Food Handler's and Personal Liability

So I had to renew my food handler's license today by sitting through a two hour class on how to safely handle food that will eventually end up in other people's stomachs. No big deal; it's a two hour sit and I get paid for it... I think. I just need to show up and pay attention.

When given hand-outs about all the necessary precautions and rules and regulations of food safety, I realized that I already knew all of this stuff. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that rules are always followed, because in reality, there are usually more pressing matters such as making sure that the customer gets the service he or she is paying for.

When things come down to rules or reality, there just has to be that simple gray area. Functioning in real life can't always be about rules and regulations. Otherwise, as someone had put it, you'd be standing at the sink washing your hands every two seconds and nothing will get done. But for the record, rules are always followed even if mistakes are made occasionally.

But this is all history now. The class is over and we do what we can to make sure everything goes according to what is required.

The subject of personal liability came up however, and even though I had always known this in the back of my head, it wasn't until today that I actually heard those words put into a sentence as a fact: "In this country, there is no personal liability." And I hadn't realized just how deep that one statement goes either. Now I'm not saying that what I had heard today is completely and absolutely true. I don't know the legalities behind the whole ordeal.

And I'm not even sure if the term is used correctly anyway, since, upon looking it up, personal liability has to do with claiming your own debts and being accountable for that and so on.

Liability really has to do with financial issues anyway.

But what we discussed as examples of what she really meant can be best illustrated by the millions of lawsuits filed outrageously against some company for a person's own stupid actions causing that person to become victimized somehow. Famous case that comes to mind is the McDonald's hot coffee case back in 1992 when a woman was burned while trying to open the lid of her coffee cup. Now I know that there are a lot of fine details to that story that may or may not skew an outsider to either consider one side or another. But the question in the end comes down to, "Who is ultimately at fault for the woman being burned by a cup of hot coffee?"

First of all, did McDonalds really serve coffee so hot that it is not consumable upon being bought? Second of all, even if they do, is it really McDonald's fault after selling that cup of coffee, to make sure that clumsy people do not burn themselves? Should all paying customers be treated like idiots and be advised that, yes the hot coffee is indeed hot and that it will burn if your skin touches it immediately? And if I choose to put my steaming, scalding cup of hot coffee between my legs and accidentally knock it over, is that my own foolishness, or is that McDonald's fault for not warning me that I shouldn't put hot coffee between my legs because it could spill and cause burns?

Setting that case aside, there are always millions of issues out there that come down to the unfairness of a lot of legal policies. For instance, when I first became a bartender, one of the first things that I was told was that if a drunken patron requests another beer, I serve it to him, he leaves the building able to blow a 0.35 BAC, but manages to drive onto the road and then gets into an accident, then in the end, I will be the one responsible for the resulting accident and will be sued for negligence.

Now, I can understand if I was the one who put the keys in that drunken patrons hands, led him to his car, and told him to leave. I can understand if I persisted in serving this drunken patron alcohol when I should have been morally, and legally, obligated to cut him off. But if I refused to serve him alcohol because of his beyond inebriated state, he finds a way of getting ahold of an alcoholic beverage anyway despite attempts to cease his actions, and then he insists on driving in his drunken state thus getting into a horrendous accident, why can it still be the bartender's fault?

Apparently, these policies are based around the idea that people do not have to take responsibility for their own stupid actions if they happen to become the victim of their own stupid actions. Today, another example had been, if a person came into a restaurant, ordered his steak rare and bloody, was warned of the fact that consuming raw meat comes at a high risk of contracting food-borne illnesses, but insisted that he be given his bloody, fresh slaughtered cow anyway, and then ends up in the hospital because of E. coli, then the facility who sold him that piece of meat can be sued for negligence or something of the like. Maybe sued for serving a customer a piece of dangerous meat. Because according to the federal code, steaks have to heated to a certain temperature and cooked for a certain amount of time before they can be served.

So whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why would McDonalds have to settled 2.9 million dollars in compensation because they served a cup of hot coffee to a patron who orderd hot coffee? Do we not know that when you spill a cup of hot coffee on your lap, it's going to burn? So if you make your own coffee at home and accidentally spill it in your lap, do you get to sue the person who made that coffee machine? Do you get to sue the manufacturer of the stove you used to heat up your boiling water because it heated up your beverage to a scalding hot temperature that makes your coffee unconsumable?

Where is the line between personal responsibility and third-party responsibiity? Why are people not responsible for their own stupid actions?

While I feel sorry that the woman had gotten burnt, ended up needed skin grafts, and stayed in the hospital for two years for treatment and care, was it really McDonald's fault?

And even still, apparently, disclaimers warning paying customers about the risks of certain actions does not mean that the establishment is no longer responsible. Apparently, those little disclaimers at the bottom of the steak menu is only there for decoration-- even if it tells people about the risks of consuming raw or undercooked meat, if someone insists on ordering a rare steak and gets sick, that person can still come back and sue the establishment.

It's unfortunate that ideals are like that. Because in the end, how do you know what you'll be responsible for and what you're not responsible for, if people don't have to take responsibility for their own actions? I mean, I have always lived under the impression that if I walk into a street full of cars and get hit by one, I'm not going to sue the city for not warning me about the hazards of walking into heavy traffic. If I am allergic to milk and dairy products, I'm not going to sue Hiland for not warning me that drinking their milk is going to make me sick (granted, there probably is a warning on all milk products for those who are lactose intolerant.)

I understand the necessity of how to best service a consumer. But isn't it too much when you have to hold someone's hand and tell them every step of the way what they should and shouldn't do to keep from getting themselves hurt or sick? As adults, is it really okay to keep blaming other people if you don't learn how to watch out for your own well-being and continue to make mistakes that cost your own welfare, even after various warnings?

Isn't that just plain lack of common sense?

What it means to me...

Respect is something that is earned and not given away like flyers. Acting like an jerk is not going to help with the situation and neither are false accusations that accomplish nothing.

My personal opinions, which may not mean anything to many people, set up respect for those people who do their best in life, whether work or social or just general. If you do your share and try your hardest, you've earned my respect. You don't have to be intelligent and you don't have to know everything. In fact, you don't even have to be a martyr so long as it shows how you've at least tried your best.

A leader usually gets my respect automatically because of status. I think to myself, "That person is there for a reason." But that doesn't mean that I know why or that it'll remain true. Because in the end, automatic respect is lost far more easily than earned respect.

I'm not one to start trouble if it's not necessary. I like to keep the peace. If someone treats me wrong, but I've lost nothing in the process except for a small speckle of dignity and my temper, I simply take a deep breath, maybe vent to some of my friends about having had a bad day, and then I move on and get over it. Dwelling on the matter will only make me more stressed about it and it's not worth the stress. If a true problem comes up that could be a deciding factor about a major issue in my life, that's when I might have to finally speak up.

It's not the best way to go about conflict management, but I'm not good at confrontation. If at all possible, I'd love to just ignore and move on.

Unfortunately, other people like to start fires where bridges can be burned. I know for a fact that last night, a certain somebody has completely lost the respect of myself and two others. I will not mention names nor will I give specifics. He may not know who he is, but I'm pretty sure he'll find out in the long run that what he has done has not only failed to establish his authority, but has also lost the trust and respect of others.

Without trying to be immodest, I will honestly admit that I am a very tolerant and very nice person. I don't like arguments, I don't like confrontation, and I don't like anger. It takes a lot for someone to piss me off because I otherwise, normally just ignore their annoyance. But lines are easily crossed and especially if said person has been tip toe-ing that line since the first day we met.

I've lost respect for few people over the years. Because life is too short to spend always wondering who is going to do you wrong the next minute, or who you should make feel miserable, or who you should display false authority to. It would get tiring, wouldn't it? You spend a lot of your time each day already surrounded by necessities and issues such as, "What daily chores do I need to finish today?" "Where do I need to go today?" "Who do I need to call? What do I need to take care of?" "What's for dinner? What's for lunch?" "Do I want to sit and watch television or spend time with the family?" "Do I have homework to do? Studying? Reading?"

There are so many other things that need to be accomplished within the day that it's a wonder to me that people can dwell on other matters as petty as, "Who's going to make my life miserable today and how should I respond to that and who should I defend myself against before they even show any hint of thinking of attacking?" I feel sorry for those people who spend their entire lives thinking that they need to cry wolf every second they get a chance just so someone won't even remotely think of treating you wrong.

When my friend gets accused of doing something she had not even done and gets ambushed with that issue, I feel like we've stepped into past issues of incredulous Salem witch trials. It doesn't matter that she has done her share of work or that she had no intentions whatsoever of being rude or irrational. It doesn't matter that she had done nothing to merit being accused being disrespectful. But the issue going through the accuser's head must have been as simple as, "I need to set authority somehow," or "I need to teach some people a lesson," and so he goes and cries wolf about something that isn't even true. Maybe he was trying to earn respect he doesn't deserve by showing how he isn't being given respect. Maybe he was trying to defend against an impending attack. I don't know what his intentions had been, but there was no need to falsely accuse people.

If he wanted to given more respect, well, I'm sorry, he's burned three bridges. His way of going about things was childish and uncalled for.

I spent the night tossing and turning in bed wondering about the situation. If I had been in her position at the time, what would I have done? I don't have a temper. I don't know how to deal with confrontation and I'm no good at voicing my opinions. What would have happened to me? Would I have said something wrong? Would I have further angered him by saying something accusatory back? Or would I have suddenly developed some form of manipulative skill to turn the tables?

Who knows?

Respect is just so easily lost when someone pulls a stunt as irrational as he had done. Although we must consider that the respect that I had had for this person was teetering on a tight rope already. Because I believe there are certain things that he has no right to bring up and that his respect was not given to him in accordance to his ability to work hard, his work ethics, or even his social personality. This is a person who had been given automatic respect because of his position.

And I apologize. It's all gone now.

So now the main question is, how do I continue to act around him without making trouble for others?