Portland OR Bakery fires employees for refusing service to black woman

[Axulus]

Hmm, maybe that is part of the problem in your worldview. The situation in the countries you describe has resulted in an outcome where people's only option is a boss that must keep them employed via force of government despite not wanting them or no work at all.




Those high unemployment rates in EU are nothing to brag about. Also, at will employment in Australia essentially exists except for a a required few week notice period. That really isn't all that different. Employers are generally not forced to keep an employee they don't want long term.

At will employment is a bizarre aberration, found only in the USA out of all of the developed world. That you cannot imagine how life could be without it just shows that you need to travel more.

It is the only situation that makes rational sense. An offer to hire an employee isn't and shouldn't be a lifetime offer or any other absurd long-term period.

I have lived and worked in Australia for over twenty years, and I can assure you that 'At will' employment most certainly does not 'essentially exist' here, despite the increasing and widely opposed 'casualisation' of the workforce.

If my employer wants to get rid of me, he either has to pay me a large redundancy payment (and is not allowed to replace me with a new hire); or has to go through a series of formal warnings (both written and verbal) that demonstrate my failure to perform adequately or safely.

Should he not be able to justify those warnings to a tribunal, he can be made to compensate me financially, or to re-hire me.

Your support of this system puts the most vulnerable people in society at risk. You worry about the people who will have a hard time finding another job after being let go too easily. In other words, a situation where few (no one else?) will hire the person.

Do you think making it very difficult to let them go will make it more or less likely for the one employer willing to take a chance on them to hire them in the first place? A chance no one else seems to be willing to make (otherwise letting them go really isn't that much of a hardship since other businesses will hire them). You seem to dismiss exacerbating the problem of long term unemployment, a problem affecting only the poorest/underclass in society, pretty casually.

I'm sure you haven't suffered from the problem of long term unemployment (being unable to find any job after actively searching 3 months or longer and willing to take any reasonable offer), so perhaps such a situation is foreign to you?

 

[bilby]

I have lived and worked in Australia for over twenty years, and I can assure you that 'At will' employment most certainly does not 'essentially exist' here, despite the increasing and widely opposed 'casualisation' of the workforce.

If my employer wants to get rid of me, he either has to pay me a large redundancy payment (and is not allowed to replace me with a new hire); or has to go through a series of formal warnings (both written and verbal) that demonstrate my failure to perform adequately or safely.

Should he not be able to justify those warnings to a tribunal, he can be made to compensate me financially, or to re-hire me.

Your support of this system puts the most vulnerable people in society at risk. You worry about the people who will have a hard time finding another job after being let go too easily. In other words, a situation where few (no one else?) will hire the person.

Do you think making it very difficult to let them go will make it more or less likely for the one employer willing to take a chance on them to hire them in the first place? A chance no one else seems to be willing to make (otherwise letting them go really isn't that much of a hardship since other businesses will hire them). You seem to dismiss exacerbating the problem of long term unemployment, a problem affecting only the poorest/underclass in society, pretty casually.

I'm sure you haven't suffered from the problem of long term unemployment (being unable to find any job after actively searching 3 months or longer and willing to take any reasonable offer), so perhaps such a situation is foreign to you?

I grew up in the North of England. I lost my job when the company I was working for folded after the 1987 stock market crash, and was out of work for over two years. I then had a variety of short term jobs interspersed with periods of unemployment until I left for Australia in 1994.

I have slept under bridges; been followed by benefits fraud investigators; and had a vast number of very poorly paid casual jobs doing hard labour in awful conditions, including working up to my knees in offal at a tannery, and up to my knees in mud on various building sites. I have loaded carcasses into freezer trucks at meatworks and gone home with my shirt full of blood; I have swept a floor the size of a football field at a printing press assembly facility.

I think I have a pretty good handle on what it's like to be unable to find work, and to do shit jobs for shit money.

 

[Axulus]

I have lived and worked in Australia for over twenty years, and I can assure you that 'At will' employment most certainly does not 'essentially exist' here, despite the increasing and widely opposed 'casualisation' of the workforce.

If my employer wants to get rid of me, he either has to pay me a large redundancy payment (and is not allowed to replace me with a new hire); or has to go through a series of formal warnings (both written and verbal) that demonstrate my failure to perform adequately or safely.

Should he not be able to justify those warnings to a tribunal, he can be made to compensate me financially, or to re-hire me.

Your support of this system puts the most vulnerable people in society at risk. You worry about the people who will have a hard time finding another job after being let go too easily. In other words, a situation where few (no one else?) will hire the person.

Do you think making it very difficult to let them go will make it more or less likely for the one employer willing to take a chance on them to hire them in the first place? A chance no one else seems to be willing to make (otherwise letting them go really isn't that much of a hardship since other businesses will hire them). You seem to dismiss exacerbating the problem of long term unemployment, a problem affecting only the poorest/underclass in society, pretty casually.

I'm sure you haven't suffered from the problem of long term unemployment (being unable to find any job after actively searching 3 months or longer and willing to take any reasonable offer), so perhaps such a situation is foreign to you?

I grew up in the North of England. I lost my job when the company I was working for folded after the 1987 stock market crash, and was out of work for over two years. I then had a variety of short term jobs interspersed with periods of unemployment until I left for Australia in 1994.

I have slept under bridges; been followed by benefits fraud investigators; and had a vast number of very poorly paid casual jobs doing hard labour in awful conditions, including working up to my knees in offal at a tannery, and up to my knees in mud on various building sites. I have loaded carcasses into freezer trucks at meatworks and gone home with my shirt full of blood; I have swept a floor the size of a football field at a printing press assembly facility.

I think I have a pretty good handle on what it's like to be unable to find work, and to do shit jobs for shit money.

Alright, I do believe you have had your struggles.

Now, a question. Do you think it would have been easier to find work if your prospective employers didn't have to make such a big committment to you? In other words, if hiring you meant they could change their mind if things didn't work out vs facing a huge burden if they wanted to let you go?

Which would you have preferred when you did all those interviews after such a long period of rejection? Didn't you want the opportunity to show the employer you were a good fit and allay whatever concerns so many of them had with hiring you rather then them being too fearful of taking a chance on you?

I know I would have preferred more opportunities even if it meant it was easier to let me go.

 

[bilby]

I grew up in the North of England. I lost my job when the company I was working for folded after the 1987 stock market crash, and was out of work for over two years. I then had a variety of short term jobs interspersed with periods of unemployment until I left for Australia in 1994.

I have slept under bridges; been followed by benefits fraud investigators; and had a vast number of very poorly paid casual jobs doing hard labour in awful conditions, including working up to my knees in offal at a tannery, and up to my knees in mud on various building sites. I have loaded carcasses into freezer trucks at meatworks and gone home with my shirt full of blood; I have swept a floor the size of a football field at a printing press assembly facility.

I think I have a pretty good handle on what it's like to be unable to find work, and to do shit jobs for shit money.

Alright, I do believe you have had your struggles.

Now, a question. Do you think it would have been easier to find work if your prospective employers didn't have to make such a big committment to you? In other words, if hiring you meant they could change their mind if things didn't work out vs facing a huge burden if they wanted to let you go?

Which would you have preferred when you did all those interviews after such a long period of rejection? Didn't you want the opportunity to show the employer you were a good fit and allay whatever concerns so many of them had with hiring you rather then them being too fearful of taking a chance on you?

I know I would have preferred more opportunities even if it meant it was easier to let me go.

It's routine to have a brief probationary period in a new job, at the end of which you can either be offered a permanent contract or not. Typically three months.

So no, it doesn't make a significant difference. And it's not necessary in order to get work that an employer should be able to fire longstanding employees without good cause.

 

[ZiprHead]

Your support of this system puts the most vulnerable people in society at risk. You worry about the people who will have a hard time finding another job after being let go too easily. In other words, a situation where few (no one else?) will hire the person.

Do you think making it very difficult to let them go will make it more or less likely for the one employer willing to take a chance on them to hire them in the first place? A chance no one else seems to be willing to make (otherwise letting them go really isn't that much of a hardship since other businesses will hire them). You seem to dismiss exacerbating the problem of long term unemployment, a problem affecting only the poorest/underclass in society, pretty casually.

Yes, let's make it easier to fire everybody because you care so much for the marginalized in society. For some reason, I don't believe you and think you're just making excuses for a shitty system.

 

[repoman]

 

[Axulus]

Your support of this system puts the most vulnerable people in society at risk. You worry about the people who will have a hard time finding another job after being let go too easily. In other words, a situation where few (no one else?) will hire the person.

Do you think making it very difficult to let them go will make it more or less likely for the one employer willing to take a chance on them to hire them in the first place? A chance no one else seems to be willing to make (otherwise letting them go really isn't that much of a hardship since other businesses will hire them). You seem to dismiss exacerbating the problem of long term unemployment, a problem affecting only the poorest/underclass in society, pretty casually.

Yes, let's make it easier to fire everybody because you care so much for the marginalized in society. For some reason, I don't believe you and think you're just making excuses for a shitty system.

I really don't care what you believe.

 

[Axulus]

I grew up in the North of England. I lost my job when the company I was working for folded after the 1987 stock market crash, and was out of work for over two years. I then had a variety of short term jobs interspersed with periods of unemployment until I left for Australia in 1994.

I have slept under bridges; been followed by benefits fraud investigators; and had a vast number of very poorly paid casual jobs doing hard labour in awful conditions, including working up to my knees in offal at a tannery, and up to my knees in mud on various building sites. I have loaded carcasses into freezer trucks at meatworks and gone home with my shirt full of blood; I have swept a floor the size of a football field at a printing press assembly facility.

I think I have a pretty good handle on what it's like to be unable to find work, and to do shit jobs for shit money.

Alright, I do believe you have had your struggles.

Now, a question. Do you think it would have been easier to find work if your prospective employers didn't have to make such a big committment to you? In other words, if hiring you meant they could change their mind if things didn't work out vs facing a huge burden if they wanted to let you go?

Which would you have preferred when you did all those interviews after such a long period of rejection? Didn't you want the opportunity to show the employer you were a good fit and allay whatever concerns so many of them had with hiring you rather then them being too fearful of taking a chance on you?

I know I would have preferred more opportunities even if it meant it was easier to let me go.

It's routine to have a brief probationary period in a new job, at the end of which you can either be offered a permanent contract or not. Typically three months.

So no, it doesn't make a significant difference. And it's not necessary in order to get work that an employer should be able to fire longstanding employees without good cause.

But now we are watering down the restrictions even more. Do we know whether these employees in the OP were new and therefore on a probationary period? Do we know what kind of severance they may have received?

 

[Emily Lake]

It seems like there should be some reasonable middle ground here, between at will employment (which sucks for employees) and the polar opposite (whatever the term for it is). As an employer, I want to be able to remove employees who aren't working out, don't meet expectations, or have become redundant. As an employee, I don't want to be fired on a whim or because my employer is an asshole. So split the difference: At-Will, but require a minimum of 3-month severance pay and continuation of benefits if the termination isn't with cause.

 

[Axulus]

It seems like there should be some reasonable middle ground here, between at will employment (which sucks for employees) and the polar opposite (whatever the term for it is). As an employer, I want to be able to remove employees who aren't working out, don't meet expectations, or have become redundant. As an employee, I don't want to be fired on a whim or because my employer is an asshole. So split the difference: At-Will, but require a minimum of 3-month severance pay and continuation of benefits if the termination isn't with cause.

Where are you coming up with 3 month severance and benefits?

Already in place, we have unemployment insurance and COBRA.

 

[Emily Lake]

It seems like there should be some reasonable middle ground here, between at will employment (which sucks for employees) and the polar opposite (whatever the term for it is). As an employer, I want to be able to remove employees who aren't working out, don't meet expectations, or have become redundant. As an employee, I don't want to be fired on a whim or because my employer is an asshole. So split the difference: At-Will, but require a minimum of 3-month severance pay and continuation of benefits if the termination isn't with cause.

Where are you coming up with 3 month severance and benefits?

Because it seems reasonable to me, and for no other reason. Most people will be able to find a different job within 3 months, and continuation of benefits is nice. I'm guesstimating that it's enough of a cost to the employer to reduce firing people all willy-nilly with no justification.

Already in place, we have unemployment insurance and COBRA.

Employment insurance only covers a portion of prior income, and COBRA costs a HUGE amount of money. So sure, maybe a person qualifies for unemployment, in which case they'll get something like 60% of their income... and they'll have to pay double or triple (or much higher amounts) for their health and dental coverage.

 

[laughing dog]

It seems like there should be some reasonable middle ground here, between at will employment (which sucks for employees) and the polar opposite (whatever the term for it is). As an employer, I want to be able to remove employees who aren't working out, don't meet expectations, or have become redundant. As an employee, I don't want to be fired on a whim or because my employer is an asshole. So split the difference: At-Will, but require a minimum of 3-month severance pay and continuation of benefits if the termination isn't with cause.

Where are you coming up with 3 month severance and benefits?

Already in place, we have unemployment insurance and COBRA.

COBRA requires payment which may be difficult for the unemployed. And unemployment insurance is spotty at best. In their current forms, neither is a panacea.

 

[Emily Lake]

In their current forms, neither is a panacea.

Minor side rail...

I know the actual definition of "panacea", but I cannot for the life of me stop myself from always reading it as being synonymous with "snake oil". It screws me up almost every time I see the word.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

It's a fire hazard to lock doors with customers inside. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the risk is obviously greater in a restaurant or bakery than a typical retail joint. Restaurants usually just say 'the kitchen' is closed. Plus you never know when one of the folks finishing their meal and waiting to be let out is the fire marshall, or the health inspector, or insurance inspector...

aa

 

[repoman]

It's a fire hazard to lock doors with customers inside. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the risk is obviously greater in a restaurant or bakery than a typical retail joint. Restaurants usually just say 'the kitchen' is closed. Plus you never know when one of the folks finishing their meal and waiting to be let out is the fire marshall, or the health inspector, or insurance inspector...

aa

I have only seen it done at a local drug store with a clerk or security attending the door.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That was done at a restaurant where I used to work. The manager would lock the door and leave her keys in them on the inside because it was key-turned by both sides. Then she watched the door. If someone came up, she said we were closed to any new customers and those in had been there before closing. If any customer was leaving, she'd unlock the door and open it for them to leave.

 

[JohnG]

Treating people differently because of their race is a hallmark of racism. It should not be defended, even if the perpetrators of this racism believe they are doing it for the right reasons.

Well, yes - that's what reverse racism is...racism. It's not good either. No one wants a pat on the head.

I can see it spreading among the so-called "progressives".

I don't. This is the first case I've ever heard of where there were serious ramifications like this. I hear about straight up racism almost on a daily basis without looking for it...but that's probably because I'm a twitter user and I work with a group of a dozen white males.

Fighting perceived racism with even more racism is not really a productive approach.

No argument here.

 

[J842P]

I work retail.As a matter of practice,lock the f$%king door a few minutes before close.Screw the last minute customer! I turn off the open sign and some of the lights 5 minutes before close. This is not about race. It is about poor store training by the owners.

How can you seriously suggest this isn't about race?

 

[Bomb#20]

Around here lots of store doors have asymmetrical locks -- when they're locked you can't get in from the outside without a key, but from the inside they just push open. That would appear to be an easy technological fix to the dilemma.

As to whether this is about race and whether the store owner's action was racist, the question is, would the owner still have fired the employees if they'd been black?

For a reasonable middle ground here, between at-will employment and the polar opposite, how about if instead of getting to sue for wrongful termination, the employees get to sue the bakery for constructive slander? Firing them now under these conditions damages their reputations, because it amounts to telling the world that the complainant was right -- that they refused her service because she was black; and the damage is done, notwithstanding the bakery's explicit statement that the employees did not necessarily do anything wrong, which is a nothing but a CYA disclaimer that's a day late and about 50,000 dollars short.

 

[fast]

Around here lots of store doors have asymmetrical locks -- when they're locked you can't get in from the outside without a key, but from the inside they just push open. That would appear to be an easy technological fix to the dilemma.

As to whether this is about race and whether the store owner's action was racist, the question is, would the owner still have fired the employees if they'd been black?

For a reasonable middle ground here, between at-will employment and the polar opposite, how about if instead of getting to sue for wrongful termination, the employees get to sue the bakery for constructive slander? Firing them now under these conditions damages their reputations, because it amounts to telling the world that the complainant was right -- that they refused her service because she was black; and the damage is done, notwithstanding the bakery's explicit statement that the employees did not necessarily do anything wrong, which is a nothing but a CYA disclaimer that's a day late and about 50,000 dollars short.

Why ask that question? Just accuse them of reverse racism for refusing to serve the white customers. Then, later, we can cancel out racism by showing they're racist against all races. So, the next time your question comes up, they can answer yes I refused her service precisely because she's black, and when they deny whites, they can do it for the same reason except that she doesn't like whites either.

That's actually a take-off from a time when I said, "no" when asked "you don't like black people do ya." An older black lady told him, "don't listen to him sweetheart; he don't like white people either." And I'm white! I was just joshing around because he had asked.

So, why can't we be racist towards everyone that decides they can walk in after close and make racial accusations. So long as we're equally racist regardless of race, it should work out just fine. Well, maybe not, lol.