Submitted by moisheah t3_11apx6s in WorcesterMA
Comments
instantinternet t1_j9u0kxk wrote
It shouldn’t have been suspended at all, it wasn’t even their roof.
7evenPoint128 t1_j9ulxm7 wrote
That's the least relevant part of this issue. The location was accessed through the bar with employees, which very much puts the liability on the bar and possibly the building owners.
bartnd t1_j9vrqi9 wrote
I'd definitely put some responsibility on the building owners. The basement in the Michaels building connects to a number of other areas.
If they did go through Michael's to get to the basement, then there's definitely a responsibility of the establishment. You can't have random people walking into the basement if it's employees only. I haven't been in that basement in 20-odd years but when I was it was the dishwasher and the keg cooler but I assume it hasn't been built out to be a functional part of the establishment.
madhatmatt2 t1_j9ym6uk wrote
As someone who was a drug addict for a long time there’s no fucking way on earth it should be blamed on the owners, imagine you work your whole life to build up your business and some scumbag drug addict takes his buddies up there with some overloaded dope and dies and you get blamed for it.
bartnd t1_j9yq3os wrote
Not blaming the owners for the overdoses, but you can't go unscathed for having non-employees walking around employee-only areas and beyond.
instantinternet t1_j9v6i3g wrote
I can’t see punishing the owner because he employed drug addicts. Liability nothing, seems everyone is on drugs these days
7evenPoint128 t1_j9vidfr wrote
Restaurants and bars have a higher responsibility for customer welfare. The fact they accessed the roof through their location is the trouble. It sounds like two employees provided access and other employees neglected to reveal information about the access point.
instantinternet t1_j9vm73h wrote
Do you think if this happened at a McDonalds they’d suspend the license? People OD at McDonald’s all the time
7evenPoint128 t1_j9yplra wrote
Thats not the same. There will always be junkies and ODs, but in this case, employees facilitated and that goes against the job. If that were the end of the case, they should be fired and business is fine, but the second problem is the other employees not revealing information about access to the troubled roof. That raises red flags about the entire staff.
MARetro t1_j9tt83o wrote
It also wasn't their roof? This story is bizzare.
_life_is_a_joke_ t1_j9u2ppi wrote
I'm inclined to believe Esperti's version of the events. I doubt very much that anyone would intentionally prevent first responders from doing their job.
I also don't think the bar should be held responsible for the actions of their employees in this case.
moisheah OP t1_j9u267k wrote
From the telegram article - I don’t think mentioned on masslive
“Michael's Cigar Bar was brought to the License Commission on violations of nonemployees being present on the property after closing hours, for the business assuming responsibility for illegal activity on the property and for not adequately notifying and assisting first responders if people suffered injury in the establishment.”
ka_55 t1_j9v3n7w wrote
Why didn't they rush responders to the other roof?! People's lives were in danger. Saving a small business is not worth this decision-making process. I think the penalty should have been worse. I'm all about Worcester and small businesses but cmon now ppl
MattOLOLOL t1_j9tixw3 wrote
SEVEN people overdosed, including two employees, which led to one fatality.
Their license is suspended for... five days.