14
Meijer arrests special needs employee for eating $110 of food (boingboing.net)
submitted 2 days ago by Five@slrpnk.net to c/shoplifting@slrpnk.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 2 points 2 days ago

Their reasoning might be not stupid: the problem might be not an "apple per day" the kid was eating, but the "special needs" kid himself. They might be forced (by some company policy or something) to hire him, but were lacking any means to fire him. And the kid might have been a bad worker. So they just waited until they had some "case" to legally dismiss the problematic worker.

Details are not present in the article, which is clearly written in a "poor kid, cruel corporation" mood.

[-] onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago

you start from the assumption that the company had a legitimate reason to want to fire him from day one because of his disability.

the problem might be not an “apple per day” the kid was eating, but the “special needs” kid himself.

why is special needs in scarequotes?

They might be forced (by some company policy or something) to hire him

are people with disabilities not allowed an income? if we're going to force people to work, then companies should be forced to hire. people gotta eat.

from your other comment:

They just waited for the sum to be big enough for the police to act.

claiming a person who took a nibble/day from the deli over the course of 3 months 'stole $110 of food' is some mental gymnastics. a corporation sicced violent goons on him and gave him a criminal record for what is probably pocket change from the perspective of their accounts after management deliberately avoided interventions in an effort to get him fired.

is there a point you're trying to make? because your aloud-pondering comes off as ableist and almost ageist.

[-] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 2 points 2 days ago

you start from the assumption that the company had a legitimate reason to want to fire him from day one because of his disability.

I start with the assumption that the company wants to fire him so badly that they are ready to pay "over $21,000" (have you read the article?) to do that. You can't explain it just by "they are evil!!!"

why is special needs in scarequotes?

Because it is a citation from the article. Stop talking about terminology, talk about the theme.

are people with disabilities not allowed an income?

They are as long as they are working. But it looks like it wasn't the case if the company is ready to go through all this hassle to get rid of the employee.

comes off as ableist and almost ageist.

I'm not American, your insults don't work on me. But still, insults are bad, mkay? So stop that behaviour.

[-] onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I start with the assumption that the company wants to fire him so badly that they are ready to pay “over $21,000” (have you read the article?) to do that.

you mean this line?:

A Florida nurse named Kerry Campbell launched a GoFundMe campaign to cover James's legal fees and basic needs. It's raised over $21,000 so far […]

besides the misquote: corporations are quite infamous for the lengths they're willing to go to to avoid social responsibility. in this case, they quite literally outsourced 'this hassle' to the police.

I’m not American, your insults don’t work on me.

neither am i, and from this comment i get the impression you're a European chauvinist.

it's not an 'insult'; you need to look in a mirror.

[-] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 1 points 2 days ago

A Florida nurse named Kerry Campbell launched a GoFundMe campaign to cover James’s legal fees and basic needs. It’s raised over $21,000 so far […]

Heh, yes, that is my fault. Wasn't attentive enough.

corporations are quite infamous for the lengths they’re willing to go to to avoid social responsibility.

Still, they hired him. Have any logical explanation for the situation from your standpoint? My assumptions are quite simple and logical: "They hired him, he wasn't good enough, so they wanted to fire him, and it wasn't easy because of some laws, so they started some craziness just to have rid of the employee"

it’s not an ‘insult’; you need to look in a mirror.

It is. You accuse me of being ableist and schauvinist only because I use brain before heart. That's an insult.

[-] TherapyGary 5 points 2 days ago

Hearing that your words are coming across as ableist might feel like you're being attacked when you're actually just feeling defensive. That feeling ought to be a cue to self-reflect rather than retaliate. They didn't even call you ableist; it sounds like they were actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. Some of what you've said sounds a lot like the things that badguys say, and that seems worth reflecting on and reconsidering.

[-] TwiddleTwaddle 5 points 2 days ago

Okay but they didnt just fire him or even have the cops escort him away when they fired him - They had him arrested.

[-] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 1 points 2 days ago

Yes, I suppose they couldn't just fire him for the hundred dollars. But they could fire him by letting the police arrest him for a hundred dollars. They just waited for the sum to be big enough for the police to act.

this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
14 points (100.0% liked)

Shoplifting

488 readers
1 users here now

exchanging tricks and experiences. discussing trends and events. connecting shoplifting to politcal theory and praxis. also memes.

Why a(nother) shoplifting community?

relevant server rules

additional guidelines

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
punkisundead@slrpnk.net