Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: John Rennie on 29 Jan 2010 06:08 Earl Evleth wrote: > On 28/01/10 21:11, in article hjsr1k0uv9(a)news5.newsguy.com, > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> 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!) > > > Reminds me, we still have ours. An IBM selectric, which had a correcting > tape, a big thing at the time. It is down stairs in the cave. > > We had it with a French key board since generally the French keyboard is a > bit more universal than the American. The only problem is that several of > the letters are in different location, but when typing I can switch over > from the English to the French sequence in a minute or so. I only type using > the French sequence. Occasionally the Mac switches over without my noticing > until I hit the "m" or "a", or whatever. > > Blah, blah, blah. You did your best to miss the point, Earl. The lady possessed an IQ of 160 (snipped by you) and yet was quite dumb.
From: Donna Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 07:52 > 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 12:09:55 +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: 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? >> > There is usually one main union in an industry. Or even across wide > swaths of the economy, the AFL-CIO. > > > >> BTW, the auto industry in Detroit had a few other problems besides the >> union. >> > Sure, but the cost of labour, including the many gold plated > benefits demanded, created a situation where, for example, small > low profit margin cars could not be built in the US. This helped to > push American car makers towards large trucks and SUVs, where > margins could pay for the benefits and high wages. Then the gas > prices went up. I seem to remember that one of the reasons American auto makers built large trucks and SUVs was because that was what the buyers wanted. When they tried smaller models, they did not sell well enough. This had nothing to do with cost of labour, it was market forces. Donna Evleth
From: Donna Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 08:00 > 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 12:16:41 +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: 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"? Your use of the word extortion. This can occur on the side of the employer as well. Some employers like to use illegal immigrant labor because it is cheap. The employer demands certain working conditions, sometimes fatiguing and/or dangerous, the illegal immigrant employee has no choice but to comply if he or she wants to go on working. Employers have been hiring illegal immigrants and imposing substandard working conditions for decades. Traditionally, the immigrant, if caught, is deported to where he came from, little or nothing happens to the employer, who will then turn around and hire other illegals. This certainly responds to your point 3 above. Donna Evleth
From: Donna Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 08:02 > 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 12:18:18 +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: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. It sounds to me as though his point is that in the UK, unions are not the extorting monopolies you claim them to be. I found this point quite easy to grasp. Donna Evleth > > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said.
From: Donna Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 08:08
> 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 12:39:12 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > "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. The "doggy bag" has a down side. If you are a tourist traveling from place to place you cannot take advantage of it. Most motel rooms have neither refrigerators in which to store the left over food, nor microwaves in which to reheat it. This is almost always our situation. So the food is sent back to be wasted. BTW, I have also noticed that the doggy bag, once brought home, can get shoved to the back of the refrigerator, not eaten for the next day's lunch, eventually going bad and getting thrown out. I have seen this problem at the home of a relative. Donna Evleth |