Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 29 Jan 2010 11:57 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 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. > Whether or not an employee can choose to not join a union is irrelevant to whether or not the union can strike one company (of many) to force it to comply with wage demands. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 29 Jan 2010 12:01 "tim...." wrote: > > "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. > I was unaware that this was a crime. If you see a coin on the ground, you don't pick it up because picking it up is a crime? I'm interested in reading more about this, do you have a cite? > 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. > I thought that we were talking narrowly about whether or not items could be abandoned and then be available for anyone who wanted them. Whether or not food has been abandoned after the lunch is over isn't a question I'm not taking sides specifically on. For this reason, I attempted to provide a more clear example, which you've now pot shot with the claim that picking up money is illegal. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: Mxsmanic on 29 Jan 2010 13:43 Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes: > You can also quit on a whim. It kind of evens out. Not at all. A company that fires an employee loses 1/n of its workforce, where n is the number of employees. A person who is fired loses 100% of his income, unless he has more than one employer. So it doesn't even out in the least, and a work contract may even be considered a contract of adhesion in some cases. > So firing people on a whim isn't sensible business policy? The fact > that you can do that doesn't mean you should. It's a policy that many businesses can get away with. It does hurt the business, but managers who practice it often don't understand that, and as long as it doesn't actually bankrupt the company, the company will still manage to muddle on.
From: Earl Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 15:13 On 29/01/10 17:43, in article 4B631046.A738AFA5(a)yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > So firing people on a whim isn't sensible business policy? It could be, if you terrorize your workers you can save a wages and make higher profits.
From: Earl Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 15:32
On 29/01/10 17:57, in article 4B631365.1DE2D982(a)yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Whether or not an employee can choose to not join a union is > irrelevant to whether or not the union can strike one company (of > many) to force it to comply with wage demands. And company has the counter ploy of not paying a striking employee. Given the relative economic strengths, the workers run out of money for the boss does. The most historically important strike in the US was that of the Pullman car company in 1894. During the economic panic of 1893, the Pullman Palace Car Company cut wages as demands for their train cars plummeted and the company's revenue dropped. A delegation of workers complained of the low wages and twelve-hour workdays, and that the corporation that operated the town of Pullman didn't decrease rents, but company owner George Pullman "loftily declined to talk with them."[4] The strike was broken up by United States Marshals and some 12,000 United States Army troops, commanded by Nelson Miles, sent in by President Grover Cleveland on the premise that the strike interfered with the delivery of U.S. Mail, ignored a federal injunction and represented a threat to public safety. So there you are the US Army being used against workers, goons for the boss. |