eventually, I took to watering down the concentrate. Same housekeeper routinely didn't check pockets for electronics, so we lost many phones and iPods to the wash. She was an hourly employee, and she *intended* to check pockets, but often missed things. I sucked it up. I reminded my kids to check pockets, and I just accepted that any damages were on me (despite her protestations and offering of payment). We also taught the kids (including the toddler) that anything they left on the floor might disappear into the housekeeper's vacuum. We often joked that we had to head count the kids to make sure none were in the vacuum. I would have liked her to pick up the floor first instead of just sucking all the legos, etc, into the vacuum. BUT, the tradeoff was worth it to me. I sucked it up. I had an elder-care/housekeeper aide who was wonderful in every way except that she spent about 30% of her paid hours (regular 6-8 hour shifts) playing on her phone or resting or taking other long rest breaks. I'd never had a staff member do this, but I couldn't think of a way to get her to actually work most of the time without being harsh, so I just decided that it was worth it to me to have her be great in general, with this one substantial flaw. (And she was paid 14/hr with benefits and paid leave, which as approximately 40% more pay and better benefits than she'd ever gotten before or gets now, and I made her schedule to suit HER preferences.) Other times, I've had staff who couldn't reliably show up when scheduled. After (many) repeated problems and discussions, I let them go because the disruption of the unpredictability was just too unpleasant to make it worth the trouble.

 

In the issue of the dogs-cause-problems-for-employee, I was simply suggesting that if the employer is discomfited by the request, they may terminate the relationship, so that is a risk that is worth considering. 

 

I think a fundamental difference between us is I've seen both sides of human economics.  I had the opportunity to attend a really good (wealthy) private school for my 10th grade year and saw the offspring of super high wealth - top, top 1% wealth - oceanfront mansion wealth (and some below it of course).  I was a bit like an exchange student there - sharing that my dad made 18K per year while they sat in awe with one remarking that they had a painting in their living room that cost far more than that.

 

Then, from working at school, I've seen far, far below the norm - where kids don't have more than one or two (used) outfits to wear to school (esp without charity) and where if one opens a fridge, it's essentially bare.

 

The interesting thing?  There are many times the kids from the poorer side of things have parents who work just as hard as those from the richer side of things.  It's not "always," of course, but one certainly can't determine work ethic from economic class.

 

Yet those on the wealthier side of things never have to worry about repairs or replacements of anything.  They can replace a kitchen just because they get a whim of wanting something to look better.  Those on the (working) poorer side of things are working hard to pay the rent and still replace the milk - while occasionally wanting their kids to have something better - and too often disdaining charity because that doesn't sit right with them.  Anything going wrong affects their weekly budget.

 

Those "employee" things you had to suck up never once damaged any of your property.  There's nothing "wrong" about what you said with it, but the scope of having to pay for damaged property can go far deeper on the employee side of thing than the employer.  Does an employee "suck it up" and accept damage to their things because they need the money?  It's nice if they can quit - no doubt - but not all can.  There's that rent and milk thing coming back at them.  I'm sure many would be happy if all they had to do was make coffee as their "suck up."

 

With the employer part, I feel certain no one on here would condemn you if you had let yours go.  I probably would have.  But you wouldn't have been firing them over your dog damaging their property and their request for your fixing it.  You'd have been firing them for not doing the job properly (perfectly reasonable - esp since you gave them warning).  There's a HUGE difference between the two situations.  I'm not quite sure how you see them as similar.

 

If you're using those to compare to what I said about tipping well - sometimes even with bad service - then I'll add in situations when we do that it's because we're led to believe the person could be discouraged (overall) or having a bad day.  Getting a decent tip when it's unexpected can help fix the mental mood of both.  We can afford it, so why not?  We're not really rewarding bad service.  We're being an encouragement for good (or improving) service.  The times we've gotten to see (or hear about) the results have been quite rewarding - thankful notes from maids (along with an awesome cleaning that time), waitresses who will sometimes chase us down to say thank you - things like that.  We don't usually know what folks think, but that's ok.  I doubt it's ever taken badly and no one we know of (so far) has taken it to mean poor service = great tip.  Our goal is restoring some faith in this world for them at least for a short period of time.  There are way too many empty fridges and if you're working, you shouldn't have one of them.

[StephanieZ]

FWIW, @creekland, I live in West Virginia. Living in Appalachia, you'd have to be under a rock not to understand poverty. If you open your eyes here, you see generations living in a depth of despair and poverty that most in the US simply cannot fathom. 

 

As I think I've said repeatedly, I didn't/don't think that paint scratches are a really big deal. For that and other reasons already enumerated, I didn't think the owner of the car should ask for compensation. I'd look at it like someone asking me to pay for a new shirt when my baby puked on it. It'd just be bizarre. Or if my goat chewed on their coat while they were petting it. Babies puke. (Many) dogs jump. Goats chew. The world is full of random things. 

 

No one can live in WV and drive on our roads if they are really picky about their vehicles. Our house is on a state road with more pot holes than roadway, some of which are large enough to break an axel if you don't dodge them properly. This road never gets plowed, so winter means sliding on ice or self-plowing with the front bumper. Really, no one from around here would get worked up about paint scratches. We re-attach stuff when it is falling off, lol. We stop and move the tree branch that falls across the road . . . if it's too big to drive over. But if we were worked up about keeping our cars perfect, we better move to somewhere else. 

 

I think you make a lot of good points.  I agree with your general principle of being generous, being fair, and doing what is right. I just don't agree with your conclusions on this particular issue. Because, to me, the being generous thing includes giving grace to those whose minor failings cause us some small harms. I think that duty extends to all of us, even when it pinches a bit. 

[ktgrok]

I think, Stephanie, you just have an unusual (on this board) view of paint scratches. Those of us living in suburbia don't get random scratches on our cars. I actually have a few dings, but no scratches on my 10 year old van. None. It just doesn't happen. So it would be an out of the ordinary thing to happen, not a regular wear and tear thing. 

 

But generally, I guess if your boss doesn't mind damaging your property, you should also expect they may not mind firing you. That may be the lesson here?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think, Stephanie, you just have an unusual (on this board) view of paint scratches. Those of us living in suburbia don't get random scratches on our cars. I actually have a few dings, but no scratches on my 10 year old van. None. It just doesn't happen. So it would be an out of the ordinary thing to happen, not a regular wear and tear thing. 

 

But generally, I guess if your boss doesn't mind damaging your property, you should also expect they may not mind firing you. That may be the lesson here?

 

FTR, DH and I are both from Appalachia and know many people who wouldn't be happy getting scratches on their car.  Of course, it depends a great deal on how bad the scratches are.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

No one can live in WV and drive on our roads if they are really picky about their vehicles.

 

No one?  So no one in Martinsburg van be picky about their vehicle?  Huntington?  Wheeling? Charleston?  So those people I know who put the shine on their vehicle every weekend didn't exist?

[creekland]

No one?  So no one in Martinsburg van be picky about their vehicle?  Huntington?  Wheeling? Charleston?  So those people I know who put the shine on their vehicle every weekend didn't exist?

 

When we went to the dog track in Wheeling the other week there were plenty of scratch free cars - many with WV (or OH or PA) plates.

 

We live rural too - back road - lots of trees - lots of potholes.  Most people keep their cars relatively scratch free.  Trucks get abused, but not usually cars - until they're older anyway.

 

I fully believe Steph (and some others) don't care about scratches.  I just don't think they're the norm.  For us, it would depend upon which vehicle.  Our '97 truck?  We wouldn't notice.  Our '02 car?  We'd try to buff it out - it's pretty scratch free still.  Our '14 newest acquisition (small SUV)?  I'd be highly annoyed, esp with no apology.  I'd be saying something.

 

Then too, it would depends upon the scratches.

[TranquilMind]

This incident aside, you sound like someone I wouldn't want to work for anyway.  "My way or the highway" employers are the worst and not worth the effort.  I don't even care for them as friends personally.

 

Even your wording of "I'd find someone easier to handle" shows me extreme disrespect for the employee as a person.  They are merely a tool.  No thank you.  Do your job yourself.  Money isn't everything and I feel for those who have to stoop low enough to put up with such behavior in order to get money.  I hope they can find better jobs!

 

Asking someone to keep an active dog penned up while they are working on your (generic your) property is a very simple request and one that is made OFTEN so that problems of any sort are avoided.  Dogs definitely cause damage and sometimes one ends up with "why I have no idea why they bit you!!!"  :glare:  Those events occur way too often.

 

Yep, me too.  If someone can't be bothered to take care of his dog that is jumping on me, hurting me (OP said), and damaging my vehicle, that's a client I don't need. 

 

Wouldn't any considerate person would keep his dog out of the way for someone coming on the property?  I thought that was normal. 

 

[Murphy101]

Dog jumping on people would tick me off and something should have been said the first time instead of waiting months to say something and it's about the car instead.

 

Scratches on vehicles happen. *shrug* I agree pitching about scratches is petty and it would not be greeted well from me either.

 

But scratches are not gauges. If my car looked like some jerk had keyed my car? That would not be petty. That would be very irksome.

 

And yet, many of you I think are talking from more financial privilege than myself. Bc even if it was keyed up looking, we would probably prefer paychecks to unemployment for being a "complainer".

 

Case in point, dh has a pickup truck. He uses it to make some extra money doing contracted commercial hauling for various companies. So he pulls in and they use a crane to place the shipment in the back. Well this idiot misplaced it and it partly landed on his closed tailgate. Left a huge dent in the top right where the latch is and broke the latch to where it won't open.

 

In theory, dh should have immediately gotten a work order to get it repaired or they should have just offered.

 

But he didn't and they for sure didn't.

 

Bc the $800-$1000 damage repair likely would have resulted in losing $5000+ in hauling gigs. Basic math means a year later he still has the caved in dent on this tailgate and has finagled a way to open and close it without using the latch.

 

Sucks. But such is life. It often doesn't go like the paperwork says it should. If someone uses their vehicle for work, even work travel, minor scratches and dents such are part of the gig and complaining about minor stuff will likely mean less gigs.

 

That said, no one has ever had to tell me to pen my critters. Any of them. Ever. I know my pets and I do it if I feel necessary. And if they want me to anyways, yes, I'd hire someone else if that were an option.

[StephanieZ]

No one?  So no one in Martinsburg van be picky about their vehicle?  Huntington?  Wheeling? Charleston?  So those people I know who put the shine on their vehicle every weekend didn't exist?

 

Oh, well, sure, my use of "no one" was hyperbolic, clearly. If that wasn't clear, I apologize for not using more precise language. Or if you are just being snarky, well, then, whatever. 

 

I suppose there are plenty of people in WV who are picky about their cars. But, I live in one of the most affluent counties in the state, and I probably know only a few people who care about any of their car's paint jobs -- and typically that'd just be the newest one in the family, since it hadn't gotten ruined just yet. All I can say is that unless you keep it garaged and never drive it, you are bound to be frustrated, sad, and angry a lot of the time because our roads are so bad that it's just not realistic to expect to keep them nice for long if you actually drive them. Maybe living here is why we've become so car-uncaring. Between having destructive teen drivers and the epically crappy roads, we'd just be frustrated and miserable 24/7 if we got concerned about scratches in the paint of our cars. 

 

If you actually live in WV and know people in Huntington, Charleston, etc who polish their cars every week and would also get worked up about dog nail scratches in the door, then you know a very different sort of WV'ian than I do. The WV'ians I know are nearly universally NOT litigious or looking for someone to pay for minor damages to their stuff. Fender benders are nearly always settled with a "don't worry about it" or a "sure, I'll call you with the cheapest estimate I can get, so you can avoid the police/insurance" . . . I know this very well, since my teens have had more than their share of minor accidents . . . No sweat, no police, and folks only want money if they really have to fix the banged up car, not for minor dents, scratches, etc. It just is rarely done around here IME. People help each other survive when they live in or among serious poverty. Part of that help is minimizing frivolous expenses. 

 

Y'all who live places where scratches in the paint of your cars can readily be avoided for years on end, please keep voting in legislatures who are willing to maintain your roads. Better yet, send some of them over to WV and see if y'all can get our state to maintain the roads. I know *I* keep trying to vote for people who are willing to spend the money to take care of our infrastructure . . . As it is, our neighbors throw down home-made patches and pot-hole fill on our STATE OWNED road every few months to avoid actually destroying/breaking cars on our road . . . Scratches are the very least of most folks' car concerns around here. 

 

I don't know anyone who "puts a shine on" their vehicle on any regular basis. I'm sure it happens. I wash mine a few times a year, right before road trips usually, and that seems the norm. 

[marbel]

How do bad roads cause scratches on cars, except at the very bottom where it might scrape in a pothole?   How deep are those potholes, anyway?   Stones and such being kicked up would cause dings and small dents.  But scratches?   Not able to picture it.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by marbel

[StephanieZ]

How do bad roads cause scratches on cars, except at the very bottom where it might scrape in a pothole?   How deep are those potholes, anyway?   Stones and such being kicked up would cause dings and small dents.  But scratches?   Not able to picture it.

 

Ugh, this is a crazy thread. I should look away, but I can't help myself.

 

We have pot holes up to maybe 3 feet across and 18 inches deep, and in places you will have so many across the road that you can't actually avoid all of them, so you have to go slow to muddle through, hoping none are deep enough to break something. Literally, my 0,7 mile long road has at least 100-200 potholes. There are some 20 foot long sections that have DOZENS. WV potholes are so numerous that I joke that Subarus are the official state car, because they come with standard AWD, are economical, and have *high clearance*.

 

We have an old AWD Volvo sedan and two new AWD Subarus (and a non-AWD minivan with college girl in sunny Alabama). All our WV cars are AWD, as I will no longer buy any vehicles that are not AWD due to the lack of road maintenance -- it's a safety issue in the winter. But, the Volvo (purchased 12 years ago by my mom in good-road-country) has typical (low) sedan clearance, and so making it through our road without damaging it is a challenge each and every time. My brother recently sold (at a bargain price) his babied-but-10-yr-old Mustang convertible. If we lived anywhere else, I'd have snapped it up for a fun car, but living here, there is NO way that car would survive more than a handful of cautious trips down our road, let alone regular driving. Our road is very bad, but it is NOT unusual for lower-traffic roads in WV. Unless you live in town (which is a small city) and never visit anyone out of town AND avoid the various town roads that are similarly totally unsafe for low-clearance cars, you aren't going to be able to use a sports car here. Good for me, since it eliminates any temptation for a mid-life-crisis car, lol.

 

Two weeks ago, a large section (30 feet long, one full lane across) of our 2 lane (one each direction) "major secondary highway" thoroughfare (55 mph) into town dropped into the abyss via sinkhole. A few weeks earlier (before the big collapse), it had dropped 8-12 inches over night. For hours/days there were 8-12 inch drops ON THE ROAD on the one 55mph lane going north. Obviously, cars were damaged before it got blocked (for many months, presumably, as they have to re-engineer things). These things just happen around here, presumably due to poor maintenance. 

 

There are many WV roads that are very narrow. There is one heavily traveled road in town (a small but affluent city, for WV) that is so narrow that you have to pull aside, sometimes into a ditch, and often brushing against vegetation, if two larger (minivan/SUV, not huge truck) are going at the same time. That road connects one of our most major (very nice) shopping areas with our largest (of 2) high schools and happens to also connect to our piano teacher's house. Going another route would add 10+ minutes to many short trips. But, taking that road (which is not marked as anything other than a regular road, and which only recently added a "not suitable for large trucks" sign on one end) means you are more than likely to need to pull aside, rub vegetation, or end up in a ditch. This road is exceptionally bad for "in town" but not at all exceptional for other areas, where people live, go to the rail trail, travel, etc, on a routine basis. 

 

We also have lots of loose gravel. Gravel for many miles of heavily trafficked roads, where other vehicles, let alone yours, will pop up gravel at the car, dinging and scratching it. And branches in the roads after a heavy rain (frequent). When you drive over a branch, things pop up and scratch your car.

 

We have lots of trees and brush and untrimmed brush along roads. Close to roads. With lots of rough pavement/potholes and poor painting upkeep. Especially when you add poor snow management in the winter, minor fender benders/ditch dives/off the road into the brush incidents are quite common. Common enough that when you have one, another vehicle with tow straps will generally rescue you before AAA can get out. These incidents typically result in some dents, dings, and scratches. 

 

When you drive along a narrow untrimmed road, especially when another vehicle is heading towards you, you are likely to rub up against branches of brush. These things scratch. We have lots of brush and tons of tress. It rains a lot, and our soil is fertile. We have a lush, green, beautiful state . . . lol

 

I encourage all of y'all who don't believe me about WV roads to plan a road trip (in your nicest car, not) out here to WV. Check us out. The mountains and rivers are beautiful. The people are low key and kind. If you need help route planning to see the best and worst of our roads, I'm happy to help. 

[StephanieZ]

 

This was a favorite meme on my WV Facebook feed last year. Very apt. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh, well, sure, my use of "no one" was hyperbolic, clearly. If that wasn't clear, I apologize for not using more precise language. Or if you are just being snarky, well, then, whatever. 

 

I suppose there are plenty of people in WV who are picky about their cars. But, I live in one of the most affluent counties in the state, and I probably know only a few people who care about any of their car's paint jobs -- and typically that'd just be the newest one in the family, since it hadn't gotten ruined just yet. All I can say is that unless you keep it garaged and never drive it, you are bound to be frustrated, sad, and angry a lot of the time because our roads are so bad that it's just not realistic to expect to keep them nice for long if you actually drive them. Maybe living here is why we've become so car-uncaring. Between having destructive teen drivers and the epically crappy roads, we'd just be frustrated and miserable 24/7 if we got concerned about scratches in the paint of our cars. 

 

If you actually live in WV and know people in Huntington, Charleston, etc who polish their cars every week and would also get worked up about dog nail scratches in the door, then you know a very different sort of WV'ian than I do. The WV'ians I know are nearly universally NOT litigious or looking for someone to pay for minor damages to their stuff. Fender benders are nearly always settled with a "don't worry about it" or a "sure, I'll call you with the cheapest estimate I can get, so you can avoid the police/insurance" . . . I know this very well, since my teens have had more than their share of minor accidents . . . No sweat, no police, and folks only want money if they really have to fix the banged up car, not for minor dents, scratches, etc. It just is rarely done around here IME. People help each other survive when they live in or among serious poverty. Part of that help is minimizing frivolous expenses. 

 

Y'all who live places where scratches in the paint of your cars can readily be avoided for years on end, please keep voting in legislatures who are willing to maintain your roads. Better yet, send some of them over to WV and see if y'all can get our state to maintain the roads. I know *I* keep trying to vote for people who are willing to spend the money to take care of our infrastructure . . . As it is, our neighbors throw down home-made patches and pot-hole fill on our STATE OWNED road every few months to avoid actually destroying/breaking cars on our road . . . Scratches are the very least of most folks' car concerns around here. 

 

I don't know anyone who "puts a shine on" their vehicle on any regular basis. I'm sure it happens. I wash mine a few times a year, right before road trips usually, and that seems the norm. 

 

Yes, because as we all know, everyone who lives in a state all fit the same mold.  Good gravy.

 

And there is a difference between road wear and someone else causing scratches to your vehicle.  Oddly enough, after all those years in WV, I can't remember a single scratch from the road.

 

[73349]

I drive about 5k miles a year on normal, decently paved roads in town. That's why my 11-year-old car is still in very good condition, and yes, I'd be annoyed at damage from an employer's dog (or kid or tree or whatever) and while I probably wouldn't expect to be compensated unless it impaired function, I'd want further damage prevented.

[StephanieZ]

Yes, because as we all know, everyone who lives in a state all fit the same mold.  Good gravy.

 

And there is a difference between road wear and someone else causing scratches to your vehicle.  Oddly enough, after all those years in WV, I can't remember a single scratch from the road.

 

 

When we moved to WV 12 years ago, the roads were in great shape. Since then, the Tea Party took over our state legislature, and between them and the ordinary idiots in both major parties and cronyism/inflated administration budgets/etc, they have managed to gut road budgets, and in fact, all state spending. The standard "11 year repaving cycle" (or something like that, it was, according to an acquaintance in local politics) is now more like 30 years, or longer -- or simply NEVER if you live on a low use road like mine. So, if you lived here sometime before the last 5 years, you wouldn't recognize the road conditions; it's very sad. Having Robert Byrd in the Senate all those years brought lots of road money, as did a flush coal economy. Now coal is cleaned out, and Byrd is gone, and things have changed for the worse in our state spending habits, which is especially visible in our roads. 

 

I keep trying to be civil to you, seeking some sort of civil discourse and intelligent discussion on our different perspectives, but you seem intent on being hostile and on avoiding understanding anything you don't immediately agree with. I respectfully request that you put me on "ignore" now, as I have done for you, and we can go about our WTM routines without this sort of negative interaction. It's easy to do. It'll make your day better, and mine, too. Since I'm putting you on ignore, I will (do my best to) avoid reading or responding to you in the future, so feel free to get your jollies vilifying me without (likely) risk of me countering your assertions. Or, maybe, just maybe, you might decide to walk away from your aggression and perhaps channel your energy into more constructive pursuits. Like, maybe go for a run. Or a walk. Or take a nap. Or go dig holes in your yard and then fill them back up. (Or roll the wheelbarrow full of dirt to the nearest pot hole and fill it up.) Certainly you have something better to do than to this. 

 

Cheers!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

When we moved to WV 12 years ago, the roads were in great shape. Since then, the Tea Party took over our state legislature, and between them and the ordinary idiots in both major parties and cronyism/inflated administration budgets/etc, they have managed to gut road budgets, and in fact, all state spending. The standard "11 year repaving cycle" (or something like that, it was, according to an acquaintance in local politics) is now more like 30 years, or longer -- or simply NEVER if you live on a low use road like mine. So, if you lived here sometime before the last 5 years, you wouldn't recognize the road conditions; it's very sad. Having Robert Byrd in the Senate all those years brought lots of road money, as did a flush coal economy. Now coal is cleaned out, and Byrd is gone, and things have changed for the worse in our state spending habits, which is especially visible in our roads. 

 

I keep trying to be civil to you, seeking some sort of civil discourse and intelligent discussion on our different perspectives, but you seem intent on being hostile and on avoiding understanding anything you don't immediately agree with. I respectfully request that you put me on "ignore" now, as I have done for you, and we can go about our WTM routines without this sort of negative interaction. It's easy to do. It'll make your day better, and mine, too. Since I'm putting you on ignore, I will (do my best to) avoid reading or responding to you in the future, so feel free to get your jollies vilifying me without (likely) risk of me countering your assertions. Or, maybe, just maybe, you might decide to walk away from your aggression and perhaps channel your energy into more constructive pursuits. Like, maybe go for a run. Or a walk. Or take a nap. Or go dig holes in your yard and then fill them back up. (Or roll the wheelbarrow full of dirt to the nearest pot hole and fill it up.) Certainly you have something better to do than to this. 

 

Cheers!

 

Roads vary around the state.  Certain areas are still worse than others, and has a lot to do with how much traffic they are getting from trucks related to the natural gas industry.

 

I am not being hostile, but you are making some broad stereotypes that don't even make sense.  And FTR, you were the one who started saying those who would expect to have an employer to pay for damage they caused lack "class".