NationStates Jolt Archive

Fired for taking candy out of garbage for his kids


Canadian Press


Tuesday, December 20, 2005



A Zellers employee was fired a week before Christmas for taking chocolate bars out of a Zellers garbage bin to take home to his kids. (SP Photo by Richard Marjan)


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.

"I think it's inhuman,'' Masse told CJAD radio station in Montreal of his dismissal.

Zellers, which is part of Toronto-based retailer Hudson's Bay Co., has said Masse should have notified his supervisor that he was taking the chocolate out of the garbage at the St-Hyacinthe store, about 50 kilometres east of Montreal.

"It's a very unfortunate situation. We would never have willingly let an associate go at this time of year without just cause,'' said HBC spokeswoman Hillary Stauth in an interview from Toronto.

"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.''

Established in 1670, Hudson's Bay is Canada's largest department store chain and oldest company with more than 500 outlets, led by the Bay and Zellers chains.

Added Stauth: "We have over 70,000 across Canada. They work so hard especially at this time of year. It's very upsetting that one bad employee tarnished the reputation of everybody else.'' Montreal's Sun Youth Organization said Tuesday that Masse's family will be provided for this Christmas. "It's important to Sun Youth now that this family will have a Christmas that they deserve, food on the table and gifts for the kids,'' Sun Youth's Tommy Kulcyzk told CJAD.

-----------------------
These corporations just don't get it. What a stupid thing to fire a guy for. Does Zellers know nothing about corporations. I guess not just look at the final quote from Hillary Stauth. Corporations care for nothing but the bottom line. Do not get fooled by their fake ploys of public relations when they do help out some charity, etc.

Got a source? Any way, I agree that if true, this story is an example of despicable behaviour. I have never understood protectiveness about stuff people have thrown away.

He violated store policy. If he violates store policy (and all he had to do was tell a supervisor), the company has the right to take necessary disciplinary action.

He violated store policy. If he violates store policy (and all he had to do was tell a supervisor), the company has the right to take necessary disciplinary action.
Legal as it may be, you have to be pretty anal to fire someone for taking something you threw away already.

"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.''
She is full of shit.

"Fired for taking candy out of garbage for his kids"

This totally mystifies me. Why would they fire the guy for taking a bunch of discarded chocolate bars? I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.

"Fired for taking candy out of garbage for his kids"

This totally mystifies me. Why would they fire the guy for taking a bunch of discarded chocolate bars? I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
Same here. It may be that he actually did steal stock (that was not rubbish) and the story just isn't telling.

But if the story is true, well that company is just bullshit.

Got a source? Any way, I agree that if true, this story is an example of despicable behaviour. I have never understood protectiveness about stuff people have thrown away.
Source was Candian Press - see above. :)

Same here. It may be that he actually did steal stock (that was not rubbish) and the story just isn't telling.

But if the story is true, well that company is just bullshit.
If the company can't make a profit on it they don't want anyone to have it. If he was up to no good I don't think charities would be trying to help him out. Next thing you know McDonald's will start arresting people who eat the food they throw into their dumpsters. ;)

"Fired for taking candy out of garbage for his kids"

This totally mystifies me. Why would they fire the guy for taking a bunch of discarded chocolate bars? I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
And I doubt there is. The same thing happened many times when I worked at an IGA grocery store, when people tried to take home discarded produce. They would honestly rather throw the food away than make it available to people, and lose possible profit. You would be absolutely sickened if you saw how much food is thrown out a DAY in a supermarket. And I'm not talking rotting food...I'm talking apples with a little bruise...day old bread, and so on. Many supermarkets have taken to locking up their garbage cans to prevent people from 'stealing merchandise'.

And I doubt there is. The same thing happened many times when I worked at an IGA grocery store, when people tried to take home discarded produce. They would honestly rather throw the food away than make it available to people, and lose possible profit. You would be absolutely sickened if you saw how much food is thrown out a DAY in a supermarket. And I'm not talking rotting food...I'm talking apples with a little bruise...day old bread, and so on. Many supermarkets have taken to locking up their garbage cans to prevent people from 'stealing merchandise'.
Down with corporations!

I declare the inside of trash cans public property! As long as you don't strew it everywhere, you can do what you want with it.

And I doubt there is. The same thing happened many times when I worked at an IGA grocery store, when people tried to take home discarded produce. They would honestly rather throw the food away than make it available to people, and lose possible profit. You would be absolutely sickened if you saw how much food is thrown out a DAY in a supermarket. And I'm not talking rotting food...I'm talking apples with a little bruise...day old bread, and so on. Many supermarkets have taken to locking up their garbage cans to prevent people from 'stealing merchandise'.
I don't know how widespread it is, but there's a program here in North Carolina where food chains and restaurants, etc. pass their date expired and other surplus food along to an organization which then distributes it to people in need. I have great admiration for this program and always try to make sure I shop only at stores which partcipate.

These corporations just don't get it. What a stupid thing to fire a guy for. Does Zellers know nothing about corporations. I guess not just look at the final quote from Hillary Stauth. Corporations care for nothing but the bottom line. Do not get fooled by their fake ploys of public relations when they do help out some charity, etc.

So if a corporation is evil when it fires someone, is it good when it hires them? Or do you just apply the "evil corporation" model universally, based on this one incident? Like most anti-capitalists do.

Legal as it may be, you have to be pretty anal to fire someone for taking something you threw away already.
Try real hard and think of it from the store's perspective. Here is a guy that is taking discards -- defective products -- from the garbage. How do they know what he is going to do with them? It is conceivable that he might resell the candy. In that case, the store has every reason to expect that the defective merchandise is going to discredit their reputation for quality products. Therefore, they prohibit anyone from raking through their garbage.

Or it may be discarded because it's spoiled. Again the company has every interest in protecting its reputation by preventing people from taking home spoiled goods.

Probably the best thing to do, if you are so motivated, is to write letters to the company and encourage them to donate surpluses to a food bank.

This story is an example of despicable behaviour. I have never understood protectiveness about stuff people have thrown away.

I never understood either...

He violated store policy. If he violates store policy (and all he had to do was tell a supervisor), the company has the right to take necessary disciplinary action.
agree here. though it was discarded, it was technically theft, therefor grounds for dismissal

agree here. though it was discarded, it was technically theft, therefor grounds for dismissal
What it was was technically bullshit.

What it was was technically bullshit.
that is your belief, but i believe that this store had the same policy as many others. i wouldn't be surprised if this is the policy of Coles Myer (owners of Coles and Bi Lo supermarkets) and Woolworths here in australia. hell, newsagents throw out old magazines, front pages removed, and i bet if a police officer had seen someone take those magazines, they would be charged for some reason. no difference here.

What it was was technically bullshit.

that is your belief, but i believe that this store had the same policy as many others. i wouldn't be surprised if this is the policy of Coles Myer (owners of Coles and Bi Lo supermarkets) and Woolworths here in australia. hell, newsagents throw out old magazines, front pages removed, and i bet if a police officer had seen someone take those magazines, they would be charged for some reason. no difference here.
You can't take the opinion of someone who has probably never earned a dollar in his life when discussing financial matters. A business has only one responsibility to an employee. That responsibility is to pay him for work done. An employee has the responsibility to follow the rules of his employer. End of matter.

For further consideration, we could talk about why the rules are this way, but whether or not the company was justified in firing the employee is settled.

You can't take the opinion of someone who has probably never earned a dollar in his life when discussing financial matters. A business has only one responsibility to an employee. That responsibility is to pay him for work done. An employee has the responsibility to follow the rules of his employer. End of matter.

For further consideration, we could talk about why the rules are this way, but whether or not the company was justified in firing the employee is settled.
i agree. i think that the problem with this story, is that it is a 'fluffy' one. if it had been an employee taking pornos out of the bin, it would have been a different matter

i agree. i think that the problem with this story, is that it is a 'fluffy' one. if it had been an employee taking pornos out of the bin, it would have been a different matter
Trash is trash.

Trash is trash.
you may see it that way, but companies and authorities see it different. for all we know, there could have been sensitive shreaded information in that dumpster. not to mention the guy would also be violating the companies OH&S policy by doing it.

And I doubt there is. The same thing happened many times when I worked at an IGA grocery store, when people tried to take home discarded produce. They would honestly rather throw the food away than make it available to people, and lose possible profit. You would be absolutely sickened if you saw how much food is thrown out a DAY in a supermarket. And I'm not talking rotting food...I'm talking apples with a little bruise...day old bread, and so on. Many supermarkets have taken to locking up their garbage cans to prevent people from 'stealing merchandise'.
I worked at a Fortinos in the fresh sandwich and pizza place and we'd have to chuck out the sandwiches at the end of the night. We weren't allowed to reduce them or give them away to employees or take them home or anything. It was retarded.

However, the man did violate his store's policy, no matter how stupid it may seem. So he should be fired. He probably had to sign something saying that he agreed to follow the policy and by violating the agreement, he should be fired. It may seem stupid, but they can't just go letting people off for violating store policies they agreed to follow. It's not like they're prosecuting him.

If the company can't make a profit on it they don't want anyone to have it. If he was up to no good I don't think charities would be trying to help him out. Next thing you know McDonald's will start arresting people who eat the food they throw into their dumpsters. ;)
Nah, they capture them and process them into "genuine beef" burger patties. Mmmmm. McSoylent.

that is your belief, but i believe that this store had the same policy as many others. i wouldn't be surprised if this is the policy of Coles Myer (owners of Coles and Bi Lo supermarkets) and Woolworths here in australia. hell, newsagents throw out old magazines, front pages removed, and i bet if a police officer had seen someone take those magazines, they would be charged for some reason. no difference here.
I worked at Franklins supermarkets in Australia. If the above have the same policies then yes it is a sackable offence to take discarded merchandise.
The guy should have recieved at least one offical written warning over this before being fired. It's entirely possible he was not completely aware of the policy regardless of what he had to sign when he started.

It was explained to me, when I started, that the reason for this policy is bacause an employee may intentionally damage goods inorder to discard them for collection to take home later. Having talked to people that work in wherehouses this is a genuine concern. If they want to try out a new product that looks interesting or get hungry they just drop a carton and have at it.

I worked at Franklins supermarkets in Australia. If the above have the same policies then yes it is a sackable offence to take discarded merchandise.
The guy should have recieved at least one offical written warning over this before being fired. It's entirely possible he was not completely aware of the policy regardless of what he had to sign when he started.

It was explained to me, when I started, that the reason for this policy is bacause an employee may intentionally damage goods inorder to discard them for collection to take home later. Having talked to people that work in wherehouses this is a genuine concern. If they want to try out a new product that looks interesting or get hungry they just drop a carton and have at it.
not only that, but there is OH&S rammifications too. and also, what if he had been injured whilst retrieving the goods?

not only that, but there is OH&S rammifications too. and also, what if he had been injured whilst retrieving the goods?

Then he would have sued the company and the anti-capitalists would be whining about how evil corporations are hurting people directly.

He violated store policy. If he violates store policy (and all he had to do was tell a supervisor), the company has the right to take necessary disciplinary action.
Way to go Ebenezer. I hope Father Christmas finds a lump of coal just the same shade of black as your heart to put in your stocking this Christmas morning.

The company may well have been within its rights to give him the sack, but they could also have given him a warning first.

Why? Because he believes people should live up to contractual obligations? Oh, thats just horrible.

And am I the only person who thinks the newspaper is a bunch of douchebags for printing his name and giving info about his kids?

Contractual obligations mean jack shit unless you're either a) a lawyer, or b) the sort of person who worries unduly about contractual obligations. Though on second thought, I suppose most of those who are best described by b) are most likely a)s, anyway.

a)holes, at any rate...

The policy is understandable. If people can take things from the trash they'll damage goods themselves, or hide them until they're past their due date, etc. so they can then take them from the trash. I worked for a short while as supermarket supervisor and it does happen.

The punishment may seem severe, but if the policy was explained and made clear to this man, then that dismissal was quite justified. If it wasn't then the store has to review their induction process and show leniency in this case.

Then he would have sued the company and the anti-capitalists would be whining about how evil corporations are hurting people directly.

I like you, Santa Barbara. :D

And am I the only person who thinks the newspaper is a bunch of douchebags for printing his name and giving info about his kids?

No. I agree with you on that.

Look, the guy screwed up, he got fired. That's typically how things work in business. It's his fault he screwed up, he accepts the consequences. Period.

And again, as a few said, the policy is to prevent actual theft by intentional damaging of the products.

So taking discarded chocolates from the garbage is justifiable cause for dismissal?

You people live in the coldest world imaginable. I've had to fire people, waaay back when - and I'd never even consider firing someone immediately prior to, or even immediately after, the Holiday season.

Think about it - if this guy has to dumpster-dive for bon-bons to give as gifts to his kids, he certainly isn't "flush" with money at a very stressful time of year.

Firing people over stupid bullshit is a recipe for inflicting family strife at best - and suicide at worst.

You Scrooge wannabes make me sick with your contractual obligations and your by-the-book approach to life. If you can call it "life", that is.

You Scrooge wannabes make me sick with your contractual obligations and your by-the-book approach to life. If you can call it "life", that is.

Aw, how about you vomit then? You'll feel better.

Aw, how about you vomit then? You'll feel better.
How's that? I'll still be surrounded by a pack of spoiled thugs armed with keyboards.

*edit: spoiled, officious thugs.

How's that? I'll still be surrounded by a pack of spoiled thugs armed with keyboards.

*edit: "officious" thugs.
Meh, what are they going to do? Irritate you with all their i's dotted and t's crossed. At least you can type back.

Meh, what are they going to do? Irritate you with all their i's dotted and t's crossed. At least you can type back.
It burns me to no end hearing these blackhearts pontificate while wagging rulebooks with all the soul of a well-oiled cog.

So taking discarded chocolates from the garbage is justifiable cause for dismissal?

Yes and no. If it's company policy, then yes. However, it's kinda dumb he didn't get a warning first for something this trivial.

You people live in the coldest world imaginable. I've had to fire people, waaay back when - and I'd never even consider firing someone immediately prior to, or even immediately after, the Holiday season.

You know why? Because the world IS a cold place. (It's around fifteen degrees here! :p ;))

And you have better judgement to not fire someone during the Christmas season. I agree with you -- it was a cold move, but it was by the books. He screwed up, his own bad timing. I don't like it, but I'm not running the company.

Think about it - if this guy has to dumpster-dive for bon-bons to give as gifts to his kids, he certainly isn't "flush" with money at a very stressful time of year.

So because of this we should let him break company policy?

Firing people over stupid bullshit is a recipe for inflicting family strife at best - and suicide at worst.

Maybe he shouldn't have screwed up, then. Is it cold? Most definitely. Is it life? Yes.

You Scrooge wannabes make me sick with your contractual obligations and your by-the-book approach to life. If you can call it "life", that is.

I know, obeying laws is such an evil thing....

It burns me to no end hearing these blackhearts pontificate while wagging rulebooks with all the soul of a well-oiled cog.

THat's what society is -- rules, rights, and responsibilities. Don't like it? Move to the Arctic or the Antarctic, where there's really no civilization for you.

Was the person a moron for violating policy? Yes.

Are the managers jackasses for firing him during the Christmas season? Yes.

It's simply a bad situation. It could've been solved with a warning letter, and not firing -- especially over the Christmas season.

How's that? I'll still be surrounded by a pack of spoiled thugs armed with keyboards.

*edit: spoiled, officious thugs.

Well, when I feel sick, I vomit. It just helps me feel better. It'll probably work for you too.

(And frankly, you're the spoiled one here, whining that he should be allowed to violate policy and law just cuz it happens to be Christmas.)

So.... why is it I have not found this on a single large media outlet, and all the smaller ones I found it on have the identical story?

It burns me to no end hearing these blackhearts pontificate while wagging rulebooks with all the soul of a well-oiled cog.
I don't sympathize with those policies, in fact that's one of the reasons I didn't follow a career in retail or sales management, you have to be too much of an asshole, but they're still understandable. A single person taking advantage of the employer can cause a lot of trouble to the whole group, not just the company but all the other workers, customers, and providers. These policies weren't created just because someone woke up in a bad mood, enough has happened to justify them.

Perhaps in a smaller company you can be lenient and flexible because you know everybody and you can have the time to investigate the case properly; but when it comes to companies as big as Zellers, that's just not possible.

I know, obeying laws is such an evil thing....
Ruthlessly enforcing rules to the betterment of none and the detriment of more than one, not disobeying "laws", is the issue.

Maybe you ought to eat your carrots and look a little more closely around you. The world isn't black-and-white.

So.... why is it I have not found this on a single large media outlet, and all the smaller ones I found it on have the identical story?
Because large media outlets didn't consider it important enough and smaller ones don't have the resources to research and write their own story so they buy it from Canadian Press.

So some asshole got himself fired by doing something that he knew was against store policy? I guess that makes the people who had previously employed him and fed those damn kids of his instantly evil.

So some asshole got himself fired by doing something that he knew was against store policy? I guess that makes the people who had previously employed him and fed those damn kids of his instantly evil.
Why are you blaming his kids?

He didn't. He just cursed them. Probably worse, but still.

We don't even know if this was his first offense. Hell, if he's not even Christian, why is it a big deal if he's fired this time of year?

He didn't. He just cursed them. Probably worse, but still.

We don't even know if this was his first offense. Hell, if he's not even Christian, why is it a big deal if he's fired this time of year?
Guess you missed the part where the discarded chocolates from the store's garbage were meant to be holiday gifts for his kids. Even if he isn't Christian (which isn't established), he's certainly observing the traditions (or trying to, on too too short a budget - hence the dumpster-diving).

But this is a bad time of year, in any event. The weather's bad, people are cooped up together, the heating bills are high and getting worse, the days are short and the nights are long, etc, etc. How does it help anyone to fire somebody just before Christmas - who does it serve?

How does it help anyone to fire somebody just before Christmas - who does it serve?
Me. I get to laugh at their misfortune and idiocy. That charity is ruining it for me.

A common practice. Someone got fired at my workplace a few months back for doing the same.

So some asshole got himself fired by doing something that he knew was against store policy? I guess that makes the people who had previously employed him and fed those damn kids of his instantly evil.
Well they didn't feed his kids and I wager that dumpster diving for chocolate is indicative that you might not be earning enough money in the first place.
Plus I tend to consider all supermarket chains evil (especially in their human resource handling), due to my own and my peers experiences.

But to make a judgement on this case I'd need to know if he had been warned before. No matter what you say it is a trivial occurance and is due some degree of consideration from his manager. Many employers don't encourage people to read the full contact they are signing, dismissing it as "the usual" which it is, but it would appear he is not a man of great intellectual status. He may have never read the contact or an previous employment contact, not having the capacity to understand the language contained within. Secondly he was only there a matter of months it is unlikely that he has been given the appropiate warnings, though not impossible.

What is the problem here and what makes the company look evil is the apparent lack of compasion for their staff. If I worked at that store and right now I would be helping that guy get legal assistance for an unfair dismissal suit and would be looking for a new job, who know who might next get canned for a trival matter they were unware of.

Guess you missed the part where the discarded chocolates from the store's garbage were meant to be holiday gifts for his kids.

Quote it for me. All I saw was that he was bringing it home for his kids.

Even if he isn't Christian (which isn't established),

I was just throwing out a hypothetical. There is a lot about this story we need to know before we can pass judgement.

he's certainly observing the traditions (or trying to, on too too short a budget - hence the dumpster-diving).

The tradition of giving his kids candy. And the store is following the tradition of firing people that break the rules.

But this is a bad time of year, in any event. The weather's bad, people are cooped up together, the heating bills are high and getting worse, the days are short and the nights are long, etc, etc.

He should have had that in mind before he broke the rules.

How does it help anyone to fire somebody just before Christmas - who does it serve?

Short term, probably no one. We really know nothing about this situation other than he got fired.

What we're suffering from is a poorly written story. The article does say

Masse, who was on welfare and had been working at the store only for a couple of months, was first suspended and then fired.

but neglects to mention whether these were two separate incidents, or a single episode that escalated from suspension to firing. Or how that all transpired.

How do we know that Dad didn't damage the candy so that he could dig it out of the dumpster at a later time?

All we know for sure is that Dad shouldn't have been dumpster diving and was eventually fired for doing so. Maybe he can take this experience and do a better job conforming to his employers policies in his next job.

Got a source? Any way, I agree that if true, this story is an example of despicable behaviour. I have never understood protectiveness about stuff people have thrown away.

I'm guessing you've never worked in retail administration. Ok, heres a quick run down on why so many corporations are protective about their garbage. Lets say you are a major department store. You have a cosmetics and fragrances department, and in that department you have loads of product that you use for demonstration ("testers"). When these run out, break, go rancid (there are few odors on earth more offensive than spoiled cosmetics) they get thrown away. When I was working in Loss Prevention, about a quarter of all our internal prosecutions revolved around people who would fill out paperwork to get something made a tester, then fill out paperwork saying it was bad, then throw it out, then take it out of the garbage. The company has to eat those costs, Estee Lauder doesn't give you 100 free lipsticks for people to play with.

Companies have to be protective about what goes in the garbage because shady employees will steal anything that isn't nailed down, they'll throw things away just so they can dig them out later. It sucks that this guy lost his job for a candy bar, but this is what happens when a few jerks ruin it for everyone. More importantly, I get the distinct impression that this was about more than a few candy bars. Companies rarely fire someone over a minor incedent because the turnover costs don't justify such extreme action. Reading between the lines (and having been in the position of his supervisor) I would guess that this guy had broken the rules before and this was either a last straw situation or a situation in which they busted him for something small because they were having trouble getting enough admissable evidence to prosecute on something bigger. Sometimes its more expediant to fire someone on a rules violation than to let them steal for another 3 or 4 months while you build a case.

I worked at a Fortinos in the fresh sandwich and pizza place and we'd have to chuck out the sandwiches at the end of the night. We weren't allowed to reduce them or give them away to employees or take them home or anything. It was retarded.

Tell me, if that hadn't been the case, what would have stopped you from making too many sandwiches in the morning (or just before close) so that you could take the surplus home, what would have stopped you from reserving the best sandwiches for yourself? What would have stopped you from taking money out of the register and putting it between two pieces of bread (laugh if you want, but I know of at least one sandwich shop that had that specific problem)?

Companies have to be anal because even if 99% of their employees are honest, that 1% will take them for a ride. You would be shocked how much internal theft goes on in alot of buisness, particularly high end buisnesses. A single well placed employee can steal tens of thousands of dollars worth of product without ever being noticed.

So taking discarded chocolates from the garbage is justifiable cause for dismissal?

You people live in the coldest world imaginable. I've had to fire people, waaay back when - and I'd never even consider firing someone immediately prior to, or even immediately after, the Holiday season.

Really? What if that person was someone who you knew had been stealing from the company for months and the first time you had enough to fire them was on December 20th? Yeah, it sucks, it makes the baby Jesus cry, blah blah blah. Bad employees get fired, if management doesn't have the mettle to do it they shouldn't be management.

I seriously doubt this company fired someone for a few chocolate bars (well, maybe if he was a seasonal). There is very likely more going on here than just what the story says.

Ruthlessly enforcing rules to the betterment of none and the detriment of more than one, not disobeying "laws", is the issue.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you as much as you think I am -- he shouldn't have been fired. A warning? Yes. The guy should have been repremanded, but not to the extent he was.

Maybe you ought to eat your carrots and look a little more closely around you. The world isn't black-and-white.

I'm eating a carrot right now, actually. :D

And I know it isn't black and white, you're just misinterpreting me.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you as much as you think I am -- he shouldn't have been fired. A warning? Yes. The guy should have been repremanded, but not to the extent he was.

As I pointed out, he may well have had several instances of this kind of conduct in his past. The story is very unclear.

How's that? I'll still be surrounded by a pack of spoiled thugs armed with keyboards.

*edit: spoiled, officious thugs.

not *completely* surrounded.

though they do seem to come out of the woodwork here at the merest hint of an opportunity to flog their soulless, corporatist, pseudo-ethics.

I always wondered if there were actual people in the world who saved all their sympathy for "poor" Inspector Javert...

now I know.

As I pointed out, he may well have had several instances of this kind of conduct in his past. The story is very unclear.

I find it interesting that several people are trying to invent circumstances under which the firing wouldn't be cruel.

Seems to me this acknowledges that even the "he broke the rules" crowd know they're being meanspirited jackasses, and want to imply a reciprocal meanness upon those critiqueing their clinical responses.

anyway, about 27 seconds of googling found me this:

http://************/cbrcv

which makes it pretty clear it was a single incident.

My between-the-lines read says this poor guy got fired to cover the manager's ass for not strictly conforming to their suppliers' rules for disposal of expired product.

What say the "he deserved it crowd" now?

I find it interesting that several people are trying to invent circumstances under which the firing wouldn't be cruel.
Seems to me this acknowledges that even the "he broke the rules" crowd know they're being meanspirited jackasses, and want to imply a reciprocal meanness upon those critiqueing their clinical responses.

anyway, about 27 seconds of googling found me this:
http://************/cbrcv
which makes it pretty clear it was a single incident.

My between-the-lines read says this poor guy got fired to cover the manager's ass for not strictly conforming to their suppliers' rules for disposal of expired product.
What say the "he deserved it crowd" now?

He assumed that he could take it without asking, even though all of his previous times involved directly asking his superior; personally, I feel that one breach doesn't merit firing, but if that's the policy, that's the policy. It seems far more of a mistake than any malicious intent, but he did breach his agreement. Suspension seems to have been the better move in this instance.

Then he would have sued the company and the anti-capitalists would be whining about how evil corporations are hurting people directly.
firstly, if he sued, it would be thrown out, purely because he was breaking store policy. secondly, if this wasnt a fluffy story, he didnt have kids, or it wasnt chocolate that he was taking, how many of you would be supporting him. look, i know its christmas, but the guy could ask for an advance or something. i know it may seem cold, but he violated store policy. end of story. this is probably why the media outlets havent picked up on it, and why the small ones are showing it like this. anything to get readers :rolleyes:

by the way, theft is treated with instant dismissal. He didnt ask permission to take them home. kinda re-enforce the saying assumption is the mother of all f***-ups

I find it interesting that several people are trying to invent circumstances under which the firing wouldn't be cruel.

Seems to me this acknowledges that even the "he broke the rules" crowd know they're being meanspirited jackasses, and want to imply a reciprocal meanness upon those critiqueing their clinical responses.

anyway, about 27 seconds of googling found me this:

http://************/cbrcv

which makes it pretty clear it was a single incident.

My between-the-lines read says this poor guy got fired to cover the manager's ass for not strictly conforming to their suppliers' rules for disposal of expired product.

What say the "he deserved it crowd" now?
This is the part of the working.com report that I like the best

"Yes, I made a mistake," Masse said. "But so did the representative of the chocolate company, and so did the manager" for assuming Masse was stealing the candies.

'It's not my fault, because everyone else made mistakes, too." Well, if Dad had done the one thing that he had done every other time he wanted a discard, he would have been fine. And what was he actually doing with the merchandise, if not 'stealing'?

"Fired for taking candy out of garbage for his kids"

This totally mystifies me. Why would they fire the guy for taking a bunch of discarded chocolate bars? I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye.
There is, kinda. Here it is. There have been lawsuits by transients against corporations who have taken food out of the garbage, eaten it, and become sick or died from food poisoning.

Therefore the companies have to cover their 6's so that they don't face multi million dollar lawsuits.

Wanna blame someone? Blame sleazy ambulance chasing lawyers that will sue for ANY reason in order to make a buck.

I find it interesting that several people are trying to invent circumstances under which the firing wouldn't be cruel.

Seems to me this acknowledges that even the "he broke the rules" crowd know they're being meanspirited jackasses, and want to imply a reciprocal meanness upon those critiqueing their clinical responses.

anyway, about 27 seconds of googling found me this:

http://************/cbrcv

which makes it pretty clear it was a single incident.

My between-the-lines read says this poor guy got fired to cover the manager's ass for not strictly conforming to their suppliers' rules for disposal of expired product.

What say the "he deserved it crowd" now?

well said

There is, kinda. Here it is. There have been lawsuits by transients against corporations who have taken food out of the garbage, eaten it, and become sick or died from food poisoning.

Therefore the companies have to cover their 6's so that they don't face multi million dollar lawsuits.

Wanna blame someone? Blame sleazy ambulance chasing lawyers that will sue for ANY reason in order to make a buck.
cept' (if u read the article) the problem that the store had was that he took the candy from the store. if he had taken it from the garbage "I can't do anything about it," Dufresne told The Gazette. "But if you take a box of refuse from inside the store that is next to a box of incoming merchandise, then you did something wrong." so your point is invalid

This is the part of the working.com report that I like the best

'It's not my fault, because everyone else made mistakes, too." Well, if Dad had done the one thing that he had done every other time he wanted a discard, he would have been fine. And what was he actually doing with the merchandise, if not 'stealing'?
um u consider taking used goods as christmas preasents stealing? what kind of a mean spirited person are you?:confused:

um u consider taking used goods as christmas preasents stealing? what kind of a mean spirited person are you?:confused:
I'm the mean-spirited kind of person that expects others to be responsible for their actions. If one takes property that they have no permission to take, except maybe in dire circumstances, why is that not theft?

I'm the mean-spirited kind of person that expects others to be responsible for their actions. If one takes property that they have no permission to take, except maybe in dire circumstances, why is that not theft?
lol (sry bout the personal remark . . .that was uncalled for)
i personnaly think it is theft under the striktist rule of law but i think that you should give the guy a break as well . . .comeon fired for stealling garbage??? its not like anyone else lost anything from his actions.

If the company can't make a profit on it they don't want anyone to have it.
Why is that? Such a position seems to be based on spite rather than reason. Large Companies are bureaucratic. I don't think that they make decisions based on spite.

Or it may be discarded because it's spoiled. Again the company has every interest in protecting its reputation by preventing people from taking home spoiled goods.
Thanks for the insight, but it doesn't sound like the products were identifiable by store in this case. (The same chocolate bars are sold at thousands of shops across the nation.)

hell, newsagents throw out old magazines, front pages removed, and i bet if a police officer had seen someone take those magazines, they would be charged for some reason. no difference here.
If you think about it, that doesn't make any sense. Whether the old, binned magazines go to the dump, or if some guy takes them, the effect on the newsagent is no different either way.

You can't take the opinion of someone who has probably never earned a dollar in his life when discussing financial matters.
Where does this come from?

:mad: Why do the ultra-right wing capitalists always assume that those who don't agree with them are freeloaders?

Do you think I don't work?

And again, as a few said, the policy is to prevent actual theft by intentional damaging of the products.
Where's the proof that the man in this case deliberately damaged products in order to take them?

-----

This case highlights a fundamental problem with capitalism. Inefficient use of resources. It would be better that imperfect but edible food should get eaten by someone than take up space in the bin (whose collection presumably must be paid for).

um u consider taking used goods as christmas preasents stealing? what kind of a mean spirited person are you?:confused:


When you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission, thats stealing. Doesn't matter what the motivation is. The act is theft.

Also, many times, when a product is damaged or for whatever other reason unsellable, they can return it to the manufacturer for credit. Although, I don't know if this applies for perishable food.

lol (sry bout the personal remark . . .that was uncalled for)
i personnaly think it is theft under the striktist rule of law but i think that you should give the guy a break as well . . .comeon fired for stealling garbage??? its not like anyone else lost anything from his actions.
Sure, if this was my store, I'd probably be glad to be rid of the old candy. And I expect that the store would have been happy to give it to him, had he asked. But it isn't and he didn't and here we are.

Where's the proof that the man in this case deliberately damaged products in order to take them?

None, but thats what the rule is there to prevent.


This case highlights a fundamental problem with capitalism. Inefficient use of resources. It would be better that imperfect but edible food should get eaten by someone than take up space in the bin (whose collection presumably must be paid for).


Uh......no. This is an example of too much beauracracy and too little communication. The former is most certainly going to be present in a socialist society of any meaningful size and the latter happens when people don't hink.

So this is obviously more about human flaws than any particulr economic system.

I find it interesting that several people are trying to invent circumstances under which the firing wouldn't be cruel.

Seems to me this acknowledges that even the "he broke the rules" crowd know they're being meanspirited jackasses, and want to imply a reciprocal meanness upon those critiqueing their clinical responses.

anyway, about 27 seconds of googling found me this:

http://************/cbrcv

which makes it pretty clear it was a single incident.

My between-the-lines read says this poor guy got fired to cover the manager's ass for not strictly conforming to their suppliers' rules for disposal of expired product.

What say the "he deserved it crowd" now?

The real world is a cold place full of bad people who want to do bad things. Ever seen a woman use her 5 year old as a distraction so she could shoplift $20,000.00 in ball gowns, then ditch the kid and run with the merchandise when she realized she was caught? I have. Companies are harsh about shoplifting (and even moreso about internal theft) because there is always someone looking for an angle, always someone who is trying to find a soft spot or a sob story so they can waltz on off.

Yeah, the end effect does sometimes mean that good people get screwed, but EVERY company has the final say. If you read the story you posted, you'll notice that his manager didn't just take the candy and send him home, his manager called the police. Also, why did this guy not ask to take the candies like he had asked to take home metal shelves or shipping cartons? Funny how he always knew to ask, except this one time. Reading between the lines I get the impression that this guy should have known the difference between candy and office supplies. I have NEVER worked in a store when that line was not made very clear. Further, the story doesn't mention anything about this being a first offense. In fact, the comment from HBC's spokesman about the employee in question breeching the store's trust sounds a lot to me like a dance around a confidentiality issue (if you make a criminal accusation without taking him to trial, he'll sue).

Where's the proof that the man in this case deliberately damaged products in order to take them?

Likely because direct proof is very hard to obtain, especially in internal theft cases. Lets say you have a manager you suspect of stealing. Your initial suspicion is backed up by the fact that she has merchandise stashed in the back of a filing cabinet in her office at the back of a storeroom. You start an investigation, put a pinhole camera in the wall of her office with a 24 hour tape, begin logging her entries into the storeroom by tracking uses of her key code on codepad locks, and you check her filing cabinet twice a shift to see if anything is gone. The lights in her office go off (which makes the camera go dark) for a few seconds, she takes a wierd route out of the building immediately after and says she was at lunch, the merchandise is gone. Even if NO ONE ELSE entered her stockroom, you can't get a conviction in court on that. Hell, some DAs won't file with anything less than direct video evidence and a stop outside the doors.

Why does this matter? Because when you're in a situation like that you watch the employee in question for any minor violation of the rules and can them as soon as their nametag isn't up to regulation. Anyone asks, she was fired because she violated company policy. Sure, you look like a bad guy, but the rest of the employees know you mean buisness and she isn't stealing anymore.

The real world is a cold place full of bad people who want to do bad things. Ever seen a woman use her 5 year old as a distraction so she could shoplift $20,000.00 in ball gowns, then ditch the kid and run with the merchandise when she realized she was caught? I have. Companies are harsh about shoplifting (and even moreso about internal theft) because there is always someone looking for an angle, always someone who is trying to find a soft spot or a sob story so they can waltz on off.
There is a distinct difference between grabbing candy bars off the shelf and stuffing them in your jacket and digging them out of the trash.

The real world is a cold place full of bad people who want to do bad things.
Bollocks.

There is a distinct difference between grabbing candy bars off the shelf and stuffing them in your jacket and digging them out of the trash.
Only in make-believe. Read the story that was linked in a little later in the thread. Dad admitted to stealing the candy. But, true liberal that he be, he blamed it on everyone else.

Bollocks.

So there is no murder, rape or theft?

Only in make-believe. Read the story that was linked in a little later in the thread. Dad admitted to stealing the candy. But, true liberal that he be, he blamed it on everyone else.
Can't go one post without using your flame thrower on wide spread?

So there is no murder, rape or theft?
Property is an abstract concept, one that I don't really agree with.

Property is an abstract concept, one that I don't really agree with.

And property is connected to murder and rape...how, exactly?

Life is unfair. Deal with it.

And property is connected to murder and rape...how, exactly?

Life is unfair. Deal with it.
A store is deprived of what - three? four bucks, altogether - maybe, and maybe not, as this was discarded chocolate retrieved from the garbage - so it boils down to the store's rights to it's property, even property that has been discarded. They value their garbage more than an employee.

My question is, how do murder and rape have anything to do with this thread?

And btw, it's only as unfair as you allow it to be.

When you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission, thats stealing. Doesn't matter what the motivation is. The act is theft.

Also, many times, when a product is damaged or for whatever other reason unsellable, they can return it to the manufacturer for credit. Although, I don't know if this applies for perishable food.
allready answered that question (see above) and if you read the article (what a novel idea!) you would see that the goods were on their way to thew garbage

Why is that? Such a position seems to be based on spite rather than reason. Large Companies are bureaucratic. I don't think that they make decisions based on spite.


Thanks for the insight, but it doesn't sound like the products were identifiable by store in this case. (The same chocolate bars are sold at thousands of shops across the nation.)


If you think about it, that doesn't make any sense. Whether the old, binned magazines go to the dump, or if some guy takes them, the effect on the newsagent is no different either way.


Where does this come from?

:mad: Why do the ultra-right wing capitalists always assume that those who don't agree with them are freeloaders?

Do you think I don't work?


Where's the proof that the man in this case deliberately damaged products in order to take them?

-----

This case highlights a fundamental problem with capitalism. Inefficient use of resources. It would be better that imperfect but edible food should get eaten by someone than take up space in the bin (whose collection presumably must be paid for).

lol well i agree with most but i gotta say that big companies are not exactly perfect citizens (yes I use the word citizens because corperations are considerd people by law) as proven by enron, silicon valley, conrad black etc.

There is a distinct difference between grabbing candy bars off the shelf and stuffing them in your jacket and digging them out of the trash.
ya but the guy didn't grab them off the shelf did he??? come on Read the article!!!!:headbang: . what he did was take them as they were on their way to being trashed. the only thing the corperation has against him is that he took them while they were still in the store

A store is deprived of what - three? four bucks, altogether - maybe, and maybe not, as this was discarded chocolate retrieved from the garbage - so it boils down to the store's rights to it's property, even property that has been discarded. They value their garbage more than an employee.

My question is, how do murder and rape have anything to do with this thread?

And btw, it's only as unfair as you allow it to be.
well said

Sure, if this was my store, I'd probably be glad to be rid of the old candy. And I expect that the store would have been happy to give it to him, had he asked. But it isn't and he didn't and here we are.
fair enough thats ur point of view and i'l respect that as it is backed up by evidence and well said . . . still can't say i agree though but w/e

Property is an abstract concept, one that I don't really agree with.


So feel free to send me your adress and we can "share" your stuff. Come on, money to mouth time.

Also, the reason I included rape and murder is because apparently you don't believe there are bad people that do bad things. Which strikes me as odd since you seem to want to send rich people to prison.

So feel free to send me your adress and we can "share" your stuff. Come on, money to mouth time.

Also, the reason I included rape and murder is because apparently you don't believe there are bad people that do bad things. Which strikes me as odd since you seem to want to send rich people to prison.
You seriously think I'm sending my address to someone who can't spell "address" or employ a popular euphemism without butchering it? Think again, pally.

allready answered that question (see above) and if you read the article (what a novel idea!) you would see that the goods were on their way to thew garbage


I have read the article. Several times. Of course, I just read whats printed. I don't "look between the lines"(which people here seem to believe means "make assumptions we have no evidence for"). I'm wierd like that, just making judgements based on the facts we are presented.

Yes, the goods were expired and on their way out. Of course, they were still store property. Its already been pointed out the logical reasons for that rule.

You seriously think I'm sending my address to someone who can't spell "address" or employ a popular euphemism without butchering it? Think again, pally.


Oh, so its "do as I say, not as I do". Gee, didn't see that coming.

And how was "money to mouth" butchered? Put your resources on the line about what you've been preaching. Come on, start your own little commune.

A store is deprived of what - three? four bucks, altogether - maybe, and maybe not, as this was discarded chocolate retrieved from the garbage - so it boils down to the store's rights to it's property, even property that has been discarded. They value their garbage more than an employee.

My question is, how do murder and rape have anything to do with this thread?

And btw, it's only as unfair as you allow it to be.

The man broke company policy.

The man gets punished.

Punishment coincides with over-commericalised holiday break, long devoid of any real meaning or sentiment.

It happens to lots of people.

It's not cynicism or cold-hearted: it is just being realistic. You can prance about in your happy, knitted little world of fluff, where no-one does anything wrong or unethical but ultimately that world is completely and utterly divorced from reality. People do horrible things to each other, often for horrible reasons (if indeed they have reasons). That is our nature. Shaft or be shafted.

Life is unfair, even at its most basic level. Is it fair that one man should be born more intelligent than another or more attractive than others? These initial inequalities continue to dominate our society and natures. Those with talents will almost always use them in order to benefit themselves at the expense of their fellows. People who you might term as 'good' will almost always end up on the receiving end of the boot, because those who you might consider 'bad' are always the ones who find it easiest to move through society, due to a lack of compassion, empathy or whatever it is that makes them 'bad' in your book. Thus, horrible things happen to the people who apparently don't deserve it. You can't make life not unfair, because you are not the master of random events or the master of other people's actions.

This man knew (or should have known, ignorance is no excuse as if you are ignorant as to your job, you should always take steps to remedy it) that what he did was against company policy and he probably knew the likely consequences of breaking company policy. Thus he should not have acted in the way that he did and should not be suprised at his treatment. The fact that it was Christmas time is neither here nor there: the timing of the offence is irrelevant.

The employee in question has learnt a valuable lesson: always to ask permission before removing the property (even the former property) of others. For his next job, he will keep that lesson in mind and perhaps benefit from it.

Stealing is stealing, no matter the circumstances. Internal theif cost retails a great deal of money each year, and that cost is past on to the conusmers. Theift policy are spelled out very clearly for each empolyee when they are hired, and retailers can not allow certain acts to go by unpunished, a clear defineable line must be drawn.

How do we not know that the employee's do not simply throw things in the garbage so that they could simply claim them later by using the excuse "well it was in the garbage" I feel that the actions that were taken are in fact reasonable, to do otherwise would set a dangerous precident for others to follow.

I have read the article. Several times. Of course, I just read whats printed. I don't "look between the lines"(which people here seem to believe means "make assumptions we have no evidence for"). I'm wierd like that, just making judgements based on the facts we are presented.

Yes, the goods were expired and on their way out. Of course, they were still store property. Its already been pointed out the logical reasons for that rule.
I think you missed my point . . . You had said that the goods had value because they could be returned to the manufacturer for credit what i was attempting to say was that this was impossible because they were on their way to the garbadge. I understand that they were store property and have agreed with that (though not with the stores response) and i wasn't asking you to make any assumptions . . .sry to have made my response to complicated for you to understand

Oh, so its "do as I say, not as I do". Gee, didn't see that coming.

And how was "money to mouth" butchered? Put your resources on the line about what you've been preaching. Come on, start your own little commune.
um i think that the saying is put your monney where your mouth is . .could be wrong though

um i think that the saying is put your monney where your mouth is . .could be wrong though


Yes, I shortened it. The message should have been received. Dobbs is just trying to worm his/her way out of his/her predicament by arguing semantics.

The man broke company policy.

The man gets punished.

Punishment coincides with over-commericalised holiday break, long devoid of any real meaning or sentiment.

It happens to lots of people.

It's not cynicism or cold-hearted: it is just being realistic. You can prance about in your happy, knitted little world of fluff, where no-one does anything wrong or unethical but ultimately that world is completely and utterly divorced from reality. People do horrible things to each other, often for horrible reasons (if indeed they have reasons). That is our nature. Shaft or be shafted.

Life is unfair, even at its most basic level. Is it fair that one man should be born more intelligent than another or more attractive than others? These initial inequalities continue to dominate our society and natures. Those with talents will almost always use them in order to benefit themselves at the expense of their fellows. People who you might term as 'good' will almost always end up on the receiving end of the boot, because those who you might consider 'bad' are always the ones who find it easiest to move through society, due to a lack of compassion, empathy or whatever it is that makes them 'bad' in your book. Thus, horrible things happen to the people who apparently don't deserve it. You can't make life not unfair, because you are not the master of random events or the master of other people's actions.

This man knew (or should have known, ignorance is no excuse as if you are ignorant as to your job, you should always take steps to remedy it) that what he did was against company policy and he probably knew the likely consequences of breaking company policy. Thus he should not have acted in the way that he did and should not be suprised at his treatment. The fact that it was Christmas time is neither here nor there: the timing of the offence is irrelevant.

The employee in question has learnt a valuable lesson: always to ask permission before removing the property (even the former property) of others. For his next job, he will keep that lesson in mind and perhaps benefit from it.
well said . . .iguess . . .but one question. why do you see only the worst of humanity when there is quite alot of good out there aswell?

Yes, I shortened it. The message should have been received. Dobbs is just trying to worm his/her way out of his/her predicament by arguing semantics.
o ok then w/e

So feel free to send me your adress and we can "share" your stuff. Come on, money to mouth time.


It works two ways there sir. Are you willing to share your stuff in return?

well said . . .iguess . . .but one question. why do you see only the worst of humanity when there is quite alot of good out there aswell?

I do not really work in terms of 'good' and 'bad' any more, because those are highly subjective values and that subjectivity renders those values as virtually useless when trying to objectively assess the potential benefits/disadvantages of your actions and the actions of others. In other words, I am highly amoral.

I have found that people rarely commit socially gratifying actions out of pure hearted intentions. I believe in the principles of de Mandeville, who believed that man does nothing except to benefit himself - he even said that a person only saves a baby from a burning building so that he would not have to suffer the guilt of having done nothing. Thus all I see are selfish motives and so most of philosophy regarding others and myself stems from that.

I do not really work in terms of 'good' and 'bad' any more, because those are highly subjective values and that subjectivity renders those values as virtually useless when trying to objectively assess the potential benefits/disadvantages of your actions and the actions of others. In other words, I am highly amoral.

I have found that people rarely commit socially gratifying actions out of pure hearted intentions. I believe in the principles of de Mandeville, who believed that man does nothing except to benefit himself - he even said that a person only saves a baby from a burning building so that he would not have to suffer the guilt of having done nothing. Thus all I see are selfish motives and so most of philosophy regarding others and myself stems from that.
i c. but what about a person who gives selflessly to another or to a charity without being asked? or what about a child who does something for no reason except that it will be fun?
you philosophy sounds increadibly bleak but also interesting

i c. but what about a person who gives selflessly to another or to a charity without being asked? or what about a child who does something for no reason except that it will be fun?
you philosophy sounds increadibly bleak but also interesting

The child does something for fun because it enjoys the sensation that having fun gives it. Thus having fun is an act done for selfish reasons.

The person gives to charity to experience the positive emotion that often comes from giving to others or possibly to quench their sense of middle-class guilt.

Yes it is incredibly bleak and depressing.

It works two ways there sir. Are you willing to share your stuff in return?


Not much to share. But sure.

The child does something for fun because it enjoys the sensation that having fun gives it. Thus having fun is an act done for selfish reasons.

The person gives to charity to experience the positive emotion that often comes from giving to others or possibly to quench their sense of middle-class guilt.

Yes it is incredibly bleak and depressing.
dmn . . .um how bout love/hate neither of those is for personal gain and how would you explain them . . .also some of the baser emotions such as cowardice and guilt . . .if your philosphy is correct and everything is done for shelfish reasons then why do they occur

Meh, a lot of companies have policies that are strange or dumb.

His taking stuff was probably not that big a deal. But a decision was made that wasn't in his favor. If there is anything a corporation WILL NOT do, it's go back and fix mistakes. So they're gonna stick with firing him.

Most companies, even if they make the wrong decision, will fight tooth and nail to justify themselves. It's to save face, or so they would believe.

I myself have been through crocks of shiat like that working for a chain store, several years ago.

The story:

Manager didn't like me...tried to get me fired for stealing: an Olsen Twins PS1 game and 3 bucks. Mind you, I'm not stupid. I will not risk a stable job for $4.50 in merchandise.

Proven innocent.

Then,

Accused of leaving the store for hours on end. Being in charge of a retail store when the manager was gone, I wouldn't leave that place for 15 minutes, essentially because the staff couldn't handle heavy loads of customers. The "secret shoppers" who said this were my manager's parents.

Then,

Tardiness, which had never been an issue, came up. All of a sudden, they were going back into my records 3 months and beyond and criticizing my clock in's...which were being manipulated by my manager, to my dismay.

I was placed on probation.

I was trying to lease a place, and called ahead and asked for time off to sign the document, I had time to do it later, but asked if I could do it sooner. The manager said it was okay for me to come in late, and then, when I came in, I was fired. For being late. And having bad numbers, since I was a trainer and rarely scanned items. And for making other coworkers uncomfortable despite my being good friends with the only two other employees.

I had statements from other managers and employees reinforcing my standing with the company. For some reason, the other 3 managers I had worked with thought I deserved to be assistant manager, and even the District Manager agreed. Yet, because of company policy, and somebody gunning for me, I was fired.

Be very wary of policy, and if you think you are violating it, talk to several people in charge so you have an alibi. There are some rat bastard people in this world who will use terminations to make themselves look competent.

dmn . . .um how bout love/hate neither of those is for personal gain and how would you explain them . . .also some of the baser emotions such as cowardice and guilt . . .if your philosphy is correct and everything is done for shelfish reasons then why do they occur

Love and hate make you feel a certain way. Love feels good and doing wrong to someone you hate satifies the darker parts of our hearts.

Love and hate make you feel a certain way. Love feels good and doing wrong to someone you hate satifies the darker parts of our hearts.
man oh man . . .why do you get up in the morning again?
:(

Punishment coincides with over-commericalised holiday break, long devoid of any real meaning or sentiment.

That's a value judgement, not a factual judgement. Sorry you're miserable.

It's not cynicism or cold-hearted: it is just being realistic.

In your cynical, cold-hearted opinion, that is. I don't happen to agree with your bleak take on reality, I guess. Although I don't prance, I groove:

You can prance about in your happy, knitted little world of fluff, where no-one does anything wrong or unethical but ultimately that world is completely and utterly divorced from reality.

There's an over-reliance on concepts of right and wrong in this unhappy, knotted big world of turds you seem to prefer. Luckily for me, it's almost entirely divorced from my own reality.

People do horrible things to each other, often for horrible reasons (if indeed they have reasons). That is our nature. Shaft or be shafted.

Again, in your opinion. I simply don't agree with you. I refute your supposition.

Life is unfair, even at its most basic level. Is it fair that one man should be born more intelligent than another or more attractive than others?

Your question presupposes Dualism as a central tenet. I don't share your common ground. Sorry. That kinda renders your elaborations moot, too:

These initial inequalities continue to dominate our society and natures. Those with talents will almost always use them in order to benefit themselves at the expense of their fellows. People who you might term as 'good' will almost always end up on the receiving end of the boot, because those who you might consider 'bad' are always the ones who find it easiest to move through society, due to a lack of compassion, empathy or whatever it is that makes them 'bad' in your book.

See? You're barking up the wrong tree, ABC. I don't buy into good/evil, black/white, right/wrong on/off yes/no Dualism.

Thus, horrible things happen to the people who apparently don't deserve it. You can't make life not unfair, because you are not the master of random events or the master of other people's actions.

No, something horrible happened to this person because someone or other decided to mete out a judgement of sorts, to no-one's benefit, but to this man and his family's detriment. If his life is "unfair", as you like to put it, it's not simply due to an environment of all-pervading bleak misery or some osmosis of odiousness, it's because someone went well out of their way to rigourously apply an arbitrary set of so-called rules. As some people here seem to take a certain delight in pointing out, this behaviour is officially deemed "good" or "right" by those who care overmuch for discarded chocolates retrieved from the garbage. How forcing a man and his family to go without at this time of year can be either "good" or "right" points quite clearly to this Dualistic take on the Universe being altogether farcical.

This man knew (or should have known, ignorance is no excuse as if you are ignorant as to your job, you should always take steps to remedy it) that what he did was against company policy and he probably knew the likely consequences of breaking company policy. Thus he should not have acted in the way that he did and should not be suprised at his treatment. The fact that it was Christmas time is neither here nor there: the timing of the offence is irrelevant.

I disagree. The timing of his termination is of the utmost relevance.

The employee in question has learnt a valuable lesson: always to ask permission before removing the property (even the former property) of others. For his next job, he will keep that lesson in mind and perhaps benefit from it.

Gee, lucky him.

man oh man . . .why do you get up in the morning again?
:(


SportCenter

I just said love feels good. I actually am more comfortable knowing there is a logical motivation for the way people act.

I'd also like to say I don't particularly buy the school of thought, I've just come into contact with it.

man oh man . . .why do you get up in the morning again?
:(

But isn't it true? People derive satisfaction from seeing those they hate be hurt or fail, and also derive it from exacting revenge on those they percieve as enemies. Those, along with schadenfreude, are the darker "pleasures" of humanity...and the most destructive.

I disagree. The timing of his termination is of the utmost relevance

If so, then you are attaching emotive notions to what are simply days of the year that happen to be celebrated by certain parts of society. By attaching emotions to your judgement, you have rendered the judgement of little use.

If so, then you are attaching emotive notions to what are simply days of the year that happen to be celebrated by certain parts of society. By attaching emotions to your judgement, you have rendered the judgement of little use.
No, I'm applying fiscal and psychological reasons as to why this is a particularly stressful part of the year for people who may not share in your more constant sense of gloom.

Well at every retail and manufacturing place i have worked there are camera's covering the loading dock. This guy was working in that area according to the article. The way i read it there were two pallets of stuf or so... one for display in the store, one for disposal. They were also next to each other. If he was seen on camera taking produce and putting it in his bag the manager is well within their rights to call the cops, especially as he may not have know which pile was which at that time. Last year (Dec 18 to be precise) one of the girls i worked with was fired (she was 15 or so, been there 3 months) because she tried to buy some deli food (she worked in deli specifically) and made a mistake with the PLU. She put it through as something about $10 per kilo less than it was worth, she was picked up, and because she put it through for herself was fired for theft. If she had followed policy and gotten another staff member to do it then there would have been no issue, just would have had to pay the higher price. I dont know if she was trying to steal it, or if it was a genuine mistake (which it could have been - 1 digit difference) but due to not following policy the store had to assume it was theft.


Is this a fair policy to follow Dobbs? if not why not? if so would it change if it was a 22 yo with a child?

If she was committing theft she got everything she deserved, if she was just being careless she will remember for the rest of her life probably to follow corp policy.

Again, in your opinion. I simply don't agree with you. I refute your supposition.

So people do not do horrible things to each other?

I advise you go outside your front door. So many things to see and do. If not, then please read a history book and learn about the various wars, murders, torturings and general nastiness that make up the bulk of the last 10,000 years of human existence.

Shitty thing to happen to the guy but he violated the companies policy so really I see no fault in firing him.

ya but the guy didn't grab them off the shelf did he??? come on Read the article!!!!:headbang: .
I think you should read my fucking post and what I was quoting.

So if a corporation is evil when it fires someone, is it good when it hires them? Or do you just apply the "evil corporation" model universally, based on this one incident? Like most anti-capitalists do.
This incident: Zellers fired a guy for stealing garbage to feed his kids and give them a Christmas present.
Past corporation performances: A few months ago CN rail caused a huge toxic spill in a community and didn't do anything to help until it reached the media and hurt their image; GM constantly shuts down plants where communities have bought their cars and worked for them for decades despite huge profits; Insurance companies (do I need to say more); Nike gets its shoes made in China where employees make next to nothing and pay celebrities millions to advertise them then sell the shoes for over 100 per cent above the what it caused to make them.
Will provide more but my Dad is yelling at me to drive him somewhere. DOH :(

This incident: Zellers fired a guy for stealing garbage to feed his kids and give them a Christmas present.
Past corporation performances: A few months ago CN rail caused a huge toxic spill in a community and didn't do anything to help until it reached the media and hurt their image; GM constantly shuts down plants where communities have bought their cars and worked for them for decades despite huge profits; Insurance companies (do I need to say more); Nike gets its shoes made in China where employees make next to nothing and pay celebrities millions to advertise them then sell the shoes for over 100 per cent above the what it caused to make them.
Will provide more but my Dad is yelling at me to drive him somewhere. DOH :(

That didn't actually answer my question.

GM constantly shuts down plants where communities have bought their cars and worked for them for decades despite huge profits; Insurance companies (do I need to say more)

Those plants wern't productive or profitable enough for GM to keep running. They shut them down or outsourced them to maximize profit, which is the very backbone of our entire economy. Companies primary responsibility is to themselves and their shareholders; they don't exist to provide people jobs. And if you think GM has huge profits, you couldn't be more wrong. They're teetering on bankruptcy thanks to union labor's ridiculously large pension and healthcare demands.

Nike gets its shoes made in China where employees make next to nothing and pay celebrities millions to advertise them then sell the shoes for over 100 per cent above the what it caused to make them.:(

Those workers get paid less, that is true. However, that smaller pay goes a lot farther than it does in the US. $1 in China is worth a lot more than $1 in the United States, so there isn't really anything wrong with paying them much less than US workers. It's called purchasing power parity.

They can charge what they want for their product as long as demand exists. If you don't like it, don't buy them and force the price down through supply and demand... prices are high because people are willing to pay for them.

Those workers get paid less, that is true. However, that smaller pay goes a lot farther than it does in the US. $1 in China is worth a lot more than $1 in the United States, so there isn't really anything wrong with paying them much less than US workers. It's called purchasing power parity.
Bollocks. It's called focusing on profits to the exclusion of all else. And it's reprehensible at best.

Bollocks. It's called focusing on profits to the exclusion of all else. And it's reprehensible at best.

What's wrong with that? If they are breaking the law, then they are penalized. Otherwise, they aren't doing anything wrong but minimizing costs and maximizing productivity, which are a basic component of successful business.

What's wrong with that? If they are breaking the law, then they are penalized. Otherwise, they aren't doing anything wrong but minimizing costs and maximizing productivity, which are a basic component of successful business.
No, they're doing everything "right". By the books. All of that. So, what's wrong with it?

To paraphrase Bill Burroughs, "Just about everything".

No, they're doing everything "right". By the books. All of that. So, what's wrong with it? To paraphrase Bill Burroughs, "Just about everything".

If they didn't do it right, they'd go out of business.

So taking discarded chocolates from the garbage is justifiable cause for dismissal?

You people live in the coldest world imaginable. I've had to fire people, waaay back when - and I'd never even consider firing someone immediately prior to, or even immediately after, the Holiday season.

Think about it - if this guy has to dumpster-dive for bon-bons to give as gifts to his kids, he certainly isn't "flush" with money at a very stressful time of year.

Firing people over stupid bullshit is a recipe for inflicting family strife at best - and suicide at worst.

You Scrooge wannabes make me sick with your contractual obligations and your by-the-book approach to life. If you can call it "life", that is.
True ture. Many companies won't fire people at these times beause it leads to suicide!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, when I feel sick, I vomit. It just helps me feel better. It'll probably work for you too.

(And frankly, you're the spoiled one here, whining that he should be allowed to violate policy and law just cuz it happens to be Christmas.)
Maybe the guy wanted to take the chocolates so he could puke them up later at home and give his kids a hot Christmas dinner. Mmm vomit (drools). :)

That didn't actually answer my question.
Ooops. Nah they're evil either way because they just want to exploit the worker. The Proletariat Revoultion will be upon us in about 300 years. I can't wait. :rolleyes:

Ooops. Nah they're evil either way because they just want to exploit the worker. The Proletariat Revoultion will be upon us in about 300 years. I can't wait. :rolleyes:

The proletarian revolution failed once, and it will fail again. The vast majority of people are able to live quite well working for corporations, and these same corporations produce products that make our lives easier, more comfortable, and longer.

Those plants wern't productive or profitable enough for GM to keep running. They shut them down or outsourced them to maximize profit, which is the very backbone of our entire economy. Companies primary responsibility is to themselves and their shareholders; they don't exist to provide people jobs. And if you think GM has huge profits, you couldn't be more wrong. They're teetering on bankruptcy thanks to union labor's ridiculously large pension and healthcare demands.


Those workers get paid less, that is true. However, that smaller pay goes a lot farther than it does in the US. $1 in China is worth a lot more than $1 in the United States, so there isn't really anything wrong with paying them much less than US workers. It's called purchasing power parity.

They can charge what they want for their product as long as demand exists. If you don't like it, don't buy them and force the price down through supply and demand... prices are high because people are willing to pay for them.
Actually I was talking about around 10 years ago. (See movie Roger & Me).
RE: your comment on workers in other countries. Tell that to the children chained to the machines.

Actually I was talking about around 10 years ago. (See movie Roger & Me).

I've seen parts of it. The situation in Flint wasn't entirely GM's fault. It was the fault of the city and the unions as well; these plants were not efficent enough to continue operating profitably. Although the company was profitable, much of it came from GMAC, the financial wing of GM. Their automotive business was being stifiled by high-cost, low productivity union labor and they had to do that to make their company competitive.

RE: your comment on workers in other countries. Tell that to the children chained to the machines.

Companies aren't allowed to do that. If they do, they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law in their home country.

There is a distinct difference between grabbing candy bars off the shelf and stuffing them in your jacket and digging them out of the trash.

Sometimes. Walking off with product in a controlled enviornment is walking off with product in a controlled enviornment. I've laready mentioned the potential issues that come from trash fraud and the like. Internal theft tends to be a rather subtle thing, and it usually starts with very small violations of policy.

A store is deprived of what - three? four bucks, altogether - maybe, and maybe not, as this was discarded chocolate retrieved from the garbage - so it boils down to the store's rights to it's property, even property that has been discarded. They value their garbage more than an employee.

My question is, how do murder and rape have anything to do with this thread?

And btw, it's only as unfair as you allow it to be.

Soverignty over one's body cannot be removed from the concept of property rights. An individual has a say over how their body is used only because they are the final word in how their property can be used. The entire concept of modern western freedom, which includes both civil and women's rights, flows directly from an understanding that you own your body.

More to the point, I mentioned that there are bad people in the world who seek to do bad things, you disagreed, someone brought up rape and murder as to disprove your absurd assertion. You don't have to look very far into the etymology of the word "rape" to get a good idea of how it relates to the property rights which you seem to have such a deep disrespect for.

oh, and btw, don't give me that empowered socialist garbage about the world only being as unfair as you allow it to be. The world is a bad place, bad people generally have their run of it, and it doesn't matter how good of a person you are, theres a decent chance you'll be shat upon. Life isn't fair, it is cold and hard. Innocents are harmed and guilty men go free. Welcome to the real world, my advice is to buy a helmet and a gun.

dmn . . .um how bout love/hate neither of those is for personal gain and how would you explain them . . .also some of the baser emotions such as cowardice and guilt . . .if your philosphy is correct and everything is done for shelfish reasons then why do they occur

Umm...what? What do you mean that love and hate aren't selfish? Love is ALWAYS accompanied by the expectation or hope of happiness. There are non-monetary benefits that one seeks through love (sex, emotional support, security, companionship). Hate serves much the same purpose, with an end expectation of revenge or conquest over your "enemy." You hate because you believe that the object of your hate is detrimental to you.

man oh man . . .why do you get up in the morning again?
:(

More compelling evidence that denial isn't just a river in Egypt *ba dump ching*

Ooops. Nah they're evil either way because they just want to exploit the worker. The Proletariat Revoultion will be upon us in about 300 years. I can't wait. :rolleyes:

And once again, everyone smart enough, strong enough, or lucky enough to not be on an assembly line will put it down. The problem with socialism is that everyone above the 50th percentile has something to lose, and the higher up you go, the more you have to lose. It just so happens that the higher up you go the more power and resources you have, especially in a society with decentralized wealth (like a capitalist society). The proles get angry, they get arrested, they get violent, they get shot. Even if they somehow manage to win, they're never more than one generation away from a crop of savvy leaders who will take for themselves at the expense of everyone else.

And once again, everyone smart enough, strong enough, or lucky enough to not be on an assembly line will put it down. The problem with socialism is that everyone above the 50th percentile has something to lose, and the higher up you go, the more you have to lose. It just so happens that the higher up you go the more power and resources you have, especially in a society with decentralized wealth (like a capitalist society). The proles get angry, they get arrested, they get violent, they get shot. Even if they somehow manage to win, they're never more than one generation away from a crop of savvy leaders who will take for themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Hell, even assembly line people would put it down when they realize that they're now going to be paid the same wage as the shittiest, least productive worker in the place, and they have no incentive to work harder because they'll still be paid the same amount.

The proletarian revolution failed once, and it will fail again. The vast majority of people are able to live quite well working for corporations, and these same corporations produce products that make our lives easier, more comfortable, and longer.
That was a false proletatarian revolution. It was the vanguard of the proletariat which Lenin started because he didn't want to wait for the proper time in history as Marx predicted. :rolleyes:

That was a false proletatarian revolution. It was the vanguard of the proletariat which Lenin started because he didn't want to wait for the proper time in history as Marx predicted. :rolleyes:
Those damned communists have an excuse for everything don't they? Not the right timing, not the right proletariat, not the right implementation or leaders. I need to try some of those out on our customers when a delivery is late.

Satellite Photo Corp? I'm sorry, we can't deliver your antenna system on time because we just didn't have the right workers on the job.

That was a false proletatarian revolution. It was the vanguard of the proletariat which Lenin started because he didn't want to wait for the proper time in history as Marx predicted. :rolleyes:

Well, they've had plenty of time, and it appears to me that the proletariat has been by and large absorbed in to the middle class. I guess capitalism solved its own problem...

That was a false proletatarian revolution. It was the vanguard of the proletariat which Lenin started because he didn't want to wait for the proper time in history as Marx predicted. :rolleyes:

And the South shall rise again...

Alright... a few points to make.
1) The company was in the right to fire the employee. The product had been discarded, meaning it was no longer fit for sale or consumption. If the man had been allowed to take the product, and he, his children, or someone else had gotten sick from it, the company would have gotten sued for millions and millions of dollars by some ambulance chaser. In such a case, the company's reputation would have been seriously jeopardized, which poses a threat to future sales. The liability and possible negative effects of allowing the man to take the discarded product represented too great a risk for the company to take. Were it not for corporations constantly getting sued for one reason or another, this probably would not have been that big of a deal.

Now, one could say, "so what if the company loses a few million dollars? They're huge! They can take the loss.", but can they? That money is money that ISN'T going into annual employee raises. That money is money that ISN'T going into investment, which creates new jobs. That money is money that isn't being used to research new products, or research new technology to increase productivity, which in turn helps investment, which creates new jobs. Instead that money goes to one guy who will likely sit around all day and never work another day in his life. Way to go guy. People need to realize that just because a company brings in billions of dollars in revenue, doesn't mean they've got more money than they know what to do with. After costs, most profit margins are rather tiny, because raising prices drops competitiveness in an increasingly global and competitive market. A lot of times, when these companies get sued, that money doesn't just come out of nowhere, it comes out of funds that would otherwise be reinvested in the company.

2) The proletariat revolution will never come so long as humans are human. Human nature simply doesn't allow that kind of system to function without a huge authoritarian regime to enforce it, which kind of negates the point, doesn't it? Even then it requires the government to act against human nature. The "enlightened government" as Keynes put it will not come about until people as a whole can deny human nature, and at that point, it's unnecessary. The reall difference between communism and capatilism is who's screwing the people over. At least when it's the rich you get a nice middle class, some nice products, and efficient ways of doing things. The biggest part of equality in communism is the universal poverty outside the government.

Is it just me, or do communists sound like they have Battered Wife Syndrome? (not to belittle domestic violence, I'm just picking up the same pattern.)

No matter how violent and bloody each attempt ends up:

"It will work out the next time."

"It was just a bad situation. We'll make it work."

"We're just going to try harder and make a few changes."

Is it just me, or do consumerites sound like they have an overweening tendency toward validating rigid authoritarian hierarchical structures even when it is of no tangible benefit to do so?

Not to belittle - nahhhhhh, Hell with that, I will belittle those gormless, hopelessly materialistic and cynical ninnies. So there.

Is it just me, or do consumerites sound like they have an overweening tendency toward validating rigid authoritarian hierarchical structures even when it is of no tangible benefit to do so?

Not to belittle - nahhhhhh, Hell with that, I will belittle those gormless, hopelessly materialistic and cynical ninnies. So there.

Indictments against materialism seem to have somewhat less bite when they come through a medium that is firmly rooted in materialism, indeed, originally created to better defend capitialism against the socialists. The internet is available only to those with the wealth to afford a personal computer with internet access and the free-time to screw around, to those who are employed in a job that gives them a computer and access along with little enough work that they can screw around, or to those with the wealth to rent a computer and access from a small buisness owner so that they might screw around.

Indictments against materialism seem to have somewhat less bite when they come through a medium that is firmly rooted in materialism, indeed, originally created to better defend capitialism against the socialists. The internet is available only to those with the wealth to afford a personal computer with internet access and the free-time to screw around, to those who are employed in a job that gives them a computer and access along with little enough work that they can screw around, or to those with the wealth to rent a computer and access from a small buisness owner so that they might screw around.
Well, we all gotta start somewhere. I don't blame a kid for his parents being arseholes, after all. Anyway, that's an interesting opinion you're advancing. I don't happen to agree with your opinion, however.

Well, we all gotta start somewhere. I don't blame a kid for his parents being arseholes, after all. Anyway, that's an interesting opinion you're advancing. I don't happen to agree with your opinion, however.


Feel free to disagree and to use bold tags boldly.

Well, we all gotta start somewhere. I don't blame a kid for his parents being arseholes, after all.

Oh, I see.Because people work hard to provide for their kids, they are assholes.

Of course, doesn't said child have the option to say, "No, I won't indulge in your capitalist ways"? Especially once the child gets older and can actually study communism? Oh wait, there I go again wanting people to put their money where their mouth is.

Anyway, that's an interesting opinion you're advancing. I don't happen to agree with your opinion, however.

Its an interesting way of ducking the question you have. I am of the opinion that you really can't commit to this tripe because you really don't buy it.

Is it just me, or do communists sound like they have Battered Wife Syndrome? (not to belittle domestic violence, I'm just picking up the same pattern.)

No matter how violent and bloody each attempt ends up:

"It will work out the next time."

"It was just a bad situation. We'll make it work."

"We're just going to try harder and make a few changes."

Cruel, but funny, and true.

"Oh, it wasn't REALLY abuse..."

Oh, I see.Because people work hard to provide for their kids, they are assholes. No, you don't, really. See, that is.












Who said anything about working hard?

No, you don't, really. See, that is.

Then explain it. If you really have the first clue what you are trying to say, explain it. And stick to it. Don't try and back pedal. Tell me what you want to say. Don't talk down to everyone else like we're the idiots because you can't handle the English language.

When it was brought up that people work to buy computers for their kids, you said those people were assholes. You used a round about way, but you did indeed say those people were assholes.




Who said anything about working hard?


So, anyone with money didn't work for it?

Is this thread still sputtering along?

Honestly.

Don't you have some leftover turkey to contend with?

Is this thread still sputtering along?

Honestly.

Don't you have some leftover turkey to contend with?


Standing rib roast marinated in the tears of the proletariat on plates of solid money, actually...but I can eat and type.

I can eat and type. I'm talented. Its called multitasking.

So, feel like backing up what you said?

Pizza, here. Naw, it's just that this is getting incredibly old as thread topics go.

Couldn't help noticing Sutured Psyche answering when it seemed Penetrobe was the latest instigator of the perpetual Zellers/injustice thread, though.

If you're using puppets, I really don't care that much, all things considered, I just wish you'd pick an identity and stick with it, though. Less headache.

I can eat and type. I'm talented. Its called multitasking.

So, feel like backing up what you said?
No, I feel like talking about other stuff. You really wanna re-tread this? Here, I'll spare you the bother:

You win. Go on, jump up and down and sing praises to yourself, your skillful oratory, debating tactics, whatever. Kudos to you. You've so bored me that I'll concede, if only to make this thread die that much sooner.

Huzzah!

No, I'm not using puppets. I wish I could take credit for The Sutured Psyche's response.

So, you're going to talk about something else? Like how evil corporations are and how great communism would be? Because that would be pretty much the same conversation, you just want another thread to do it in.

*yawns*

Now, now - don't be a sore winner, nobody likes a gloater, after all...

I thought you were done?

Nobody ever really wins these things.

Pizza, here. Naw, it's just that this is getting incredibly old as thread topics go.

Couldn't help noticing Sutured Psyche answering when it seemed Penetrobe was the latest instigator of the perpetual Zellers/injustice thread, though.

If you're using puppets, I really don't care that much, all things considered, I just wish you'd pick an identity and stick with it, though. Less headache.


Nope, I'm as me as me can be. I mean, honestly, go take a look at my history, why would I ever use a puppet when I have no shame on my main account? ;)

I thought you were done?

Nobody ever really wins these things.


Thats the fun of internet pissing contests. Its like nuclear war but without the ugly side effects, like mutants and Mel Gibson.

note: not instigating the thread, just being snarky, feel free to disregard.

Thats the fun of internet pissing contests. Its like nuclear war but without the ugly side effects, like mutants and Mel Gibson.

Yeah, but there's no Thunderdome. That would be great in Moderation: "Twelve Posters go in, one comes out"...

[B]Fired for taking candy out of garbage for his kids

These corporations just don't get it. What a stupid thing to fire a guy for. Does Zellers know nothing about corporations. I guess not just look at the final quote from Hillary Stauth. Corporations care for nothing but the bottom line. Do not get fooled by their fake ploys of public relations when they do help out some charity, etc.
i think this is taking somewhat out of context, and i would say its actually justified cause (probably, i dont know the entire situation of course).
if youve ever worked in retail (i worked at a 'bigbox' hardware store), youd understand the kind of issue it is. the thing is i didnt need any sort of aproval to throw material out, if its unsellable, just write it off on the computer, and throw it out. so what if i were to write off things because i wantedthem, then go out to the dumpster behind work and pick them up after. sounds a little suspicious to me, not only that it sets a dangerous precedent.