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.'"
I think we all know what happens next. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any problem not shopping with them for an extended period of time.
If they want to get petty because a worker complained about them eliminating thousands of jobs in a public way (protected speech) and severely impact his ability to get unemployment (punish him) then I can punish them right back by removing several thousand dollars in revenue over the next couple of years.
I stick to it.
Nothing Apple. Ever. Fuck their walled garden freedom is what we tell you it is approach.
Walmart. Those people c
Re: (Score:3)
I cannot in good conscience boycott BJs. That's a rather important contribution to humanity and god bless those that make it happen.
we'll just shop lift more (Score:2)
by eating grapes and anything inside the shop, like bagging a bag of expensive nuts, and eating them while shopping, then by the time you get to the counter, bag empty, haha!
Can of redbull while shopping, yum, free too.
Re: (Score:2)
Just negative PR.
Employee makes dumb video about money-grubbing corporate behavior, money-grubbing corporate executives ignore video, a few dozen people see video and have a chuckle at their expense. Whole thing forgotten in a week.
Same situation, except money-grubbing executives foam at the mouth and demand "consequences" from employee about to get canned anyway. Mass media catches wind, hundreds of thousands of people see video, even more see news story. Safeway looks like typical corporate bully to e
Re: (Score:3)
I think the better decision is to not give any money to Safeway over the course of next year.
If enough people actually got together and boycotted Safeway for even 6 months, the effect would be noticeable on a revenue report.
While not enough to overhaul policies and get executives sacked, it should be more than enough to make some idiot executive think twice about getting publicly caught engaging in petty behavior against a lowly defenseless worker.
It's not as hard as you think to create a deterrent. Can't b
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'll never shop there again so... yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad press isn't enough to make people stop shopping somewhere. Look at McD, their profits have been growing. WalMart isn't doing bad. Sony is doing well. Google is doing amazing. God look at BP, they f
Re: (Score:2)
One can already do that via a lawsuit if they bring a strong enough case. Probably a more appropriate response by the government would have been to suspend their corporate charter for six months.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts always take forever.
There was never any doubt of BP's guilt in the matter. Long standing history of recklessness, lost lives, and rampant stupidity fueled by greed. They were lucky for too long, and their crap caught up to them. The cost was astounding this time.
Considering the sheer magnitude of the situation, I think the most appropriate response by the US would have been to suspend their corporate charter permanently and confiscate all assets the US could get their hands on.
The lawsuit should
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that something negative will happen because they suspended the guy? I really doubt there are any materially negative consequences for Safeway.
Actually, something negative could come as a result of firing this guy. I don't know if he is likely to contest the firing, but assuming he does suggest it was an illegal firing and wants to go through legal channels to challenge the corporation on this issue, he could end up as the only employee of the chain still technically employed in Illinois (for at least one more day effective as soon as the challenge is completed).
My mother-in-law was successful in challenging a termination at Wal-Mart (notorious f
Ah (Score:5, Funny)
I think I know why he was suspended -- half of the clip is the same couple of scenes remixed, and the typography is unoriginal. If I were the manager, I'd have yelled at him too for the low quality of the parody. It really just demonstrates a lack of dedication and attention to detail that I've come to expect from minimum wage workers in this country. I mean, if you're going to half-ass a parody, what else are you half-assing in your life, mmm?
Disclaimer: Snarky. If you take this post seriously, there's something wrong with you.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I know why he was suspended -- half of the clip is the same couple of scenes remixed, and the typography is unoriginal. If I were the manager, I'd have yelled at him too for the low quality of the parody. It really just demonstrates a lack of dedication and attention to detail that I've come to expect from minimum wage workers in this country. I mean, if you're going to half-ass a parody, what else are you half-assing in your life, mmm?
Disclaimer: Snarky. If you take this post seriously, there's something wrong with you.
Twenty years ago I would have never ever thought a grocery store worker being able to produce a SciFi clip with special effects to this degree would have been possible. Technology in the hands of the masses is also a great testament to our hard work.
Re: (Score:2)
Please post a link to a video with special effects created decades ago that a grocery store employee made.
Okay [imdb.com]...
Piffle (Score:2)
You had it right the first time, snark should never be done half ass. Quality snark is to be admired and held up as a thing to be beholden. You have to take pride in your work, how can you take pride in half ass snark?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but I *will* take this post seriously. He disparaged their trade name but the video did not rise to the level of parody (which is a *really* low bar to meet) or offer any entertainment value.
The whole concept was mocking the hardship that those laid off will suffer and that is not winning him any points either.
Re: (Score:2)
Statement. You've been playing too much Starbound.
Translation: Two per cent probability that the miniature organic is simply looking for trouble and needs to be blasted. That may be wishful thinking on my part, master.
Slow news day (Score:2)
If this makes you upset don't go to SafeWay anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
"Your Safeway manager never told you what happened to your father. Luke, you're Safeway's bitch."
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: (Score:2)
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 s
Re:Slow news day (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this...
1. Even losing $50 to someone with no work lined up could be a pretty big deal.
2. It's hard to tell but depending on how he was suspended it could hinder his ability to collect unemployment,
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, 9 years ago. I guess a stopped clock really is right twice a day.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not some anti-corporate rant. This is a corporation just being evil.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he wasn't fired first. Being fired before being suspended makes no sense. Closing a store would mean he's laid off, and since it's a big closing, there's federal laws in play (WARN act, among others) that require a certain notice period. During that time, he's still fully employed, and should be using the time to go look for another job, while his resume still says he's employed. If asked, he can simply say that the reason he's looking is because the store's closing.
The "evil" corporation made a symboli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases a lay-off isn't considered a termination. The employer just doesn't have any work for you to do. There is a presumption that if they sold the business next week and somebody wanted to re-open, they would call back these workers.
Except this guy, his employment was suspended when they shut down, so he probably would have to make it through some sort of disciplinary process before being called back.
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: (Score:2)
Not wrong, necessarily. But it is good for page views because the normal people will post predictable rants and replies without regard to context.
That's the hive mind that loves these stories. And, of course, those trying to beat sense into the senseless.
Re: (Score:3)
No, by "hivemind" I mean (in this case) the tendency to assume that anything a corporation does is bad, especially when it negatively impacts someone portrayed as an underdog, without consideration or understanding of the whole situation.
Yes, Safeway closed a store, putting 6000 people out of work. That's terribly sad. While 5,999 continue to be professional, and go on with their lives, and apply to new jobs, this guy started slinging mud at his still-current employer.
So what did Safeway do, on behalf of th
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't one assume that? Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit. Corporations have no honour. They do what it takes to make a buck for their shareholders. Any positivity for anyone else is a radioactive, feel good afterglow in the shadow of the rich getting richer. Some people believe that making a profit at their expense, is for the most part, bad. You r
Re: (Score:2)
Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit.
Nope. There is no such "legal responsibility". Corporations are required to do whatever their corporate charter says, and they have great leeway in justifying any action as being within that charter. In short, the executives usually have to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the only way to determine the shareholders' interests is by a vote. Without such a vote, the executives can do anything that's otherwise legal.
Corporations have no honour.
Neither do people who make offensive "comedy" videos.
the reasons why corporations cant take comedy is...
...because the "comedy" direct
Re: (Score:2)
Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit.
Nope. There is no such "legal responsibility". Corporations are required to do whatever their corporate charter says, and they have great leeway in justifying any action as being within that charter. In short, the executives usually have to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the only way to determine the shareholders' interests is by a vote. Without such a vote, the executives can do anything that's otherwise legal.
More of a fiduciary requirement for the execs to make sure the corporation makes money. Otherwise, the shareholders vote the board of directors out and put somebody who will make them money in their place. That's why you see short-term strategies that puff the shit outta the bottom line right now being followed rather than long-term strategies that insure mediocre but continual profits over the years, even if those short-term strategies fuck up the long range profitability.
Re: (Score:2)
The fiduciary duty of executives is to always act in the corporation's best interests. Again, that is simply whatever's in the charter, and there's still a wide range of what can be done. It is absolutely legal for the executives of a publicly-traded corporation to donate all profits to charity. Per the company's charter, it may even be required. If the shareholders don't like it, they can call a vote to replace the executives, as you noted, but that's unlikely to be successful. It's easy enough for the CEO
Re: (Score:2)
That is true for corporations generally. Most "corporations" are privately traded. Public companies have a whole different set of requirements related to the stock being a financial investment. If the charter of a public corporation says differently, those sections are probably invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Publicly-traded companies have more reporting requirements, but they still can't ignore their charter.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but what they've done here is completely pointless, and potentially cost him dearly, because he was a bit sarcastic about being fired! I mean, who hasn't reacted like that? Must we graciously bow to our employers even when they throw us on the street? They've taken time out of what must be a very busy period with all the admin and wrapping up to target this guy. It's petty, and vindictive.
Safeway have *failed* their employees. By closing a store they have admitted that they cannot effectively run a bu
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck un-Safeways. People are not slaves even when they are workers and they are by law entitled to their opinion. Fuck un-Safeways and anyone else that would use economic extortion to steal people free speech rights. Double fuck double speak, stealing people's rights never ever protects other people's rights.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, however, that the guys ultimately responsible for the failure of Dominick's won't suffer one bit. On one hand you have 6,000 people losing their jobs, on the other hand you have the managers from Safeway who are ultimately responsible for the failure - and those guys always have their golden parachutes at the ready.
Re: (Score:3)
What it boils down to is that people would rather pay $1 for a loaf of bread from WalMart than $1.20
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Two weeks of paid vacation. A bit more money for working on Sundays?
That's "generous"?
I shudder to think what non-generous work is, then. Probably "no vacation, ever!" and "overtime compensation? Are you dreaming?"
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Two weeks of paid vacation. A bit more money for working on Sundays?
That's "generous"?
I shudder to think what non-generous work is, then. Probably "no vacation, ever!" and "overtime compensation? Are you dreaming?"
Non-generous would be Wal-Mart where you get 34 hours a week which makes you temp worker with no vacation, benefits, or overtime. You can't go work for anybody else because they've all been put out of business by Wal-Mart's low prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Safeway isn't exactly a Mon'n'Pop and I doubt that each individual store negotiates with the wholesaler separately.. And contrary to the conservative talking points, labor is a tiny contributor to the retail cost. How many man hours do you honestly think it took to put that loaf on the shelf?
Of course they would have a somewhat easier time if the conservative agenda would quit allowing Walmart to use SNAP as a payroll subsidy.
What you call generous benefits used to be considered the minimum standard.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's on Slashdot because it's a nice anti-corporate story to stir up outrage. The hivemind loves those.
When you grow up, you might find yourself working for a corporation. Then you will be glad at whatever little outlets for your emotions the world permits you.
This is a crass over-reaction to a silly video on YouTube and it shows just how pompous and arrogant corporations (and those with power in general) tend to become. Satire is necessary for a free society.
I have no sympathy for Safeway (if this is
Re: (Score:2)
Cute... but I currently work for a Fortune 100 company, at almost the bottom of the hierarchy. Oh yeah, and my facility is closing. I'm intimately familiar with the process.
Please, do keep telling me about life working for corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
The part that is news is the tax benefit for closing a business. Between the NSA and the IRS, you're average working joe in America is really screwed.
Open mouth, insert lawyers (Score:4, Interesting)
Had Safeway just ignored the video and let this guy go with the other 5999, we'd probably have never even heard of it except maybe as some footnote in a local broadcaster's "Quick! We've got 20 seconds to fill, what can we do with it?" at the end of the 11pm news. Instead, by firing him like this, they've likely opened themselves up to a wrongful termination/retaliation lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
they've likely opened themselves up to a wrongful termination/retaliation lawsuit.
Probably not. He was fired before he made the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well, anyone who pays attention to "Anonymous Coward, esq." deserves the consequences.
So how serious is this (Score:2)
Suspended isn't fired or is it for the purposes of being eligible for unemployment?
Is this just a one day's pay slap on the wrist or is it costing this guy big? Is just HR silliness or is a nasty grab at avoiding one more headcount on their unemployment experience tax figures?
Re:So how serious is this (Score:5, Informative)
CBS Chicago [cbslocal.com]: "The move could prevent Yamamoto from getting about three weeks' severance pay, he says."
Re: (Score:2)
Right,
One of life's little lessons. Always wait until the last check clears before you tell people what you really think.
ill fated satire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're fired! And suspended too! (Score:2)
Don't worry SafeWay PHBs (Score:3)
I'm sure the video will never go viral.
Google at fault? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if Safeway would have learned of the identity for the poster had Google not coerced "Steve Yamamoto" to post non-anonymously in some flawed attempt to elevate the failed status of Google+.
Wonder why the manager complied (Score:3)
Presumably the manager who was told to suspend the guy was about to be fired too. You have to wonder what would have happened if they had agreed, then "forgot" to actually carry out the suspension. By the time corporate figured out the guy hadn't actually been suspended, both he and the manager would probably have been fired already anyway.
Or better yet, this situation is crying out for a work-to-rule. "Sure, I'll go start the official suspension process immediately. Hmm...now where are those forms policy says I have to use...?"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
He dared to criticize the overlords (Score:4, Interesting)
It wasn't enough to merely fire him and his 5999 coworkers. They made an example out of him.
That's power.
He'll do fine in Video/Film Special effects (Score:2)
For a guy doing this in his copious spare time this is a funny vid. It's not something Safeway wants on YouTube for sure, so I'm sure they're sending a letter to Google now to remove it.
When Safeway takes over. . . . (Score:2)
It's a lot like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGR4-SeuJ0&list=PL528026B4F7B34094 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Banned Cameras (Score:5, Informative)
This is the same company that had upper management trying to ban cameras in the bakery department lest their cakes appear on Cake Wrecks. They tried to argue that their cakes are copyrighted and thus taking photos of them is copyright infringement. http://www.cakewrecks.com/home/2012/11/9/ways-to-play-it-safe.html
Fashion over facts (Score:2)
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.'
The Chicago Tribune is stunningly disconnected from reality then, and is just blaming the billionaires out of habit or to pander t
If you support his cause, click that link! (Score:2)
Even if you don't want to watch it, I want the company heads to say "Sweet jeebus, that video got 93 quadrillion views!" Let them think they're in for the PR shitstorm of the century and maybe they'll make things right with this guy. (If not, I hope he sues and wins.)
Bonus: Click the "Like" button.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyLReexjEco [youtube.com]
PS: The video is actually pretty good.
less than 15% cimetery (Score:2)
I understand this is another instance of finance destroying viable business
Investors want 15% of ROI. Any profitable business that generate less than 15% will be dismembered to extract money. Financial industry just destroy anything not profitable enough, even if it is useful to society. This is capitalism destroying itself.
Dominick's: How to flush a thriving competitor (Score:2)
Basically Safeway are the bastards who crashed the company.
Dominick's was fine in and through the mid and late 80's. They actually competed in the area and were, arguably, neck and neck with the other major competitor in the area, Jewel/Jewel-Osco.
After the founder's son died, his heirs simply didn't have the know-how or desire to run the company properly and cashed out to Safeway.
Safeway basically stopped trying to compete almost immediately. There's been ONE major branding change, when they went to the
Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
During the Eisenhower administration the tax rate on the uppermost bracket of incomes was 91%.
It wasn't. There were plenty of loopholes to knock that rate down. For example, one could form a trust and protect their wealth from both income and estate taxes.
Just one thing.... (Score:2)
While there technically was a 91% Tax bracket, that single fact in no way communicates the reality of the situation. There were loopholes big enough to drive a Maybach through, and everyone did so. The
While Middle Class (Score:2)
Pay more than double both the upper and lower classes
Re: (Score:2)
. 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.
Very few people actually paid that percentage (mainly athletes and entertainers who couldn't get out of it). So if you're really confused why people were still 'obscenely wealthy,' you know why.
Re: Wrong question (Score:2)
Regarding the 91% top marginal tax rate, it is now generally recognized that most income in that bracket was "tax avoided" through various legal and illegal means.
Good evidence for this was that after the "Kennedy Tax Cut" that reduced the top marginal rate from 91% to 70% passed in early 1964, total income tax revenues rose in 1964 and 1965.
We should keep in mind that the IBM S/360 was only announced in 1964. The Federal Government had little power to analyze tax avoidance schemes, and likely there was li
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation losses aren't deductible. You don't get to adjust your basis price for inflation.
The Fed takes its 2% of the value of all cash holdings every year, if their stated goals can be believed.
Re: (Score:2)
Either you have no idea how tax brackets work, or else you didn't read my post thoroughly.
I set the scenario for new tax brackets, and my example of a 90% bracket starts a $5,000,001 in income and above. That doesn't mean that all if your income is taxed at 90%, it means that all income above $5,000,000 is taxed at 90%.
If $5,000,000 is your idea of upper-middle class, then I really don't know what to say. I tend to transi
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need to double everyone's pay? Why not, for example increase the assistant manager's pay to $25 and the general manager's to 40$. They still make quite a bit more then the burger flipper while any increases in the cost of living would be covered by their raise. They are not going to starve if they no longer make X times the amount their lowest paid employees make.
Re: Wrong question (Score:3)
A great natural experiment on this is the North Dakota shale boom.
In Williston, ND, one of the highest grossing McDonalds in the US does pay $15/hour, but the Big Mac costs $1 more than the US average.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple (Score:2)
The government allows them to write it off as a $400 million dollar loss. This "fake loss" then balances out the $500 million profit they got from selling off their Canada division.
In other words.... (Score:2)
Without that tax write off, they likely would not have closed the stores. They probably would of tried to sell them for say a $100 million. In which case they might have been kept open by new owners.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree this kind of financial and tax system abuse needs to be stomped out, but paying the employees "for life" is ridiculous.
Re:How dare they (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like they could suspend him after they let him go. Get real.
Re:How dare they (Score:5, Informative)
AC, I know you were being facetious, but it did seem a bit petty to suspend the employee the day before he was to be laid off anyway, didn't it?
It's not like they could suspend him after they let him go. Get real.
But by suspending him the day before he was laid off, they CAN fuck with his unemployment benefits in most states. Illinois is NOT a 'right to work' state, so I don't know what the procedure is. In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal. THAT one got pulled on me, and I got screwed outta my unemployment until my 6 months of 'regular' unemployment expired and I then qualified for the 13 week extension.
Re: (Score:3)
In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal. THAT one got pulled on me, and I got screwed outta my unemployment until my 6 months of 'regular' unemployment expired and I then qualified for the 13 week extension.
Wow, that's just messed up. I assumed -- for no particular reason, apparently -- that they all did it like my state: state DHR sends questionnaire to former employer who can fill it out if they fired the employee for some reason they wish to elaborate on, otherwise no response means they're not contesting payment of UI. Works out better for most employees, since most bosses -- like everyone else -- don't want to do extra work like filling out a state form. Boss doesn't need to do anything special other than
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have an appeals process? I live in Florida, and had an employer fire me and dispute my unemployment claim last year, so of course I challenged it because the firing was totally without merit. I had a perfectly clean record with HR, so the state didn't e
Re: (Score:2)
In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal.
They don't have an appeals process? I live in Florida, and had an employer fire me and dispute my unemployment claim last year, so of course I challenged it because the firing was totally without merit. I had a perfectly clean record with HR, so the state didn't even think twice before ruling in my favor. Given that they suspended him the day before they were going to lay him off, I think he could probably make a reasonable case that Safeway suspended him in order to avoid the unemployment claim, regardless of the video.
Yeah, there is an appeals process, but no way to coerce the former employer to provide details other than faxing in a letter saying the employee was 'terminated for cause'. Since it's right-to-work, that's all they have to say. The less they say, the better for them if they get sued for wrongful termination or some such. And even if you win your appeal, you are not likely to get 'back pay' for the weeks of unemployment you were required to file for but were unpaid for during the appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is stacked against the poor or anybody needing assistance in AZ. That's just AZ, has nothing to do with "right-to-work" or anything else. A lot of people move to AZ for a job, and AZ would just rather they move when they lose it.
Re: (Score:2)
In Washington, neither I or my last employer responded to the state, so they defaulted in my favor.
Re: (Score:3)
INAL but I think that might be foolish. He has to show harm in a civil suit like that. As it is documented he was going to be terminated the following day anyway the harm is only going to be whatever severance he might have been otherwise getting and a day's wages, possibly an agreement to provide a good reference which he might just as easily arrange with they sympathetic store manager himself.
He might come out ahead if he also gets awarded legal fees, but risks having to pay his attorneys retainer if he
Blowing off steam by showing stuff blown up (Score:2)
Yeah, the guy dissed the people letting him go. Dock him a day's pay. Mr Corporate Big Shot, show yourself to be . . . really small.