-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
McDonalds employee fired after she paid to feed first responders
- Thread starter dyanaprajna2011
- Start date
What's also odd is that firemen would earn far more than she would.
I tip any fast food worker who does a good job.
Word to the wise:
Don't do things which cause grief for your employer.
It's possible that giving free food to cops has become a problem for
the company, & they don't want firemen begging at the table too.
I would'a counseled the employee rather than firing her, but there
could be more complications for them than we know.
I tip any fast food worker who does a good job.
Word to the wise:
Don't do things which cause grief for your employer.
It's possible that giving free food to cops has become a problem for
the company, & they don't want firemen begging at the table too.
I would'a counseled the employee rather than firing her, but there
could be more complications for them than we know.
I found it strange that the McD's this employee worked at for eight years would regularly give free meals to local police officers but then balked at giving free meals to fire fighters.
She and her co-workers covered the cost of the meals, and then the fire fighters complained to corporate, suggesting it wasn't right that she should have felt obligated to pay for the meals.
There's definitely more to the story than what is being presented.
She and her co-workers covered the cost of the meals, and then the fire fighters complained to corporate, suggesting it wasn't right that she should have felt obligated to pay for the meals.
There's definitely more to the story than what is being presented.
I think there more to it.
My guess is the motivation for giving free meals to the police has to do with creating good will and an encouragement for police officers to come into the establishment on a regular basis. The presence of police officers is likely seen as an unpaid, unofficial security presence. I don't think the same level of security trade-off would be there for giving free meals to fire-fighters, or others that may be seen as public servants.
It is possible the company perceived the situation as creating an impression they ought to give free meals to a group they had not decided to give free meals for -- and that it may have set a bad or awkward precedent.
Keeping in mind that my info is definitely incomplete, perhaps seriously so, I certainly get that vibe from the newspiece. Going by it alone, I would assume that management was becoming worried with the expectations createad.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Yeah, probably this.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I'd remember that the hack who put together the article is trying to make you as flabbergasted as possible because that kind of thing gets them hits and comments.
I'd point out that the key word in the headline is "after", not "because". An age old tabloid trick.
I'd then suggest you read the entire article, slowly and carefully, remembering that all the fire and rhetoric gets put at the top while the boring facts and balance goes at the bottom. In fact I'd usually suggest reading the last couple of paragraphs first in this kind of story.
After reading the article a second time, it also occurred to me that she may have created quite an upset in the process (even if her original intentions were good.)
If the firefighters later complained to her boss as though McDonalds had mistreated an employee by making her feel obligated to pay for their meals -- to do in the second case, something she had volunteered on her own to do in the first case -- I'm guessing that corporate may have taken the position that she created/contributed to an upset situation in the first place, and they didn't do anything except say no to a request.
They may have perceived her to have created ill will among the firefighters and other employees toward the company by her reaction -- for not doing something they don't ever do as a matter of policy, just because she thought they should -- or for acting as if, corporate won't pay for it, so now we have to.
In that situation, I think any pressure in the situation would really have come from within herself (because she was in an awkward situation and didn't lay her cards on the table,) and/or from the second group of fire fighters if they were expecting free food, perhaps after hearing about it from the other station -- even though they had not received food free at that location before. Like: "We heard the other station received free food here tonight. We're here for our free food."
If she told them that McDonald's does not offer free food to fire fighters and there was any feeling of obligation/pressure in the situation -- I think that feeling would have most likely come from within her, or from the fire fighters in presenting an expectation they ought to receive free food because the other station had. Otherwise, if it's not something that McDonald's does, I don't see why they would have expected for anything else, but to pay for their own meals -- just like everyone else.
This makes sense.
I think the whole thing was handled pretty clumsily for the PR. This will blow over though considering it's a corporate giant and has weathered far worse in the past.
NobodyYouKnow
Misanthropist
Honestly, people shouldn't be given any special dispensation anymore for simply 'doing their job'. It is very discriminatory.
Times have drastically changed since our emergency services personnel were given/deserved respect or free handouts from business(es).
In the rush towards a very prosperous 'bottom line' in a competitive, cuthroat business market, certain corners must be cut, shortcuts need to be taken and purse strings must be tightened.
It's all well and good for that lady there to be 'generous' herself - I mean, that's a very rare sight these days....so rare it is, that she should not expect others to follow suit, led by her 'example'...she shouldn't have even had the audacity to think others would even care because nobody does anymore.
I hope she has learned her lesson now that kindness and respect doesn't pay and it hasn't for a very long time. She deserved to get fired for her naivite and innocence.
Times have drastically changed since our emergency services personnel were given/deserved respect or free handouts from business(es).
In the rush towards a very prosperous 'bottom line' in a competitive, cuthroat business market, certain corners must be cut, shortcuts need to be taken and purse strings must be tightened.
It's all well and good for that lady there to be 'generous' herself - I mean, that's a very rare sight these days....so rare it is, that she should not expect others to follow suit, led by her 'example'...she shouldn't have even had the audacity to think others would even care because nobody does anymore.
I hope she has learned her lesson now that kindness and respect doesn't pay and it hasn't for a very long time. She deserved to get fired for her naivite and innocence.
Last edited:
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
She's very sweet, but, naive.
She approached this from a perspective that I would not have. There are specfic non profit organizations that have a responsibility to provide respite services to first responders, including fire fighters during scaled-up emergency response.
If the fire department was able to enter a McDonald's for chow after a job well done, they may not have required the type of community response that she envisioned they needed.
Though a very kind gesture on her part, she was wrong to assume that her employer and the community were obligated to provide meals to the fire fighters after their response.
If she wanted to pay for their meals, she should have done so without expectation of reimbursement or follow-through by anyone else.
And if she wanted her emloyer to participate, she should have reached out to her employer beforehand, providing her employer a better opportunity to understand what was going on and why providing the free meals was so important, given the circumstances.
She didn't text her employer until after she paid for the first round of food. She should have made a phone call to her employer before she paid the first bill. And, if her employer said no, the fire fighters would have been none the wiser about the situation. They did not request free service. If she still chose to pay the bill herself, she could have said, ...hey, I've got this for you. Thank you for what you do.
If the establishment has discounted or provided free meals to certain people or groups before, they should, to avoid such confusion in the future, define a policy and qualifiers for their employees and guests.
Last edited:
I'd think it would be different for a one-time thing, such as a wildfire destroying many homes or something, but as an everyday thing, it is unnecessary. But I don't think she should have been fired. Someone should have just explained to her that if she pays the bill for one group of firefighters, another station will ask for the same thing (which appeared to be the result of her kindness) because they did not realize she did it on her own. She, unwittingly, caused a lot of problems.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
How can you say that when you don't know why she was actually fired?
Oh, brother.
I am commenting on what was said in the article and it said she was fired. I don't know anything about it outside of the article- I don't think I really needed to explain that. :cover:
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
I'll admit that this is an over reaction by the company.
That being said, this may not be the first time this woman has caused trouble like this. She could have previously been counseled about such behaviour.
There's not enough info here to make a valid decision.
That being said, this may not be the first time this woman has caused trouble like this. She could have previously been counseled about such behaviour.
There's not enough info here to make a valid decision.
You're right. We need to keep that in mind.