From: zwart geld on
On Jan 27, 3:31 pm, Magda <no-s...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:12:10 -0600, in rec.travel.europe, Tom P <werot...(a)freent.dd>
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
>
>  ... 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 wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...???
>  ...
>  ... Union?? This is the 21st century.
>
> He means a guild. ;))
>
> =====
> It sounds much better in French, but then, everything does.

....vakbond....;-)>
From: tim.... on

"Tom P" <werotizy(a)freent.dd> wrote in message
news:7savtrFkf6U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> 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.

I find that hard to believe.

That is standard practice everywhere I have worked, including in Germany.

tim


From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


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.
>
I think shock is what is in order, McDonalds made something to
order?


> Drastic treatment of workers is a hallmark of modern,
> profits-are-everything Capitalism. Basically
> terrorize the workers.
>
It might make sense to make it clear that giving away free food is
unacceptable. But I don't see how being so hardnosed is helpful in
general because you won't have happy workers. Happy workers make
for a happy atompshere and I'm sure that studies show that people
buy more heat-lamped burgers and cold fries in such situations.



> To repeat, Capitalism has no social goals, it lacks
> human empathy. It ranks with Fascism in that regard.
>
Kook Alert^2



--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


"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.




--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


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.