PDA

View Full Version : I'll have a BLT but hold the B.


Pages : [1] 2 3

UDawg
08-04-04, 10:53 PM
http://www.local6.com/money/3614199/detail.html

Woman was fired for eating pork.

You know what? I don't have a problem with this. It is their company and they had a policy she agreed to by agreeing to work for them. Now if the company policies were not gone over with here and she didn't sign that she read the company hand book then she can say I was not aware of any such policy. As far as I am concerned, she should not have been eating bacon or ham at work.

Oh boohoo I'm a victim now. :lame: :rolleyes:

PsychoSy
08-05-04, 03:04 AM
You know what? I don't have a problem with this.

Doesn't surprize me ... :p

It is their company and they had a policy she agreed to by agreeing to work for them.

She signed nothing. And even if she did, that signature wouldn't constitute as a waiver of her Constitutional or Civil rights.

Now if the company policies were not gone over with her and she didn't sign that she read the company hand book then she can say I was not aware of any such policy. As far as I am concerned, she should not have been eating bacon or ham at work.

The problem is their anti-pork policy wasn't in writing at all, which the EEOC requires last time I checked. A secular, for-profit business -- be it on public or private property -- can't just make up discriminatory verbal policies like that whenever they feel like it. Inalienable rights are just that -- inalienable.

It reminds me when the local mall here: When they went smoke free (except in designated areas of the food court), they neglected to replace the trashcans throughout the mall that had lids that dualed as ashtrays. When mall security guards would enforce the ban on smoking, they used multiple standards based on age, appearance, and sometimes race. If a conservatively dressed, middle-aged man or woman was caught smoking, the security guards would approach them in a pleasant manner. However, if you were between 18-25 and looked like a pothead, a Goth, or a hip-hopper, the security guards would act all big and bad tossing their authority around threatening to ban these kids from the mall and etc.

My buddy John and I watched them once come down on a half-dozen kids in that age group. One of the kids broke off and disappeared into the non-smoking section and talked with some older guy. To the guards utter surprize, he was a parent of one of the kids being accosted. When approaching, he overheard one of the guards threaten his son and he bellowed, "You have to kick my ass first, you fatass rent-a-cop!" The guards turned and one of them said, "Back off, sir! This doesn't concern you ... "

"The hell it doesn't concern me -- I'm his father! Don't you ever talk that way to my son or any of these kids in this mall in that manner again or your ass and your job will belong to me!" The mall manager heard the ruckus from his office and ran out there to play damage control. By the time, the father was beyond pissed since the guards wanted he and this group of kids to leave the mall due to the disruption -- a disruption the guards caused in the first place. He was roaring at 'em all and refusing to leave. By this time, the actual cops were there trying to calm the father down (or hold him back whenever he made a lunge). My buddy John and I listened to 'em go back and forth for a while. Eventually, the father calmed down enough and left with the kids.

A few hours later, John and I were on our way out. John was smoking. The Mall manager spotted it as he passed and said, "Lose that cigarette or get out!!" John responded, "Tell you what -- why don't you learn some tact and have some tolerance! This no smoking ban's only a week or so old!"

"I don't F'n care!! You mallrats are meaningless to me. Put it out or be banned for life."

"Kiss my ass," John said and lit another cigarette. I could tell by the look in his eye he was hatching something.

"I'll be back thru here in 2 minutes. If you're still smoking, I'm gonna ban your ass for life right after I kick it. Got it? I'll kick you sorry mallrat ass right there in front of the giant gumball machine. Mark my words ..."

"You think so, eh?" John said.

"2 minutes ..." the mall manager said walking away.

John never moved a muscle -- he sat on a bench there next to that ash/trashcan looking over everthing he purchased and smoking a cigarette. He was starting to get an audience, too! As the manager passed by John again true to his promise, he poked a finger on John's chest and said, "You're outta here now, punk!" and got on his radio. Moments later, a few lingering policemen emerged from the office, met the manager in the hall, then approached John together.

"Would you fine officers please ARREST this man here? I told him to stop smoking in the mall and leave the premises. He refused, started giving me a hard time. Since this is private property, we'll be pressing criminal charges against him for trespassing."

John stood up, looked the officers in the eyes and said, "According to <paragraphs x and y> of <section z> of the Michigan State Public Smoking Act of <year>, a smoke-free business be it on public or private property must not display ashtrays in public and also states that if such ashtrays are displayed, the business is in non-compliance and can be fined $500 for each ashtray on the premises. That section also states that until these public ashcans are removed, the public has the right to declare it -- and a 10 foot radius -- as a designated smoking area and any smokers within that 10 foot radius are well within their rights outlined in the Act. In other words, this ashcan is no different than the designated smoking areas in the food court. The same rights apply."

"That's a crock! This is private property! We can do what we want!" the manager scoffed.

"Private property open to the public for business," John corrected. "Such entities can do what they want as along as it doesn't break any local, state, and federal laws, rules, or regulations ... which these public ashtrays have been doing for the past week or two."

"I thought this was repealed after the whole Teamster's mess up in Rouge?" one policeman asked.

"Not yet ... but the environmental nitwits are trying though. Teamsters like I, smoker's rights activists, and the tobacco industry are fighting them over it. In the meaning time, people out in the public have enough right to breath clean air as I have to pollute it with my Marlboros. Until the owners of this mall replace these ashcans, those rights extend inside this private business regardless."

"Sorry sir," the cop said to mall manager. "This lad is correct. We can't do anything."

"Yes you can, officers," John responded.

"What's that?"

"Would you please arrest the mall manager here for assault and battery."

"C''mon, that was only ......." the manager bawled and quickly shut up.

"See," John said, "He's already admitted to it. Before he radioed you guys, he poked a finger in my chest as he passed me to meet you. Before that, he threatened to kick my ass by this gumball machine."

"Anyone else see or hear it?, the cops asked.

"My friend here," John pointed to me, "and my audience here," jerking a thumb behind him. "I'm willing to drop the charges provided he appologizes--"

"I'm sorry," the manager interupted, "Good enough?"

"--via a letter to the editor of the newspaper," John continued, "and then leaves me the hell alone from here on out when I come here."

The mall manager was transfered after his apology was published. :D

Son Goku
08-05-04, 03:36 AM
However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported.

"Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales.

"Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."

As it was not in writting/no contract signed, an argument can be made. It does seem however that the companies representative is contradicting himself in his own statements...

If a conservatively dressed, middle-aged man or woman was caught smoking, the security guards would approach them in a pleasant manner. However, if you were between 18-25 and looked like a pothead, a Goth, or a hip-hopper, the security guards would act all big and bad tossing their authority around threatening to ban these kids from the mall and etc.

That such, shall I say determinations are made, doesn't entirely surprise me. Though in mentioning this, a few details are worth noting. I was taking CRJ (criminal justice) 101 at the time. The individual who volunteered this information to the class was a cop, and in fact showed up to class in uniform. He was at times late, and as he explained to the teacher, it was his job as a police officer that kept him. He was not some third party alleging what cops might do, but rather a police officer himself, saying what was done at his own precinct.

In any case, many times when pulling people over, in deciding whether to give a warning, or a ticket, the cop would look at the car the individual was driving. Those who were driving brand spanking new cars were more likely to be given a warning. However those with older cars (cars that looked like they had been driven for longer, dirtier, etc) were more likely to be given a ticket.

vampireuk
08-05-04, 04:29 AM
She agreed when she joined, she was fully aware, she is just making excuses for been a morAn.

saturnotaku
08-05-04, 05:06 AM
she was fully aware

That's right, she already received a warning according to that article. And one also has to consider if Florida is like Illinois in that it's a no-cause employment termination state, where you can be fired for pretty much any reason with no recourse.

I'll have to ask my cousin about this since she's an expert in legal matters pertaining to human resources/employment.

Son Goku
08-05-04, 05:06 AM
If there is no written and signed contract, an argument can be made that it is not legally binding.

Similarly, if I go into a store and purchase an item and make a verbal agreement with the sales clerk...there is that part of the warranty which excludes such verbal agreements... It might be nice if the sales man followed through on what was agreed upon, but unless one gets it in writting there is absolutely nothing to bind them to it. As to the company, warranties have disclaimers...

When this comes to court, the companies decision might not be held up. I don't chose to get into questions of firing someone over the eating of pork (and yes many statements from the companies rep in that article don't seem consistent with other statements from the same individual).

Whether such an agreement is legally binding or not, is something for a court to decide... :D Just as a company can have policies, so the nation has laws wrt contracts, agreements, and the like... There are also some labor laws on the books...

I'll have to ask my cousin about this since she's an expert in legal matters pertaining to human resources/employment.

Perhaps this could shed some light onto matters of legality. I know in some states (one I worked in btw), there is such a thing as unlawful firing...

vampireuk
08-05-04, 05:13 AM
It's not the companys fault she is retarded.

Son Goku
08-05-04, 05:32 AM
It's not the companys fault she is retarded.

Calling her retarded is your opinion of course. I might also have an opinion about on the one hand saying

The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam.

"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said.

"Yes." Kweli replied.

"And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said.

" Yes," Kweli replied.

"(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked.

"We do, we can," Kweli said

but then to possibly have a policy (which was not in writting) that does not follow a given religious practice and fire people on this basis. There are certain matters we probably won't agree on, but that's OK with me...

All of this is mote though, and almost beside the point if the policy wasn't legally binding/the firing wasn't lawful. If Saturnotaku can get a legal perspective for this, wrt Florida...I would be interested in seeing where the law there stands on this. From the time I had studied law...lets just say I'm very well aware that the law can very from one state to another...

It is also questions of legality, which would be of interest in any court of law...

vampireuk
08-05-04, 06:01 AM
It is a fact that she is stupid, if you recieved a warning at work for doing something then you do it again you are a complete and utter moron, thats not opinion it is fact.

Son Goku
08-05-04, 06:14 AM
It is a fact that she is stupid, if you recieved a warning at work for doing something then you do it again you are a complete and utter moron, thats not opinion it is fact.

No, it is not a fact that she is stupid. This most definitely is your opinion.

But, if this is not legally binding, this is all beside the point. At least in the US, a company can not necessarily do anything and everything. There are laws, and laws that apply to businesses as well as individuals.

A boss could try to solicit sexual favors from an employee (sexual harassment) and threaten to fire someone if they do not comply. This does not mean that such conduct is legal. Same could apply for trying to make someone do something off work hours (such as wash one's laundry, clean up their house, etc), or forcing people to work off the clock.

To be clear, an employer can not necessarily make any and every policy they so like in this country. There are limits, which are established by law...

vampireuk
08-05-04, 06:17 AM
She was warned once and carried on doing it....that is flat out stupid, it's not a opinion. Your analogy is foolish.

Son Goku
08-05-04, 06:30 AM
Whatever, we're not going to agree. It's pointless to argue any further. This might be stupid in your book, but this doesn't make it absolute fact. There is also nothing foolish in my analogy, but whatever... You will obviously believe as you chose, and that is your right. Just as it is my right to disagree...

Look, if you want to have the last word, that's OK...but it's obvious that this is pointless. I've already stated my stand on this, and there is nothing that has been said to convince me otherwise.

vampireuk
08-05-04, 06:31 AM
Woman eat ham
Woman told "no eat ham"
Woman eat ham again
Woman fired

:retard:

Edit: the last word means nothing, you are blatantly ignoring the fact that the woman was warned once and did it again, that is stupid, no matter how much you want to defend this "poor victim" you cannot deny that what she did was stupid.

....last word :p

Saint Lucifer
08-05-04, 07:24 AM
I don't think he's ignoring the fact that she was warned. I would imagine he's simply of the opinion that her boss had no right to lay such a restriction upon her in the first place.

If that is the case, I'm inclined to agree... although, I think she'll simply be better off with those people out of her life anyhow.

vampireuk
08-05-04, 07:29 AM
She had every right to turn the job down if she disagreed with their rules, instead she whines when she gets fired for breaking them.

UDawg
08-05-04, 08:51 AM
Doesn't surprize me ... :p



She signed nothing. And even if she did, that signature wouldn't constitute as a waiver of her Constitutional or Civil rights.



The problem is their anti-pork policy wasn't in writing at all, which the EEOC requires last time I checked. A secular, for-profit business -- be it on public or private property -- can't just make up discriminatory verbal policies like that whenever they feel like it. Inalienable rights are just that -- inalienable.

It reminds me when the local mall here: When they went smoke free (except in designated areas of the food court), they neglected to replace the trashcans throughout the mall that had lids that dualed as ashtrays. When mall security guards would enforce the ban on smoking, they used multiple standards based on age, appearance, and sometimes race. If a conservatively dressed, middle-aged man or woman was caught smoking, the security guards would approach them in a pleasant manner. However, if you were between 18-25 and looked like a pothead, a Goth, or a hip-hopper, the security guards would act all big and bad tossing their authority around threatening to ban these kids from the mall and etc.

My buddy John and I watched them once come down on a half-dozen kids in that age group. One of the kids broke off and disappeared into the non-smoking section and talked with some older guy. To the guards utter surprize, he was a parent of one of the kids being accosted. When approaching, he overheard one of the guards threaten his son and he bellowed, "You have to kick my ass first, you fatass rent-a-cop!" The guards turned and one of them said, "Back off, sir! This doesn't concern you ... "

"The hell it doesn't concern me -- I'm his father! Don't you ever talk that way to my son or any of these kids in this mall in that manner again or your ass and your job will belong to me!" The mall manager heard the ruckus from his office and ran out there to play damage control. By the time, the father was beyond pissed since the guards wanted he and this group of kids to leave the mall due to the disruption -- a disruption the guards caused in the first place. He was roaring at 'em all and refusing to leave. By this time, the actual cops were there trying to calm the father down (or hold him back whenever he made a lunge). My buddy John and I listened to 'em go back and forth for a while. Eventually, the father calmed down enough and left with the kids.

A few hours later, John and I were on our way out. John was smoking. The Mall manager spotted it as he passed and said, "Lose that cigarette or get out!!" John responded, "Tell you what -- why don't you learn some tact and have some tolerance! This no smoking ban's only a week or so old!"

"I don't F'n care!! You mallrats are meaningless to me. Put it out or be banned for life."

"Kiss my ass," John said and lit another cigarette. I could tell by the look in his eye he was hatching something.

"I'll be back thru here in 2 minutes. If you're still smoking, I'm gonna ban your ass for life right after I kick it. Got it? I'll kick you sorry mallrat ass right there in front of the giant gumball machine. Mark my words ..."

"You think so, eh?" John said.

"2 minutes ..." the mall manager said walking away.

John never moved a muscle -- he sat on a bench there next to that ash/trashcan looking over everthing he purchased and smoking a cigarette. He was starting to get an audience, too! As the manager passed by John again true to his promise, he poked a finger on John's chest and said, "You're outta here now, punk!" and got on his radio. Moments later, a few lingering policemen emerged from the office, met the manager in the hall, then approached John together.

"Would you fine officers please ARREST this man here? I told him to stop smoking in the mall and leave the premises. He refused, started giving me a hard time. Since this is private property, we'll be pressing criminal charges against him for trespassing."

John stood up, looked the officers in the eyes and said, "According to <paragraphs x and y> of <section z> of the Michigan State Public Smoking Act of <year>, a smoke-free business be it on public or private property must not display ashtrays in public and also states that if such ashtrays are displayed, the business is in non-compliance and can be fined $500 for each ashtray on the premises. That section also states that until these public ashcans are removed, the public has the right to declare it -- and a 10 foot radius -- as a designated smoking area and any smokers within that 10 foot radius are well within their rights outlined in the Act. In other words, this ashcan is no different than the designated smoking areas in the food court. The same rights apply."

"That's a crock! This is private property! We can do what we want!" the manager scoffed.

"Private property open to the public for business," John corrected. "Such entities can do what they want as along as it doesn't break any local, state, and federal laws, rules, or regulations ... which these public ashtrays have been doing for the past week or two."

"I thought this was repealed after the whole Teamster's mess up in Rouge?" one policeman asked.

"Not yet ... but the environmental nitwits are trying though. Teamsters like I, smoker's rights activists, and the tobacco industry are fighting them over it. In the meaning time, people out in the public have enough right to breath clean air as I have to pollute it with my Marlboros. Until the owners of this mall replace these ashcans, those rights extend inside this private business regardless."

"Sorry sir," the cop said to mall manager. "This lad is correct. We can't do anything."

"Yes you can, officers," John responded.

"What's that?"

"Would you please arrest the mall manager here for assault and battery."

"C''mon, that was only ......." the manager bawled and quickly shut up.

"See," John said, "He's already admitted to it. Before he radioed you guys, he poked a finger in my chest as he passed me to meet you. Before that, he threatened to kick my ass by this gumball machine."

"Anyone else see or hear it?, the cops asked.

"My friend here," John pointed to me, "and my audience here," jerking a thumb behind him. "I'm willing to drop the charges provided he appologizes--"

"I'm sorry," the manager interupted, "Good enough?"

"--via a letter to the editor of the newspaper," John continued, "and then leaves me the hell alone from here on out when I come here."

The mall manager was transfered after his apology was published. :D

I stipulated "If" it was not signed and in the hand book. My post was not commenting directly to this story but at business in general. I believe business should be able to hire and fire whom ever they want under the freedom of association clause in the constitution. If a black man wants to hire only other blacks for his business then that is fine with me and vise versa with other colors of people or religious practices. It is none of the governemnt's business whom a business hires or fires. I as a consumer have the right to decide if I think the way that business owner runs their busness is worth getting my money.

Sazar
08-05-04, 09:54 AM
I'm with the company on this one...

the woman KNOWS what she is expected to do... she has been made aware of the policy and she continued to do it...

if she was made aware of the fact I fail to see what possible excuse she could have had for a relapse..

think of it from the companies perspective... they have a clientelle... if word of consumption of pork products got around they likely would not purchase materials from this company...

she was not told to change her religion or anything... she was on COMPANY property eating products that she was not supposed to... end of story...

UDawg
08-05-04, 10:21 AM
No Way! We Agree!?

Sazar
08-05-04, 10:31 AM
:eek:

/me changes course

yes that woman has every right to fulfill her sacriligous hunger in any way she chooses...

:ORDER:

vampireuk
08-05-04, 11:40 AM
Nevers!

intercede007
08-05-04, 02:04 PM
She signed nothing. And even if she did, that signature wouldn't constitute as a waiver of her Constitutional or Civil rights.

The problem is their anti-pork policy wasn't in writing at all, which the EEOC requires last time I checked. A secular, for-profit business -- be it on public or private property -- can't just make up discriminatory verbal policies like that whenever they feel like it. Inalienable rights are just that -- inalienable.


Exactly.

vampireuk
08-05-04, 02:13 PM
I forgot is the right to eat pork the 7th or 8th ammendment?

Sazar
08-05-04, 02:20 PM
here's the thing...

the company established a precedence of what was to be expected with previous warnings pertaining to the same matter...no action taken...

the woman continued to do as she pleased w/o regard to the company or its customers... was it written? nope it wasn't written... and we have seen the company rep say as much...

was she previously warned? yes she was and both parties have agreed on that...

here is where the common sense part comes in... IF you do something which you have been told previously and acknowledged to have been informed previously about then that does mean you are working against company policy...

if you read company policy it is generally a raw guide of expected conduct and rules and regs.. they don't outline every single item you can eat or drink or wear or stuff like that... common sense should prevail...

its the same with say driving upto a fast-food joint and ordering coffee (which in the early morning == hot).... spillin it and burning yourself and then suing the fast food maker because there was nothing on the cut that said the coffee was hot :)

naturally the retard in the above example as we all know got their millions.. the lady in this case however does not have scald marks and was contravening the companies general policy wrt items that may be consumed on the premises...

Sazar
08-05-04, 02:20 PM
I forgot is the right to eat pork the 7th or 8th ammendment?

its the 9th... coz swine rhymes with whine and nine :cool:

see... we got very creative with our ammendments as time went on...

:nanahump:

UDawg
08-05-04, 02:41 PM
Saz the thing that is differnt about this situation is that there wasn't any written policy. That is what holds up in court. Not verbal. It has got to be in writting. This is why I think she has a good complaint. Now this does not change what I believe about the right of association. The company should have the right to have a "written" policy that no one will eat pork on the company property. That is their right and no one has to work for them. Now I think it is stupid to have such a stupid policy but meh that is not the issue.