Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: Donna Evleth on 28 Jan 2010 07:22 > 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 15:38:52 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > Gregory Morrow wrote: >> >> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: >> >>> Gregory Morrow wrote: >>>> >>>> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Gregory Morrow wrote: >>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8481827.stm >>>>>> >>>>>> McDonald's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice >>>>>> >>>>>> A McDonald's outlet in the Netherlands was wrong to sack an >>>>>> employee for giving a colleague a piece of cheese on a hamburger, >>>>>> a court has ruled. >>>>>> >>>>>> The waitress was fired last March after she sold a hamburger to a >>>>>> co-worker who then asked for cheese, which she added. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fast-food chain argued this turned the hamburger into a >>>>>> cheeseburger, and so she should have charged more. >>>>>> >>>>>> But Leeuwarden district court ruled a written warning would have >>>>>> been more appropriate. >>>>>> >>>>>> McDonald's was ordered to pay the former employee more than 4,200 >>>>>> euros ($5,900; �3,660) for the last five months of her contract. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fast-food chain had argued that the waitress - who was employed >>>>>> at a branch in the northern town of Lemmer - had broken staff rules >>>>>> prohibiting free gifts to family, friends or colleagues. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> The ruling comes days after McDonald's reported an increase in net >>>>>> profits by almost a quarter in the last three months of 2009..." >>>>>> >>>>>> </> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It has been many years since I worked in the restaurant industry >>>>> (and those I worked in were on a somewhat higher "social" scale than >>>>> McD's). However, most restaurants - at least in California - >>>>> included meals as part of their employees' salaries. (At least I >>>>> infer that "colleague" implies the recipient of the cheese was a >>>>> fellow-employee.) >>>> >>>> The provision of meals for employees varies according to the >>>> situation, in some restos it's standard practise, in larger >>>> corporate - type chain places it may not be... >>>> >>>> I know people that work in a Border's (large chain of US bookstores) >>>> and workers in the cafes in these stores are *expressly* forbidden >>>> from taking home leftovers at the end of the shift - *all* unsold >>>> food items *must* be disposed of at the end of the shift. I've also >>>> known of cases of, say, flight attendants who have been reprimanded >>>> - or even sacked - for taking leftover food items from the plane >>>> galleys. The severity of such rules - or the lack of them - is >>>> entirely up to the employer. >>>> >>> I think though that customers who believe in frugality and abhor >>> such waste should make their views known. >> >> "Customers" don't enter into the equation, Bill... >> > They better. If you run a business, your customers are who pay you. > If they think that you are wasting food, they might be less likely > to go to your food selling place. > > >> Didja read a coupla weeks back about big retail stores who dump large >> numbers of items into the trash even though the items are perfectly usable? >> > There's a lot of this that goes on, in business and in government > and by private people. It's the sort of thing that if people knew > and didn't like it, they could respond. > > >> Clothier H&M was one culprit mentioned in the IIRC _New York Times_ story. >> Not only do they dump the items, but they tear them up so anyone that finds >> them in the trash will not be able to use them. Border's books is another >> chain that does this, a large store routinely dumps thousands of dollars >> worth of perfectly good merchandise into the trash each month. >> > Probably generated by the court ruling that made it harder to hold > old stock on the books. > > >> In the case >> of Borders the employees are not even told when this is going go to happen, >> and it's a condition of their employment that they not tell *anyone* when it >> does happen... >> > Frankly, I'd make it legal to access these materials in the > dumpsters. > > > >> OTOH a number of food stores or restos will donate their over-stock or >> whatever to food pantries and charities...and OTOH some forbid this >> absolutely. >> > What I'm saying is that if this stuff matters to you, go to the > place that isn't wasteful. The customers hardly ever know that these places throw away merchandise. The store isn't about to help them learn, either. I am familiar with the bookstore chain Borders, but the very first time I ever heard of their policy was just today, right here. Donna Evleth > > > > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 03:59 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 15:38:52 +0000 > > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > > > > > Gregory Morrow wrote: > >> > >> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: > >> > >>> Gregory Morrow wrote: > >>>> > >>>> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Gregory Morrow wrote: > >>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8481827.stm > >>>>>> > >>>>>> McDonald's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A McDonald's outlet in the Netherlands was wrong to sack an > >>>>>> employee for giving a colleague a piece of cheese on a hamburger, > >>>>>> a court has ruled. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The waitress was fired last March after she sold a hamburger to a > >>>>>> co-worker who then asked for cheese, which she added. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The fast-food chain argued this turned the hamburger into a > >>>>>> cheeseburger, and so she should have charged more. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But Leeuwarden district court ruled a written warning would have > >>>>>> been more appropriate. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> McDonald's was ordered to pay the former employee more than 4,200 > >>>>>> euros ($5,900; �3,660) for the last five months of her contract. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The fast-food chain had argued that the waitress - who was employed > >>>>>> at a branch in the northern town of Lemmer - had broken staff rules > >>>>>> prohibiting free gifts to family, friends or colleagues. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The ruling comes days after McDonald's reported an increase in net > >>>>>> profits by almost a quarter in the last three months of 2009..." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> </> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It has been many years since I worked in the restaurant industry > >>>>> (and those I worked in were on a somewhat higher "social" scale than > >>>>> McD's). However, most restaurants - at least in California - > >>>>> included meals as part of their employees' salaries. (At least I > >>>>> infer that "colleague" implies the recipient of the cheese was a > >>>>> fellow-employee.) > >>>> > >>>> The provision of meals for employees varies according to the > >>>> situation, in some restos it's standard practise, in larger > >>>> corporate - type chain places it may not be... > >>>> > >>>> I know people that work in a Border's (large chain of US bookstores) > >>>> and workers in the cafes in these stores are *expressly* forbidden > >>>> from taking home leftovers at the end of the shift - *all* unsold > >>>> food items *must* be disposed of at the end of the shift. I've also > >>>> known of cases of, say, flight attendants who have been reprimanded > >>>> - or even sacked - for taking leftover food items from the plane > >>>> galleys. The severity of such rules - or the lack of them - is > >>>> entirely up to the employer. > >>>> > >>> I think though that customers who believe in frugality and abhor > >>> such waste should make their views known. > >> > >> "Customers" don't enter into the equation, Bill... > >> > > They better. If you run a business, your customers are who pay you. > > If they think that you are wasting food, they might be less likely > > to go to your food selling place. > > > > > >> Didja read a coupla weeks back about big retail stores who dump large > >> numbers of items into the trash even though the items are perfectly usable? > >> > > There's a lot of this that goes on, in business and in government > > and by private people. It's the sort of thing that if people knew > > and didn't like it, they could respond. > > > > > >> Clothier H&M was one culprit mentioned in the IIRC _New York Times_ story. > >> Not only do they dump the items, but they tear them up so anyone that finds > >> them in the trash will not be able to use them. Border's books is another > >> chain that does this, a large store routinely dumps thousands of dollars > >> worth of perfectly good merchandise into the trash each month. > >> > > Probably generated by the court ruling that made it harder to hold > > old stock on the books. > > > > > >> In the case > >> of Borders the employees are not even told when this is going go to happen, > >> and it's a condition of their employment that they not tell *anyone* when it > >> does happen... > >> > > Frankly, I'd make it legal to access these materials in the > > dumpsters. > > > > > > > >> OTOH a number of food stores or restos will donate their over-stock or > >> whatever to food pantries and charities...and OTOH some forbid this > >> absolutely. > >> > > What I'm saying is that if this stuff matters to you, go to the > > place that isn't wasteful. > > The customers hardly ever know that these places throw away merchandise. > The store isn't about to help them learn, either. I am familiar with the > bookstore chain Borders, but the very first time I ever heard of their > policy was just today, right here. > Bookstores do have trouble that others don't in that they are given what they paid for the book back, or a lot of it, if it is destroyed. It's an intellectual property and copyright issue, at least one could argue that. As I alluded to earlier, there are court cases that caused the costs of holding inventories of unsold books to rise and this has encouraged destruction of books that are perfectly usable and people would eventually buy. This is something that congress could look into since it's just tax consequences. But I also mentioned that people should become informed about the waste that goes on. Reuse is far more sensible than recycling, yet government mandates recycling. I'm not dissing recycling where it makes sense, I'm just saying that forcing the one while banning or making more difficult the other is inane. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 04:04 "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. -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 04:09 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 12:47:09 +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. > Have you repeatedly refuted the above comments? They happen to be the law in many places. There's nothing "Kook Alert" worthy about what I said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will_employment #begin quote The at-will rule has its genesis in a rule in Horace Gray Wood�s 1877 treatise on master-servant relations. Wood cited four U.S. cases as authority for his rule that when a hiring was indefinite, the burden of proof was on the servant to prove that an indefinite employment term was for one year.[3] In Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, the Court noted that "Wood�s rule was quickly cited as authority for another proposition."[4] Some courts saw the rule as requiring the employee to prove an express contract for a definite term in order to maintain an action based on termination of the employment.[5] Thus was born the U.S. at-will employment rule, which allowed discharge for no reason. This rule was adopted by all U.S. states. It was not until 1959 that the first judicial exception to the at-will rule was created.[6] Since then, several common law and statutory exceptions to at-will employment have been created. Common-law protects one's job if an employee disobeys an employer on the grounds that the employer ordered him or her to do something illegal or immoral. However, in the majority of cases, the burden of proof remains upon the discharged employee. No U.S. state but Montana has chosen to statutorily modify the employment at-will rule.[7] In 1987, the Montana legislature passed the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA). The Montana Act is unique in that, although it purports to preserve the at-will concept in employment law, it also expressly enumerates the legal bases for a wrongful discharge action.[8] Under the WDEA, a discharge is wrongful only if: "it was in retaliation for the employee's refusal to violate public policy or for reporting a violation of public policy; the discharge was not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer's probationary period of employment; or the employer violated the express provisions of its own written personnel policy."[9] #end quote
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 28 Jan 2010 04:11
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 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. > Unions are monopolies. I would replace the term "bargain" with "extortion". -- "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually said. |