Safeway Suspends Worker For Sci-Fi Parody of His Firing

theodp writes "After making light of a bad situation — Safeway's closing of its Chicagoland Dominick's grocery store chain and termination of 6,000 workers — with a satirical SciFi YouTube clip, Dominick's employee Steve Yamamoto found himself suspended just one day before the grocery chain closed up shop for good. 'My store manager got a phone call that she had to suspend me,' Yamamoto told NBC Chicago. 'I was like, "Are you serious?" It's crazy as it is. I'm just dumbfounded.' Perhaps Safeway was concerned that viewers of Yamamoto's video might think that aliens, robots, and monsters did Dominick's in, although the Chicago Tribune suggests financial machinations as a more likely culprit: 'By pulling the plug on Chicago [Dominick's], Safeway could not only satisfy [hedge fund] Jana, but also generate a $400 million to $450 million tax benefit.'"

Comments

I think we all know what happens next.

[Presto Vivace]

How many of these incidents will it take before corporations work out that ignoring your critics is usually your best strategy.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[EMG at MU]

Are you implying that something negative will happen because they suspended the guy? I really doubt there are any materially negative consequences for Safeway.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[Trepidity]

I agree, though that's partly because of their existing reputation. This kind of story could hurt a company that has a reputation for treating its employees well, and which finds that reputation valuable to maintain. Safeway doesn't really have that kind of reputation, and probably doesn't care. They don't have a particularly negative reputation either, more just one of a generic, faceless, bureaucratic employer, which this incident pretty much fits as you might expect.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[Presto Vivace]

What I mean is that video, which otherwise would have been lucky to get 50 views, will now soar to the top of social media.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[TheRaven64]

And what happens as a result? Will anyone stop shopping at Safeway? Or will it get a little bit of a brand recognition boost?

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[swb]

Just negative PR.

Employee makes dumb video about money-grubbing corporate behavior, money-grubbing corporate executives ignore video, a few dozen people see video and have a chuckle at their expense. Whole thing forgotten in a week.

Same situation, except money-grubbing executives foam at the mouth and demand "consequences" from employee about to get canned anyway. Mass media catches wind, hundreds of thousands of people see video, even more see news story. Safeway looks like typical corporate bully to everyone who catches wind of it, executives look like feckless, humorless idiots, PR types run in circles reinforcing fecklessness that everyone believed to begin with but now they really believe it.

So much simpler to ignore it.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[Charliemopps]

Well, I'll never shop there again so... yes.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[EMG at MU]

Materially negative consequences. You probably don't spend enough money there to make a difference, nor would it make a difference if 100 of us stopped shopping there. In a short amount of time this will blow over like every other corporate transgression and 99% of everyone will forget about it and move on.

Bad press isn't enough to make people stop shopping somewhere. Look at McD, their profits have been growing. WalMart isn't doing bad. Sony is doing well. Google is doing amazing. God look at BP, they fucking killed cute little sea creatures and they are once again a money printing machine.

Consumers are idiots. You may not be but that still isn't going to deter bad corporate behavior.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[EdIII]

I don't have any problem not shopping with them for an extended period of time.

If they want to get petty because a worker complained about them eliminating thousands of jobs in a public way (protected speech) and severely impact his ability to get unemployment (punish him) then I can punish them right back by removing several thousand dollars in revenue over the next couple of years.

I stick to it.

Nothing Apple. Ever. Fuck their walled garden freedom is what we tell you it is approach.
Walmart. Those people can suck a bag of hairy dicks.
Iomega. They've been running a data recovery scam for years by creating the worst fucking NAS on the planet and then charging you thousands of dollars for data recovery when their shitty product fails.
Sony. Want to try to destroy my freedom so your soulless executives get a few more extra bucks? Not one penny of my money.
Paypal. A criminal organization that has stolen millions upon millions from unsuspecting suckers by performing fraud themselves, and creating marketplaces that only encourage it.
GoDaddy. Fuck You. That's Why.
Google. I don't care how fucking shiny it is. You're not harvesting my privacy to make you richer.
Facebook. Ditto bitches.
Sprint. Sue me for non-payment on an account with my social when your security and fraud problems are well known? Yep. Bag of Dicks on the way...
Entertainment and Music industries. Not one fucking dime ever. If you want to declare war over a broken business model due to evolution in how we exchange and work with data as a people and attempt to destroy our privacy and freedom to maintain power and money..... just kill yourselves. You're worse than HIV.

I'm sure they're are others.

My point is that there are plenty of very principled people that have a long history of voting with their wallets.

I don't need to vote for politicians. I just need to deny my money to those that would harm me and others being dickheads. That's actually effective in the long run.

It's not like I have to refuse to give my money to BlockBuster anymore right?

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[EdIII]

I think the better decision is to not give any money to Safeway over the course of next year.

If enough people actually got together and boycotted Safeway for even 6 months, the effect would be noticeable on a revenue report.

While not enough to overhaul policies and get executives sacked, it should be more than enough to make some idiot executive think twice about getting publicly caught engaging in petty behavior against a lowly defenseless worker.

It's not as hard as you think to create a deterrent. Can't be done with apathy though.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[NormalVisual]

All of BP's assets should have been seized at an international level by the US, auctioned off, and the proceeds distributed to all of those affected, including non-US citizens and affected areas.

One can already do that via a lawsuit if they bring a strong enough case. Probably a more appropriate response by the government would have been to suspend their corporate charter for six months.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[Teancum]

Are you implying that something negative will happen because they suspended the guy? I really doubt there are any materially negative consequences for Safeway.

Actually, something negative could come as a result of firing this guy. I don't know if he is likely to contest the firing, but assuming he does suggest it was an illegal firing and wants to go through legal channels to challenge the corporation on this issue, he could end up as the only employee of the chain still technically employed in Illinois (for at least one more day effective as soon as the challenge is completed).

My mother-in-law was successful in challenging a termination at Wal-Mart (notorious for treating employees like dirt and running roughshod over employee rights). After going to a judge and being reviewed under case law, she was not only reinstated, but put serious egg on the face of her immediate supervisor for failing to even follow company policy and other related issues.

I don't know if this guy has a case, but it seems to me that it would have been better to simply let the clock run out and let him get laid off with everybody else at the story rather than make his employment situation any different.... and forced to pay back pay for time when he was capable of working but couldn't. It sounds like this guy doesn't really care, so this speculation is all irrelevant if he just moves on to another employer and doesn't even bother with giving references to this particular store.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[EdIII]

I cannot in good conscience boycott BJs. That's a rather important contribution to humanity and god bless those that make it happen.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[EdIII]

The courts always take forever.

There was never any doubt of BP's guilt in the matter. Long standing history of recklessness, lost lives, and rampant stupidity fueled by greed. They were lucky for too long, and their crap caught up to them. The cost was astounding this time.

Considering the sheer magnitude of the situation, I think the most appropriate response by the US would have been to suspend their corporate charter permanently and confiscate all assets the US could get their hands on.

The lawsuit should be a criminal one in which US prosecutors prove (ample evidence provided) that the executives knew they were operating dangerously and onsite engineers raised safety concerns several times. Throw them in GITMO for 20 years.

I understand people say that is too extreme, but that's bullshit. If I kill 5,000 people tomorrow with a home made bomb, the government is going to come after me something fierce. Deservedly so.

So why let these executives off when they killed people, harmed the environment on an unprecedented scale, and harmed economies of multiple countries?

Just how much damage *does* it take for you to get on board with my seemingly strict punishment?

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[gl4ss]

If enough people actually got together and boycotted Safeway for even 6 months, the effect would be noticeable on a revenue report.

so they would just get another tax break.

seriously, can anyone explain how can they be getting a 400 million tax break for closing down stores?

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[grumling]

Hopefully this will get the creator some much needed exposure and land him a new job in the graphics department.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[grumling]

Or... perhaps the stores weren't generating enough foot traffic to justify keeping them open. Retail is a dog eat dog world and not running a tight ship will get you eliminated fairly quickly.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[Compaqt]

Well, the store's being closed, so it wouldn't matter about giving a reference anyway.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[dywolf]

It may interest you to know that BP isn't an american company, and in fact, the B is for British. As in British Petroleum.

Re:I think we all know what happens next.

[Teancum]

If you wanted to get a positive reference, you would need to list the corporate headquarters. So yes, getting a reference for a future employer would be important in this situation although like I said it seems like this particular employees doesn't care.

The tricky part is that some employers get nasty if you don't list all previous employers and could use that as a violation of the employment contract when you get hired on in the first place. It is a situation of reading the fine print of a job application form and knowing what the hiring policies of the company you are trying to apply at. If necessary hire a lawyer to make sure of stuff like this in your own particular situation. Generally a resume has no presumption that the list of employers is exhaustive, but be prepared to explain any significant gaps in your employment history.

Wrong question

[frovingslosh]

It isn't a question of ALLOWING it. It is a question of REWARDING it. Just more proof that the government is not working for the benefit of the people anymore.

Re:Wrong question

[TWX]

Government is a function of the society, not necessarily there for the benefit of all.

Corporations are definitely not there for the benefit of all. They're there for the benefit of those that own the corporation. That said, corporations that appear altruistic are such because their owners derive a benefit in the form of endorphins for the feeling that they're good people doing good things, while in reality it's very likely that they're simply willing to take less personal profit from the sum of their collective endeavors and interests. Should those people stop feeling like they're doing good, they may end the corporation or change its nature, so that it is no longer exhibiting altruistic appearances.

Greed cannot be eliminated from a society. The Soviets failed in large part because of this, they couldn't eliminate social stratification because when it finally came down to it, every individual is selfish as a survival trait and there's not a lot of reason to voluntarily give up advantages or resources that one has acquired.

I don't think that it's possible to eliminate greed or self-interest, that's completely against the nature of self-preservation. What I do think needs to happen is to put a dampener on how far one can go. During the Eisenhower administration the tax rate on the uppermost bracket of incomes was 91%. Ninety one friggin' precent. Yet, there were still obscenely wealthy people. It's time to define new upper income brackets. I don't have a problem with someone's five-million-and-oneth dollar being taxed at 90%.

If one modifies the tax code to make capital gains on investments count as income just like working for that income as wages is taxed, and then sets high tax rates on high incomes, I expect that a lot of the closing-for-profit types of schemes will curtail. If it's not profitable to buy a business to then dismantle it because one doesn't personally see the profits, then it's logical to see that less of it will happen.

Re:Wrong question

[amorsen]

Losses are tax deductible. It is definitely worth it for less than 10%, and taxes do not change that.

It is so strange that across the western world you can pretty much avoid tax as long as you can prove that you gained the money without doing anything useful for it. As soon as the tax system thinks you may actually have developed a few beads of sweat on your forehead in the process of acquiring the money, you get hit hard.

People who get money for nothing are not going to stop getting money for nothing just because you start taxing their gains. In contrast, people who work for their money might not bother putting in that extra hour if they know that they will lose a good portion to the tax man.

Re:Wrong question

[supercrisp]

A lot of people don't seem to understand how tax brackets work, nor do they read closely. Mr. Anonymous Coward is a good example. Let's take a look: "I don't have a problem with someone's five-million-and-oneth dollar being taxed at 90%." If the 90% tax bracket kicks in at five million dollars, the first dollar earned after five million would be taxed at 90%. You'd only get a dime on it, and Uncle Sam would get 90 cents. Everything earned by that would be taxed at the lower rates of the lower brackets. The first 50k would still be taxed at less than 15%. That's not "in poverty."

Re:Wrong question

[zippthorne]

Inflation losses aren't deductible. You don't get to adjust your basis price for inflation.

The Fed takes its 2% of the value of all cash holdings every year, if their stated goals can be believed.

Re:Wrong question

[khallow]

During the Eisenhower administration the tax rate on the uppermost bracket of incomes was 91%.

It wasn't. There were plenty of loopholes to knock that rate down. For example, one could form a trust and protect their wealth from both income and estate taxes.

Re:Wrong question

[daem0n1x]

How do you tax a billionaire into poverty, asshole?

Re:Wrong question

[phantomfive]

. During the Eisenhower administration the tax rate on the uppermost bracket of incomes was 91%. Ninety one friggin' precent. Yet, there were still obscenely wealthy people.

Very few people actually paid that percentage (mainly athletes and entertainers who couldn't get out of it). So if you're really confused why people were still 'obscenely wealthy,' you know why.

Re:Wrong question

[jythie]

Well, the burger flippers are subsidizing the wealthy already, it is not that unreasonable for them to want things scaled a little more in their favor.

Re:Wrong question

[Kreplock]

Not only that, I don't see it demonstrated anywhere that the gov't will do society any more favors with additional funds than any random wealthy bastard already does. I hate rich people as much as the next prole, but I'm self-aware enough to be thankful for a good job given to me by a set of wealthy private citizens who happen to own a multi-national corporation that needs a few 100 databases taken care of. The last thing I want is some gov't initiative (that probably won't accomplish anything) putting the screws to wealthy people who actually (begrudgingly, not generously) provide decent jobs. If someone were to shoot the current fiscal monstrosity masquerading as gov't with a few silver bullets then maybe I'd consider what good Washington might accidentally do. We should be getting a lot more for what guv already spends, and they label you insane if you even mention balancing the budget. That crew does not qualify for additional tax receipts.

Re:Wrong question

[TFAFalcon]

Why would you need to double everyone's pay? Why not, for example increase the assistant manager's pay to $25 and the general manager's to 40$. They still make quite a bit more then the burger flipper while any increases in the cost of living would be covered by their raise. They are not going to starve if they no longer make X times the amount their lowest paid employees make.

Re:Wrong question

[TWX]

You just eliminated the upper middle class from making any stock investments.

Either you have no idea how tax brackets work, or else you didn't read my post thoroughly.

I set the scenario for new tax brackets, and my example of a 90% bracket starts a $5,000,001 in income and above. That doesn't mean that all if your income is taxed at 90%, it means that all income above $5,000,000 is taxed at 90%.

If $5,000,000 is your idea of upper-middle class, then I really don't know what to say. I tend to transition out of upper-middle class into wealthy somewhere in the annual income of $200,000 to $500,000 per household range, depending on the cost of living in one's area.

Re: Wrong question

[TheSync]

Regarding the 91% top marginal tax rate, it is now generally recognized that most income in that bracket was "tax avoided" through various legal and illegal means.

Good evidence for this was that after the "Kennedy Tax Cut" that reduced the top marginal rate from 91% to 70% passed in early 1964, total income tax revenues rose in 1964 and 1965.

We should keep in mind that the IBM S/360 was only announced in 1964. The Federal Government had little power to analyze tax avoidance schemes, and likely there was little political will to actually prosecute powerful rich people for tax cheating.

Re: Wrong question

[TheSync]

A great natural experiment on this is the North Dakota shale boom.

In Williston, ND, one of the highest grossing McDonalds in the US does pay $15/hour, but the Big Mac costs $1 more than the US average.

Re:Wrong question

[amorsen]

Local inflation does not matter when making investment choices. The choice is: either I keep the money in my pillow and earn 0% safely, or I invest it and earn X% with a risk. Inflation being -10% or 200% does not change whether the investment is worth doing.

Re: Wrong question

[slackware 3.6]

Because the manager works harder and is more responsible because he makes more money. Lower the managers wage and he will do less and everything falls apart. I was a foreman for a smaller construction company before I started my own business. I would have quit if I wasn't making way more than the others. Why you ask. Because I could never miss a day, I worked longer hours (up to usually 60-80 a month) if any of my subordinates screwed up I was responsible and got yelled at.

Re: Wrong question

[TFAFalcon]

The manager would still be making way more then everyone else. And if he was working more hours, he'd be making even more - the pay is per hour.

Re:How dare they

[fyec]

AC, I know you were being facetious, but it did seem a bit petty to suspend the employee the day before he was to be laid off anyway, didn't it?

Ah

[girlintraining]

I think I know why he was suspended -- half of the clip is the same couple of scenes remixed, and the typography is unoriginal. If I were the manager, I'd have yelled at him too for the low quality of the parody. It really just demonstrates a lack of dedication and attention to detail that I've come to expect from minimum wage workers in this country. I mean, if you're going to half-ass a parody, what else are you half-assing in your life, mmm?

Disclaimer: Snarky. If you take this post seriously, there's something wrong with you.

Re:Ah

[MonkeyDancer]

I think I know why he was suspended -- half of the clip is the same couple of scenes remixed, and the typography is unoriginal. If I were the manager, I'd have yelled at him too for the low quality of the parody. It really just demonstrates a lack of dedication and attention to detail that I've come to expect from minimum wage workers in this country. I mean, if you're going to half-ass a parody, what else are you half-assing in your life, mmm?

Disclaimer: Snarky. If you take this post seriously, there's something wrong with you.

Twenty years ago I would have never ever thought a grocery store worker being able to produce a SciFi clip with special effects to this degree would have been possible. Technology in the hands of the masses is also a great testament to our hard work.

Re:Ah

[Anonymous Coward]

The Amiga existed in 1993 and the Video Toaster was 3 years old at that point. So tell me, what technology *did* you think would exist in 2013? Flying cars for all? Jet belts and anti gravity and warp drives? About the only thing you *can* expect to get better is information processing, everything else has plateaued decades ago.

Re:Ah

[MonkeyDancer]

The Amiga existed in 1993 and the Video Toaster was 3 years old at that point. So tell me, what technology *did* you think would exist in 2013? Flying cars for all? Jet belts and anti gravity and warp drives? About the only thing you *can* expect to get better is information processing, everything else has plateaued decades ago.

Please post a link to a video with special effects created decades ago that a grocery store employee made.

Re:Ah

[Minwee]

Disclaimer: Snarky. If you take this post seriously, there's something wrong with you. Reply to This Share

Statement. You've been playing too much Starbound.

Translation: Two per cent probability that the miniature organic is simply looking for trouble and needs to be blasted. That may be wishful thinking on my part, master.

Re:Ah

[girlintraining]

Please post a link to a video with special effects created decades ago that a grocery store employee made.

Okay...

Re:Ah

[Livius]

Sorry, but I *will* take this post seriously. He disparaged their trade name but the video did not rise to the level of parody (which is a *really* low bar to meet) or offer any entertainment value.

The whole concept was mocking the hardship that those laid off will suffer and that is not winning him any points either.

Slow news day

[EMG at MU]

Is this on /. because the guy used some action/sci fi type graphics?

If this makes you upset don't go to SafeWay anymore.

Re:Slow news day

[MightyMartian]

"Your Safeway manager never told you what happened to your father. Luke, you're Safeway's bitch."

Re:Slow news day

[jareth-0205]

No, it's on Slashdot because it's a nice anti-corporate story to stir up outrage. The hivemind loves those.

By the 'hive mind' do you mean common decency and respect, expectation of a human to treat another in a fair and balanced manner, and not kick them when theyr'e down? Ah yes, the 'hive mind'... You know, I think I'm alright to follow the mindless hordes who have some sense that people should be treated as well as possible, especially when they're in the process of losing their job through no fault of their own.

Tagging "hive mind" does not make things automatically wrong.

Re:Slow news day

[Rhywden]

The problem is, however, that the guys ultimately responsible for the failure of Dominick's won't suffer one bit. On one hand you have 6,000 people losing their jobs, on the other hand you have the managers from Safeway who are ultimately responsible for the failure - and those guys always have their golden parachutes at the ready.

Re:Slow news day

[EMG at MU]

The guy was suspended for a day.... Common I would hardly call that kicking someone when they are down. For all we know he might not even have been scheduled to work that day. So the guy is maybe out at most $100 in missed pay, bummer but I wouldn't call that cause for moral outrage.

I do actually agree that this article was posted to incite anti-corporate feelings. That's why I asked the question, and that's why I suggested not shopping there if you don't agree with it. I really feel like this is petty shit compared to real abuses and what makes me upset is the people who are going to get all bent out of shape over this and complain about corporations treating people like shit using this as evidence. Corporations do treat people like shit, but its happening all around you in much worse ways than some guy getting suspended for a day. Be outraged about that.

Re:Slow news day

[Bite The Pillow]

Not wrong, necessarily. But it is good for page views because the normal people will post predictable rants and replies without regard to context.
That's the hive mind that loves these stories. And, of course, those trying to beat sense into the senseless.

Re:Slow news day

[EMG at MU]

I guess that is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that they were out competed by larger stores and customers voted with their wallets. I'm from Chicagoland, this isn't as simple as some CxOs running a company into the ground. Woodmans, Target, and WalMart are all relatively new competitors in the grocery store market. Jewel Osco and Dominicks have been hurting for a while because of that.

What it boils down to is that people would rather pay $1 for a loaf of bread from WalMart than $1.20 for a loaf of bread from Dominicks. Why is it more expensive at Dominicks? Well for one they are unionized with means very generous benefits for the workers (when I worked at Jewel-Osco in highschool I had 2+ weeks of paid vacation and made time and a half on Sunday, and made holiday pay even if I didn't work that day. Some holidays made 2.5 times my base pay due to it falling on Sunday.) Another reason might be that Woodmans and WalMart are much larger than a typical Jewel or Dominicks so they can purchase in larger quantities and offer a larger selection.

Re:Slow news day

[Sarten-X]

No, by "hivemind" I mean (in this case) the tendency to assume that anything a corporation does is bad, especially when it negatively impacts someone portrayed as an underdog, without consideration or understanding of the whole situation.

Yes, Safeway closed a store, putting 6000 people out of work. That's terribly sad. While 5,999 continue to be professional, and go on with their lives, and apply to new jobs, this guy started slinging mud at his still-current employer.

So what did Safeway do, on behalf of the remaining stores who still have a job to do that requires a decent public image? They could have fired him on the spot, screwing over his employability, but they didn't. They suspended him, which could cost him his severance package. That package is intended to reward employees who are loyal to the last day, which this guy clearly wasn't.

Sure, it's heart-warming to support the little guy, but he's the one who threw away "common decency and respect". As for me, I'll applaud the manager that decided to suspend him, minimizing the total harm.

Re:Slow news day

[RattFink]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this...
1. Even losing $50 to someone with no work lined up could be a pretty big deal.
2. It's hard to tell but depending on how he was suspended it could hinder his ability to collect unemployment,

Re:Slow news day

[Sique]

Actually, no. It's more severe than $100. It could be that he is out of up to 3 weeks severance pay. And this makes Safeway look really bad. They caused hardship to the guy, fired him, he vents off about it and then they slap him with a suspension causing him to lose even the severance pay for the hardship they caused him.

This is not some anti-corporate rant. This is a corporation just being evil.

Re:Slow news day

[Sarten-X]

No, he wasn't fired first. Being fired before being suspended makes no sense. Closing a store would mean he's laid off, and since it's a big closing, there's federal laws in play (WARN act, among others) that require a certain notice period. During that time, he's still fully employed, and should be using the time to go look for another job, while his resume still says he's employed. If asked, he can simply say that the reason he's looking is because the store's closing.

The "evil" corporation made a symbolic gesture that could mean he loses the loyalty reward because he wasn't actually loyal, but there's no effect on his employability.

Re:Slow news day

[turgid]

No, it's on Slashdot because it's a nice anti-corporate story to stir up outrage. The hivemind loves those.

When you grow up, you might find yourself working for a corporation. Then you will be glad at whatever little outlets for your emotions the world permits you.

This is a crass over-reaction to a silly video on YouTube and it shows just how pompous and arrogant corporations (and those with power in general) tend to become. Satire is necessary for a free society.

I have no sympathy for Safeway (if this is the same Safeway company I worked for part-time as a teenager in Scotland in the early 1990s). They were unfair and oppressive. I could tell you some stories about how bad they were to their staff but that's for another day.

Re:Slow news day

[jamstar7]

The guy was suspended for a day.... Common I would hardly call that kicking someone when they are down. For all we know he might not even have been scheduled to work that day. So the guy is maybe out at most $100 in missed pay, bummer but I wouldn't call that cause for moral outrage. I do actually agree that this article was posted to incite anti-corporate feelings. That's why I asked the question, and that's why I suggested not shopping there if you don't agree with it. I really feel like this is petty shit compared to real abuses and what makes me upset is the people who are going to get all bent out of shape over this and complain about corporations treating people like shit using this as evidence. Corporations do treat people like shit, but its happening all around you in much worse ways than some guy getting suspended for a day. Be outraged about that.

Being laid off instantly qualifies you for unemployment after you wait the statutory required one week. Being suspended before the announced layoff date, even if it was only for one day, can fuck with the process, especially if the language used in the suspension does not specify a length of suspension, i.e., 'suspended indefinitely pending review'. Since he was scheduled for layoff anyway, no review will be made since he's not being brought back. You cannot collect unemployment if you are 'only' suspended. He'll have to waste time appealing his disqualification with the state, all the while his normal 26 weeks unemployment runs down.

I'd say Safeway fucked him pretty good there.

Re:Slow news day

[Sique]

He was terminated. That the day of his termination wasn't here yet doesn't change anything.

Re:Slow news day

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

"No, by "hivemind" I mean (in this case) the tendency to assume that anything a corporation does is bad,"

Why shouldn't one assume that? Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit. Corporations have no honour. They do what it takes to make a buck for their shareholders. Any positivity for anyone else is a radioactive, feel good afterglow in the shadow of the rich getting richer. Some people believe that making a profit at their expense, is for the most part, bad. You read the summary yourself I assume, they stand to generate revenue from doing this closure. Hedge funds profits again, and the $20 dollar and under jobs suffer for it.

Food co-ops are common across smaller communities, so its not like safeways for profit architecture needs to be preserved.

And give me a break, the reasons why corporations cant take comedy is the same reason dictators cant. They want to maintain control of reality for their personal gain.

Re:Slow news day

[Sarten-X]

Cute... but I currently work for a Fortune 100 company, at almost the bottom of the hierarchy. Oh yeah, and my facility is closing. I'm intimately familiar with the process.

Please, do keep telling me about life working for corporations.

Re:Slow news day

[Sarten-X]

Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit.

Nope. There is no such "legal responsibility". Corporations are required to do whatever their corporate charter says, and they have great leeway in justifying any action as being within that charter. In short, the executives usually have to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the only way to determine the shareholders' interests is by a vote. Without such a vote, the executives can do anything that's otherwise legal.

Corporations have no honour.

Neither do people who make offensive "comedy" videos.

the reasons why corporations cant take comedy is...

...because the "comedy" directly affects their ability to do business elsewhere?

Re:Slow news day

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself, you corporatist ass-sucker.

Re:Slow news day

[jareth-0205]

Yeah, but what they've done here is completely pointless, and potentially cost him dearly, because he was a bit sarcastic about being fired! I mean, who hasn't reacted like that? Must we graciously bow to our employers even when they throw us on the street? They've taken time out of what must be a very busy period with all the admin and wrapping up to target this guy. It's petty, and vindictive.

Safeway have *failed* their employees. By closing a store they have admitted that they cannot effectively run a business and have now caused suffering for those previously loyal employees. The least they could do is take some criticism on the chin.

Re:Slow news day

[Rhywden]

Wow. Two weeks of paid vacation. A bit more money for working on Sundays?

That's "generous"?

I shudder to think what non-generous work is, then. Probably "no vacation, ever!" and "overtime compensation? Are you dreaming?"

Re:Slow news day

[painandgreed]

Wow. Two weeks of paid vacation. A bit more money for working on Sundays?

That's "generous"?

I shudder to think what non-generous work is, then. Probably "no vacation, ever!" and "overtime compensation? Are you dreaming?"

Non-generous would be Wal-Mart where you get 34 hours a week which makes you temp worker with no vacation, benefits, or overtime. You can't go work for anybody else because they've all been put out of business by Wal-Mart's low prices.

Re:Slow news day

[jamstar7]

Safeway is a publicly traded company who has a legal responsibility to make profit.

Nope. There is no such "legal responsibility". Corporations are required to do whatever their corporate charter says, and they have great leeway in justifying any action as being within that charter. In short, the executives usually have to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the only way to determine the shareholders' interests is by a vote. Without such a vote, the executives can do anything that's otherwise legal.

More of a fiduciary requirement for the execs to make sure the corporation makes money. Otherwise, the shareholders vote the board of directors out and put somebody who will make them money in their place. That's why you see short-term strategies that puff the shit outta the bottom line right now being followed rather than long-term strategies that insure mediocre but continual profits over the years, even if those short-term strategies fuck up the long range profitability.

Re:Slow news day

[Aighearach]

In most cases a lay-off isn't considered a termination. The employer just doesn't have any work for you to do. There is a presumption that if they sold the business next week and somebody wanted to re-open, they would call back these workers.

Except this guy, his employment was suspended when they shut down, so he probably would have to make it through some sort of disciplinary process before being called back.

Re:Slow news day

[Aighearach]

That is true for corporations generally. Most "corporations" are privately traded. Public companies have a whole different set of requirements related to the stock being a financial investment. If the charter of a public corporation says differently, those sections are probably invalid.

Re:Slow news day

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't he have any work lined up?

Because it's fucking hard to find work?

Re:Slow news day

[anagama]

The part that is news is the tax benefit for closing a business. Between the NSA and the IRS, you're average working joe in America is really screwed.

Re:Slow news day

[Sarten-X]

Nope. Publicly-traded companies have more reporting requirements, but they still can't ignore their charter.

Re:Slow news day

[Sarten-X]

The fiduciary duty of executives is to always act in the corporation's best interests. Again, that is simply whatever's in the charter, and there's still a wide range of what can be done. It is absolutely legal for the executives of a publicly-traded corporation to donate all profits to charity. Per the company's charter, it may even be required. If the shareholders don't like it, they can call a vote to replace the executives, as you noted, but that's unlikely to be successful. It's easy enough for the CEO to say "it was a PR move", and point to sentiment polls to justify that the expense this year will mean a much happier buying public when their next product's released, and by so doing become a hero.

Re:Slow news day

[sjames]

Yeah, 9 years ago. I guess a stopped clock really is right twice a day.

Re:Slow news day

[sjames]

Safeway isn't exactly a Mon'n'Pop and I doubt that each individual store negotiates with the wholesaler separately.. And contrary to the conservative talking points, labor is a tiny contributor to the retail cost. How many man hours do you honestly think it took to put that loaf on the shelf?

Of course they would have a somewhat easier time if the conservative agenda would quit allowing Walmart to use SNAP as a payroll subsidy.

What you call generous benefits used to be considered the minimum standard.

Re:Slow news day

[rtb61]

Fuck un-Safeways. People are not slaves even when they are workers and they are by law entitled to their opinion. Fuck un-Safeways and anyone else that would use economic extortion to steal people free speech rights. Double fuck double speak, stealing people's rights never ever protects other people's rights.

Re:Slow news day

[Aighearach]

Dude, you put this weird "nope" on the front as if what you were about to say contradicted what I said. But then you just said an additional true thing that has nothing to do with any of it.

Open mouth, insert lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Had Safeway just ignored the video and let this guy go with the other 5999, we'd probably have never even heard of it except maybe as some footnote in a local broadcaster's "Quick! We've got 20 seconds to fill, what can we do with it?" at the end of the 11pm news. Instead, by firing him like this, they've likely opened themselves up to a wrongful termination/retaliation lawsuit.

Re:Open mouth, insert lawyers

[phantomfive]

they've likely opened themselves up to a wrongful termination/retaliation lawsuit.

Probably not. He was fired before he made the movie.

Re:Open mouth, insert lawyers

[SteveFoerster]

Yes, well, anyone who pays attention to "Anonymous Coward, esq." deserves the consequences.

Re:Open mouth, insert lawyers

[lemur3]

Just a bit of info for you...

In Chicago there is no 11pm news.

The evening news in Chicago omes on at 9pm and 10pm.

So how serious is this

[DarkOx]

Suspended isn't fired or is it for the purposes of being eligible for unemployment?

Is this just a one day's pay slap on the wrist or is it costing this guy big? Is just HR silliness or is a nasty grab at avoiding one more headcount on their unemployment experience tax figures?

   

Re:So how serious is this

[theodp]

CBS Chicago: "The move could prevent Yamamoto from getting about three weeks' severance pay, he says."

Re:So how serious is this

[DarkOx]

Right,

One of life's little lessons. Always wait until the last check clears before you tell people what you really think.

ill fated satire

[cosm]

The line from the video "All so the big shots could save a buck and maybe buy a new summer home" was probably the catalyst, not the special effects. How could this guy be dumbfounded -- what do you expect reactionary corporate America to do when you satirize their modus operandi! Hello Streisand...

Re:ill fated satire

[tompaulco]

What is the big issue? The guy didn't even give away the location of the big shots new summer home.

You're fired! And suspended too!

[fox171171]

I can here the Safeway manager now. You're not only fired, you're suspended too! Take that smart ass!

Don't worry SafeWay PHBs

[sl4shd0rk]

I'm sure the video will never go viral.

Re:I Smell a Lawsuit

[DarkOx]

INAL but I think that might be foolish. He has to show harm in a civil suit like that. As it is documented he was going to be terminated the following day anyway the harm is only going to be whatever severance he might have been otherwise getting and a day's wages, possibly an agreement to provide a good reference which he might just as easily arrange with they sympathetic store manager himself.

He might come out ahead if he also gets awarded legal fees, but risks having to pay his attorneys retainer if he does not prevail. There is also the risk it could provoke some kind of libel counter suit which while unlikely to succeed IMHO, there were some disparaging remarks about management in the video and winding up before judge without a sense of humor or proportion could ruin his life.

No better to chat up his GM and say "hey, I am not going to make a big thing of this and just go quietly. I know what I did might be considered by some in appropriate ( conciliatory bs but whatever ), but I think understandable given the circumstances. Can I have your personal contact number and count on your for a positive reference?"

That is probably the best thing he can get out of this, in the risk/reward sense.

Google at fault?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if Safeway would have learned of the identity for the poster had Google not coerced "Steve Yamamoto" to post non-anonymously in some flawed attempt to elevate the failed status of Google+.

Re:Google at fault?

[Reziac]

And I've found I can no longer leave a comment on Youtube, thanks to some Google+ bullshit. I have a G+ account (albeit not used for anything) and a login, but still -- no go. Fuck 'em.

Good job on the video, tho.

Wonder why the manager complied

[T.E.D.]

Presumably the manager who was told to suspend the guy was about to be fired too. You have to wonder what would have happened if they had agreed, then "forgot" to actually carry out the suspension. By the time corporate figured out the guy hadn't actually been suspended, both he and the manager would probably have been fired already anyway.

Or better yet, this situation is crying out for a work-to-rule. "Sure, I'll go start the official suspension process immediately. Hmm...now where are those forms policy says I have to use...?"

Re:Wonder why the manager complied

[DigiShaman]

My take on it is that this was a scalping. Pure and simple. It was something management can back up on his/her resume and with references that demonstrates managerial experience. The ability to not only hire, but apply disciplinary action as well.

Re:How dare they

[JustOK]

It's not like they could suspend him after they let him go. Get real.

Blowing off steam by showing stuff blown up

[Latent Heat]

C'mon, that video was funny. It is as much a satire of Independence Day as a dig at his employer.

Yeah, the guy dissed the people letting him go. Dock him a day's pay. Mr Corporate Big Shot, show yourself to be . . . really small.

Fortunately, Safeway has an Ethics Hotline

[xski]

Safeway strives to maintain the highest level of honesty and integrity in its dealing(s) with employees and vendors. If you have any questions, concerns or information regarding business ethics or integrity in your dealings with Safeway, please contact our confidential Business Ethics Hotline at 1-866-239-1376 or email us at business.ethics@safeway.com

Thar ya go.

Re:How dare they

[jamstar7]

AC, I know you were being facetious, but it did seem a bit petty to suspend the employee the day before he was to be laid off anyway, didn't it?

It's not like they could suspend him after they let him go. Get real.

But by suspending him the day before he was laid off, they CAN fuck with his unemployment benefits in most states. Illinois is NOT a 'right to work' state, so I don't know what the procedure is. In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal. THAT one got pulled on me, and I got screwed outta my unemployment until my 6 months of 'regular' unemployment expired and I then qualified for the 13 week extension.

Company Resources

[AJH16]

While the suspension really does seem unnecessary, my guess is that it came because it appears he was doing it on company time from some of the shots used. Technically it's a misappropriation of the companies resources. It's a bit of a bone headed thing to do since they were closing the shop anyway, but they were probably just following a standard procedure and could have gotten in to more trouble with previous people they had suspended if they didn't bother to do it, since people could claim that he was treated preferentially.

The entire situation is stupid, but that's unfortunately where getting employers forced in to mindlessly following written policy for fear of being sued for unequal treatment has gotten us. You have to document the penalty for everything and follow it to the letter no matter how stupidly it doesn't fit the situation or someone will sue.

He dared to criticize the overlords

[Beeftopia]

It wasn't enough to merely fire him and his 5999 coworkers. They made an example out of him.

That's power.

He'll do fine in Video/Film Special effects

[Virtucon]

For a guy doing this in his copious spare time this is a funny vid. It's not something Safeway wants on YouTube for sure, so I'm sure they're sending a letter to Google now to remove it.

When Safeway takes over. . . .

[gukin]

It's a lot like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGR4-SeuJ0&list=PL528026B4F7B34094

Re:When Safeway takes over. . . .

[jamstar7]

Now THAT'S cute!

Re:How dare they

[Rob the Bold]

In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal. THAT one got pulled on me, and I got screwed outta my unemployment until my 6 months of 'regular' unemployment expired and I then qualified for the 13 week extension.

Wow, that's just messed up. I assumed -- for no particular reason, apparently -- that they all did it like my state: state DHR sends questionnaire to former employer who can fill it out if they fired the employee for some reason they wish to elaborate on, otherwise no response means they're not contesting payment of UI. Works out better for most employees, since most bosses -- like everyone else -- don't want to do extra work like filling out a state form. Boss doesn't need to do anything special other than toss the form in the recycle bin. And state employees don't have to spend time to read and asses questionnaires that don't get returned. Everyone wins.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

By a grocery store employee?

but then, who did the catering? Industrial Lunch & Munchies?

Banned Cameras

[Jason Levine]

This is the same company that had upper management trying to ban cameras in the bakery department lest their cakes appear on Cake Wrecks. They tried to argue that their cakes are copyrighted and thus taking photos of them is copyright infringement. http://www.cakewrecks.com/home/2012/11/9/ways-to-play-it-safe.html

Piffle

[onyxruby]

You had it right the first time, snark should never be done half ass. Quality snark is to be admired and held up as a thing to be beholden. You have to take pride in your work, how can you take pride in half ass snark?

I live in Chicago...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing the Dominick's stores close was sad and painful but not completely surprising given all the competition (Mariano's, Target, Costco, and all the mom and pop stores). But reading about the Jana nonsense made me wish the hedge funders to die in a fire already.

It's good

[heezer7]

Google made him use his real name.

Re:How dare they

[MitchDev]

I agree this kind of financial and tax system abuse needs to be stomped out, but paying the employees "for life" is ridiculous.

Just one thing....

[dfenstrate]

During the Eisenhower administration the tax rate on the uppermost bracket of incomes was 91%. Ninety one friggin' precent. Yet, there were still obscenely wealthy people. It's time to define new upper income brackets. I don't have a problem with someone's five-million-and-oneth dollar being taxed at 90%.

While there technically was a 91% Tax bracket, that single fact in no way communicates the reality of the situation. There were loopholes big enough to drive a Maybach through, and everyone did so. The fact is that wealthier Americans pay a higher share of the tax burden today than in 1958, and lower income Americans pay much less in taxes. More here

Fashion over facts

[DerekLyons]

Perhaps Safeway was concerned that viewers of Yamamoto's video might think that aliens, robots, and monsters did Dominick's in, although the Chicago Tribune suggests financial machinations as a more likely culprit: 'By pulling the plug on Chicago [Dominick's], Safeway could not only satisfy [hedge fund] Jana, but also generate a $400 million to $450 million tax benefit.'
 
The Chicago Tribune is stunningly disconnected from reality then, and is just blaming the billionaires out of habit or to pander to their readers.
 
The demise of Dominick's has been anticipated for years by those paying attention to the grocery business and Safeway itself has made several attempts to unload it over the last decade. (Long story shot, Safeway bought Dominick's in the late 80's and essentially turned a regional specialty chain into a national generic chain - losing customers in droves in the process. Chigagoland is a notoriously difficult grocery market because of the local culture.) The demand may have been made in September, but the writing has been on the wall since the mid/late 1990's.

Breaking news

[Roachie]

"... the retail service industry -NOT a good career choice" says industry insider.

They all shit on your head and then look at you like you are supposed to thank them for the hat.

Safeway is notorious for its contempt for its employees. My kid worked for them for a couplea years- get a flat on the way to work and be late and its all downhill from there.

Re:How dare they

[NormalVisual]

In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal.

They don't have an appeals process? I live in Florida, and had an employer fire me and dispute my unemployment claim last year, so of course I challenged it because the firing was totally without merit. I had a perfectly clean record with HR, so the state didn't even think twice before ruling in my favor. Given that they suspended him the day before they were going to lay him off, I think he could probably make a reasonable case that Safeway suspended him in order to avoid the unemployment claim, regardless of the video.

Re:How dare they

[Aighearach]

Everything is stacked against the poor or anybody needing assistance in AZ. That's just AZ, has nothing to do with "right-to-work" or anything else. A lot of people move to AZ for a job, and AZ would just rather they move when they lose it.

While Middle Class

[PortHaven]

Pay more than double both the upper and lower classes

Simple

[PortHaven]

The government allows them to write it off as a $400 million dollar loss. This "fake loss" then balances out the $500 million profit they got from selling off their Canada division.

In other words....

[PortHaven]

Without that tax write off, they likely would not have closed the stores. They probably would of tried to sell them for say a $100 million. In which case they might have been kept open by new owners.

If you support his cause, click that link!

[sootman]

Even if you don't want to watch it, I want the company heads to say "Sweet jeebus, that video got 93 quadrillion views!" Let them think they're in for the PR shitstorm of the century and maybe they'll make things right with this guy. (If not, I hope he sues and wins.)

Bonus: Click the "Like" button.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyLReexjEco

PS: The video is actually pretty good.

we'll just shop lift more

[cheekyboy]

by eating grapes and anything inside the shop, like bagging a bag of expensive nuts, and eating them while shopping, then by the time you get to the counter, bag empty, haha!

Can of redbull while shopping, yum, free too.

less than 15% cimetery

[manu0601]

I understand this is another instance of finance destroying viable business

Investors want 15% of ROI. Any profitable business that generate less than 15% will be dismembered to extract money. Financial industry just destroy anything not profitable enough, even if it is useful to society. This is capitalism destroying itself.

Re: less than 15% cimetery

[TheSync]

If you "dismember" a corporation to achieve a >15% ROI, then obviously the people buying the assets must have been convinced that there is a way to use those assets to generate higher profits.

Sometimes corporations are just stupid, and are more productive with someone else owning their parts than with the current management owning all of them.

My view of corporate management is that management rarely learns from mistakes. Great companies are largely lucky ones. It is more of a process of evolution where companies that luck into high profitability survive and those that don't flounder. Economist Joseph Schumpetet called this "creative destruction."

Complex systems are challenging to centrally control, and systems made up of tens of thousands of human beings are very, very complex.

Re: less than 15% cimetery

[manu0601]

If you "dismember" a corporation to achieve a >15% ROI, then obviously the people buying the assets must have been convinced that there is a way to use those assets to generate higher profits.

There are always parts that are more valuable than others. Patents, real estate and machines will be sold to feed the 15% ROI, and the remaining parts will go bankrupt. This is the way they do it.

Re:How dare they

[Kaenneth]

In Washington, neither I or my last employer responded to the state, so they defaulted in my favor.

Stupid crybaby deserves it.

[Cammi]

Perhaps Steve should grow a brain? Common sense ...

Dominick's: How to flush a thriving competitor

[Chas]

Basically Safeway are the bastards who crashed the company.

Dominick's was fine in and through the mid and late 80's. They actually competed in the area and were, arguably, neck and neck with the other major competitor in the area, Jewel/Jewel-Osco.

After the founder's son died, his heirs simply didn't have the know-how or desire to run the company properly and cashed out to Safeway.

Safeway basically stopped trying to compete almost immediately. There's been ONE major branding change, when they went to the pointless "lifestyle" model, as if they were some sort of specialty grocer instead of a supermarket. They kept pushing an upscale image while failing to compete on price. They also kept promoting incompetents to actually manage and control locations.

And when that didn't bring Safeway in the revenue they wanted, they tried to sell the chain...and failed. Instead of trying to work on the chain and make it more attractive for acquisition, they basically just Major Kong'ed it right into the ground.

Seriously, this was an operation that's been ENTRENCHED in Chicago for the last 95 years.

And now they're some flipper's big fat dividend and some corporate officer's big fat bonus. And 6000+ people are jobless.

Attaboy Safeway! Attaboy! Ya stupid bastards!

Re: Dominick's: How to flush a thriving competitor

[TheSync]

If the "big flippers" didn't convince Safeway to shutter Dominick's, Safeway's clearly feeble management would have just thrown away more shareholder value in trying to keep them going.

Sometimes you have to know when to stop, and activist shareholders are often the only answer to managerial hubris.

Re:How dare they

[jamstar7]

In Arizona, which IS a right to work state, you get suspended or fired, you DO have difficulty getting unemployment, especially if your former employer doesn't bother to answer the state's questions about the circumstances of your dismissal.

They don't have an appeals process? I live in Florida, and had an employer fire me and dispute my unemployment claim last year, so of course I challenged it because the firing was totally without merit. I had a perfectly clean record with HR, so the state didn't even think twice before ruling in my favor. Given that they suspended him the day before they were going to lay him off, I think he could probably make a reasonable case that Safeway suspended him in order to avoid the unemployment claim, regardless of the video.

Yeah, there is an appeals process, but no way to coerce the former employer to provide details other than faxing in a letter saying the employee was 'terminated for cause'. Since it's right-to-work, that's all they have to say. The less they say, the better for them if they get sued for wrongful termination or some such. And even if you win your appeal, you are not likely to get 'back pay' for the weeks of unemployment you were required to file for but were unpaid for during the appeal.

Re:How dare they

[Chrisq]

Why do we allow companies to make business decisions that hurt people? Safeway should be forced to pay all employees for life.

The Safeway hit squad would make sure that it didn't cost too much

Re:I believe

[Highway_Tramper]

What a brilliant name for a Catering company !

Re:How dare they

[AK Marc]

We (as taxpayers) paid them millions to hurt people. That you don't see a distinction indicates some childhood trauma. Did your mother hate you, or just drop you a lot?

Re:How dare they

[AK Marc]

How would it have affected his severance? Did they mess with people to reduce severance payments?

Re:I Smell a Lawsuit

[superwiz]

I am not a lawyer, either. But it seems to me the company may have a case against him. Accepting salary from your employer pretty much comes with the assumption that you won't do anything to actively harm the company's bottom line. Even if you have criticism, you can keep inside the company walls. Even if they do make (what you think is) a bad business decision of not listening to your opinion, it's their money. But if you actively harm the company while on their salary, you do violate the trust they put in you. A case might be made that you should pay for the harm you cause.

Re:How dare they

[DickBreath]

> Why do we allow companies to make business decisions that hurt people? Safeway should be forced to pay all employees for life.

Dear Mr. Troll, what is your position on allowing Copyright to support artists and authors for life? And their children and grandchildren?

Cannot wait for the sequel.

[tocs]

Should be even better than the original.