Saw this on Fark and, as usual, the libs over there don’t understand why this guy was fired:

Whole Foods fired Ralph Reese for taking a tuna fish sandwich. But was it misconduct? It is a question that matters. Anyone fired for misconduct is denied unemployment benefits.

Whole Foods argued that Mr. Reese, 57, of Queens, tried to steal a sandwich by taking it from the trash at the end of his shift as a deli clerk at the Union Square Whole Foods on Nov. 9. The company’s policy is that food cannot be taken without being paid for, though employees receive a 20 percent discount.

(snip)

Initially, New York State ruled that the tuna sandwich episode was misconduct, based on Whole Foods’ statement about the trash. In New York, as in other states, employers’ unemployment insurance rates are based on the amount of the benefits their former workers collect — giving them an incentive to limit the number of employees who receive unemployment.

Mr. Reese challenged the ruling in January. “I knew what they said was wrong,” said Mr. Reese, who earned $11.50 an hour.

His version of the story: He was throwing out 30 sandwiches at the end of the shift, and he put the tuna sandwich aside on the counter in plain view. When the supervisor confronted him about it, he said it was going to be thrown out and he was going to eat it.

The supervisor then threw the sandwich out.

Two days later, Mr. Reese was fired.

Mr. Reese had worked at Whole Foods for two years. He had transferred to the deli department from the grocery department, where his previous supervisor had allowed employees to take damaged food. “They can’t sell them,” Mr. Reese said. “They can only write them off as a loss. That is why they throw them out. That is why they don’t mind giving it to us.”

Mr. Reese said that he had never fished the sandwich out of the garbage, and that he openly admitted that he was planning to eat it. “That’s why I had to take it to court,” he said. “I couldn’t let them get away with that.”

Ok, before I get into explaining this, and at the risk of putting the tea-smoking hippies into shock, let me first say this: they were wrong to fire him. One instance of minor misconduct like this does not justify termination (now if it were a major incident, like sticking his penis in the sandwich and then giving it to a customer, that’d be a different story). He is entitled to collect unemployment under the circumstances, or at least under the circumstances as he claims them to be. However, he did, by his own admission, violate a policy of the company. At most he should have been giving a written warning, but a verbal warning, documented in his file, would probably have been enough (and, having been a manager in years past, that is the route I would have taken).

Now, having said all of that, let me point out that it’s basically a standard practice for most, if not all, food service businesses to say that any extra food is to be thrown out, no exceptions. It’s almost always in the employee policy manual (that booklet they give you when they hire you and have you fill out the paperwork and tax forms). Just because a former supervisor let him do it all the time (which means the supervisor routinely broke the policy and is the one that really deserves to be fired) doesn’t make it ok.

Now, you may ask, why do food service places put such a policy in place? Why would they not let employees eat this food rather than throw it out? I know, it sounds wasteful, but in reality it isn’t, because it leads to less food being thrown out in the long run.

I know, it doesn’t make sense, but hear me out. Just think about it for a second: if you were an employee of such a place and you knew the policy towards extra food was that employees could eat it, what would you do to ensure that there was indeed extra food around for you to eat? You’d make more than you’d need, thereby ensuring you’d have something to eat come quitting time. Companies put these policies in place to deter employees from doing this and, in the long run, save food. It also saves the company money and keeps them profitable and in business.

I was in restaurant management for about twenty years, I know this to be true. I’ve seen it done. To be honest, my first job (during my high school years) was at a local fast food place (closed several years ago), and they allowed us to eat any extra food. You better believe we took advantage of that, being high school kids. We ALL made extra food just so we could have something to munch on during the shift. And that’s the reason these policies are in place, to keep people from snacking on the company’s dime.

You could argue that rather than throw the food out they could give it away to some homeless shelters or whatever. Some businesses do that, but most don’t because the amount of food wasted isn’t enough to justify saving it, packing it up, and hauling it off to a shelter. Plus, the food has a limited shelf life and probably wouldn’t be fit to eat once it got there (if you’ve eaten at a fast food joint of late, it’s barely fit to be eaten on the spot when it’s fresh, so you know what I mean).

Now, as I already said, one incident like this isn’t enough to justify firing someone. They have to have a string of offenses already documented (disciplinary forms of various sorts). You have to be able to show/prove that a) they knew the policy (which is why they are made to sign a policy manual), b) they were warned about it on previous occassions, and c) they still violated it, knowing what it could lead to. None of that seems to be the case here.