McDonald's sorry for forbidding workers from feeding homeless

spaminator

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,870
3,046
113
McDonald's sorry for forbidding workers from feeding homeless
REUTERS
First posted: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 02:53 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 04:35 PM EDT
PARIS - McDonald's has apologized for an incident in which workers in one of the U.S. burger chain's French franchises appeared to be threatened with the sack for feeding homeless people.
A photograph circulating on social media showed a notice pinned up at the McDonald's in Hyeres near Marseille in southern France, reading:
"After an incident on July 25th, it is absolutely forbidden to provide food to vagrants, as a reminder, the team's meals should be eaten on the premises. Meals for team members are a personal benefit and are to be enjoyed only by the worker in question."
The notice went on to say: "McDonald's is not in the business of feeding all the hungry people in the land," and concluded: "Any diversion from the procedure cited above will result in sanction that could lead to dismissal."
A statement from McDonald's France said the notice was put up after a "serious incident" involving two homeless people in front of the restaurant in question, and that it was aimed at keeping the premises safe for its customers.
"The process and the formulation was clearly clumsy, the restaurant management quickly removed the notice," the statement said.
"McDonald's and the restaurant apologize to all those who may have been shocked by this notice and state that the brand is dedicated to serving all its clients without discrimination," the statement added.
A spokeswoman declined to say what McDonald's France's policy was on giving away employee meals, and would not elaborate on the statement.
McDonald's has a mixture of directly-owned and franchised outlets in France, the first of which opened in 1979. It has more than 1,200 restaurants across the country employing over 69,000 people.

McDonald's sorry for forbidding workers from feeding homeless | Money | Toronto
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
I've got no objection to feeding homeless scum - as long as they pay. This is not a free-for-all.
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
I keep a wide berth from them when I see them in town just in case I catch something. Many shops are sticking those anti-homeless person spikes outside to stop them roughing it there.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,395
11,449
113
Low Earth Orbit
Hey Jenny, He is right, there is no shortage of food or sources of money to buy food.

For example the sh-thole above ground known as Vancouver spends $70,000 a year per homeless person.

They have everything they need and more.
 
Twila

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
Poor bashing: disguises the real causes of poverty, hurts and excludes people who are poor, cheapens the labour of people who have jobs, and takes the pressure off the rich.

Also the currently acceptable way for some to give the impression they're morally superior and better then the poor
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
It’s unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside, the federal government says


By Emily BadgerAugust 13

We all need sleep, which is a fact of life but also a legally important point. Last week, the Department of Justice argued as much in a statement of interest it filed in a relatively obscure case in Boise, Idaho, that could impact how cities regulate and punish homelessness.
Boise, like many cities — the number of which has swelled since the recession — has an ordinance banning sleeping or camping in public places. But such laws, the DOJ says, effectively criminalize homelessness itself in situations where people simply have nowhere else to sleep. From the DOJ's filing:

When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public. However, when adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity—i.e., it must occur at some time in some place. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless.​


​
Such laws, the DOJ argues, violate the 8th amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, making them unconstitutional. By weighing in on this case, the DOJ's first foray in two decades into this still-unsettled area of law, the federal government is warning cities far beyond Boise and backing up federal goals to treat homelessness more humanely.
"It's huge," says Eric Tars, a senior attorney for the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, which originally filed the lawsuit against Boise, alongside Idaho Legal Aid Services.
According to a NLCHP report last year that surveyed 187 cities between 2011 and 2014, 34 percent had citywide laws banning camping in public. Another 43 percent prohibited sleeping in vehicles, and 53 percent banned sitting or lying down in certain public places. All of these laws criminalize the kind of activities — sitting, resting, sleeping — that are arguably fundamental to human existence.
And they've criminalized that behavior in an environment where most cities have far more homeless than shelter beds. In 2014, the federal government estimates, there were about 153,000 unsheltered homeless on the street in the U.S. on any given night.
Laws like these have grown more common as that math has actually grown worse since the recession.
"Homelessness is just becoming more visible in communities, and when homelessness becomes more visible, there’s more pressure on community leaders to do something about it," Tars says. "And rather than actually examining what’s the best thing to do about homelessness, the knee-jerk response — as with so many other things in society — is 'we’ll address this social issue with the criminal justice system.'"
It's also easier, he adds, for elected officials to argue for criminal penalties when the public costs of that policy are much harder to see than the costs of investing in shelters or services for the poor. Ultimately, though, advocates and the federal government have argued, it's much more expensive to ticket the homeless — with the court, prison and health costs associated with it — than to invest in "housing-first" solutions that have worked in many parts of the country.
Criminal citations also compound the problem of homelessness, making it harder for people to qualify for jobs or housing in the future.
"You have to check those [criminal] boxes on the application forms," Tars says. "And they don’t say 'were you arrested because you were trying to simply survive on the streets?' They say 'if you have an arrest record, we’re not going to rent to you.'"
NLCHP's goal, Tars says, isn't to protect the rights of people to live on the street, but to prevent and end homelessness. That means adding a lot more shelter beds and housing options in places like Boise — which has three shelters run by two non-profits — so people have options other than the street.
The DOJ's argument is based on the logic in an earlier Ninth Circuit, striking down a vagrancy law in Los Angeles, that was ultimately vacated in a settlement. That logic specifically says it's unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping outside if there aren't enough beds for them to sleep indoors. If there are, the constitutional question would be different, although the moral and policy implications may remain the same.
"Homelessness never left town because somebody gave it a ticket," Tars says. "The only way to end homelessness is to make sure everybody has access to affordable, decent housing."

It’s unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside, the federal government says - The Washington Post
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,395
11,449
113
Low Earth Orbit
Well worded...it could also read "unconstitutional to ban homeless sleeping on public property" which is far more realistic.
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
“Housing first” approach works for homeless, study says


By Fredrick Kunkle March 4

A new Canadian study lends backing for a commonsense approach to moving people off the street that has been used in the District and other U.S. cities since the 1990s: Ensure that the homeless receive permanent shelter first, and their chances of achieving stability will increase.
Known as the "housing first" approach, the program offers social support as well. But it emphasizes finding secure shelter in the community first, in contrast to homeless programs that insist on preconditions such as sobriety or psychiatric care and moving through transitional housing.
The study, carried out by researchers at the Centre for Research on Inner City Health of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, found that giving mentally ill homeless people financial help to secure free-market rental housing and mental health support services enhanced their chances of achieving stability.
Over a 24-month period, those with both supports had stable housing nearly 63 to 77 percent of the time, compared with about 24 to 39 percent of those who received “usual care” or even “housing first” programs that also require more assertive social service help.
“Housing first is not housing only. It is housing with support,” lead author Vicky Stergiopoulos, who is psychiatrist in chief at St. Michael’s, said in a telephone interview late Tuesday. “And a lot of the individuals, or most of them, would not be able to keep their housing without support.”
The study appeared Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The study involved about 2,000 people enrolled in a program called At Home/Chez Soi, a research program that takes a “housing first” approach in five Canadian cities. (The study drew data involving people recruited to the program between October 2009 and July 2011 in four cities: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal.)
Participants were randomly assigned to one group where they received independent rental housing that cost up to 30 percent of their income. A rental supplement of up to $600 was also provided. The participants had some choice over the neighborhood and type of housing they desired. Participants also were required to meet once a week or more with a case manager. The case managers could help them locate employment, mend family relationships, seek medical care or plan for other goals.
Those in the group who received “usual care” were not without assistance, but it was less intensive, Stergiopoulos said. They received no financial help to find adequate housing in the community, and their housing and social services care were not coordinated.
“They didn’t have rent supplements. They couldn’t access housing in the community,” she said, adding that as a result they had fewer housing options.
Other studies have demonstrated the benefit of the “housing first” approach, she said. But this study also shows that the program is effective even when the social services offered are less intense than those in similar programs. Those more intensive programs – what the authors call Assertive Community Treatment – involve an interdisciplinary team that includes a psychiatrist and others, and small caseloads.
The approach taken by Chez Soi is also less expensive than the more intensive approach, costing about $14,177 per participant per year, compared with $22,257.
“Our findings thus highlight that scattered-site housing with intensive case management is effective in reducing homelessness among a broader spectrum of the homeless population who may have a severe mental illness but do not require Assertive Community Treatment support, best reserved for a smaller group of homeless adults with high needs for mental health and other support services,” the study says.
There are about 150,000 homeless people in Canada and about 1.5 million in the United States.

“Housing first” approach works for homeless, study says - The Washington Post

Better outcomes, lower cost. The right-wingnuts are gonna HATE it!
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
NYPD does a good job keeping them out of Times Square.

Sleep outside somewhere else.

And the folks that got the word to the homeless to head to the Occupy Wall St. Camp in NYC for free gourmet food... genius.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom