Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: tim.... on 29 Jan 2010 08:38 "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4B61A5B6.B91ECA80(a)yahoo.co.uk... > > > "tim...." wrote: >> >> "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:4B617CEE.4753424(a)yahoo.co.uk... >> > >> > >> > "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. >> >> But you can (at least where I live)! >> > Presumably you can sue someone for anything, but I mean win. In the UK, picking up some money that you find on the ground and keeping it, is a crime for which you can be prosecuted. The fact that you thought someone threw it away is not a defence to this crime. Of course, it is unlikely that anyone would even bother to gather the evidence to prosecute, but that doesn't change the fact that as an analogy to the "employment" example it is completely invalid. tim
From: zwart geld on 29 Jan 2010 09:38 On Jan 29, 2:08 pm, Donna Evleth <devl...(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > > <tribuyltinafp...(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 ....buy a dog
From: zwart geld on 29 Jan 2010 09:40 On Jan 29, 1:52 pm, Donna Evleth <devl...(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > > <tribuyltinafp...(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)" > >>> <tribuyltinafp...(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)" > >>>>> <tribuyltinafp...(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" <rrrrrrrrro...(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote in message > >>>>>>news:AJqdnURCYeG8uP3WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > >>>>>>> Earl Evleth wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On 27/01/10 12:19, in article > >>>>>>>> DsCdnWI0k5Crgv3WnZ2dnUVZ_tudn...(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow" > >>>>>>>> <rrrrrrrrro...(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 ....the same people who wanted cheap credit to buy their houses....d'oh
From: Michael on 29 Jan 2010 10:47 Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: > >> > Unions are monopolies. I would replace the term "bargain" with > "extortion". > In Europe, most large companies' employees are represented by several unions, which means they are not monopolies. On the face of it, unions are made for situations like this, which merited a comment, a fine or some sort of reprimand. But not firing. M http://cannes-or-bust.com/
From: Michael on 29 Jan 2010 11:06
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: > > 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? > It's neither honest nor open if the boss can fire you on a whim, which is what I'd say it was in this case. It's dictatorial and random. I've seen it happen in restaurants, where the boss decides he wants to change the team and they are fired on the spot. It doesn't do wonders for morale for those remaining, I can tell you. They leave at the first opportunity, figuring it's better to control your departure than have it drop out of the blue. Although some bosses like to have this Napoleonic control over people based on fear, not many employees share their enthusiasm surprisingly. If you're looking to work with smart, qualified people it's not the best policy. But if you want to work with demotivated drones that live in fear, it might be the way to go. M http://cannes-or-bust.com/ |