OT Man fired stealing chocolate from employer

"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:dod9j1$fbn$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:03:00 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2005.01.20.23.02.49.902635@ae86.GTS...[color=darkred]
>>> Man fired for taking candy from trash for his kids
>>>
>>> Canadian Press
>>> Dec. 20, 2005 10:21 AM
>>>
>>> ST-HYACINTHE, Que. - A single father of three fired for taking chocolate
>>> bars from a garbage bin at a Zellers store will get some Christmas cheer
>>> from a charitable organization.
>>>
>>> Guy Masse, 47, had planned to give the discarded chocolate to his
>>> children,
>>> ages six, nine and 15, for Christmas.
>>>
>>> Masse, who was on welfare and had been working at the store only for a
>>> couple of months, was first suspended and then fired.
>>> advertisement
>>>
>>>
>>> "I think it's inhuman," Masse told CJAD radio station in Montreal of his
>>> dismissal.
>>>
>>> Zellers has said Masse should have notified his superviser that he was
>>> taking the chocolate out of the garbage at the St-Hyacinthe store, about
>>> 50 kilometres east of Montreal.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>>If the store put the trash in the trash, the trash is fair game and nobody
>>has to tell anybody that they are taking the trash.[/color]
>
> In most jurisdictions that'd be true if it were off the property.
> There's no indication of that in the "story".
>
>[color=green]
>>The store didn't want the product anymore, and they set about to dispose
>>of it.[/color]
>
> It wasn't disposed of, it was in a container owned by the store. He
> didn't have a right to it without asking. Otherwise, what's to keep
> him from throwing something else in the trash and then saying "I took
> it because it was in the trash"?
>[/color]

Well, for starters, they fire the guy for throwing quality items in the
trash. For all we know of this story, the items in the trash were placed
there at the direction of management. If the story was, the employee was
seen placing items in the trash, then later retreiving them, I'd support
firing him. That might be the case here, but it isn't stated in the story.



[color=blue][color=green]
>>There was a person
>>(that happened to be an employee) that thought the product had value to
>>him,
>>so he grabbed it before the trash truck got there. I think the employer is
>>making a very bad mistake to fire this guy.[/color]
>
> Hardly.
>[color=green]
>>
>>It would have been nice if the manager would have made the product
>>available
>>to the employees, he gets the same write-off either way.[/color]
>
> Yes, it would have. It would have been nice for the fired dude to
> have simply ASKED.
>[color=green]
>>Personally, I'm not
>>sure I'd go dumpster diving for stale chocolate, but I'm not on welfare
>>and
>>collecting food stamps with 3 kids at home.[/color]
>
> He should have thought about that before he stole.
>
>
> (BTW, I still don't believe this "story" is real.)
>[/color]

I have no reason to think it is real or fake, but assuming the story is
real, I don't think the company is making a good move by firing a very low
wage employee that is getting public assistance as well as his wages.

"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:dodb6g$iv4$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...[color=blue]
> Indeed. And in the article it states the actual reason why he was
> fired:
>
> "Unfortunately this associate breached the trust of his supervisors by
> removing merchandise from the store, and as a result, he was let go
> from his position."
>[/color]

This set of facts makes the story much different than originally posted.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:34:02 +0000, Gord Beaman wrote:
[color=blue]
> Vash The Stampede <Trigun@2am.cn> wrote:
> cut
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Makes perfect sense.[/color]
>>
>>Well of course it does! There are Plenty of Scrooges around, all year long!
>>
>>The article myay read he removed it from the 'store', but from the trash?
>>That's a stretch. "We'll throw it away, but if you take it from the
>>dumpster we'll fire you"
>>
>>Yup, makes absolute perfect sense to me.[/color]
>
> Of course it does Hachi...if you were a 'candy bar manufacturer'
> would you want your stale and/or damaged bars in the hands of the
> public? of course not, hard on your reputation.[/color]

If I were manufacturing ANYTHING I would want my 'junk' in the hands of
the general public. But I would make an exception or two for employee's
kids.

Hell, I would have handed the bars to them myself!
[color=blue]
>
> Nor would you want that if you merely "sold' that brand of bar,
> imagine someone seeing a mangled stale bar which he knew came
> from Zellers..."Gee, Zellers sure sell crappy bars don't they?"
>
> I'm amazed at you supposedly smart people...[/color]

--
Have your Virtual Pet spayed/neutered!!

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:17:36 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
<gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:12:10 -0500, "Wickeddoll®"
><wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[/color]
<snip>[color=blue]
>
>Dumb fucking ****. It wasn't funny. It made no sense.[/color]

Oh, the class, the wit, the verve! I can see you obviously have to
beat the women off with a stick. I mean in self-defense, of course,
since I can't think of any reason why any of them would want you, save
for your wife.


(and dayum, I've heard of just 'settling' before, but how low can you
go? )

[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
>See how ignorant you are? Your newsreader adds all this space and
>your .sig is broken. Dumb bitch.[/color]

Oh god, it even whines about sigs. The mark of a loser.

-LMB

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Gord Beaman" <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
>news:kjpmq15ditm7iudch71e28u8fvqjh7u1nu@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> snip[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>Again, they were out for the trash man to take away, nothing of value was
>>>taken. The store ought not be using the position that something was
>>>stolen,
>>>because "stolen" implies that items taken had value, but they did not;
>>>which
>>>is why they were in the trash.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> But they DID have value...the fact that it was a NEGATIVE value
>> doesn't change that.
>>
>> The Candy Company didn't want this substandard candy to be
>> distributed, makes them look bad.
>>
>> How come you brilliant people can't see that?!?
>>
>> If the vendor allowed this trashed candy to be distributed then
>> it's a black eye for them because the word get's back to the
>> Candy Company that this substandard candy isn't being handled
>> properly and knuckles get rapped...smarten up for god's sake...[/color]
>
>
>That's actually a valid point that I agree with, but it doesn't support
>firing a guy that works for minimum wage and collects public support to feed
>his family.
>
>I think the goal of the company could easily be achieved by stating the
>point to the offending employee(s).[/color]

Possibly, but we don't really know how much danger they attribute
to this practice...the CC might be really paranoid about their
reputation...personally I think it sounds a bit harsh, but then,
I don't run Cadbury's do I?...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Louis M. Brown" <phyphor@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:35fpq1pbcg5ael01gsbshlf62u3nd5snr6@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:17:36 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
> <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:12:10 -0500, "Wickeddoll®"
>><wickeddoll1958DIEspammersDIE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[/color]
> <snip>[color=green]
>>
>>Dumb fucking ****. It wasn't funny. It made no sense.[/color]
>
> Oh, the class, the wit, the verve! I can see you obviously have to
> beat the women off with a stick. I mean in self-defense, of course,
> since I can't think of any reason why any of them would want you, save
> for your wife.
>[/color]
Owned.[color=blue]
>
> (and dayum, I've heard of just 'settling' before, but how low can you
> go? )
>[/color]
LOL The generosity of women can be amazing, no?[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>See how ignorant you are? Your newsreader adds all this space and
>>your .sig is broken. Dumb bitch.[/color]
>
> Oh god, it even whines about sigs. The mark of a loser.
>
> -LMB[/color]

Especially when it was actually someone else's reader that did this - but
let him rant. I just love watching you slap him right back into his
paranoid little corner.

Natalie, settling in to watch Louis scrape off yet another turd

In article <26dqf.7865$3Z.5650@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
[email]begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com[/email] says...[color=blue]
> Claimed back against insurance? They were pulling your leg. I guarantee
> you that Safeway was self insured for millions of bucks. Big companies
> don't buy thousand dollar deductible policies.
> [/color]
Yup, against insurance.
At the store I was working at, dry goods alone (tins packets etc) had
£50k GBP a year allowances for insurance claim for loses. They insurance
against goods not being a fit state to be sold.

Don't know how Safeway worked in the US. In the UK it is a seperate
company. Was part of Argyl group at the time I worked for, but allowed
to use the same logo/stationary/branding as the global brand, but not
linked in anyway wth Safeway USA. Most of their stores are now owned by
Waitrose or Morrisons and have been renamed. Safeway has pretty much
disappeared now, except where there is an existing Morrison in the town
already.
--
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. [url]http://smallr.com/rz[/url]
Homepage: [url]http://www.bouncing-czechs.com[/url]