Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: Earl Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 12:49 On 28/01/10 18:23, in article coudnTiz16BlWvzWnZ2dnUVZ8oednZ2d(a)giganews.com, "John Rennie" <john-rennie(a)talktalk.net> wrote: > Yes he's dumb and the above comment proves it. But he is far > away from being the dumbest on this group. Peejay and jiggy are > dumber, much dumber, and even you at times can give him a contest. None of you guys mastered quantum mechanics, whereas ----.
From: Donna Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 13:05 > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to > those who come after us. > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:04:25 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > "tim...." wrote: >> >> "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:4B604C46.808AB2A7(a)yahoo.co.uk... >>> >>> >>>> The situation is different where the individual's job is to "dispense" >>>> the >>>> food as they could have some influence on deciding what is to be thrown >>>> away. >>>> >>> If they want to fire someone for eating food, >> >> The charge is theft. >> > The problem is that if someone is going to be thrown away, then the > owner has abandoned it and *by defntion&* taking it cannot > logically be "theft". > > > >>> this seems like it >>> might make a good Victor Hugo novel, they aren't going to have a >>> workplace that is very positive for employees. And this won't get >>> the employees looking for ways to improve service or cut costs or >>> both. So I think it's a big mistake. But it's within the rights of >>> the employer absent a contact stating otherwise. >> >> Exactly. Usually this particular reason is used to get rid of someone that >> they want to be rid of, but can't find another way. >> > So you are essentially admitting that companies end up firing the > people they need to fire, there's just an additional cost and > effort, more involvement by the courts. > > >> Which is why I am surprised by the secretary case. In the UK, employers >> have to treat everyone the same. You can't decide to sack someone for >> eating the left over food from a meeting, if it is "custom and practice" for >> that to happen. IME it is the norm for this to happen. >> > My point is that "at will" just means that the employer can fire > you if the employer doesn't want to employ you anymore. That lowers > the cost to employing people and makes it more efficient. The > problem is that people might worry about being fired easily, > although it might also make employers and employees have a better > and more open and honest relationship than exists when the entire > thing is based on taking each other to court all the time. What a bunch of horse puckey. If people are constantly worried about being fired for some ridiculous trivia, they are not going to have a "more open and honest" relationship with their employer. Since he can fire them on a whim, they are certainly not going to confide in him. They are going to keep a low profile. And perhaps try to cheat him when they think they can get away with it. Bill, the 19th century is over. The employer is no longer lord of the manor. And I believe that is a very good thing. Donna Evleth > > > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said.
From: Donna Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 13:11 > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to > those who come after us. > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:09:08 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > Donna Evleth wrote: >> >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to >>> those who come after us. >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:47:09 +0000 >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>> >>> >>> >>> Tom P wrote: >>>> >>>> Gregory Morrow wrote: >>>>> Earl Evleth wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 27/01/10 12:19, in article >>>>>> DsCdnWI0k5Crgv3WnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow" >>>>>> <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> But the court said in its written judgement: "The dismissal was too >>>>>>> severe a measure. It is just a slice of cheese," reports AFP news >>>>>>> agency. >>>>>> A reprimand was more in order. >>>>>> >>>>>> Drastic treatment of workers is a hallmark of modern, >>>>>> profits-are-everything Capitalism. Basically >>>>>> terrorize the workers. >>>>>> >>>>>> To repeat, Capitalism has no social goals, it lacks >>>>>> human empathy. It ranks with Fascism in that regard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This kerfuffle is something I'd expect in the US, not in the EU where >>>>> worker - protection laws are stronger... >>>>> >>>> >>>> You'd be surprised. In Germany we've had several such cases recently in >>>> court where the employees lost. I can't remember the details of all the >>>> cases but one such case was a secretary who was fired for eating a >>>> sandwich that was left over after a management meeting. >>>> The employers' usual claim in court is that the worker's behaviour >>>> "has led to an irrepairable breakdown in the trust and confidence in the >>>> relationship between employer and employee" or some such wording. >>>> >>> I think there's a difference between someone being frugal and >>> eating food that would otherwise be tossed and whether or not the >>> employer can let that person go legally. It is *not* a good reason >>> to fire someone given the above facts, but it should be allowed, >>> absent a contract that states rules for firings. This is true >>> because an employer shouldn't need *any* legally justifiable reason >>> to let an employee go. >> >> Kook alert. >> > Have you repeatedly refuted the above comments? They happen to be > the law in many places. There's nothing "Kook Alert" worthy about > what I said: It's your comment about how an employer shouldn't need *any* legally justifiable reason to let an employee go. That's kooky. That's assuming that no male boss has ever harassed a female employee, that no employer has ever fired someone in a fit of pique, etc. Can you assume that? All the time? I personally believe that there had better be a legally justifiable reason all the time. Otherwise employees are nothing but terrified slave labor. I once had a job where I had to evaluate "good cause" for dismissal. That taught me a lot, among other things about caprice and whim. Donna Evleth > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will_employment > #begin quote > The at-will rule has its genesis in a rule in Horace Gray Wood�s > 1877 treatise on master-servant relations. Wood cited four U.S. > cases as authority for his rule that when a hiring was indefinite, > the burden of proof was on the servant to prove that an indefinite > employment term was for one year.[3] In Toussaint v. Blue Cross & > Blue Shield of Michigan, the Court noted that "Wood�s rule was > quickly cited as authority for another proposition."[4] > > Some courts saw the rule as requiring the employee to prove an > express contract for a definite term in order to maintain an action > based on termination of the employment.[5] Thus was born the U.S. > at-will employment rule, which allowed discharge for no reason. > This rule was adopted by all U.S. states. It was not until 1959 > that the first judicial exception to the at-will rule was > created.[6] > > Since then, several common law and statutory exceptions to at-will > employment have been created. Common-law protects one's job if an > employee disobeys an employer on the grounds that the employer > ordered him or her to do something illegal or immoral. However, in > the majority of cases, the burden of proof remains upon the > discharged employee. No U.S. state but Montana has chosen to > statutorily modify the employment at-will rule.[7] In 1987, the > Montana legislature passed the Wrongful Discharge from Employment > Act (WDEA). The Montana Act is unique in that, although it purports > to preserve the at-will concept in employment law, it also > expressly enumerates the legal bases for a wrongful discharge > action.[8] Under the WDEA, a discharge is wrongful only if: "it was > in retaliation for the employee's refusal to violate public policy > or for reporting a violation of public policy; the discharge was > not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer's > probationary period of employment; or the employer violated the > express provisions of its own written personnel policy."[9] > #end quote
From: Donna Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 13:12 > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to > those who come after us. > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:11:00 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > Donna Evleth wrote: >> >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to >>> those who come after us. >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:10:58 +0000 >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>> >>> >>> >>> "tim...." wrote: >>>> >>>> "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:4B603511.C9863FF9(a)yahoo.co.uk... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "tim...." wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Gregory Morrow" <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote in message >>>>>> news:AJqdnURCYeG8uP3WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >>>>>>> Earl Evleth wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27/01/10 12:19, in article >>>>>>>> DsCdnWI0k5Crgv3WnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow" >>>>>>>> <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the court said in its written judgement: "The dismissal was too >>>>>>>>> severe a measure. It is just a slice of cheese," reports AFP news >>>>>>>>> agency. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A reprimand was more in order. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Drastic treatment of workers is a hallmark of modern, >>>>>>>> profits-are-everything Capitalism. Basically >>>>>>>> terrorize the workers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To repeat, Capitalism has no social goals, it lacks >>>>>>>> human empathy. It ranks with Fascism in that regard. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This kerfuffle is something I'd expect in the US, not in the EU where >>>>>>> worker - protection laws are stronger... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...??? >>>>>> >>>>>> When you have courts that enforce employment rights properly, >>>>>> individually, >>>>>> you don't need to belong to a union. >>>>>> >>>>> What is in the contract? >>>> >>>> The contract will be based upon the national law. >>>> >>> There may or may not be a form employment contract. Under the >>> freedom to contract doctrine, generally people can define their >>> contracts as they see fit. >>> >>> >>>>> If there are rules for firing, then those >>>>> rules must be followed. >>>> >>>> The problem is that those rules will allow firing for an offence, the >>>> severity of which is subjective. >>>> >>> That sort of contract is just asking for the court to become >>> involved. The problem with "firing" is that the person goes to get >>> another job and they have to explain that they were "fired". If >>> they were "laid off" or something like that, that would be >>> different. So "firing" is beyond just at will employment. >>> >>> >>> >>>> It is common for managers to over rate the >>>> severity of any particular offence for their own purposes. Thus the courts >>>> are there to reverse the decision if the manager gets it wrong. >>>> >>> The problem is that the employer should have the right to lay off >>> employees as he sees fit within whatever rules the contract >>> defines. Generally I would side with the employer on this because >>> no one should be forced to continue to employ someone against their >>> will. >>> >>> >>>>> If the work is at will, then the employer >>>>> should be able to fire the worker for any reason or no reason at >>>>> all. >>>> >>>> Such contracts are completely banned in most European countries - even in >>>> the UK which has one of the most lax set of employment rights. >>>> >>> The default situation should be that the employer can let people go >>> for any reason or no reason. Anything else is ridiculous: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment >>> #begin quote >>> At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an >>> employment relationship in which either party can break the >>> relationship with no liability, provided there was no express >>> contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship >>> and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain >>> (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine: >>> � any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is >>> free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no >>> cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or >>> otherwise cease work.[1] >>> #end quote >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Regarding unions, they are a form of collusion which >>>>> interferes with the market. This is no different from any sort of >>>>> monopoly and should be limited. >>>> >>>> It is (limited). >>>> >>> Unions use their monopoly powers to extract wages from employers. >>> This is anti-competitive, no different to that situation that >>> Liberals complain about, the company with the monopoly. >> >> I thought the employers and the unions bargained, to come up with contracts >> that both sides could live with. >> > Unions are monopolies. I would replace the term "bargain" with > "extortion". Kook alert. This is a rant. Not rational. Donna Evleth > > > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said.
From: Donna Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 13:15
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to > those who come after us. > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:17:26 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > Donna Evleth wrote: >> >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to >>> those who come after us. >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:44:01 +0000 >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>> >>> >>> >>> "tim...." wrote: >>>> >>>> "Gregory Morrow" <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote in message >>>> news:AJqdnURCYeG8uP3WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >>>>> Earl Evleth wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 27/01/10 12:19, in article >>>>>> DsCdnWI0k5Crgv3WnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow" >>>>>> <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> But the court said in its written judgement: "The dismissal was too >>>>>>> severe a measure. It is just a slice of cheese," reports AFP news >>>>>>> agency. >>>>>> >>>>>> A reprimand was more in order. >>>>>> >>>>>> Drastic treatment of workers is a hallmark of modern, >>>>>> profits-are-everything Capitalism. Basically >>>>>> terrorize the workers. >>>>>> >>>>>> To repeat, Capitalism has no social goals, it lacks >>>>>> human empathy. It ranks with Fascism in that regard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This kerfuffle is something I'd expect in the US, not in the EU where >>>>> worker - protection laws are stronger... >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...??? >>>> >>>> When you have courts that enforce employment rights properly, individually, >>>> you don't need to belong to a union. >>>> >>> What is in the contract? If there are rules for firing, then those >>> rules must be followed. If the work is at will, then the employer >>> should be able to fire the worker for any reason or no reason at >>> all. Regarding unions, they are a form of collusion which >>> interferes with the market. This is no different from any sort of >>> monopoly and should be limited. >> >> Kook alert. >> > Have you repeatedly refuted this comment? No. The comment is also > obviously true, unions are often monopolies. Consider the United > Auto Workers. Not only are they a monopoly against a single > company, they are a monopoly against most of an industry in a large > country. This allows the extortion I was talking about. > > Consider that the ploy unions used to raise their wages was to > strike *one* company in the industry. They told that company, and > not the others, that if it didn't cave in and give them the money > they wanted, they would strike it and only it until it was > destroyed. They wouldn't strike the other companies in the > industry, they'd let them continue to produce at the lower wage > rates. Who could withstand that? Now GM is bankrupt. There are a few other unions besides the Auto Workers. Are you claiming that this one example is the norm for all? BTW, the auto industry in Detroit had a few other problems besides the union. Donna Evleth > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said. |