Safeway Suspends Worker For Sci-Fi Parody of His Firing 191
theodp writes "After making light of a bad situation — Safeway's closing of its Chicagoland Dominick's grocery store chain and termination of 6,000 workers — with a satirical SciFi YouTube clip, Dominick's employee Steve Yamamoto found himself suspended just one day before the grocery chain closed up shop for good. 'My store manager got a phone call that she had to suspend me,' Yamamoto told NBC Chicago. 'I was like, "Are you serious?" It's crazy as it is. I'm just dumbfounded.' Perhaps Safeway was concerned that viewers of Yamamoto's video might think that aliens, robots, and monsters did Dominick's in, although the Chicago Tribune suggests financial machinations as a more likely culprit: 'By pulling the plug on Chicago [Dominick's], Safeway could not only satisfy [hedge fund] Jana, but also generate a $400 million to $450 million tax benefit.'"
Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think we all know what happens next. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think we all know what happens next. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, though that's partly because of their existing reputation. This kind of story could hurt a company that has a reputation for treating its employees well, and which finds that reputation valuable to maintain. Safeway doesn't really have that kind of reputation, and probably doesn't care. They don't have a particularly negative reputation either, more just one of a generic, faceless, bureaucratic employer, which this incident pretty much fits as you might expect.
ill fated satire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slow news day (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's on Slashdot because it's a nice anti-corporate story to stir up outrage. The hivemind loves those.
By the 'hive mind' do you mean common decency and respect, expectation of a human to treat another in a fair and balanced manner, and not kick them when theyr'e down? Ah yes, the 'hive mind'... You know, I think I'm alright to follow the mindless hordes who have some sense that people should be treated as well as possible, especially when they're in the process of losing their job through no fault of their own.
Tagging "hive mind" does not make things automatically wrong.
Re:Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations are definitely not there for the benefit of all. They're there for the benefit of those that own the corporation. That said, corporations that appear altruistic are such because their owners derive a benefit in the form of endorphins for the feeling that they're good people doing good things, while in reality it's very likely that they're simply willing to take less personal profit from the sum of their collective endeavors and interests. Should those people stop feeling like they're doing good, they may end the corporation or change its nature, so that it is no longer exhibiting altruistic appearances.
Greed cannot be eliminated from a society. The Soviets failed in large part because of this, they couldn't eliminate social stratification because when it finally came down to it, every individual is selfish as a survival trait and there's not a lot of reason to voluntarily give up advantages or resources that one has acquired.
I don't think that it's possible to eliminate greed or self-interest, that's completely against the nature of self-preservation. What I do think needs to happen is to put a dampener on how far one can go. During the Eisenhower administration the tax rate on the uppermost bracket of incomes was 91%. Ninety one friggin' precent. Yet, there were still obscenely wealthy people. It's time to define new upper income brackets. I don't have a problem with someone's five-million-and-oneth dollar being taxed at 90%.
If one modifies the tax code to make capital gains on investments count as income just like working for that income as wages is taxed, and then sets high tax rates on high incomes, I expect that a lot of the closing-for-profit types of schemes will curtail. If it's not profitable to buy a business to then dismantle it because one doesn't personally see the profits, then it's logical to see that less of it will happen.
Re:How dare they (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like they could suspend him after they let him go. Get real.
Re:Wrong question (Score:0, Insightful)
Very few people have a problem taxing other people into poverty for populist reasons. Doesn't make it a very good strategy, but it sure sounds nice in a speech!
Company Resources (Score:3, Insightful)
While the suspension really does seem unnecessary, my guess is that it came because it appears he was doing it on company time from some of the shots used. Technically it's a misappropriation of the companies resources. It's a bit of a bone headed thing to do since they were closing the shop anyway, but they were probably just following a standard procedure and could have gotten in to more trouble with previous people they had suspended if they didn't bother to do it, since people could claim that he was treated preferentially.
The entire situation is stupid, but that's unfortunately where getting employers forced in to mindlessly following written policy for fear of being sued for unequal treatment has gotten us. You have to document the penalty for everything and follow it to the letter no matter how stupidly it doesn't fit the situation or someone will sue.
Re:Slow news day (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy was suspended for a day.... Common I would hardly call that kicking someone when they are down. For all we know he might not even have been scheduled to work that day. So the guy is maybe out at most $100 in missed pay, bummer but I wouldn't call that cause for moral outrage. I do actually agree that this article was posted to incite anti-corporate feelings. That's why I asked the question, and that's why I suggested not shopping there if you don't agree with it. I really feel like this is petty shit compared to real abuses and what makes me upset is the people who are going to get all bent out of shape over this and complain about corporations treating people like shit using this as evidence. Corporations do treat people like shit, but its happening all around you in much worse ways than some guy getting suspended for a day. Be outraged about that.
Being laid off instantly qualifies you for unemployment after you wait the statutory required one week. Being suspended before the announced layoff date, even if it was only for one day, can fuck with the process, especially if the language used in the suspension does not specify a length of suspension, i.e., 'suspended indefinitely pending review'. Since he was scheduled for layoff anyway, no review will be made since he's not being brought back. You cannot collect unemployment if you are 'only' suspended. He'll have to waste time appealing his disqualification with the state, all the while his normal 26 weeks unemployment runs down.
I'd say Safeway fucked him pretty good there.
Re:Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
Losses are tax deductible. It is definitely worth it for less than 10%, and taxes do not change that.
It is so strange that across the western world you can pretty much avoid tax as long as you can prove that you gained the money without doing anything useful for it. As soon as the tax system thinks you may actually have developed a few beads of sweat on your forehead in the process of acquiring the money, you get hit hard.
People who get money for nothing are not going to stop getting money for nothing just because you start taxing their gains. In contrast, people who work for their money might not bother putting in that extra hour if they know that they will lose a good portion to the tax man.