Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 06:53 "tim...." wrote: > > "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 > The tex consequences are in the United States. From the current version of Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaindered_book #begin quote Since the Thor Power Tool Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue decision of 1979 in the United States and its adverse effects on the keeping of inventories for several years, books in the United States have been remaindered much earlier and in greater quantities than prior to the decision. Since that 1979 decision, the number of unsold books which have simply been destroyed (by being burned or recycled into paper or cardboard) instead of being sold at a large reduction has also risen greatly.[citation needed] #end quote -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) on 28 Jan 2010 14:37 Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: > > Gregory Morrow wrote: >> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote: >>>> >>> It has been many years since I worked in the restaurant industry (and >>> those I worked in were on a somewhat higher "social" scale than >>> McD's). However, most restaurants - at least in California - >>> included meals as part of their employees' salaries. (At least I >>> infer that "colleague" implies the recipient of the cheese was a >>> fellow-employee.) >> The provision of meals for employees varies according to the situation, in >> some restos it's standard practise, in larger corporate - type chain places >> it may not be... >> >> I know people that work in a Border's (large chain of US bookstores) and >> workers in the cafes in these stores are *expressly* forbidden from taking >> home leftovers at the end of the shift - *all* unsold food items *must* be >> disposed of at the end of the shift. I've also known of cases of, say, >> flight attendants who have been reprimanded - or even sacked - for taking >> leftover food items from the plane galleys. The severity of such rules - or >> the lack of them - is entirely up to the employer. >> > I think though that customers who believe in frugality and abhor > such waste should make their views known. > I agree! If employees may not appropriate the leftovers, why not donate them to the homeless? (Of course, in a sense they already do, but handouts at the back door are more aesthetically pleasing than having homeless people scrounging through the dustbins!)
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 06:56 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: 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. > Why would they have to worry about that if they had an honest and open relationship with their employer? Employee: "Can I eat the sandwiches after the executives leave, I'd hate to see them go to waste." Employer: "That's fine with me." > Since he can fire them on a > whim, they are certainly not going to confide in him. > I guess I don't believe that you have a right to your job, absent some form of contract. Contract law is where rights are traded back and forth. There isn't a "human right" to a specific job. > They are going to > keep a low profile. And perhaps try to cheat him when they think they can > get away with it. > Because they are angry that the man? This is ridiculous. > Bill, the 19th century is over. The employer is no longer lord of the > manor. And I believe that is a very good thing. > If it's his manor, he sure should be. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 07:02 "tim...." wrote: > > "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 definition* taking it cannot > > logically be "theft". > > The "owner" is the company and they have made no such decision. > But the problem is that under the common law, abandoning something should make it available to all. If you throw a five dollar bill to the curb, and someone else picks it up, you shouldn't be able to sue that he stole your money. > >> > 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. > Of course it happens. All these supposed protections do is increase costs and take away the rights of the employer. This is wrong. Absent an express contract, the employer doesn't owe you a duty to some specific job. Does the contract include terms defining the duration of the employment? If no, then where did you get the idea that the job lasted forever? > >> 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! > Presumably if you fire someone, you hire their replacement from the pool on the dole. There is an extensive welfare type system in the United States, the UK and Europe, as far as I can tell. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 07:06
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: 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 the law. Why do you think that the employer owes someone a job? This sort of thinking is where the fear to hire workers coming out of a recession (or maybe not coming out yet) comes from. > 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? > Did you read the cite to "at will" employment that I provided? It talks of exceptions, which include the right to sue for sexual harassment and that sort of thing. > 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. > An employee contracts with an employer at a bargained wage. He is then paid based on this contract and his efforts. The law can become involved, of course, as the employer may not pay the worker or some other violation might occur. But none of the above constitutes "slave labour". > 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. > Is there an employee contract? There is no reason why employers and employees can't bargain in good faith to create whatever degrees of protections for both sides as required. > 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 -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said. |