Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 27 Jan 2010 09:10 "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. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: tim.... on 27 Jan 2010 14:53 "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4B604972.17FD8271(a)yahoo.co.uk... > > > "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. They are free to define the contract in the way that they see fit, but it must conform to the national law. >> > 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. It is impossible to do otherwise In the UK the rule is that you may dismiss someone with notice for "misconduct" and you may dismiss someone without notice for "gross misconduct". What constitutes (gross) misconduct is subjective, and will differ from job to job. How do you define the right to dismiss someone in a way that isn't subjective (given that we aren't going to allow this "at will" that you want) >The problem with "firing" is that the person goes to get > another job and they have to explain that they were "fired". which is why employees appeal firings to the courts. > If > they were "laid off" or something like that, that would be > different. So "firing" is beyond just at will employment. Employees can be "laid off" if the needs of the company merit it. But there are rules that must be followed to fairly selected those to be laid off and payments (in some countries, large payments) are made to those selected. >> 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 They don't. That's the rule. It is not a problem. > 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 you want to do business in the EU, then you follow the rules of doing business in the EU >> >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: Most Europeans would disagree with you tim
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 27 Jan 2010 09:23 "tim...." wrote: > > "Tom P" <werotizy(a)freent.dd> wrote in message > news:7sbf0vFfsqU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > tim.... wrote: > >> "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 > >> > >> > > Maybe you haven't been following the news for the past year. There were > > other cases where women working in shops were sacked for the most trivial > > reasons - IIRC one was a bakery where the woman ate a piece of bread that > > would have been thrown away otherwise, another in a shop where the cashier > > had pocketed some gift stamps that a customer didn't want. > > > > 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, 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. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: Gregory Morrow on 27 Jan 2010 15:03 tim.... wrote: > "Stephen Ellenson" <s_ellenson(a)charter.net> wrote in message > news:F0W7n.20644$mT7.17090(a)newsfe05.iad... >> >> "Earl Evleth" <evleth(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote in message >> news:C785E6C0.1976C1%evleth(a)wanadoo.fr... >>> On 27/01/10 12:44, in article >>> AJqdnURCYeG8uP3WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow" >>> <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...??? >>> >>> Yes in France. Also, French workers will have full >>> medical insurance coverage. They have social guarantees >>> which are non-existent in the USA. >>> >> >> I think it depends on whether it was real cheese (I'm from Wisconsin) > > You have "real" cheese? > > On all my trips to the states, I have only ever seen "processed" > cheese. Even the "full" blocks sold in the supermarket are processed. > That's changed, there are now a plethora of smaller "artisanal" cheese producers in the states - including many in Wisconsin, and many small shops dedicated to selling only cheese. Here is one that is in my neighborhood here in Chicago: www.pastoralartisan.com Additionally, local supermarkets and specialty shops offer a selection of hundreds of imported cheeses...my local supermarket, Treasure Island, has about 400 - odd imported cheeses on offer at any given time. The artisan cheese industry has really taken off in California, which is the US' largest producer of dairy products, including cheese. Sure, there is plenty of mass - produced crappy stuff out there, and in smaller towns you might not get the good selection of say, a Chicago or a San Francisco or even a Madison, Wisconsin. But saying that the US produces no good cheese is like saying the US produces no good wine... ;-) -- Best Greg
From: Gregory Morrow on 27 Jan 2010 15:06
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: > 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. Bill, you are a regular "Simon Legree"...!!! -- Best Greg |