Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: Donna Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 13:18 > From: Earl Evleth <evleth(a)wanadoo.fr> > Organization: les newsgroups par Orange > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:52:58 +0100 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > On 28/01/10 10:11, in article 4B6154A4.A5A34300(a)yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde > {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Unions are monopolies. I would replace the term "bargain" with >> "extortion". > > > You would but then you are the dumbest person on this group. I think you are being terribly unfair to poor Bill. My own candidate for the dumbest person on this group is PJ. Donna Evleth >
From: Earl Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 13:26 On 28/01/10 19:18, in article C7879374.86525%devleth(a)wanadoo.fr, "Donna Evleth" <devleth(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: > I think you are being terribly unfair to poor Bill. My own candidate for > the dumbest person on this group is PJ. I rate Bill's IQ in the category of dull normal. With PJ? How do you judge the IQ of a paroquet. His paint and post stuff has not discussion and when he does, he posts like Bonde, stock statements indicating they have not thought anything out. Jiggy's weakness is that he is a perpetual dupe, suckered everyday.
From: tim.... on 28 Jan 2010 14:06 "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4B6151F2.9F6DFF82(a)yahoo.co.uk... > > > Donna Evleth wrote: >> >> > Bookstores do have trouble that others don't in that they are given > what they paid for the book back, or a lot of it, if it is > destroyed. It's an intellectual property and copyright issue, at > least one could argue that. As I alluded to earlier, there are > court cases that caused the costs of holding inventories of unsold > books to rise and this has encouraged destruction of books that are > perfectly usable and people would eventually buy. This is something > that congress could look into since it's just tax consequences. AIUI, in the UK books are supplied to shops SOR, and the returns (if significant numbers) will be shipped off to a remainder book store for sale at a quarter of the original price. Very few books are scrapped in the way you describe tim
From: tim.... on 28 Jan 2010 14:08 "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4B615319.B7603F52(a)yahoo.co.uk... > > > "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". The "owner" is the company and they have made no such decision. >> > 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. Sometimes this happens, yes. >> 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. and passes the costs onto the benefit system, Oh you don't have a benefit system do you, well we do! tim
From: tim.... on 28 Jan 2010 14:12
"Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4B6154A4.A5A34300(a)yahoo.co.uk... > > > Donna Evleth wrote: >> >> I thought the employers and the unions bargained, to come up with >> contracts >> that both sides could live with. >> > Unions are monopolies. Not in the UK they are not. An employee is free not to join a union and many do not. "Closed shops" are illegal in the UK. Many non union employees work though union strikes tim |