It wasn't about the cookie
Not The Onion
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
But to even think of using it as an excuse..
In Norway/most of Europe a lawyer would've had a field day with this case.
At will employment baybeee
its not an accident, they often use this excuse to get rid of legacy employees in other industries so they dont have to pay them more down the line, like when they retire or they are set to get more in investments in thier retirements, or thier salary is too high or thier insurance is costing them too much, they just got caught with thier hand in the cookie jar.
especially him being 60, likely will retire in 5ish years, ford likely knew that and trying to get rid of him now, but someone in managment made a mistake, and miscalculated when they should get rid of him.
they are like testing the waters with the 60yo, then they can apply it to other employees.
If I had to guess, I'd say we're way past the "testing" stage and doing this at industrial scale. This just happened to be the kind of egregious implementation of policy that trickles into the news cycle.
For every Kurt Kromm, I'll bet there's a dozen employees fired due parking tickets or misentered vacation or failure to meet some impossible milestone in they're performance plans. More traditional and acceptable routes for firings.
This was just a particularly lazy, sloppy execution
It's worse without unions, but setting expectations beyond capacity and pointing a camera at points of failure is key to a good turnover rate.
If you're looking at 300-400% turnover then you don't really end up with that sort of issue in the first place.
It’s 100% some new eager to the position/role security kid who hasn’t made any progress so they chose to pick on the tiniest infringement to be able to get a nickel raise at the end of year.
Even if he did steal this cookie, imagine valueing your employees so little.
Imagine having cookies in the break room that you have to pay $2 for... wtf.
I've gone through psych evals in corporate hiring that ask a bunch of bullshit "would you steal a penny to feed a starving orphan" questions, intended to weed out anyone with an ounce of conscience.
They mostly just teach you to lie to your boss
Jesus Christ. Should've followed it up with the question, "why is the company purposely withholding a penny when it could be used to feed a starving orphan?"
It's like with overly strict parents; the only thing they are teaching their kids is how to lie and sneak around
What the fuck
Johnny Cash enters the chat...
Well, it's a '49, '50, '51, '52, '53, '54, '55, '56, '57, '58, '59 automobile
It's a '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70 automobile
Why isnt there free cookies in the breakroom?
Why are they nickle and diming employees for snacks that give them the energy to do their job well and full?
$1.95 is more than a nickel and a dime... that's a profit center for several people in the supply chain.
Inflation about to hit our lexicon.
At my last job they have a policy of people who retire are allowed to cash out Extended Illness Bank (EIB) hours at full hourly wages if you are over a certain age and have a certain number of years with the organization. The bank is maxed max out at 400 hours.
One day I was in HR working for a reporting meeting. An employee who was less than a month from hitting the age/tenure threshold was being fired for a miniscule reason.
Yep. I remember having to temporarily sit at the desk of some department head to address a network problem, whose desk was covered in paperwork involving some poor custodian who was asking for a medically necessary limited period of light duty as a result of a work-related injury, and this director's handwritten notes all over it, with shit like "if she can't do the job she shouldn't be here, let's draw a line under this," etc. It was clear exactly what they were getting at; they ALL knew the law, hence the handwritten notes and vague language. The casual nature of it was revolting.
At a previous job the general manager was trying to coach me on how to talk to people who had been hurt on the job, in an attempt to talk them out of going to the ER or urgnt care for treatment. I never had to do it, but my intent was to do the opposite of that if I was ever put in that situation. I can lie too, assholes.
That company went out of business in 2024.
sounds like the one in the article, and an another story i heard years back. a a stewardess was 60-70+yo in her airline job, and the airline accused her of stealing and fired her, she was earning 200k+/year plus other benefits, and she was on the verge or retiring. they knew what they were doing. they are probably figure people wouldnt notice and she would accept it, or they mightve calculated the potential lawsuit costs of firing her.(using this as a template to fire people before they even have a chance to sue).
At one point in my life, I coveted and desired to own a Ford above all else.
Today, I can proudly say I have never owned a Ford, and I will NEVER own a Ford. Ford has become an exceptionally shitty company in the past decade or more. For all the history they have, I hope/desire/wish they will cease to exist in the near future.
There always used to be a joke in the UK about Fords being cheap on the second-hand market. You could get parts easily, so they were cheap to maintain, as well. But you'd see the ads saying 50k miles, new clutch, new exhaust, new CVs, bearings, etc. because they fell apart all the time. This was back when Japanese cars were proving to the world how reliable cars could be. Nobody I knew wanted a Ford, though some people got them if they were really cheap.
Someone round my way has a Capri, I've seen it driving around a few times. Looks like early 80s, I have no idea how they've managed to keep that fucker alive. Actually looks in pretty good condition too.
He gets a new one each time he needs to drive.
They really had some great marketing hold on young people.
They didn't fire him for stealing the cookie. They fired him because he's old and probably earning twice what a new hire who could do his job would earn. The cookie was just an excuse.
Every employer, big and small, has a collection of petty rules on the books that are only there to be enforced against people they want to get rid of "justifiably" and not have to pay unemployment.
Who puts cookies in the break room and expects you to pay for it.
It's cookies.
They're cheap.
Treat your workers.
Treat your colleagues.
Edit: very curious to hear the mindset of the few down voters of this.
My current company contracts someone to keep a few fridges and shelves in the break room stocked with higher grade convenience-store style food. The prices are pretty cheap, so I suspect they actually lose money on the deal. If I grabbed some food and just walked away with it, that would technically be stealing. I doubt they would confront me about something that small, though. Ford is obviously wrong to fire someone over a cookie.
It always seemed like a no-brainer to me to provide subsidized food for expensive salary workers who may be willing to work unpaid overtime if they don’t have to leave to get dinner, at least from a logic self-serving point of view.
60-year-old
That's why. I guess Ford won't have to pay him some retirement package.
they did it to soon, most of them try to get rid of the employee months before they become 65
You don't just fire a $200k worker over a $2 cookie without looking for a reason to fire them.
200k+year is the reason, they just try to obfuscate by saying it something else, and stealing is the easiest to accuse and harder to prove. they probably expect the person to accept it and not lawyer up, because lawyers are expensive.