West Union, Illinois | This is an excerpt from a Facebook post, but i wholeheartedly agree with it: In the Fair Oaks case, rules were in place, training was done, but the employee with a camera, who knew there was violations, chose not to tell a supervisor. If animal well being was the camera person's agenda, why was animal abuse not called to the supervisor's attention immediately? Why the delay in reporting? Did the camera person have another agenda that did not involve animal well being, but rather an agenda that could be used to make consumers believe that animal abuse is a way of doing business, and that animal protein should be eliminated from the diet. The camera person saw something and did nothing to correct it (over a 2.5 year time frame). Let me be perfectly clear, I do not, and will not condone animal abuse. It should never happen, but if some bully does it, the people seeing it have an obligation to get it corrected immediately. Period. Interesting that that is what Fair Oaks management did when it was reported - people were fired and criminal proceedings were initiated for those violating the training and company rules long before the ARM news release and expose.The camera person violated the employee training and rules by not reporting the bully activity immediately to minimize animal abuse, stress and suffering. written by Ron Lemenager
Edited by Mike SE IL 6/8/2019 20:14
|
Fair Oaks Dairy in the spotlight
