Bed Bath and Dead Kids kind of sounds like a band name.

It's good to see BB&B respond...but they haven't exactly said anything new, just reiterated everything they've said so far, in pretty much the same proper PR-style.

Blood Bath and Beyond

Even though they had a pitiful response to the initial story, the company as a whole should really only be blamed for hiring idiots without common sense. These issues always come up, and generally it isn't the regional manager or some executive doing this stupid garbage.

@AgentTuttle: ...Starring Jean-Claude Van Damme?

The most recent statement that we issued yesterday indicated that this situation was not handled the way we would have expected it to be handled.

really? cause it looked to me like you defended the decision of the employee.

They're not "Taking this matter very seriously"? Oh man I'm pissed!

I'm sure this whole incident was a huge facepalm moment for BB&B corporate.

But at the same time, I think what happened is indicative of the current retail/service business culture. To save money they hire employees who aren't qualified (or smart) enough to make basic decisions. To compensate for this, they drill into their heads that they can do nothing but follow company policies. They can make no decisions and there are no exceptions. If it isn't in the policy manual and isn't an option on the screen in front of them, they can't do it. Period. So then something unusual happens that requires a decision and the answer is just an automatic "no". Most of the time it just results in a pissed off customer (or maybe an article on Consumerist), but one out of 100,000 times it results in something like this incident.

What happens next? Probably nothing. The company says it will train or send out a memo or whatever, but in reality they would still rather not empower their unqualified employees to make decisions no matter how mundane. Even if they get sued, it's still cheaper in the long run than allowing employees to make decisions.

Sued? This "employee" is damn lucky she isn't in jail for an interference or an obstruction charge!

My $0.02, your mileage may vary.

I too got a letter. First paragraph was the same, but the bottom was different. Looks like they are actually responding to people's actual comments rather than just sending out a blanket form.

I'm impressed with the response at this point, but still undecided about using them in the future - their people need to be better trained and their initial response was shockingly inept.

--
From the letter...

In addition, our Regional Vice President was in touch with the gentleman who entered our store, apologized and explained the above to him.

I understand your response but I hope that, in light of this, you'll reconsider. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

@MountainCop:

So if the lady asked someone in the parking lot for their cellphone so she could call 911 and they refused, should that also earn them a stint in jail?

BB&B (by their own count) has 900 stores. Figure 50 employees (at a bare minimum) per store, probably more like 100. That's somewhere between 4,500 and 9,000 employees.

So, ONE $8/hr nimrod has been told by a $10/hr manager not to let people use the phone, and enforces this... to excess. BB&B catches wind of it, and sends out a memo to 900 stores: "Hey, if there's a kid dying in the parking lot... lend the phone out for a minute, eh?" ...

I agree, it would have been better if they had a guy with an actual brain manning the phones that day, but you have to pay $12/hr for that, and they'd have to increase prices, and then we'd have to have dozens of articles entitled "BB&B SHRINK RAY ZOMGS!" when sheets that used to be 1000 thread count are now 800 thread count and cost the same.

Look, America... want good service? Go to Nordy's, but be prepared to pay the premium. Want an argument with a clerk over calling 9-1-1? Hope you like those 99c egg cups!

That still wasn't an apology. It was a careful, careful, very corporate avoidance of the central issue, with the utmost care taken to avoid any possible admittance of wrongdoing. I'm sure that the corporate PR culture would laud it as a homerun.

How long does it take before business executives lose their consciences and start talking like corporate robots? One week? Two weeks? "Your position," indeed. It boggles the mind. What other reasonable position is there but that this was a despicable policy -- or if not a formal policy, at least a despicable, callous... no, it's beyond all that.

This was a sociopathic act. A person who can look at another person and say, "no, we will not call 911, we will not get involved" when a child is in danger -- that person needs a psychiatrist, not another PR excuse letter denying responsibility and pretending to "appreciate your position."

I didn't read any humanity in Mr. Reinhart's response.

@Altdotweb: Actually yes, it quite possibly should earn them punishment. Many jurisdictions have made it a crime to refuse to render aid or report when a crime is in progress or somebody is endangered. It is also a crime in most states in the U.S. to fail to report suspected child abuse. It is also illegal in most places to leave a child unattended in a car. I really don't understand why people are having such a difficult time recognizing that BB&B's actions in this event were not only reprehensible, but probably criminal.

@ ChuckECheese - I can vouch for that from personal experience. About 2 years ago while walking past a CvS I was knocked over by a group of running pre-teens. My foot caught in a crack in the concrete which cause my ankle to twist, and to make a long story short, I broke my leg severely. We're talking a bone-jutting-out break.

I literally CRAWLED into the nearby CVS with people staring at me like I was insane, and as calmly as I could I hoisted myself up to the counter (no people in line) and asked the employee to call me an ambulance. He refused, saying customers were not allowed to use the phone.

I tried to calmly explain to him what was happening and he became extremely indignant about it. At this point another customer had wandered over, and when she saw what was happening she absolutely lost it. I believe her exact words are "Are you ****ing kidding me?"

That woman ended up raising a massive stink while I sat in the window display area (they wouldn't bring me any kind of stool or chair) waiting for the ambulance. When the paramedics and police came, she was the one who actually began the official complaint process against the employee who refused to help.

The young man was ticketed (not arrested) and I ended up having to appear in court to testify as to what happened. The other woman was there as well (she actually came and visited me in the hospital as well; total side-bar, but have you ever met someone who was *SO* doing the "right thing" that it creeped you out? Bless her heart...)

Long story slightly less long, the guy in question was fined by the city and sentenced to time served (just overnight in jail.)

So though I can't vouch for all cities in all places...people of the world beware. Your refusal to help someone who is in need of urgent help could lead to you being found responsible for contributing to their situation. Think of the guys who egged on the rapist in "The Accused"...

And since I know you're all horrendously concerned, my leg is much better now. ;)

@ChuckECheese: I'm sure that's why they've been so very careful (translation: cold, unfeeling) in all of their public responses. My guess is there's a senior PR team moderating every single corporate statement so as to remove any hint of any possible public admission of wrongdoing.

As an aside, what does it say about the state of corporate America when companies can't admit that they did something wrong because they're afraid of being sued?

It shouldn't matter what POLICIES bed bath and beyond has or not, in most states it is AGAINST THE LAW not to yeild a phone for 911 purposes, no matter who you are.

Is it me, or does that almost seem like a generic copy & paste from a PR response or something...

I just find this whole thing utterly ridiculous. It almost seems like a hoax from the fact it is so unbelievable. But it did happen, the fact BB&B isn't addressing the matter appropriately is more annoying. Someone could have died, what if next time someone dies?

As a business, you should be limiting liabilities. Even not addressing this situation properly is a bad business decision.

@Altdotweb: Maybe you would refuse (to allow someone to use your cell phone), but I don't know many people who would refuse in that situation.

What do YOU think should happen to these people who allegedly DID refuse?

Failure to allow use of a telephone to call police could also lead to the company being sued. I know of a particular case where a guy was being beaten up in a parking lot of a store and the employee refused a customer's request to call the police. That store got sued. Yes, I'm sure insurance covered legal bills and settlement, but that store's insurance premiums likely went up.

I don't know. I think it was a decent response. He said they were ashamed, which is a pretty strong statement, IMO.

I am not one of those who think those in the wrong need to slit their wrists in public so the wronged get to witness the bloodletting.

Methinks this won't happen at another BBB...

@MountainCop:

Depends on the state, but generally, no, he/she's not "lucky lucky she isn't in jail for an interference or an obstruction charge." In general, in most states there's no duty to assist - if you see a child drowning, you can sit down, grab some popcorn, and watch.

If the employee had taken away the customer's cellphone, and blocked the customer from calling 911, or kept the police from breaking into the car, that's obstruction.

Again, I'm not familiar with the details of Kentucky law, but generally, not helping someone in distress isn't a crime. It doesn't exactly make you a model citizen, but it's legal.

@ShadowFalls:

What exactly should they do other than clarify to all employees that "if someone says they need to call 911, give them the phone!"?

Still a crappy response.
Proper response: Sack entire store, hire and train new people with some ethical moral values.

Seriously, it was a CHILD. A child cannot help itself out of a hot car.

What is wrong with this company?!

How about Baked Babies & Beyond?

@ViperBorg: Sack the entire store? So people who weren't even at work that day should lose their income?

Other folks who would not only have called 911 but would have taken a brick to the car windows should lose their jobs because they were in the back of the store?

The heck with sacking the entire store! Firing squad, I say!

I know that everyone here is outraged at BB&B because emotionally, it's obvious that we should help kids that are illegally locked in cars. But the outrage is misplaced, and BB&B's response after the fact seems perfectly adequate. Consider that if the kid were truly in imminent danger, breaking the glass would have been acceptable, and then calling the police (akin to some guy having a heart attack, you initiate CPR, and then call the paramedics). Granted, at some point a call to the police would have been necessary, and so the obvious solution would be to to go into the BB&B and ask for the telephone. So here we are:

The BB&B employee made a bad decision, but it's not completely unjustifiable. The employee didn't see the kid, and only has the word of some person off the street. Have none of you ever been hit up by "my car's out of gas, can you give me a few bucks to get home to my starving kids" types of people while in parking lots or gas stations?

Everyone (that's everyone!) has some type of initial skepticism. If some person walked up to me in the parking lot to ask to borrow my cell phone because some kid's locked in the car, it's certainly not unreasonable that I'd refuse. If the person were insistent (but not violent) and didn't relent and it were obvious that he or she were in distress, then I'd consider loaning my cell phone. The same deal works in a store. If you stop at "no" then you're not getting your message across, or you lack self-esteem or willpower. Certainly if I saw the kid myself, then I'd make the call without hesitation, but the store employee didn't see the kid and had no way of ascertaining the situation, and the importance of the situation wasn't conveyed to the employee.

@Canino: "But at the same time, I think what happened is indicative of the current retail/service business culture. To save money they hire employees who aren't qualified (or smart) enough to make basic decisions. To compensate for this, they drill into their heads that they can do nothing but follow company policies. They can make no decisions and there are no exceptions."

BINGO! (even if from just a liability standpoint). Hey, 20 years ago the employees may have busted the window to help and got an award for it, but todays corporate lawyers make sure that will never happen.

Well, the employee may get an award for keeping the store from a personal injury and property damage suit....see how how corporate attorney departments works.

I'm not blaming lawyers themselves (they do wonders when you buy a house), but "civil responsibilty" has been overshadowed by our automatic acceptance and almost now-instinctive "it's not my/our responsibility" of the "I'll sue for any reason" social mentality.

Many years ago when I worked in retail, there was a lady who came into my store to say there was someone unconscious and bleeding in a car in the parking lot. I called the police and while I was still on the phone, she took off. When the officer showed up, they said there was no one in that car or any other car and threatened to cite me for making an phony 911 call. I was working by myself that day, but fortunately there was another customer in the store the entire time who could vouch for me that this really did happen.

@Canino: Very well said. I'd still like to think that a person would not particularly care if they got fired for not letting a child die, but I see what you mean.

@balthisar: I kind of hope I don't run into you if I ever really need help.

@nsv: All right, all right a little overdone.

Sack the person who wouldn't allow them to use the phone, and the manager for enforcing this policy.

Then sack the idiot who wrote the PR response.

@balthisar: "Consider that if the kid were truly in imminent danger, "

And what exactly is your definition of imminent danger?

And they asked to use the store's phone, not the employee's personal cell phone, what would they have done? Ripped it from the wall and ran? Called emergency services in China? What logic are you using, exactly?

I'm putting a sticker on my cell phone now: "If I'm in need of emergancy medical care, please use my cell phone to call for assistance. Thank you."
Hell, I'll put that on my shirt and jacket too. Maybe I'll write it on my forehead.

I have a problem with this response. This:

The most recent statement that we issued yesterday indicated that this situation was not handled the way we would have expected it to be handled.

It's simple, attack the store manager--then they'll call 911 for you ;-) (kidding, kidding.)

In all seriousness, they wouldn't have *any* problem calling 911 for shoplifters, or a belligerent customer (queue SNL skit about Bon Qui Qui), so what the hell's their problem?

@friedduck: No moral values. That's a good place to start for figuring out what their problem is.

Here's where the people in the store (not the employees) might not want to give a complete stranger their cell phone:

THEY RUN OFF WITH IT.

or:

You go outside with them to see what the problem is and they mug you.

I would have no problem calling the police FOR someone but there's no way I would just hand over my phone (assuming I had one, which I don't).

@balthisar: Being approached by a stranger asking to use your phone might make you legitimately concerned for your safety or the strong potential for theft. But employees in a store should be used to being approached, and hopefully don't fear for their safety or the store's property everytime a customer asks them something. Two different situations.

On the other hand, I have noticed that customer treatment within stores of the same chain at different location varies tremendously. I'd assume they're operating under the same policies, but in some places (usually wealthy suburban areas) you feel like a patron of a place that's interested in selling you something. Stepping into the same chain in poorer or urban areas, you become a threat to the store that must be contained, and any kind of activity is suspicious. I don't know if these attitudes have any basis in fact or stores' experiences, but it's hard to believe that customers have behaved so badly that staff have to preemptively adopt a defense posture for every interaction.

Memo to all retailers.

I am fighting back to your horrible business practices by consuming less and less. I'm not picking on any particular retailer. Your policies have dehumanized and wrecked our society to the point of stories like above to where I won't support it anymore. It's not just BB&B, you're all guilty of creating an environment where none of your employees are allowed to think or show compassion for another person.

So until further notice, my policy is to not spend my family's money except for very basic necessities. I will support only local people with whom I have a personal relationship.

@JustThatGuy3:
Morals and logic aside, the only individual required to call, allow the use of the phone, assist or intercede in the instance of a crime or medical emergency in my state are "properly equipped law enforcement officers" and "licensed Emergency Medical Technicians, while within the jurisdiction by which they are employed".

Sadly, too many well intentioned good samaritans have been sued for trying to do the right thing. We even passed a law protecting doctors and nurses from claims while assisting accident victims.

It still doesn't excuse BB&B asshats for this incident, but as others have said, there is no way you can hold someone accountable in the criminal or civil realm. As with other situations, express your dissatisfaction with your dollars. If you consider their policy or response inadequate, stop shopping there.

Last time I checked, there's usually a Linens & Things store across the street that usually sells the same stuff at the same prices.

[WARNING: Author is a philosopher.]

Details aside, I think everyone is rightfully upset because this demonstrates how corporatism, among other things, has really damaged our ability to get along as a society. We all know that helping each other out *used* to be the default, and that while occasionally this meant getting pranked or robbed, it was generally seen as worth it, and also as rare. (I think it's still rare, but it seems like every single incident of someone getting the shaft is so exhaustively reported on that we tend to think it's the norm -- just my opinion, though.)

It's disturbing that not just the corporation, but the public (as represented here) has a knee-jerk tendency to defend selfishness, petty greed and self-centeredness when it comes to helping one's fellows. People seem to think that it makes sense to not want to hand over your phone to someone who claims there's an emergency -- why? Because the possibility that your phone will be stolen is more important than the possibility that someone else will DIE? Similarly, we're supposed to sympathize with employees who are "just protecting their jobs", even if by doing so they're saying that their job is more important than a child's life?

What's it really WORTH to not get sued?

And hey, if more people took the risk of being sued or screwed in some way in order to help others, then maybe less people would sue over stupid things. What goes around does tend to come around, and that applies to selfishness too.

(I always ask myself one question: Could I sleep at night? I wouldn't hate myself if someone pulled a dirty trick to steal my cell phone; but I *would* hate myself if someone needed my help in an emergency and I was too worried about my stupid electronics to offer it. Making the decision that way means that no matter what happens, I come out on top.)

@vastrightwing: P.S. I love you. ;)

Folks, corporations exist to make money. This is how their charters are written. They can, in fact, be held liable by their stock holder if they are found doing things that squander profits.

If you want this to change, don't vote for McCain - that's for damn sure.

The sad reality is that we as a people prefer not to get involved. I think there is even a psych study on this. When a group of people witness a tragic event, many will do nothing because the thought in everyone's mind is, "Someone else will do it."

I do it too. I'll admit it. It isn't until someone looks at me and says, "I need your help" that I'll get involved.

When I took CPR, they made this absolutely clear: look someone in the eye and tell them to call 911. If you just say "someone call 911, no one will."

Perhaps a psych person can help me out on this one.

@vastrightwing: I second that.

@SuffolkHouse: I wouldn't vote for Obama either.

/political troll

@ViperBorg: I guess the answer is if the child is in imminent danger, don't call the police -- break the window yourself.

If you see someone drowning and want to help, I wouldn't recommend calling the police to come rescue the person for you. Dive in there!

Also -- I would NEVER hand my cell phone to someone to make a call on it for any circumstances. That's the oldest trick in the book, I'm afraid. I suppose if the person were insistent I'd consider investigating the situation myself but handing your cell phone to a stranger is stupid. You'll have a thousand dollars of charges to Bangalore before you can find a payphone to cancel your contract.

@HogwartsAlum: Exactly. I don't get the people who thought the couple should have asked random people in or outside of the store. I would have assumed that they would have been suspicious of me for exactly those reasons. Even that's assuming the couple passed anyone before they got to an employee.
It just makes more sense to go straight to someone you know has a phone and will help you.

"People seem to think that it makes sense to not want to hand over your phone to someone who claims there's an emergency -- why? Because the possibility that your phone will be stolen is more important than the possibility that someone else will DIE?"

@Mary Marsala with Fries: False dilemma. If you have a cell phone you can always call 911 yourself. It isn't necessary to hand your phone over.

@RagingBoehner: I typically will call 911 on their behalf. But diving in the water to save someone might not be the best idea.

Of course, this is dependent on water conditions, etc. But most people have never swam with clothes. Clothes can be very heavy when we and most people can't swim with that much restriction.

The key is if you absolutely know that you can do something, help! But if you've never taken a CPR class, or if you've seen Doogie Houser and want to be him, don't try out here. Chances are you will get hurt yourself and make a bad situation worse.

@linus: I'll give you that -- maybe not the best analogy. I can barely keep myself afloat. But I guess my frustration is that people are pointing fingers at BB&B -- who handled the situation poorly to be sure -- but were unwilling to take any real initiative themselves.

If a child is truly in danger and you're running around inside a store looking for someone to make a phone call -- that's not going to help get the child out as much as breaking a window will especially if seconds matter as others have noted above.

So if the OP is unwilling to break the window (fear of getting sued, injured, beaten up by angry car owner/parent, etc.), it's not unreasonable that a corporate entity has similar concerns.

It's a sad state of affairs.