Is a store under external remodel more dangerous to shop at?

the situation, the Fred Myer (grocery+clothes+sporting/auto/lots of stuff) near my workplace is under remodel, parts of the parking lot are fenced off and about 3/4’s of the parking spots on this end of the are gone. Vehicle and foot traffic via this entrance are both down because its a pain to get to from the street.

so the owner of my work has forbidden students from going to Freds on break because they could get hurt and sue him. its a short walk (around 50-70 yards) and the only visible hazard between us is some boards that are designed to cover wiring on the ground that you might trip over if you didnt see them…

I am wondering how this situation is more dangerous that a parking lot full of cars backing out and people driving through in much higher volumes? is there some hard evidence that construction is measurably more dangerous?

my thoughts are that these kids are just as likely to be injured in either condition but I have no idea where to start toward proving either side.

What? How would they sue him, if they got hurt at Fred Myers? It happened there. (And are these workers stupid? Fred Myer has a lot more money!)

Sounds like this is just an excuse for an authoritarian asshole to try to control you, even on your break. So don’t bother gathering evidence; it wouldn’t sway him. He didn’t make this decision in the first place by carefully weighing the ‘evidence’.

The owner is probably thinking that if you’re punched in he’s responsible.

I’ve worked for many companies that require any time you’re off property you punch off the clock. If you’re off property and on the clock it’s assumed you’re doing company business and the company IS responsible for you.

For instance, my boss asked me to go to (then) Marshall Fields and pick up some stuff he ordered. It was only a block away, so I did it.

Since I was on the clock if I got injured at Marshall Fields, worker’s comp could’ve been applicable as well as a lawsuit against Fields.

Since it costs money to defend a lawsuit or even just to process WC paperwork, it’s easier to avoid the situation all together.

I don’t think it’s as much the employer being sued as WC kicking in and even if the claim is denied, the company lawyers probably said, just avoid any potential problems.

He could’ve achieved this by saying all breaks must be punched out for, from now on. (Of course this is subject to state laws which vary from state to state)

It might be more dangerous in some ways. Obviously, the store owner thought the risk was small enough to remain open. But he mostly has business in mind. Remodeling involves makeshift safety devices like barriers, signs, and covers. These things are not as well engineered as the finished store. They probably are not inspected by the municipality. Customers are often subjected to low air quality from sanding dust and demolition work. There can be chemical issues with both physical contact and airborne particles. People might track some of these back home/school.

It may seem overly protective, but that’s what most parents expect of teachers and custodians.

I am not really interested in swaying him, more like swaying the people at the unemployment office when I finally leave or get fired. the guy is nuts on a whole new level, the things that come out of his mouth leave me wondering how he can possibly have survived this long.

he got pissed at one of the other instructors the other day for booking a lesson with an adult student with out telling him about it, evidently if there is a crash in the work car and the owner had know knowledge of the lesson being taught then the insurance wont pay for the damages…he was serious.

He cannot tell you where you cannot go on your break. So smile and nod and then do whatever the fuck you want.

If you get hurt there while on break then yes, he will have to file a work comp claim for you. It will get denied because it didn’t happen on company premises or in the course of your normal job duties, and they will subrogate the medical bills to the property owner, which may or may not be that store (if it’s a rental property it’ll be subrogated to the property OWNER, which could be a property management company instead).

He doesn’t want you to know this. wink. But I work with work comp claims every day and this is a fairly common occurrence.

First of all, it’s Fred Meyers, not Myers. From the OP it’s not clear if the “students” are employees or customers of the store. The owner can’t tell the customers where they can go to shop, but I do see his concerns about his liability risk if his employees get hurt while still on the job.

The owner of your work is a moron and making up bullshit rules to be lazy. Fred Meyer is a large multi-state chain that’s owned by an even larger chain, Kroger. They have their own liability to worry about with the public so they make sure there’s tons of annoying signs, arrows, walkways and barricades everywhere to keep the public safe. Honestly, you have to try really hard to get hurt during their remodels. I used to work in Fred Meyer’s corporate office, I know how they work.

rachelellogram nailed it in regards to the work comp claims.

It has been my observation that if you don’t want to do it, any excuse will do. Who knows what he has against Fred’s?

Actually, it’s Fred Meyer.

:confused:
Business have employees not students. Are we talking about the employees are being forbidden, or customers who happen to be students?
If it is the first why did the OP refer to them as students?