Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: tim.... on 28 Jan 2010 06:55 "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. > 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. 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. tim
From: tim.... on 28 Jan 2010 07:03 "Martin" <me(a)address.invalid> wrote in message news:skf1m55534g33bpnqp9dktrbfc9liarvmi(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:26:24 -0000, "tim...." <tims_new_home(a)yahoo.co.uk> > 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. > > Companies use such tricks to dump surplus staff without paying redundancy > money. I know, but usually it doesn't work > In UK misuse of Internet is a common excuse. It is much easier to show "abuse" in this case. An employee (probably) has unlimited access to internet facilities. There isn't often an unlimited supply of left over food. tim
From: Donna Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 07:14 > 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. Donna Evleth > > > > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said.
From: Donna Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 07:16 > 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 12:47:09 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > 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. Kook alert. Donna Evleth
From: Donna Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 07:17
> 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 14:10:58 +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: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. I thought the employers and the unions bargained, to come up with contracts that both sides could live with. Donna Evleth > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said. |