What prevents employers from holding employees financial liable for things they break on the job?

[NeoPTLD]

Usually people don't go out of their way to break things regardless of what they're doing.

Employees work for someone and they're paid to do their work. Tipping over cranes, crashing company trucks, blowing up nuclear reactor doesn't make the person at fault personally financially liable for the damage nor do they make them pay for insurance for such out of their paycheck. I'm sure this is all calculated for in their expenses.

Students pay the school to take classes and they're personally held financial liable for things that they break during the class. Why isn't such cost budgeted into tuition and special "fees"?

The two doesn't really add together. I can see employers or and schools want to recover the loss, but what prevents employers from collecting while schools openly collects it?

I'm sure it has something to do with law...

 

[Rob9874]

I think maybe because employees ARE the company. So it's like the company breaking something itself. Whereas students are customers of the university.

Where I work (Intel) I heard about some guy in the warehouse who ruined $2 mil of product, and wasn't even fired.

 

[Blieb]

insurance.

Would be too costly to buy it for students.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I think maybe because employees ARE the company. So it's like the company breaking something itself. Whereas students are customers of the university.

Where I work (Intel) I heard about some guy in the warehouse who ruined $2 mil of product, and wasn't even fired.

Oops.

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I think maybe because employees ARE the company. So it's like the company breaking something itself. Whereas students are customers of the university.

Where I work (Intel) I heard about some guy in the warehouse who ruined $2 mil of product, and wasn't even fired.

2 mil? It wouldn't matter if it was $2, if I was fvcking around & not doing my job..fired. If you have a legit excuse, no reason to fire a good employee over 2 mil.

 

[Fronic]

I think it has something to do with "The Labor relations Act"

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I think maybe because employees ARE the company. So it's like the company breaking something itself. Whereas students are customers of the university.

Where I work (Intel) I heard about some guy in the warehouse who ruined $2 mil of product, and wasn't even fired.

So that worker probably costed the company more than he'll ever make working there.
Why wouldn't school have insurance on things that gets broken during the normal couse of class held for paying students, but have insurance for school hired drivers who gets PAID to drive?