Berlin cashier is flashpoint in capitalism row

[Skandi]

A Berlin cashier who was sacked from a supermarket after 31 years of service because her employer accused her of stealing 1.30 euros (1.15 pounds) has become a flash point of a debate about unchecked capitalism in Germany. Skip related content


At least here they can't sack you until they have proof of the theft

more (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090226/tod-oukoe-uk-germany-cashier-d987f7f.html)

[SwordoftheVistula]

I don't think it is 'unchecked capitalism' to not force people to continue to employ people who steal from them. True, it was a small amount, but how much should one be allowed to steal before they get fired? Also, this was probably not the first time this happened, it's possible she just pocketed a handful of change every day for the past 31 years and nobody ever noticed before.

[Beorn]

Big corporations deserve to have their profits stolen from them.

Without the benefit of knowing the full story, I would say the years of dedicated service should act on her side when faced with a trivial matter such as this.

I bet the manager cashed up incorrectly and is looking for an excuse.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Big corporations deserve to have their profits stolen from them.

Without the benefit of knowing the full story, I would say the years of dedicated service should act on her side when faced with a trivial matter such as this.

I bet the manager cashed up incorrectly and is looking for an excuse.

Yeah I know it's one of those things *everyone* in those type of jobs does, but still the company should be able to fire you if they catch you, or else it would get totally out of control.

[Lady L]

Big corporations deserve to have their profits stolen from them.

Without the benefit of knowing the full story, I would say the years of dedicated service should act on her side when faced with a trivial matter such as this.

I bet the manager cashed up incorrectly and is looking for an excuse.

I agree with you. :) One time while working at a gas station the guy there doing inventory with his little machine came behind the counter and saw my cigarettes and lighter and asked me " if I paid for them..? " :rolleyes2: I looked at him like he was stupid and said " Sure did " :rolleyes: I noticed while working in these kind of places gas stores, grocery stores, sometimes the employees get totally mistreated. Possibly even worse than a McDonald's teenager...:rolleyes: Innocent until proven guilty right..?


SOV-Yeah I know it's one of those things *everyone* in those type of jobs does, but still the company should be able to fire you if they catch you, or else it would get totally out of control.

What do you mean everyone does...?? And, sure if they catch ya can ya! Otherwise I'm out the door now to work at the local bank...:wink

[Beorn]

Yeah I know it's one of those things *everyone* in those type of jobs does, but still the company should be able to fire you if they catch you, or else it would get totally out of control.


True. When I worked at Lidl, I would let customers have half their shopping for free; let shoplifters go unnoticed, steal from the register by way of sneaky processes.... and so on, but I knew I wasn't going to be there for 30 odd years working my ass off for the big man in a suit.

This woman may have stolen a sum which is, (and let's be honest here), a paltry amount - not even enough to buy a bottle coke from the store - and tossed upon the unemployment scrapheap as if 30 years of dedication was nothing.

There would surely be a call for common sense in that situation in countering what is and what isn't viable grounds for dismissal in an attempt to stamp out petty theft.

[Loki]

Cashiers earn a pittance. It's not enough to make a living from even. This system is utterly corrupt and ludicrous. It needs a radical overhaul, but instead our corrupt governments use our tax money to fund wealthy organisations and keep the rest of us in debt.

[Vulpix]

I think an employer needs proof of theft, otherwise it could be just an easy excuse to fire someone without any redundancy benefit or even a setup devised by another employee. By the way you have to be really desperate to bother to steal such a paltry sum..

[Treffie]

"I don't understand how a cashier can be fired because of 1.30 euros while managers who lose billions of euros can keep their jobs," Seehofer told a rally in Bavaria on Wednesday.

It does tend to put things into perspective though, doesn't it?

[SwordoftheVistula]

This woman may have stolen a sum which is, (and let's be honest here), a paltry amount - not even enough to buy a bottle coke from the store - and tossed upon the unemployment scrapheap as if 30 years of dedication was nothing.


Cashiers earn a pittance. It's not enough to make a living from even. This system is utterly corrupt and ludicrous. It needs a radical overhaul, but instead our corrupt governments use our tax money to fund wealthy organisations and keep the rest of us in debt.


I think an employer needs proof of theft, otherwise it could be just an easy excuse to fire someone without any redundancy benefit or even a setup devised by another employee. By the way you have to be really desperate to bother to steal such a paltry sum..

If you can't fire someone for stealing, what can you fire someone for? If you have someone working in a position where they handle money, you have to have a high level of trust in the person, and if you catch them stealing the only sensible action is to fire the person. This situation also begs the question as to what sort of person would work the same bottom-level position for 31 years. At any rate, these type of jobs are easy come/easy go, they are easy to find since they pay so low, so if someone gets fired from one it's not the end of the world. Comparisons to the overall economic crisis don't match up since it wasn't supermarkets that caused the economic collapse.

[Revenant]

Most workplaces have to give one or two warnings before they fire. If they don't then they must have it displayed prominently in their mission statement/charter or in the terms of employment. As a employee you should try and keep up to speed with whichever is relevant to your particular workplace.

I personally would give someone like this the benefit of the doubt more so if it's a long standing employee but the chances are good they've done it before and they'll do it again. Stealing from an employer means you lose their trust and for some, in cases that involve cash handling, that's just too bigger liability to have around.

[Beorn]

This situation also begs the question as to what sort of person would work the same bottom-level position for 31 years.

I'd presume a very loyal hard working person. :)


What I found interesting is it isn't actually money she is accused of stealing.

"...the 50-year-old who has become a German cause celebre denies the charges that she kept bottle deposit receipts worth 1.30 euros."

So it wasn't actual money, but pieces of paper?

[SwordoftheVistula]

I'd presume a very loyal hard working person. :)


What I found interesting is it isn't actually money she is accused of stealing.

"...the 50-year-old who has become a German cause celebre denies the charges that she kept bottle deposit receipts worth 1.30 euros."

So it wasn't actual money, but pieces of paper?

Oh, now I think I see what's going on. In Germany, they have a 25 cent bottle deposit, but to get it back, you need to bring the receipt with the bottle back to the place where you bought it. So, I guess what she was doing was keep all the receipts that people don't take for whatever reason, then later go out and find a bottle to match the receipt and cash that in, easy way to pick up an extra couple Euros/day. That does seem a lame reason to fire someone, but still you have to allow them that right to do so, or else it gets out of control with the cost and hassle to get of employees. If she's that good of a worker, she'll be able to find other employment. Also, if it's like the US, the unclaimed bottle deposit money goes to the government, and they probably have strong fines & sanctions to anyone who violates procedure, so the company probably has to cover its ass by having strict rules against trying to game the bottle deposit system.

[Jamt]

This situation also begs the question as to what sort of person would work the same bottom-level position for 31 years.

This situation also begs to question what sort of person not even a mother can love.

[SwordoftheVistula]

But guaranteed mandatory employment? I don't think anyone should have that.

[Jamt]

Society will always be result of balances among groups and interests. Anything else is fantasy. There is nothing anywhere as mandatory employment, just as there is no mandatory private corporation.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Well, if it's not mandatory employment, then they are entitled to release her for any or no reason, including putting this bottle deposit money into her own pocket.

[Vulpix]

If you can't fire someone for stealing, what can you fire someone for? If you have someone working in a position where they handle money, you have to have a high level of trust in the person, and if you catch them stealing the only sensible action is to fire the person. This situation also begs the question as to what sort of person would work the same bottom-level position for 31 years. At any rate, these type of jobs are easy come/easy go, they are easy to find since they pay so low, so if someone gets fired from one it's not the end of the world. Comparisons to the overall economic crisis don't match up since it wasn't supermarkets that caused the economic collapse.

I don't think you've read my post correctly. I said that an employer needs PROOF of theft.

[Lenny]

I don't think there is anything wrong with someone working a low-level job for their whole working life as this woman has. [If "Barbara Emme" didn't do it, "Fatima Hussein" would be imported to do so.:rolleyes2:]

Work does not define one's life; whatever one's occupation and salary, one can always make life meaningful.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I don't think you've read my post correctly. I said that an employer needs PROOF of theft.

I don't think that should be needed. This isn't a legal proceeding, this is just one part of the employment relationship deciding to discontinue the relationship. Firstly, it is hard to 'prove' someone is stealing, they'd have to put up cameras, which could be expensive and might not work anyways, and they don't have police powers to go searching for evidence (searching employees & their houses, cars, etc), and I don't think we want to give them these police powers either. Also, since you can (maybe not in Germany) fire/lay off employees for a myriad of other reasons, or no reason at all, it would be ridiculous to require some sort of legal proceeding to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' that someone stole. It's like if someone comes over to my house, and at a later point in time I notice something missing...I can't PROVE he stole it, and as such if I call the cops they won't do anything...but I'm not going to let that dude into my house again. So requiring a company to prove theft before firing someone is both overly burdensome to the employer (and impossible in many cases) and pointless since the employer can just fire the employee for some other reason.

[Skandi]

I don't think that should be needed. This isn't a legal proceeding, this is just one part of the employment relationship deciding to discontinue the relationship.
That's just silly;
If no proof is needed what is to stop an employer firing somebody because they didn't like the colour of their eyes?
There has to be protection for the workers, and yes it IS a legal proceeding, she can sue for unfair dismissal and they for theft.

Most supermarkets have cameras anyway, and they are not needed, One of the staff where I work was dismissed for theft and we never got her on the camera, but after three supervisor had caught her that was enough. (we also found the money on her) However there would have been a problem had she been a longer term member of staff.

[SwordoftheVistula]

That's just silly;
If no proof is needed what is to stop an employer firing somebody because they didn't like the colour of their eyes? There has to be protection for the workers, and yes it IS a legal proceeding, she can sue for unfair dismissal and they for theft.

Well, if an employee is fired for an illegal reason like racial/gender 'discrimination' (I guess eye color could be racial/ethnic 'discrimination', then it is up to her to prove in the legal proceeding that she got fired for an illegal reason. It doesn't make sense for the company to sue her for the theft since it is a handful a change, even if they claimed an estimated amount of a larger sum gained from taking a handful of change every day for years, it still wouldn't be worth it, and she probably doesn't have any money anyways, it's only worth the bother to sue for theft if it's a really huge sum. The only reasonable course of action for the employer to cut their losses and fire the employee that's stealing from, and if they had to go to a legal proceeding every time they fired an employee for any reason, they types of places like supermarkets which tend to have a high employee turnover. Presumably, if you need to go through a legal proceeding to fire someone for a major infraction, you'd also have to go through one to fire people for trivial infractions like showing up late, missing work, slacking off, using internet/phone for personal use, or just screwing up the job. They'd run up a huge expense in legal bills every time they wanted to get rid of an employee, with the end result being that many would decide it's not worth the legal expense to hire employees, and the country will as a result have high unemployment.


One of the staff where I work was dismissed for theft and we never got her on the camera, but after three supervisor had caught her that was enough. (we also found the money on her) However there would have been a problem had she been a longer term member of staff.

This is where having to go through a legal proceeding to fire someone for theft would be a problem-she'd just claim that the supervisors are lying, and that when the money was found on her she was illegally searched and thus this can't be used as evidence, and/or that she just happened to have a sum of money on her and this was not the money missing from the store. The store might still be able to fire her since they had 3 different supervisors, but it's still be costly to the store to go through the legal proceeding, retain the barristers/solicitors to deal with the proceeding, have the supervisors take off work to go testify in the proceeding, and so on.