What Vehicle is more entitled on the Road

[Tonytone]

^^^^^^^^
Never patronized a Publix (probably not surprising for a west coaster!) -- thus my question is:  were customers expected to tip these "front end associates" for their assistance?

IIRC, being from Florida, I believe I remember signs saying "Do not accept tips from customers"  or maybe I'm thinking of my times working @Walmart.


iPhone

[formulanone]

^^^^^^^^
Never patronized a Publix (probably not surprising for a west coaster!) -- thus my question is:  were customers expected to tip these "front end associates" for their assistance?

IIRC, being from Florida, I believe I remember signs saying "Do not accept tips from customers"  or maybe I'm thinking of my times working @Walmart.

There were little signs like "please, no tipping" but it was wasn't directly enforced. Implying that you deserved a tip was a good way to be sent home for the rest of the week, if the customer called to complain. You'd make a dollar or two on most days, $5-10 on weekends if you knew how to schmooze. December was usually the best month for tips, even more if you sold Christmas trees.

I usually made better cash from two hours' of pizza delivery, but Publix's employee stock-ownership plan helped pay for my college years. 

[abefroman329]

^^^^^^^^
Never patronized a Publix (probably not surprising for a west coaster!) -- thus my question is:  were customers expected to tip these "front end associates" for their assistance?

No, they weren't. If they offered a tip, we were to say "we don't/can't accept tips;"  if they responded "oh, go on..."  then we could accept it.

[Tonytone]

^^^^^^^^
Never patronized a Publix (probably not surprising for a west coaster!) -- thus my question is:  were customers expected to tip these "front end associates" for their assistance?

IIRC, being from Florida, I believe I remember signs saying "Do not accept tips from customers"  or maybe I'm thinking of my times working @Walmart.

There were little signs like "please, no tipping" but it was wasn't directly enforced. Implying that you deserved a tip was a good way to be sent home for the rest of the week, if the customer called to complain. You'd make a dollar or two on most days, $5-10 on weekends if you knew how to schmooze. December was usually the best month for tips, even more if you sold Christmas trees.

I usually made better cash from two hours' of pizza delivery, but Publix's employee stock-ownership plan helped pay for my college years.

Yea, thats how it went, crazy that a driving job can make you more money in one day then 40 hours a week. LGBOT (Lets Get Back On Topic) Seems that shopping carts have more respect in Shopping centers then the cars that park, & The People who leave the carts in the middle of the parking spot or halfway in the parking spot & grassy median.


iPhone

[ipeters61]

One thing I've noticed is that folks driving larger trucks (tricked-out F150's, Ram 1500, etc.) -- tend to be the ones who have the smallest level of etiquette or even recognition that there's someone else on the road aside from themselves.  This even carries over to parking lots -- at least anecdotally on a personally observed basis, they're the most likely to leave a shopping cart in the adjacent space after using it, making other potential parkers (a) avoid that space, or (b) get out and move the cart (I normally am reasonably tolerant, but that's something that royally pisses me off!).

I remember one time in my hometown in northern Connecticut several years ago (bearing in mind it was still very close to Hartford!), a woman confronted a pickup truck driver about him parking closer to the store than the handicapped spaces (i.e. not in a parking space, directly in front of the store, arguably in the fire lane).  And of course the guy was asserting his rights to her and that she should mind her own business.

Looking back, I wonder if he would pull over for an police car/ambulance/fire truck approaching from the rear with its lights/siren on.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Asserting his rights?  If he was stopped at curbside near the store entrance but not in a designated parking place, then he has no rights to do so.  I see this a lot -- again, pickups seem to be the most egregious offenders here -- guys (invariably the driver's male) essentially parked, usually for 20-30+ minutes, while waiting for their partners to shop and return to the vehicle.  They seem to think that if they remain within the car, it's perfectly OK to block an access point rather than seek out a real parking place and simply keep an eye out for their partner exiting the store.  The local Wal-Mart and Target stores seem to attract more than their share of this particular breed of driver. 

[kphoger]

I've encountered a few Panera franchises where employees roam around the dining area picking up used trays and dishes or actually encourage customers to "just leave them on your table"  when leaving. What happens when these customers go to another Panera (or similar quick service restaurant) where pickup patrols aren't roaming around? They're perhaps unintentionally training customers to be lazy and messy.

What would happen is that those customers would leave their trash on the table, then an employee would eventually come around and pick it up to throw away.  This is called customer service, and it should be encouraged.  I offer my congratulations to those few Panera establishments for treating their customers like patrons and not like busboys.  If I want to take my own food to the table and then throw away my own trash, why not just stay home?  A restaurant should be a place where people wait on you at least a little bit.

I remember one time in my hometown in northern Connecticut several years ago (bearing in mind it was still very close to Hartford!), a woman confronted a pickup truck driver about him parking closer to the store than the handicapped spaces (i.e. not in a parking space, directly in front of the store, arguably in the fire lane).  And of course the guy was asserting his rights to her and that she should mind her own business.

^^^^^^^^^
Asserting his rights?  If he was stopped at curbside near the store entrance but not in a designated parking place, then he has no rights to do so.  I see this a lot -- again, pickups seem to be the most egregious offenders here -- guys (invariably the driver's male) essentially parked, usually for 20-30+ minutes, while waiting for their partners to shop and return to the vehicle.  They seem to think that if they remain within the car, it's perfectly OK to block an access point rather than seek out a real parking place and simply keep an eye out for their partner exiting the store.  The local Wal-Mart and Target stores seem to attract more than their share of this particular breed of driver. 

Assuming that the parking lot is private property and that the curb is not a marked fire lane, what law did he violate?  If he was not in violation of a law, then he was indeed asserting his rights.

[J N Winkler]

Assuming that the parking lot is private property and that the curb is not a marked fire lane, what law did he violate?  If he was not in violation of a law, then he was indeed asserting his rights.

I don't think anyone has a general right to be on private property that he or she does not own.

[sparker]

Assuming that the parking lot is private property and that the curb is not a marked fire lane, what law did he violate?  If he was not in violation of a law, then he was indeed asserting his rights.

I don't think anyone has a general right to be on private property that he or she does not own.

Virtually all the instances of the kind cited that I've personally witnessed have been of the type generally described as "double parking"; about half of all those came in areas that were clearly marked for (a) pedestrian egress from a store egress or (b) painted "NO PARKING" indications along the trafficway.  Most of the remainder were just vehicles (again, with a preponderance of trucks) pulled up to a curb or along the edge of a marked driveway passing along the front side of said store.  And you'd think if they did so, the driver would at least engage the 4-way flashers on the vehicle -- but no...........

I suppose it's a matter of authority -- and the perceived lack of a "common law" aspect regarding egress onto private property.  Out here in CA many parking lots are posted to state that the provisions of the state vehicle code does apply to the parking facilities, including the approach lanes.  Nevertheless, that doesn't seem to affect certain motorists who simply choose to do what's most convenient for them regardless of how it affects the other users of those parking facilities.  And the local police seem reluctant to deal with this sort of thing unless it accompanies a more serious offense (theft, public disturbance, etc.); despite sporadic postings of the sort mentioned above, enforcement is given mostly lip service if even that.  In my experience, most store employees and management tend to shrug off situations outside the basic store walls -- at least until it starts costing them money!   

[kphoger]

Assuming that the parking lot is private property and that the curb is not a marked fire lane, what law did he violate?  If he was not in violation of a law, then he was indeed asserting his rights.

I don't think anyone has a general right to be on private property that he or she does not own.

As I understand the law:  unless the owner of the property has indicated that a person is not allowed on the property, then that person does not commit the crime of trespass by being on the property.  That is to say, anyone does generally have the right to be on private property, so long as it is open to the public and the property is not signed and/or fenced off.

So I'll double down on my claim.  If the parking lot was on private property, he had not been told to leave the premises, the parking lot was open to the public, and the curb was not a marked fire lane–then he had every right to park there.

[kphoger]

I'll put it this way:  If a parking lot doesn't have any striped parking spaces at all, that doesn't mean everybody who parks there is in violation of the law.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
Next time I'm at any of the locations where this occurrence seems to happen, I'll check for fire lane status (and will check the vehicle code for "no parking" enforcement re private lots); since I'm at one or the other every few days, this won't take too long!

I'll put it this way:  If a parking lot doesn't have any striped parking spaces at all, that doesn't mean everybody who parks there is in violation of the law.

Interesting concept -- whether there's an enforceable implication that if a parking lot does contains specific spaces for parking, then parking in an area other than clearly marked for that purpose may be a "violation".  I guess it comes down to whether an interpretation of that is permissive or restrictive -- and whether the property owner can legally exercise such an interpretation.   

[kphoger]

and whether the property owner can legally exercise such an interpretation.   

A property owner can tell you to park wherever the heck he wants to, because it's his property and you're on it.  Or he can tell you to leave altogether.  But I was gathering from the story that the owner hadn't become involved.

[kphoger]

On a related note and tangentially related to another thread...  My first job was pushing shopping carts full-time at a Target in the western suburbs of Chicago.  It irked me when people would park in the marked fire lane in front of the store, waiting for someone to finish their shopping, just so they didn't have to find an actual parking spot.  Sometimes they would actually run inside themselves and leave an unattended vehicle in the fire lane.  So one day, when I had a train of about 30 or 40 carts going, I left them on the lot-side of just such a vehicle for a few minutes while I went inside to use the restroom.  I came out to find the driver frustrated about being trapped in between the train of carts and the curb.  He never actually said a word to me, but I got a little bit of pleasure out of the situation.

I think a little piece of my soul died that day as well.

[briantroutman]

If I want to take my own food to the table and then throw away my own trash, why not just stay home?  A restaurant should be a place where people wait on you at least a little bit.

I understand the thinking (I'm paying money; I should get service). But if you want to be waited on, you'll find no shortage of sit-down restaurants offering table service–where prices are typically higher to cover that service, and you're further expected to leave a gratuity of at least 15% to compensate your server.

[Tonytone]

If I want to take my own food to the table and then throw away my own trash, why not just stay home?  A restaurant should be a place where people wait on you at least a little bit.

I understand the thinking (I'm paying money; I should get service). But if you want to be waited on, you'll find no shortage of sit-down restaurants offering table service–where prices are typically higher to cover that service, and you're further expected to leave a gratuity of at least 15% to compensate your server.

Yes, I wish people understood this concept more. I've heard people say "why would I tip the waitress?"  " they shouldn't pick that job if they rely on tips"  Umm some of these waiters make more money in one day of tips, then a person with a paycheck job would in 2 weeks. Some people don't understand the simple concept of things. Just like how YOU should be able to park in from of a store "Not blocking fire lanes or doors" . I think the public is scared of robberies & getaway drivers like this is the 80's


iPhone

[vdeane]

If I want to take my own food to the table and then throw away my own trash, why not just stay home?  A restaurant should be a place where people wait on you at least a little bit.

I understand the thinking (I'm paying money; I should get service). But if you want to be waited on, you'll find no shortage of sit-down restaurants offering table service–where prices are typically higher to cover that service, and you're further expected to leave a gratuity of at least 15% to compensate your server.

Yeah, the thing to remember is that Panera Bread is NOT a sit-down restaurant; it's a fast-casual chain with more in common with a place like Five Guys.  Some locations even want people to pick up the food from the counter, though most will bring it to the table.

[kphoger]

If I want to take my own food to the table and then throw away my own trash, why not just stay home?  A restaurant should be a place where people wait on you at least a little bit.

I understand the thinking (I'm paying money; I should get service). But if you want to be waited on, you'll find no shortage of sit-down restaurants offering table service–where prices are typically higher to cover that service, and you're further expected to leave a gratuity of at least 15% to compensate your server.

Yeah, the thing to remember is that Panera Bread is NOT a sit-down restaurant; it's a fast-casual chain with more in common with a place like Five Guys.  Some locations even want people to pick up the food from the counter, though most will bring it to the table.

Panera kind of straddles the line, in my opinion.  There are other restaurant chains in that same niche that do bring your food out and bus your tables for you.  Heck, there are even fast-food restaurants that do that.  Just to be clear, I do bus my own table at Panera, as I do at any restaurant that clearly has trash cans scattered around for that purpose.  I'm just very grateful for restaurants that take care of that so their customers don't have to, and I wish there were more restaurants out there like that.

Just like how YOU should be able to park in from of a store "Not blocking fire lanes or doors" .

I don't park in front of stores like that.  My point about that was that I have the right to, and so do you.  You and I both choose to lay down certain rights in order to be civilized members of society, but that doesn't mean other people should pick a fight with us if we don't.

[J N Winkler]

Assuming that the parking lot is private property and that the curb is not a marked fire lane, what law did he violate?  If he was not in violation of a law, then he was indeed asserting his rights.

I don't think anyone has a general right to be on private property that he or she does not own.

As I understand the law:  unless the owner of the property has indicated that a person is not allowed on the property, then that person does not commit the crime of trespass by being on the property.  That is to say, anyone does generally have the right to be on private property, so long as it is open to the public and the property is not signed and/or fenced off.

That is not how I understand the law.  When the property owner refrains from posting no-trespassing signs and you then set foot onto the property, you are not there as of right; rather, you are there on sufferance, and the owner can ask you to leave at any time and for any reason or none, although the owner does have an obligation not to discriminate in the provision of public accommodation (e.g., he or she can't run a restaurant and then refuse to serve black customers; similarly, he or she can refuse to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders but cannot refuse to serve all women, and he or she can refuse to serve Mitch McConnell but cannot refuse to serve all men aged over 65).

So I'll double down on my claim.  If the parking lot was on private property, he had not been told to leave the premises, the parking lot was open to the public, and the curb was not a marked fire lane–then he had every right to park there.

I would say that, if the parking lot were in an UVC jurisdiction without pass-through for private parking lots, that he had the ability to park there unless and until the owner asked him to leave.  I do not believe that qualifies as a legal right.

The places Sparker is talking about are mostly in California, which does have pass-through for private parking lots under CVC if they are appropriately posted (IIRC, Caltrans has sign specs for this purpose).  This creates the possibility of local law enforcement asking the antisocial driver to cure his behavior without the owner having to become involved, though as a practical matter (as Sparker acknowledges), neither will take action unless circumstances compel him or her to do so.

In UVC direct adopter jurisdictions, I think pass-through enforcement may be limited to handicapped parking spaces; I am not sure marked fire lanes are actually enforceable.  (I confess that I rely on the limited enforceability within parking lots to roll through stop signs when I can see that the way is clear.)  I am actually not sure a requirement to park within marked stalls only is enforceable independently of owner's intervention, absent signposting to that effect ("Park In Marked Spaces Only") and some sort of vehicle law pass-through.

In Wichita these issues have surfaced with the downtown branch of the YMCA.  When it opened in 2012, it was very popular, so the parking lot was flooded, and although the Y leases spaces across a nearby street for use as overflow parking, many members parked next to aisle ends--thus obstructing vehicle paths out of parking spaces--rather than use the second-best parking.  The Y eventually posted official traffic signs at the aisle ends indicating that they were not to be used for parking and that vehicles found parked there could be towed under the provisions of such and such a city ordinance.

In regards to the city's own lots, I have my doubts as to the enforceability of the white-on-green signs indicating that reversing into parking spaces is prohibited.  (Not all city lots are so posted, but not all of the lots with these signs are in fact metered, which is the usual reason for requiring vehicles to park nose-in.)

[kphoger]

I would say that, if the parking lot were in an UVC jurisdiction without pass-through for private parking lots, that he had the ability to park there unless and until the owner asked him to leave.  I do not believe that qualifies as a legal right.

This is fair.  It is something less than a "right".  His actions are something that is neither prohibited by statute nor protected by statute.

The places Sparker is talking about are mostly in California, which does have pass-through for private parking lots under CVC if they are appropriately posted (IIRC, Caltrans has sign specs for this purpose).

But the specific store that ipeters61 actually witnessed the confrontation at is in Connecticut, not California.

(I confess that I rely on the limited enforceability within parking lots to roll through stop signs when I can see that the way is clear.)

As do I.

In regards to the city's own lots, I have my doubts as to the enforceability of the white-on-green signs indicating that reversing into parking spaces is prohibited.  (Not all city lots are so posted, but not all of the lots with these signs are in fact metered, which is the usual reason for requiring vehicles to park nose-in.)

This comes up every couple of years on social media. 

As far as I can tell, it is only a requirement in the following locations:
[Sec. 11.52.050(b)] Metered municipal parking lots
[Sec. 11.52.090(e)] Municipal parking garages
[Sec. 11.52.115(b)] City parking lots in Old Town (Washington to the tracks, Douglas to Central)
[Sec. 11.52.110(2)] City parking lots at 1411 E 21st Street (wtf?) and Nomar (21st & Market)

But there is a carve-out for vehicles displaying handicap placards on the dashboard or suspended from the mirror.

Persons operating vehicles that meet the requirements set forth in subsection (25)(a) of this section may back into public parking spaces or park diagonally in two regular parking spaces if there are no handicapped parking spaces available,

[Tonytone]

What about the security cars that pull up the minute you park, with you're hazardz on & clearly in front a business that you would go in right quick & grab an order you placed online & they are ready to call a tow truck or the police because you "cannot park here"  but the signs clearly state you cannot "park"  while "standing"  or "stopping"  is allowed?


iPhone

[webny99]

If I want to take my own food to the table and then throw away my own trash, why not just stay home?  A restaurant should be a place where people wait on you at least a little bit.

I understand the thinking (I'm paying money; I should get service). But if you want to be waited on, you'll find no shortage of sit-down restaurants offering table service–where prices are typically higher to cover that service, and you're further expected to leave a gratuity of at least 15% to compensate your server.

Yeah, the thing to remember is that Panera Bread is NOT a sit-down restaurant; it's a fast-casual chain with more in common with a place like Five Guys.  Some locations even want people to pick up the food from the counter, though most will bring it to the table.

Panera kind of straddles the line, in my opinion.  There are other restaurant chains in that same niche that do bring your food out and bus your tables for you.  Heck, there are even fast-food restaurants that do that.  Just to be clear, I do bus my own table at Panera, as I do at any restaurant that clearly has trash cans scattered around for that purpose.  I'm just very grateful for restaurants that take care of that so their customers don't have to, and I wish there were more restaurants out there like that.

Reading through this thread, I was actually going to say the exact thing that vdeane said about Panera. The other thing about Panera, though, speaking very generally, is that they cater to the upper-middle classes, people who probably would get table service anywhere else they went out to eat. Because they have such a name for quality, it seems like they should have better service, i.e. they are not quite meeting the standards set by chains they are being compared to.

[kphoger]

What about the security cars that pull up the minute you park, with you're hazardz on & clearly in front a business that you would go in right quick & grab an order you placed online & they are ready to call a tow truck or the police because you "cannot park here"  but the signs clearly state you cannot "park"  while "standing"  or "stopping"  is allowed?

Those are private security guards authorized by the business owner to operate on their behalf.  They are not the police.

[Tonytone]

What about the security cars that pull up the minute you park, with you're hazardz on & clearly in front a business that you would go in right quick & grab an order you placed online & they are ready to call a tow truck or the police because you "cannot park here"  but the signs clearly state you cannot "park"  while "standing"  or "stopping"  is allowed?

Those are private security guards authorized by the business owner to operate on their behalf.  They are not the police.

Definitely authorized by the shopping plazas them selves. They are more nuisance then safety, since IIRC a (No disrespect intended)70 year old man cannot chase down robbers. Now a days, you cannot pull up in front of any store & just walk in. They want you to park 600 feet away, & walk to pick something up that takes 2 seconds.


iPhone

[webny99]

I got a little bit of pleasure out of the situation.

I think a little piece of my soul died that day as well.

Yeah, why is it that those two are basically inseparable?