Berlin cashier is flashpoint in capitalism row

[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.