Starbucks Fires Employee on Food Stamps for Eating a Sandwich from the Garbage

[MrModerate]

130. Being an optimist, I'm going to take this as a teachable moment . . .

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 03:12 AM - Edit history (1)

All the great leaders of civil disobedience movements — Gandhi, King, Savio, et al — even those folks serenading Walker in the Wisconsin capitol — have acknowledged that engaging in such acts can lead to unpleasant and sometimes deadly consequences (although usually no worse than arrest and detention).

That is a fact, the stating of which doesn't make me a fascist, or a martinet, or whatever you had in mind when you posted the response above.

The Starbucks employee is no more invulnerable because his need was intense than anyone else who engages in prohibited behavior. He violated health laws, put his employer at risk of legal sanction, endangered his own health, and broke his promise to follow the workplace rules of his employer.

Should both the employee and the supervisor have handled the incident differently? I certainly think so, and that's what I said in my original response. The employee should have asked first (before the food was classified as waste) and the supervisor should have counseled rather than disciplined.

But a pure heart and moral rectitude are lousy shields for the rock that falls on your head when you break the rules. Rules, incidentally, which are to everybody's benefit.