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 17:09 Earl Evleth wrote: > > On 29/01/10 21:50, in article hjvho31u8a(a)news3.newsguy.com, > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > In my experience, that's true in most of Europe. Perhaps that's one > > reason why obesity is reaching (has reached?) epidemic proportions in > > the U.S. > > One notes that here in France often the young will buy two hamburgers, > which are 400-500 calories each is a big fraction of the daily needed > intake. Add fries and a cok to that and that runs near 1500. A daily > diet like that will put on weight. Normally people don't eat like > that in normal French restaurants but the fast food places are another > thing. > So we can look for the French to pack on the pounds? The funny thing is that the euro is the littlest kangaroo. -- "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 17:13 Mxsmanic wrote: > > 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. > But it evens out in that both sides have the same rights. If you fire employees for no reason on a whim, all the employees are going to be scared. If you like that, you'll probably end up with fewer employees. I will grant you that that might not be true in the current dismal labour market, but it is true in general. If the contract is not bargained, then it is a standard form contract by definition. My personal view is that there should be limits on what can be enforced in an adhesion contract. > > 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. > That's not a real argument for doing that though. -- "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 17:13 Earl Evleth wrote: > > 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. > How does terrorizing workers increase profits? -- "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 17:14 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: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:43:50 +0000 > > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > > > > > Michael wrote: > >> > >> 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, > >> > > You can also quit on a whim. It kind of evens out. > > > > > >> which > >> is what I'd say it was in this case. It's dictatorial and random. I've > >> > > This comes down to whether or not you are owed a job by your > > employer. If you have a contract, that contract should largely be > > enforced. If you were hired "at will", then you can be let go "at > > will". > > > > > > > >> 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. > >> > > So firing people on a whim isn't sensible business policy? The fact > > that you can do that doesn't mean you should. > > But if you consider it "sensible business policy" then of course you should. > That is basically what you are saying. > Perhaps you are confused. I can believe that someone has the right to do something and also believe that they shouldn't do that something.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 29 Jan 2010 17:17
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:46:29 +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 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. > >> > > Wrong. Small cars have always sold. But they have lower margins and > > Americans car makers couldn't compete. > > Why not? There was a lot of demand, and those demanding bought the foreign > imports. Weren't the imports taxed? And if they were, why couldn't the > American car makers compete? I do not believe that *the Unions* were the > sole reason. > I think you can give management plenty of blame, but I was just talking about how management was pushed to focus on the high margin trucks and SUVs because they could actually pay the workers their benefits from those vehicles. You'll have to consider that in France, for example, there is universal health care which is paid for by taxing various things. In the US, the GM workers had extremely generous health care that was paid for entirely by what would otherwise be profits for the auto maker. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said. |