Don't bother arguing, I KNOW!
Posts: 10,480 
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
May 8th, 2008, 11:06 AM
MikeyDB, use your brains if at all possible.
No employer is going to fire an employee over something that costs probaly less than 1 cent. For one simple selfish capitalist reason, it costs money to fire an employee.
MikeyDB, use your brains if at all possible.
No employer is going to fire an employee over something that costs probaly less than 1 cent. For one simple selfish capitalist reason, it costs money to fire an employee.
No party affiliation
Posts: 1,333
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
May 8th, 2008, 11:30 AM
I've witnessed this crap, not sure why it's so hard for some to believe.
Quoting I think not
...and yet they did.
MikeyDB, use your brains if at all possible.
No employer is going to fire an employee over something that costs probaly less than 1 cent. For one simple selfish capitalist reason, it costs money to fire an employee.
No employer is going to fire an employee over something that costs probaly less than 1 cent. For one simple selfish capitalist reason, it costs money to fire an employee.
I've witnessed this crap, not sure why it's so hard for some to believe.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,687
May 8th, 2008, 12:23 PM
Thats the point Avro,
They probably didn't fire the employee for a Timbit. They probably used the Timbit as an excuse to fire an employee with other habits they couldn't prove or didn't want to go through the hassle of defending to the labour board (which also costs money, even if you are right in your actions)
Thats the point Avro,
They probably didn't fire the employee for a Timbit. They probably used the Timbit as an excuse to fire an employee with other habits they couldn't prove or didn't want to go through the hassle of defending to the labour board (which also costs money, even if you are right in your actions)
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,687
May 8th, 2008, 12:32 PM
Well, they did prove her guilty, of stealing said Timbit. They took Al Capone down for taxes not his other activities.
No matter how you swing it, she did steal. If she wanted to give the timbit as a gift, she could have taken the 12c from her pocket.
And she admitted to it.
As for Video, its probably digital and of not high enough quality to be used as anything but reinforcement to a hunch.
They didn't fire her from the video, they fired her after she admitted to stealing, which is what leads me to that conclusion. Most camera's aren't of high enough quality these days to be useful.
All her being rehired says is that Tim Hortons doesn't like bad PR. As you said, this happens alot, and usually they aren't rehired.
I find it strange you can so easily envision the manager as a dick, but cannot comprehend the possibility that this woman may be just as bad as you envision the manager.
Having worked my share of minimum wage jobs, I am quite familiar with how often firings like this occur, and how many times the irritating coworker (the one with such a bad attitude they drive off all the competent staff to find somewhere else to work) is the one that gets canned.
That isn't to say it couldn't be the manager is a dick, for all we know the "unprovable reason" might be an "unconscionable reason" like "She keeps passing up extra shifts to take care of her 4 kids".
But one shouldn't take up a heavily biased article at the face value it is trying to project.
Quoting Avro
If they can't prove it she is innocent until proven otherwise....what country do you live in?
Also considering they have video, you'd think that whatever she was doing would have been found out by now.
Considering she has been rehired by another Tim's I think we can consider your argument moot.
Face it, the manager is a dick.
Also considering they have video, you'd think that whatever she was doing would have been found out by now.
Considering she has been rehired by another Tim's I think we can consider your argument moot.
Face it, the manager is a dick.
Well, they did prove her guilty, of stealing said Timbit. They took Al Capone down for taxes not his other activities.
No matter how you swing it, she did steal. If she wanted to give the timbit as a gift, she could have taken the 12c from her pocket.
And she admitted to it.
As for Video, its probably digital and of not high enough quality to be used as anything but reinforcement to a hunch.
They didn't fire her from the video, they fired her after she admitted to stealing, which is what leads me to that conclusion. Most camera's aren't of high enough quality these days to be useful.
All her being rehired says is that Tim Hortons doesn't like bad PR. As you said, this happens alot, and usually they aren't rehired.
I find it strange you can so easily envision the manager as a dick, but cannot comprehend the possibility that this woman may be just as bad as you envision the manager.
Having worked my share of minimum wage jobs, I am quite familiar with how often firings like this occur, and how many times the irritating coworker (the one with such a bad attitude they drive off all the competent staff to find somewhere else to work) is the one that gets canned.
That isn't to say it couldn't be the manager is a dick, for all we know the "unprovable reason" might be an "unconscionable reason" like "She keeps passing up extra shifts to take care of her 4 kids".
But one shouldn't take up a heavily biased article at the face value it is trying to project.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,738
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 8th, 2008, 01:09 PM
My comment on emotional appeal in this situation wasn't a stab in a negative manner towards her... I was stating the obvious. She got fired for a technical issue to the company in regards to a 16 cent profit loss, she responded by going to the media and explaining she was giving the timbit to a baby and wasn't stealing it for herself, the store hired her back on due to the negative attention..... case closed..... what's to debate?
Quoting MikeyDB
I don't have any enthusiasm in this story, because I couldn't care less either way, but she doesn't own the restaurant, therefore it is not her place to determine how much or how little (if any) free food should be given out and thus she left herself open to being fired at the descretion of the owners of that restaurant.
Praxius
Please synthesize your enthusiasm for firing a woman for giving away a timbit...with aid sent to millions across the planet.....
One timbit is going to bring the Tim Horton's empire to its knees?
Try working a little perspective into your crime and punishment agenda....
Please synthesize your enthusiasm for firing a woman for giving away a timbit...with aid sent to millions across the planet.....
One timbit is going to bring the Tim Horton's empire to its knees?
Try working a little perspective into your crime and punishment agenda....
My comment on emotional appeal in this situation wasn't a stab in a negative manner towards her... I was stating the obvious. She got fired for a technical issue to the company in regards to a 16 cent profit loss, she responded by going to the media and explaining she was giving the timbit to a baby and wasn't stealing it for herself, the store hired her back on due to the negative attention..... case closed..... what's to debate?
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,738
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 8th, 2008, 01:36 PM
There's worse things going on all over the world then this and you should be used to my straight forwardness in these sorts of topics.
The company, Not the Public, decides what they give out for free at their own expense. Technically she broke the rules in the store and it is considdered stealing, no matter how cheap the product was. She was fired.... the case was closed.
Now it was made public and shortly afterwards the company hired her back on due to emotional appeal in the media and public.... case closed again.... wtf is your problem? Did I say the emotional appeal was a bad thing? Noooo.... I said it won out again, stop digging into something that doesn't exist, you only waste further time.
oh yeah, you thought I had a different opinion?
Quoting Avro
Oh goodie another person who thinks they know what I was implying but doesn't. I was expressing the technical/legal aspect of this situation and being neutral over the situation.... excuse the hell out of me for not throwing my arms up in the air over the poor single mother of 4 who was fired over a friggin timbit to an infant.
The managers that fired her and arses like Praxiuos know nothing about PR which has as much to do about business that anything else.
There's worse things going on all over the world then this and you should be used to my straight forwardness in these sorts of topics.
The company, Not the Public, decides what they give out for free at their own expense. Technically she broke the rules in the store and it is considdered stealing, no matter how cheap the product was. She was fired.... the case was closed.
Now it was made public and shortly afterwards the company hired her back on due to emotional appeal in the media and public.... case closed again.... wtf is your problem? Did I say the emotional appeal was a bad thing? Noooo.... I said it won out again, stop digging into something that doesn't exist, you only waste further time.
Quote:
No, because that would fall under the "Recycled" identification of the food products and they were not on the shelves for sale like the timbit she was handing out..... two different situations you are trying to compare.
I worked at McDonald's when I was in high school and at the end of the night the food that wasn't sold was thrown in the bin, a co-worker and I use to sneak some of it out the back door for a few mentally ill homeless guys......should we have been fired for giving away garbage?
Quote:
Or someone who doesn't know the difference between the two situations.
Only a heartless jackass would think so but had we been caught we would have been.
Quote:
indeed.....
Glad to see she got her job back for being a human being and demonstrating good PR for a good customer.
oh yeah, you thought I had a different opinion?
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,738
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 8th, 2008, 01:51 PM
Quoting Avro
Just to make you think I'm still against this woman and to mess with your head some more..... yes the manager might very well be a dick.... but he was still in the right to fire her... "Technically"
If they can't prove it she is innocent until proven otherwise....what country do you live in?
Also considering they have video, you'd think that whatever she was doing would have been found out by now.
Considering she has been rehired by another Tim's I think we can consider your argument moot.
Face it, the manager is a dick.
Also considering they have video, you'd think that whatever she was doing would have been found out by now.
Considering she has been rehired by another Tim's I think we can consider your argument moot.
Face it, the manager is a dick.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,738
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 8th, 2008, 01:53 PM
Thems the breaks.
Quoting Zzarchov
And hypothetically they could have been losing out on all kinds of money/profit from all kinds of timbits being handed out which should have been bought, but didn't have any evidence of any paticular employee doing this until now..... they caught her, they decided to make an example out of her, she then in turn made an example out of them.
Thats the point Avro,
They probably didn't fire the employee for a Timbit. They probably used the Timbit as an excuse to fire an employee with other habits they couldn't prove or didn't want to go through the hassle of defending to the labour board (which also costs money, even if you are right in your actions)
They probably didn't fire the employee for a Timbit. They probably used the Timbit as an excuse to fire an employee with other habits they couldn't prove or didn't want to go through the hassle of defending to the labour board (which also costs money, even if you are right in your actions)
Thems the breaks.
Gobsmacked
Posts: 4,638
May 8th, 2008, 01:58 PM
First off - the speculation that the management has been waiting for some 'legitimate' reason to fire a 'difficult' employee - I don't buy it. I should think it wouldn't take them 3 years to come up with something if she was problematic enough to warrant that kind of attention - but since it did take that long, they're buffoons to not appreciate the 3 years of service she's already provided - and yes, in the world of decent employers, that should and generally does come into play in circumstances that warrant disciplinary measures.
I submit that the situation could well read in the reverse: if the managers of this Timmy's are the type to do something like this, perhaps it's the employee who deserves a medal for putting up with this and probably other like-minded crap from a$$hole bosses for 3 years.
Which brings me to the second point I've seen raised: The issue of theft. Jezeus! Gawd save me from extremists on either end of a continuum! If ever there was a case for the "shades of grey" argument this has got to be it.
Usually disciplinary measures are taken with consideration to the severity of the crime, past behaviour and work history of the employee. This is pretty customary amongst employers who have an interest in retaining the employees who are willing to show up to do a sh!tty job for sh!tty wages - especially long term employees... which btw, at Timmy's and other fast food places, 3 years does qualify as 'long-term' imo.
Plain and simple in my eyes - she was wrongfully dismissed.
First off - the speculation that the management has been waiting for some 'legitimate' reason to fire a 'difficult' employee - I don't buy it. I should think it wouldn't take them 3 years to come up with something if she was problematic enough to warrant that kind of attention - but since it did take that long, they're buffoons to not appreciate the 3 years of service she's already provided - and yes, in the world of decent employers, that should and generally does come into play in circumstances that warrant disciplinary measures.
I submit that the situation could well read in the reverse: if the managers of this Timmy's are the type to do something like this, perhaps it's the employee who deserves a medal for putting up with this and probably other like-minded crap from a$$hole bosses for 3 years.
Which brings me to the second point I've seen raised: The issue of theft. Jezeus! Gawd save me from extremists on either end of a continuum! If ever there was a case for the "shades of grey" argument this has got to be it.
Usually disciplinary measures are taken with consideration to the severity of the crime, past behaviour and work history of the employee. This is pretty customary amongst employers who have an interest in retaining the employees who are willing to show up to do a sh!tty job for sh!tty wages - especially long term employees... which btw, at Timmy's and other fast food places, 3 years does qualify as 'long-term' imo.
Plain and simple in my eyes - she was wrongfully dismissed.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,738
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 8th, 2008, 01:59 PM
Quoting Zzarchov
That's all I was saying.....
Well, they did prove her guilty, of stealing said Timbit. They took Al Capone down for taxes not his other activities.
No matter how you swing it, she did steal. If she wanted to give the timbit as a gift, she could have taken the 12c from her pocket.
And she admitted to it.
No matter how you swing it, she did steal. If she wanted to give the timbit as a gift, she could have taken the 12c from her pocket.
And she admitted to it.
Quote:
Not quite, since she'd be assigned a paticular till and time of day to be working, even if they can't see her face easily, they would still know it was her.... and besides, they asked her if that was her and if she gave the timbit away and she admitted to it.... once again, case closed.
As for Video, its probably digital and of not high enough quality to be used as anything but reinforcement to a hunch.
Quote:
Hince my "Emotional Appeal" comment..... the Single Mother of 4 giving a timbit to an infant beats a faceless boss anyday in the public's image.
They didn't fire her from the video, they fired her after she admitted to stealing, which is what leads me to that conclusion. Most camera's aren't of high enough quality these days to be useful.
All her being rehired says is that Tim Hortons doesn't like bad PR. As you said, this happens alot, and usually they aren't rehired.
I find it strange you can so easily envision the manager as a dick, but cannot comprehend the possibility that this woman may be just as bad as you envision the manager.
All her being rehired says is that Tim Hortons doesn't like bad PR. As you said, this happens alot, and usually they aren't rehired.
I find it strange you can so easily envision the manager as a dick, but cannot comprehend the possibility that this woman may be just as bad as you envision the manager.
Quote:
As have I.
Having worked my share of minimum wage jobs, I am quite familiar with how often firings like this occur, and how many times the irritating coworker (the one with such a bad attitude they drive off all the competent staff to find somewhere else to work) is the one that gets canned.
Quote:
such as a few other articles I have been seeing in the forums here and got bashed for explaining my opinion towards the not-so-popular side of the argument..... all due to how the article was biased in one side over the other.... and I point this out many times as well.
That isn't to say it couldn't be the manager is a dick, for all we know the "unprovable reason" might be an "unconscionable reason" like "She keeps passing up extra shifts to take care of her 4 kids".
But one shouldn't take up a heavily biased article at the face value it is trying to project.
But one shouldn't take up a heavily biased article at the face value it is trying to project.
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,738
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 8th, 2008, 02:09 PM
But then again, did she just decide to not tell the media/public of all the other things she might have been warned about in the past or things she was written up over before and kept playing her poor single mother of 4 card to keep her job?
Exactly how many companies just openly talk to the media about a former employee's work ethic/behavior/violations that have occured in the past to discredit or destroy their character to the public? From what I can tell, they discussed this and only this situation because the media and public wanted to know about this situation and also the woman already opened this can of worms to the media, so therefore they're in their right to talk about this paticular situation to the public to defend their actions..... but probably are not permitted to open her entire employment record to the rest of the world to know about and face a possible lawsuit.... so thus.... a biased angle to the situation could be at play.
Added:
Not to mention, when a company starts to discredit or destroy the character of "A Single Mother of 4 who works at a Fast Food Resaurant" it only makes the company look worse.
I imagine what will happen now is that they hired her back to save face, and either she will continue to do things that will prompt her to be fired, or the company itself will add more pressure on her to make her quit.... can't really say one way or another since there's more information in these articles leaning towards her defence then the company's.
Quoting Zan
Based on the information she gave out to the media/public about the situation and based on the limited information the company would talk about to the media/public, it might seem like she was wrongfully fired......
First off - the speculation that the management has been waiting for some 'legitimate' reason to fire a 'difficult' employee - I don't buy it. I should think it wouldn't take them 3 years to come up with something if she was problematic enough to warrant that kind of attention - but since it did take that long, they're buffoons to not appreciate the 3 years of service she's already provided - and yes, in the world of decent employers, that should and generally does come into play in circumstances that warrant disciplinary measures.
I submit that the situation could well read in the reverse: if the managers of this Timmy's are the type to do something like this, perhaps it's the employee who deserves a medal for putting up with this and like-minded crap from a$$hole bosses for 3 years.
Which brings me to the second point I've seen raised: The issue of theft. Jezeus! Gawd save me from extremists on either end of a continuum! If ever there was a case for the "shades of grey" argument this has got to be it.
Usually disciplinary measures are taken with consideration to the severity of the crime, past behaviour and work history of the employee. This is pretty customary amongst employers who have an interest in retaining the employees who are willing to show up to do a sh!tty job for sh!tty wages - especially long term employees... which btw, at Timmy's and other fast food places, 3 years does qualify as 'long-term' imo.
Plain and simple in my eyes - she was wrongfully dismissed.
I submit that the situation could well read in the reverse: if the managers of this Timmy's are the type to do something like this, perhaps it's the employee who deserves a medal for putting up with this and like-minded crap from a$$hole bosses for 3 years.
Which brings me to the second point I've seen raised: The issue of theft. Jezeus! Gawd save me from extremists on either end of a continuum! If ever there was a case for the "shades of grey" argument this has got to be it.
Usually disciplinary measures are taken with consideration to the severity of the crime, past behaviour and work history of the employee. This is pretty customary amongst employers who have an interest in retaining the employees who are willing to show up to do a sh!tty job for sh!tty wages - especially long term employees... which btw, at Timmy's and other fast food places, 3 years does qualify as 'long-term' imo.
Plain and simple in my eyes - she was wrongfully dismissed.
But then again, did she just decide to not tell the media/public of all the other things she might have been warned about in the past or things she was written up over before and kept playing her poor single mother of 4 card to keep her job?
Exactly how many companies just openly talk to the media about a former employee's work ethic/behavior/violations that have occured in the past to discredit or destroy their character to the public? From what I can tell, they discussed this and only this situation because the media and public wanted to know about this situation and also the woman already opened this can of worms to the media, so therefore they're in their right to talk about this paticular situation to the public to defend their actions..... but probably are not permitted to open her entire employment record to the rest of the world to know about and face a possible lawsuit.... so thus.... a biased angle to the situation could be at play.
Added:
Not to mention, when a company starts to discredit or destroy the character of "A Single Mother of 4 who works at a Fast Food Resaurant" it only makes the company look worse.
I imagine what will happen now is that they hired her back to save face, and either she will continue to do things that will prompt her to be fired, or the company itself will add more pressure on her to make her quit.... can't really say one way or another since there's more information in these articles leaning towards her defence then the company's.
Gobsmacked
Posts: 4,638
May 8th, 2008, 02:18 PM
In other situations, I might be inclined to agree with you Prax - but not this one. Again, no matter what problems she may have been presenting, it should never have taken 3 years to get rid of her - not if the issues were legitimate.
I screw up at work occasionally. Doesn't everyone? If most of us were on the edge of losing our jobs every time we inadvertently crossed a minor line - and I do stress "minor" - then I expect most of us would be job hunting on a pretty regular basis.
I just don't see how a small act of kindness can be construed as the behavior of someone who is consistently problematic. If it really is, then I further submit that the world needs more problems like this and less of the variety that would shoot the mother of that baby dirty looks and generally make her feel unwelcome because her baby was fussing.
In other situations, I might be inclined to agree with you Prax - but not this one. Again, no matter what problems she may have been presenting, it should never have taken 3 years to get rid of her - not if the issues were legitimate.
I screw up at work occasionally. Doesn't everyone? If most of us were on the edge of losing our jobs every time we inadvertently crossed a minor line - and I do stress "minor" - then I expect most of us would be job hunting on a pretty regular basis.
I just don't see how a small act of kindness can be construed as the behavior of someone who is consistently problematic. If it really is, then I further submit that the world needs more problems like this and less of the variety that would shoot the mother of that baby dirty looks and generally make her feel unwelcome because her baby was fussing.
May 8th, 2008, 02:29 PM
Quoting Praxius
I imagine what will happen now is that they hired her back to save face, and either she will continue to do things that will prompt her to be fired, or the company itself will add more pressure on her to make her quit.....
Or, the manager of the first store was just an arse whose wife looked a little like her, and he fired a great employee, displacing his anger over catching his wife in the arms of her girlfriend when they were supposed to be out golfing.
I imagine what will happen now is that they hired her back to save face, and either she will continue to do things that will prompt her to be fired, or the company itself will add more pressure on her to make her quit.....
Gobsmacked
Posts: 4,638
May 8th, 2008, 02:31 PM
Quoting karrie
aHA! That's gotta be it!
Or, the manager of the first store was just an arse whose wife looked a little like her, and he fired a great employee, displacing his anger over catching his wife in the arms of her girlfriend when they were supposed to be out golfing.
May 8th, 2008, 02:34 PM
Quoting Zan
It also explains why it took three managers. His buddies were already in there trying to console him. They were all of them upset. The best friend was the wife of the night shift manager after all. Perfectly understandable in terms of psychological phemonena that they would take it all out on poor 'lookalike'. Serves her right for looking like that cheating cow imo. Mystery solved. And I bet the manager who hired her back on golfs too.
aHA! That's gotta be it!
Clever Clogs
Posts: 709
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
Location: Ardrossan, Alberta
May 8th, 2008, 02:42 PM
You look at most of these ground level store managers and you will notice that they are all ladder climbers, trying to ingraciate themselves with upper management get a leg up to the corporate office by stepping on as many people under them as possible. Bad publicity for the company will not help their carreers one whit and I imagine one or two of them may in fact, be walking down the road kicking horse turds wondering what happened to their job.
You look at most of these ground level store managers and you will notice that they are all ladder climbers, trying to ingraciate themselves with upper management get a leg up to the corporate office by stepping on as many people under them as possible. Bad publicity for the company will not help their carreers one whit and I imagine one or two of them may in fact, be walking down the road kicking horse turds wondering what happened to their job.
Gobsmacked
Posts: 4,638
May 8th, 2008, 02:45 PM
well ok then - if the employee had the gall to look like a boss's trolloping wife, she really should expect no less!
Quoting karrie
It also explains why it took three managers. His buddies were already in there trying to console him. They were all of them upset. The best friend was the wife of the night shift manager after all. Perfectly understandable in terms of psychological phemonena that they would take it all out on poor 'lookalike'. Serves her right for looking like that cheating cow imo. Mystery solved. And I bet the manager who hired her back on golfs too.
well ok then - if the employee had the gall to look like a boss's trolloping wife, she really should expect no less!
Mass'Debater
Posts: 2,738
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
May 8th, 2008, 02:45 PM
The only "Logical" reason I can think of them justifying fireing her over one timbit might be because she has done it countless times in the past (Unknown) to a large degree that it was making a noticable difference in their sales.
Considdering anoter person from the company claimed the fireing was an over reaction, I would either attribute that to it actually being an over reaction and the boss was a jerk, or blame shifting and covering for PR purposes. (Unknown)
Quoting Zan
Hey I'm not trying to claim what I am saying is right or wrong.... just getting people to think of all the angles before they decide to pick a side right off the bat.
In other situations, I might be inclined to agree with you Prax - but not this one. Again, no matter what problems she may have been presenting, it should never have taken 3 years to get rid of her - not if the issues were legitimate.
I screw up at work occasionally. Doesn't everyone? If most of us were on the edge of losing our jobs every time we inadvertently crossed a minor line - and I do stress "minor" - then I expect most of us would be job hunting on a pretty regular basis.
I just don't see how a small act of kindness can be construed as the behavior of someone who is consistently problematic. If it really is, then I further submit that the world needs more problems like this and less of the variety that would shoot the mother of that baby dirty looks and generally make her feel unwelcome because her baby was fussing.
I screw up at work occasionally. Doesn't everyone? If most of us were on the edge of losing our jobs every time we inadvertently crossed a minor line - and I do stress "minor" - then I expect most of us would be job hunting on a pretty regular basis.
I just don't see how a small act of kindness can be construed as the behavior of someone who is consistently problematic. If it really is, then I further submit that the world needs more problems like this and less of the variety that would shoot the mother of that baby dirty looks and generally make her feel unwelcome because her baby was fussing.
The only "Logical" reason I can think of them justifying fireing her over one timbit might be because she has done it countless times in the past (Unknown) to a large degree that it was making a noticable difference in their sales.
Considdering anoter person from the company claimed the fireing was an over reaction, I would either attribute that to it actually being an over reaction and the boss was a jerk, or blame shifting and covering for PR purposes. (Unknown)
