Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
"Your Safeway manager never told you what happened to your father. Luke, you're Safeway's bitch."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Are you implying that something negative will happen because they suspended the guy? I really doubt there are any materially negative consequences for Safeway.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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...
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
CBS Chicago: "The move could prevent Yamamoto from getting about three weeks' severance pay, he says."
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.
I'm sure the video will never go viral.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
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.
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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+.
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...?"
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.
It's not like they could suspend him after they let him go. Get real.
rewriting history since 2109
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.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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,
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
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.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
AJ Henderson
It wasn't enough to merely fire him and his 5999 coworkers. They made an example out of him.
That's power.
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.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
I am not a crackpot.
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
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
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.
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
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I cannot in good conscience boycott BJs. That's a rather important contribution to humanity and god bless those that make it happen.