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 07:16 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 09:11:00 +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. > What are you taking issue with? 1) Unions are often monopolies in an industry or even across several or many industries. 2) When such a monopoly exists, the union can have the power to require compliance from the company, I've explained this in detail in others posts. 3) If you demand something and the other side has no choice, that isn't a bargain. 4) Whether you think it goes to the point of being "extortion", I think that's worth discussing. 5) So what is "Kook Alerted"?
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 07:18 "tim...." wrote: > > "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. > This is irreverent to whether or not the union can extort its wage demands from the company. I've explained how it can be done, including striking one company in the industry while leaving the others free to prosper in the new climate. This will crush a company like Caterpillar, for example. > "Closed shops" are illegal in the UK. Many non union > employees work though union strikes > I'm at a loss what your point is supposed to be. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) on 28 Jan 2010 15:01 Earl Evleth wrote: > With regard to strikes French public opinion usually sides with the unions > and the workers. The French are sensitized to the imbalance of power > with the large interests (including the French government) dominating > the scene. In the past I have noticed that politically, the French communist > party unfailingly backs to workers. The CGT historically as dominated > by the Communists. Without that countervailing power, social progress > would not have occurred in France. > Certainly the American working man had things much better back in the 1950's, when the unions here were strong! He could expect to have adequate income to buy a home, to send his kids to college, to anticipate a secure old-age.... Those of us who grew up in that era are very aware of the disappearance of the "middle class", and the growing polarization of "rich" and "poor" in our onetime "democracy"!
From: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) on 28 Jan 2010 15:11 Earl Evleth wrote: > 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 ----. You remind me of a friend in Hollywood (I.Q. aprox. 165) who once proposed to deal with temporary financial difficulties by allowing the electric company to carry out its threat to shut down service. (Only for the summer months "because it stays light fairly late, so we can just go to bed early".) She was a bit startled when I pointed out that she would not be able to use her electric typewriter, either. (She worked at home, typing scripts for free-lance screen-writers!)
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 07:39
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote: > > Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: > > > > Gregory Morrow wrote: > >> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: > > >> In the case > >> of Borders the employees are not even told when this is going go to happen, > >> and it's a condition of their employment that they not tell *anyone* when it > >> does happen... > >> > > Frankly, I'd make it legal to access these materials in the > > dumpsters. > > But they shouldn't reach the dumpsters at all! With so many people in > the world starving (even in "developed" countries), unwanted food should > be made available to any who need it! > I think that food is often donated. I was more thinking of supposedly unusable electronics or whatever. It amazes me what people toss out. > >> OTOH a number of food stores or restos will donate their over-stock or > >> whatever to food pantries and charities...and OTOH some forbid this > >> absolutely. > >> > > What I'm saying is that if this stuff matters to you, go to the > > place that isn't wasteful. > > > > > That's probably why the perpetrators don't make their actions public! > Those of us who grew up during the Great Depression were taught not to > waste food - meaning we ate what we were given, even if we disliked the > items served. Most American restaurants - although the portions may be > over-generous - will provide a "doggy bag" for your leftovers, upon > request. I suspect that, in most cases, the "dog" never sees them - > they provide the customer's next-day lunch. > That's a good thing, although Earl has some sort of problem with it. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said. |