Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...

"Stephen Ellenson" wrote in message
...

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...
On 27/01/10 12:44, in article
, "Gregory Morrow"
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.

tim

"tim...." wrote:

"Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
wrote in message
...


"tim...." wrote:

"Gregory Morrow" wrote in message
m...
Earl Evleth wrote:

On 27/01/10 12:19, in article
, "Gregory Morrow"
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.

Gregory Morrow wrote:
Earl Evleth wrote:

On 27/01/10 12:19, in article
, "Gregory Morrow"
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 wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...???

Union?? This is the 21st century.

"tim...." wrote:

"Tom P" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:
"Tom P" wrote in message
...
Gregory Morrow wrote:
Earl Evleth wrote:

On 27/01/10 12:19, in article
, "Gregory Morrow"
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.

Gregory Morrow wrote:

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
, "Gregory Morrow"
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"...!!!

I don't see how. I believe that employers and employees should
generally be allowed to bargain with each other for employment. I
certainly don't support slavery or mistreatment of people.



--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.

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.

--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.

Stephen Ellenson wrote:

I think it depends on whether it was real cheese (I'm from Wisconsin) or the
fake stuff McDo's calls cheese (non-cheese). I don't think she should be
sacked for giving away non-cheese:-) (un-cheese? pseudo-cheese?
plastic-yellow-cheese-like-substance?)

"Blessed are the cheesemakers"

On Jan 27, 3:31*pm, Magda wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:12:10 -0600, in rec.travel.europe, Tom P
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

*... 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 wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...???
*...
*... Union?? This is the 21st century.

He means a guild. )

=====
It sounds much better in French, but then, everything does.

....vakbond....;-)

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.




--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.

"Tom P" wrote in message
...
Gregory Morrow wrote:
Earl Evleth wrote:

On 27/01/10 12:19, in article
, "Gregory Morrow"
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