Though he was 40. WOW!

They just want the money. When I was in high school there were liquor stores that would sell to us even though we were CLEARLY under age.. then again I think that was in Detroit..

Does not take a whole lot of 'smarts' to ask for an ID when in doubt, but if an employee thinks a 17 yr old is 40, well it just goes to show that cigarette smoking really does have an effect on your appearance, and not in a positive way!

To really make a difference, the department should do this at least once a week throughout the city. I also think that business owners must be held responsible as well for not ensuring that their employees are upholding the law.

Khalil, so when you make a mistake at work, you expect the owner of your company to be responsible for your actions? That is what you are suggesting.

Lee, that raises some good questions. How involved in the action of her or his employees should an owner be? Can stricter management lead to less sales to minors?

The owner's job, in my opinion of course, is to provide a safe working environment , and reasonable guidelines for the employee to follow. It is part of the employee's job to follow the guidelines. If the employee does not, he is given a warning. If he messes up again, perhaps it is time to find another employee who understands what 'following the guidelines' means. We are all responsible for our own actions. If the owner was lax in his 'guidelines', then he has some culpability. If the employee ignored his job description, which, in part, said no sales of K2, that is not the owner's fault. For all we know, the owner is a victim here, with the employee bringing the contraband in on the sly and making a few extra bucks. Hard to say. Time to check out the facts. If the employee is doing K2 sales on the side, the employee should be fired immediately before parents find out and do him bodily harm, or worse.

Compliance isn't going to be gained by merely fining individual employees. Business owners are responsible for the acts of their employees. It's a legal concept going back hundreds of years. The gas station owner isn't any less culpable when an employee sells contraband to a minor than the auto company owner who sells defective products that result in injury to others. There is no other way to encourage a business owner to hire responsible employees. I bet the owner who is heavily fined after hiring an employee who costs him money will somehow find a way to hold his employees responsible for their next misdeeds before the government holds the owner responsible.

If business owners can't handle the responsibility of being business owners, they should either pay the fine or find a new occupation.

Phil, apparently we differ on the responsibilities of a business owner. Your example, using an auto company, is like comparing apples to oranges, both are fruit, but way ditterent. In your car example, stockholders are owners, do you blame them as well? Also, since car companies dictate the design of their cars, where is the line in the sand with consumers who use the cars improperly? Lawsuits over seat belts that did not save a life in a crash at 70mph beg the obvious question, why was the driver involved in a crash? The gas station owner is like the bar owner, a deep pocket blamed and raped for the stupidity of others, whether it is for an employee selling K2 under the table, or a bartender not knowing when a person should not be served another drink, somehow, that is never the employee's fault, or the customer, but always the owner. Why?? It is not the responsibility of a business owner to instill common sense in an employee or customer. They try with all the warning labels, look at your TV remote and the dire warnings of the danger of putting the 1.5 v battery in backwards, does anyone read that stuff? Shades of McDonald hot coffee, time for some common sense for a change. Otherwise, all the owners will say, "this is simply not worth it", and then watch the jobs disappear......fast.

It's not apples and oranges. It's respondeat superior. I didn't say anything about "blame". I said that business owners are held "responsible". Two different things. If you want your employees to behave reasonably, you need to compensate them well enough to attract reasonable and trainable people who will represent your interests well. And yes, it IS the business owner's responsibility to hire people with common sense or suffer the consequences if he doesn't.

Another example of nonsense, lazy theoretic, and basic ignorance spouted by lee Jacobson. Obviously you have no knowledge or understanding about legal cases or liability. You mention the McDonalds case as if it was some frivolous lawsuit, when in reality it was a very serious case, resulting in minimal damages. It's so sad that you continue to engage in such childish support for authoritarian extremists.

Frank, are you an 'armchair' business owner, quick with an opinion but with nothing in the pot? Your basic ignorance is embarassing. Let folk decide for themselves about McDonald's and coffee here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/06/22/bc-mcdonalds-lawsuit-hot-coffee.html?cmp=rss While it is regrettable that the lady suffered injuries, most of us do realize that coffee is served hot and accidents 'happen'. Now , like this woman, others are on the gravy train for $$.
Regarding responsibility as an owner and employees, As a business owner, their job is to find capable folk through several avenues, ie through the interview process, or a temp agency, and any decision to hire is based on input garnered from these sources. Guess what? Folks are not always what they seem. No big surprise there.
Is that the company's fault that they fibbed with respect to their past or moral character? Have you ever been 'conned' Phil? The intent from day one is by a con person is to deceive. I pay well, my average employee has 15 yrs with the company, and still, with all this experience, a new hire can 'con' you. My responsibility ends with an employee when they cross the line, when they lie, when they break the law. That is not my fault, and Phil, the person doing the crime (ie selling K2) should suffer the consequences, not the interviewer who was deceived, or the owner who may be retired and not even active in the business. It's basic common sense.

Whatever Lee, you obviously know more about who is legally responsible for what when it comes to employer/employee conduct than I do. And apparently more than the courts and law enforcement and legislature too. And all the judges and juries who ever decided a case. You still seem to be confusing the concept of "fault" or "blame" with "responsibility".. Don't want to be responsible for the action of your employees? Don't be a business owner.

Lee Jacobson supports individuals give up their constitutional right of redress in the court system, because it would be good for business? Yet he believes in less government? The only thing he supports is whatever nonsense John Stossel or Glen Beck peddle on their medicine show. Less rights for individuals more rights for corporations and capital. This is nothing more than John Birch 2.0 and the simpletons who buy into it are nothing more than resentful loons who see their neighbor as their enemy- so sad

Phil, you seem to be confusing 'responsibility' and exactly what the word encompasses.
With your business owner analogy, try this one....don't want to take a chance on getting hit driving a car? Don't be a car owner. Makes as much sense as yours.
Business owners are always conceived to have the deep pockets. So, when a customer suffers a loss, who does he sue, the owner, or the employee? In that respect, while it is not fair or makes any sense, he sues the owner who has more money. Phil, in that area of responsibility, the courts and juries skew the system of morality, and legality, and chase the wrong party, the business owner, who, through no fault of his own, is made out to be the bad guy since the owner was conned by an employee. Is it obviously the owner's fault that he did not know the employee had intentions of selling K2? Not the employee's parents, who were lax in teaching morals etc.
So , in the legal system, (hold your breath!!) you are correct. See here:http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/an-employer-s-liability-for-employee-s-acts.html The lawyers win another round, It costs me more, I just pass it on to you with increased prices. Another scam. Fake injuries. A temp claimed a fall on ice in June. Mix in a crooked doc, and minimum $25,000 to defend in court, ins co settles for $20,000, saves $5,000, doc and worker split the 20, and my rates go up. I pass it on to you. Bus crash in Detroit? Watch it fill up. after the crash!!

No, Lee, the analogy is more accurately: Don't want to be criminally charged with hitting someone while driving a car, don't hit someone with your car, or don't drive. Don't want to be responsible for the damages someone ELSE causes while driving your car (business)? Don't own a car, don't let them drive or don't cry when you're on the hook for the damage they cause while driving the car to which you allowed them access.

Lee, maybe you should get out of the industrial business and get into a cash business like a bar or gas station or vending machine/video poker operation or a restaurant. Then you can make up for the increase in your insurance by skimming off the top before the government gets theirs like most owners of cash businesses do. These sort of things are the price of doing business. Owners often ARE responsible for what their employees do.

Frank , this might come as a surprise to you , but anyone in the USA can sue for any reason, so go for the deep pockets, whether it is right or wrong. McDonald's has deep pockets, so they are sued. When was the last time you have heard of Tim Horton's being sued over their coffee, which is also hot? Pockets aren't as deep.

Some day you will wake up, smell the coffee, and help the folk who demand lower costs and more efficiency from our govt. , including local govt such as Dearborn. That lowers our tax burden, which means less taxes out of the little guy's pockets. 'Help' means constructive ideas, thinking of ways to do more with less. An example. Do you think all the City of Dearborn employees deserve Longevity bonuses? Do they deserve a $2,500 bonus for choosing an insurance plan? These are austere times for the City of Dearborn. We are not talking about reducing their pay, or annual increases.
So Frank, do our city employees deserve a bonus or two in these hard times while we residents make do with less? Bonuses that , according to our city finance officer, total a mere $1,800,000 a year? That figure does not include the bonuses of the fire fighters and police, who , in my opinion, deserve every nickel they get. That $$ bonus total will fill a lot of swimming pools. A simple yes or no answer will do, or are you , like a politician without an answer, or his own agenda, going to respond with a question of your own to deflect the subject?

"Do they deserve a $2,500 bonus for choosing an insurance plan?"

Lee, if my spouse worked for the City of Dearborn and was eligible for insurance coverage, would it cost the taxpayers in Dearborn more than $2,500.00 or less than $2,500.00 to insure my spouse, me, and our family? Your "explanations" are nothing if not disingenuous. The city employee, like many employees at many companies, is paid a cash sum to elect NOT to take insurance paid for by the taxpayer. The Dearborn taxpayer is actually paying a lot LESS than it would cost if the employee elected to take city-sponsored insurance. As far as "doing without", what have you had to "do without" this year? Take the amount you paid for residential taxes this year and deduct the county tax. The tell us how much of the remainder is used to fund things like police, fire and DPW as compared to schools? For all the complaining, it seems like we get a pretty good deal for the money we actually spend for city services vs. other things. What more do you want? Personally, I couldn't care less if a relative handful of people can walk to a neighborhood pool instead of driving to Levagood. I also couldn't care less if the cops come to my house in 5 minutes or 30 minutes when I call about a burglar who is long-gone. Nor do I care to have a fire department that acts as a taxi service to Oakwood Hospital. What exactly is it that you personally have "done without" this year because your city taxes are too high?

Phil, if your wife worked for the city, and you worked for Ford, are you going to honestly , as a family, pick the city's health plan? Of course not. You would stick with the better plan, which is Ford. As a result, your wife's 'bonus' is actually 'bogus', since the choice is actually not a choice at all, it is based on comparison,commonsense and a slam dunk for Ford anyway. This scenario is repeated with most, if not all, of Dearborn's city employees. Not Ford? Another plan? The strength of the plan determines choice, not the $2,500.
End result? The city is giving a bonus for no reason since the bonus has no influence on the choice. The private sector figured this out decades ago.

The city should drop the Health Insurance Waiver bonus and save the $300,000.
Where it is used is up to the city, and can be better spent whether for ice, water, leaves, or snow. We do get pretty good service for our taxes spent, that is one reason we live in Dearborn. It's reassuring that you support firearms, and don't mind checking out your house to be sure it's safe after a break-in with your own weapon. That is what Detroiters do now, rather than wait hours, or days, for a response. Give me the Dearborn police 5 minute option any day and let the pros do it. I have a warehouse in Detroit and, after a break-in, I do my own 'armed' checking. The door repair folks beat the Detroit cops in respond time every time. That's ok. Detroit is dealing with the hard stuff.

Every company I ever worked for paid me for opting out of their plan if I was covered under another. Otherwise many people would take double coverage and this would provide no benefit to the employer. Secondly the entire purpose for our judicial system is to asssess blame and remedy damages. The court decides if a case is frivolous not public opinion. Every idea proposed by Lee Jacobson is anti union, anti worker, pro authoritarian, pro corporation. It really grows old. According to him the only people who have rights are Corporations and "honest hard workers". I'm glad that he believes that rights are subjective, and the founding fathers did not. Guess what Lee Jacobson this country was founded on the basis of a strong federal government that could provide for the common welfare. The anti federalists lost and your arguments have already been tried and don't work. The entire free enterprise system and capitalism itself is based on a strong government providing the collective resources necessary to create and protect markets. Capitalism and free enterprise cannot surrive in anarachy. Your ideas of taxation, unregulated corporate enterprise, authoritarian police powers, toothless workplace protections and no tort protections exist in China, Russia, Mexico, Brazil but do not exist in any modern western nation.

Frank, what grows old is your lack of ideas, period. None of your opinions are backed up by data, or links, so others can at least read what you are reading and then figure out what you are trying to say.

As to what the founding fathers thought, here is a site that gives some perspective opinions from around the country, folk can decide for themselves, not from just our opinions. see here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_would_the_Founding_Fathers_fit_into_today's_political_climate

It is obvious that the more regulations put on free enterprise by govt, the less innovations and jobs are created by the private sector. Free enterprise cannot thrive if it is smothered in govt red tape. Want some examples, see here:http://www.columbiadailyherald.com/sections/news/local/panel-discusses-jobs-federal-regulations.html
There are some good examples in the link, but one that the govt tried on me was a $600 fine for not having all the components of my electric fork lift battery listed under material data safety sheets. Let's see, acid, water, lead, etc. yea, right!
A worker is going to take a fork lift truck battery apart. Another fine for having the asphalt driveway one inch below the door sill, OSHA says it should be flush, to prevent tripping. Never mind the water that flows in and causes other issues. I could go on and on. I won't. Some Jefferson views on rights, do you agree with him or not ?
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/law508/JeffersonRights.htm

Lee Jacobson want a link try reading the preamble to the constitution . The purpose of the government is to provide for the common welfare. End of story. Nobody knows what the fonding fathers would say about a multicultural, globally intergrated, technology driven society because they have been dead for two hundered years. What we do have is a constitution that provides a framework to use government as a force for good. As for ideas yours don't work so why waste your time. Whatever you post I can read on the blaze, Drudge Report or Fox and Friends.

Frank, a typical response from someone who finds fault with other's ideas, but offers none of his own.

Regarding the preamble to the constitution: "The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government,[1] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[2] except as regards frivolous litigation.[3] End of story. Providing for the common welfare, in my opinion, does not mean working my butt off to provide for some lazy member of society that does not have the inclination to provide for him or herself. The USA is the land of opportunity, too many folk want that opportunity 'handed' to them. Down on your luck? Need something to get by? That's what charities are for, and , if I read you correctly Frank, you want the govt to be a massive charity, forcing folk into poverty by giving them $$ so their incentive to work is snuffed out.
Why work when I can make almost as much with welfare? As you say, "why waste your time". Let me suckle from the govt instead. Europe went that way, look at the mess they are in.