Single mom of 4 fired from Timmies after giving a baby a Timbit

[neilinkorea]

First of all, a high school drop out and this woman are NOT one in the same.  This woman as worked there for years, she is grown up, has kids, a mortgage, responsibilities.  You want to live in a place were everyone is treated equal despite their actions, history, and effort?  Well then move to Cuba.  We live in a country of laws, yes, but you have to take that with a grain of salt.  You have never walked during a red light?  You have never maybe not fully stopped at a stop sign?  Those are laws too that people break every day.  You can't get any importance justice in Canada if the justice system is out chasing tidbits.

One of the main points raised here was that she got her job back because of the negative press and not due to any vindication of her actions.  Do you really think that Cuba treats people more equally and fairly than the Canadian system.  I don't feel so bad about you not understanding my argument now.

I have broken tons of laws as have most Canadians.  Some we don't even know are laws.  The point is I wasn't caught, therefore not subject to being held accountable for my actions.  She was caught. I am not dumb enough to break any law, no matter how insignifigant in my mind, in front of a cop. The article said that they had video footage of her doing this.  That says to me that they must have been watching for this if they took the time to monitor her by reviewing the video and were collecting evidence to be used if she went to the labour board with a complaint.

 

[MedTechStudent]

Do yu really think that Cuba treats people more equally and fairly than the Canadian system. 

Cuba is communist my friend.  If you were unaware of that, then I feel bad for YOU.  So ya equality for all, and Communism kind of go hand in hand.   Here read up.  http://www.answers.com/topic/communism


Don't get smart with just because everyone disagrees with you (most most people would take as a hint to stop typing).  As for your argument on law and order, I'm sure if you were let go for a speeding infraction, you wouldn't tap the cop on the shoulder and say "oi thats not right give me the ticket I broke the law." 

Congrats on being a stone cold law man, but compassion will get you a long way.  Especially when its well deserved, like say in THIS case.

ps on the Communism thing, thats not in relation to money or wealth because thats ballocks up all the time.  its the idea of treating your citizens the same regardless of situation.

 

[armyvern]

Firing ALL the staff would cost them more.  Would effectively close the store until new staff could be hired and trained.  That isn't really an option.  You chose the worst offender or the one with enough warnings about other things to make the firing legal, and fire that person.  It was mentioned earlier that a person can't just be fired without verbal and or written warnings and so on.  Maybe she was just the unlucky one who was chosen to be fired.  

I even capitolized the word IF.  I said IF she had been warned before it could be construed as intent. I wont have a person who uses the word inferrations question the validity of my thought process.  I also added vice versa after the angel/devil comment to show she is not to be made a devil nor the manager an angel until all the facts are out.  Do you read these posts or just skim them and let fly?

IF she was indeed fired for "just cause" as you infer in all your posts (saying even that the symapathy single mother role etc came into play) ... then why on earth would she be hired back once the owner became aware of what occured ... especially given that the owner went on to make a statement that the manager did NOT act properly?

Does that not say something to you -- because you seem to be taking a whole lot for granted in the whole scenario. Just as you deem your "this is not policy here belief" to be valid to your argument ... so is the fact that the owner hired her back and condemend the action of the manager in question. There are indeed two sides to the coin --- and for all your statements about it "not being policy" and her "forming criminal intent" and for her "stealing from the cash register" --- there's NOT a single comment in the articles that even hints that she did any such thing. Rather it's the exact opposite with the "staff do this all the time" and the owner's statement that "the manager did not act properly". And, word up -- it's the owner who's losing money in this case, not the manager ... and apparently -- he seems quite fine with that for some reason or another. I wonder now, why is that? And, why did he condemn the manager in the national media if the manager wasn't in the wrong, and can we thereby assume that the owner is telling the truth?

There's nothing in this story to back up a single fact that this employee did anything wrong. Nor is there any facts that state that she didn't. But some actions have occured since ... and some statements by the manager -- and ultimately, she's got her job back -- so I'll err on the side of "this woman is not a criminal with a decided intent to rip off her employer despite being told not to."

It was a 16 cent timbit for cripes sakes, by an employee trying to do a good thing -- not an action of an employee to purposefully setting out to and "forming the intent to" rip off her employer and commit a damn crime. 

 

[neilinkorea]

Cuba is communist my friend.  If you were unaware of that, then I feel bad for YOU.  So ya equality for all, and Communism kind of go hand in hand.   Here read up.  http://www.answers.com/topic/communism


Don't get smart with just because everyone disagrees with you (most most people would take as a hint to stop typing).  As for your argument on law and order, I'm sure if you were let go for a speeding infraction, you wouldn't tap the cop on the shoulder and say "oi thats not right give me the ticket I broke the law." 

Congrats on being a stone cold law man, but compassion will get you a long way.  Especially when its well deserved, like say in THIS case.

ps on the Communism thing, thats not in relation to money or wealth because thats ballocks up all the time.  its the idea of treating your citizens the same regardless of situation.

Actually, friend, communism has never existed because the military leaders who took power never let the command socialism evolve into the democratic utopia of communism.  This means the institutions like courts, police and justice department are controlled by the military dictatorship.  This doesn't allow the egalitarian nature of communism to come out in these institutions.

 

[MedTechStudent]

My point was, compassion is something we have as a luxury here in Canada.  A single mother of 4 in cuba, would have been told to deal with it.  China too for that matter.  I'm not saying Communism works, I'm saying some aspects of it DO come out on countries where it is implemented.  Now, we can bicker back and forth all day, but I don't think we're going to agree so lets just agree not too.  Take care

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Bottom line is that she was given her job back, all ends well.  Not to mention, that if she HAD been in the wrong, she would NOT have been given her job back.  The media issue is irrelevant.  A newscast could say nasty things about Tim Hortons till the cows came home and it would not make a difference, people will still show up for their double doubles.  Tim Hortons is a multi million dollar franchise, and if anything, people would be more eager to go to THAT location.  "Hey Johnny Handsome, lets go check out that Tim Hortons with the hard *** manager who fired that woman." 

Managers over react, I know I worked at Timmys.

Plus, the whole "Price of eggs and flour" thing...yes Neil thats true, but trust me they do fine, 6 digits fine in my town.  If your going to fire someone over selfish principal, expect for someone to overturn it.

No, that's not the case at all. She well may have been given her job back to mitigate the PR scandal that was in the works by the media. A judgement call, by management if you will. Is it easier to fire her and go through the media circus, or give the job back and wait till something else happens? Not our business, and not our call. Look at how the Big Three and Unions deal away grievances for contract points. This is nothing untoward and unusual.

She had legal, legislated recourse. She chose the media instead. The question is why?

As I've said earlier, some here are defending, some are condemning. It makes no difference, and anyone with a point of view, one way or another, is guilty of sanction without reason. None of you have all the facts, and none of you can state categorically who's at fault. You are working off emotion, the reason for the media blitz! Everyone should just give this a rest. It affects no one here, and chiding, or condemning, is unwarranted and useless. Could have, would have, should have is bullshit. You don't know the facts, don't make assumptions.

This has nothing to do with human rights or welfare, or whatever. Wrongful dismissal is strictly a Ministry of Labour and OLRB matter, unless you count the media, who tend to skew and sensationalize everything to sell papers.

People that say, if she'd been wrong, she wouldn't have got her job back, simply don't have a clue on how the real world works. I deal with this stuff daily and you all have blinders on, and don't know what you're talking about.

Those that know me, know of where I speak.

 

[armyvern]

She had legal, legislated recourse. She chose the media instead. The question is why?

Oh, I agree with you on the asumptions bit and that one can not tell one way or the other from the article -- but where are you getting the above from? I haven't seen anything that says that she contacted the media (vice another employee who was torqued at her firing or even the mother of the child she gave the Timbit to, so is this an assumption itself?) or that she did not file her recourse (perhaps she did and that is how it came to the media's attention??) ... I skimmed all the articles again after you mentioned this the first time -- but I must be missing it. I can't find anything that says she did/did not go to the media herself -- or that says she did/did not file a recourse. Or are these assumptions that you are making?

 

[Yrys]

I do think that the articles are not saying enough to base opinions on facts more then on supposition on
a lot of issues here. And I don't think they will be more articles to shed light on those suppositions...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Oh, I agree with you on the asumptions bit and that one can not tell one way or the other from the article -- but where are you getting the above from? I haven't seen anything that says that she contacted the media (vice another employee who was torqued at her firing or even the mother of the child she gave the Timbit to, so is this an assumption itself?) or that she did not file her recourse (perhaps she did and that is how it came to the media's attention??) ... I skimmed all the articles again after you mentioned this the first time -- but I must be missing it. I can'r find anything that says she did/did not go to the media herself -- or that says she did/did not file a recourse.

I'm not saying SHE went to the media. Someone did. She decided to have her case tried there. Rest assured, she was contacted before they printed her story. Implied Consent is the term. What I am saying is, if she felt she was wrongfully dismissed, she could have filed with Employment Standards and sent her grievance to OLRB. Did she do that? I don't know. It's privileged information, unless the complaintant wishes to disclose it. What I'm saying is - None of you have the facts, as you admit yourself, which gives none of you the right to judge, either plaintiff or defendant - . Everyone here is giving and condemning one side or the other, and no one here is qualified or in a position to give an opinion based on fact, of which you have none, except heresay. Everyone here, with an opinion is basing their decision on rumour and innuendo.; You've all become judge and jury at a lynch mob hanging.

By all means, continue to vent and spew. Just make sure of your facts before you decide to deride and demean someone, or something.

I don't have a horse in this race. I haven't sided with one party or another. I am impartial, because as an investigator, I haven't been given enough to go on. My posts are solely to try help the layman put things in perspective. Take it for what you think it's worth. I only live with my conscience, not anyone else's.

 

[armyvern]

By all means, continue to vent and spew. Just make sure of your facts before you decide to deride and demean someone, or something.

People that say, if she'd been wrong, she wouldn't have got her job back, simply don't have a clue on how the real world works. I deal with this stuff daily and you all have blinders on, and don't know what you're talking about.

I hope your first bit above is applicable to yourself as well given the second quote from yourself. I still see nothing indicating any implied consent to try anything in the media, certainly it is to be expected that the media would contact the person fired over a timbit to illicit a comment from her no, after all -- they are a part of the story best to ask them for a comment. Seems to be standard media practise. Someone did contact them -- is that her problem or her fault? Does the fact that they were contacted make her somehow more guilty? The fact she commented really doesn't mean anything to me one way or the other. The fact the media became informed means nothing to me either one way or the other ... it doesn't imply any more or less guilt of an infraction.

There's a lot of people making a lot of assumptions in this thread -- on both sides of the issue.

 

[startbutton]

You as well. I still see nothing indicating any implied consent to try anything in the media, certainly it is to be expected that the media would contact the person fired over a timbit to illicit a comment from her no, after all -- they are a part of the story best to ask them for a comment. Seems to be standard media practise. Someone did contact them -- is that her problem or her fault? Does the fact that they were contacted make her somehow more guilty? The fact she commented really doesn't mean anything to me one way or the other. The fact the media became informed means nothing to me either one way or the other ... it doesn't imply any more or less guilt of an infraction.

There's a lot of people making a lot of assumptions in this thread -- on both sides of the issue.

Army Vern
I was rereading the article and she did say that after she left crying and embarassed she went home and called the media her self
the article is found at
Canoe news in the wierd news section
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2008/05/08/5507571-cp.html

 

[armyvern]

Arny Vern
I was rereading the article and she did say that fater she left crying and embarassed she went home and called the media her self
the article is found at
Canoe news in the wierd news section
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2008/05/08/5507571-cp.html

Well, thank you very much for that. Interesting read. From both the Tim Hortons management perspective and from the employees.

It seems that they did the right thing and gave her her job back to me. It certainly doesn't seem that there was a willful and maliced intent to commit a crime and "steal" from her employer.

It certainly reads to me exactly as "woman fired over a timbit" -- no more, and no less.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You as well. I still see nothing indicating any implied consent to try anything in the media, certainly it is to be expected that the media would contact the person fired over a timbit to illicit a comment from her no, after all -- they are a part of the story best to ask them for a comment. Seems to be standard media practise. Someone did contact them -- is that her problem or her fault? Does the fact that they were contacted make her somehow more guilty? The fact she commented really doesn't mean anything to me one way or the other. The fact the media became informed means nothing to me either one way or the other ... it doesn't imply any more or less guilt of an infraction.

There's a lot of people making a lot of assumptions in this thread -- on both sides of the issue.

I'm not going to keep arguing semantics with you. The press got involved with the issue. That's where it was tried. Whether by her hand or not, doesn't matter. She can't be defended or condenmed by what was written there. Bottom line, end of discussion. Anyone that does defend or condemn, given the limited facts and circumstances printed, is wrong. Plain and simple. Does that make it clearer for you? You want to be her caped crusader? Fill your boots. However, you can't truly defend her, because you just don't know what happened. You have only a minutea of the allegation. NO FACTS of the incident, simply the outcome of an alleged allegation. Savvy? She was tried in a court of public opinion, without benefit of the full truth and all the facts.

Bet if one of your soldiers was getting railroaded you'd leave no stone unturned, gathering the most minute piece of evidence, before making a decision and going to the wall for them. This is no different.

Reasonable and probable grounds is just that.

Continue to debate on this, by emotion if you will. I've only tried to guide the discussion on legalities and some insight into due process. If others wish to keep up the charade of moral indignation over this and similar situations that occurs many times daily in this province, as well as others, have a ball.

I've given my council, it didn't cost you and you can ignore it if you wish. Other than that, as I've said, I don't have the facts, I won't make a judgement.

"Whatever gets you through the night, it's alright, it's alright"

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

RC is 100% correct..........unless any of you had access to the pers file, this stores official policy, and then what was said in the back office than this thread is in the running for the stupidest topic of all time on army.ca.

I know it must be hard to keep up, with the large amount of people telling you your wrong : ... but like I already said, if she had actually been guilty, her job would not have been given back to her. 

Now this, especially to a union steward like myself, is just TOO funny.......

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is a tempest in a timbit box.

 

[gaspasser]

As strange and funny as this may sound, but I went thru a Tim's lastnight, there was a bowl of Timbits on the drive-thru counter for [I'm guessing] puppies and babies.  I didn't have the nerve to ask if they were freebees... :
Besdies, Niner would have smacked me upside...

 

[Yrys]

Tim Hortons trouble brewing: customer scolded over food for homeless woman

A brouhaha over breakfast for a homeless woman has put Tim Hortons on the defensive again, the latest in a series of public-relations black eyes for the Canadian coffee giant.

A woman in Toronto ran afoul of a downtown Tim Hortons outlet Wednesday morning after buying breakfast for a homeless woman. An employee was reportedly
unhappy the homeless woman stayed in the coffee shop to eat, telling the Good Samaritan - investment manager Teresa Lee - that homeless people "make a mess."

Tim Hortons spokeswoman Rachel Douglas said in an e-mail Friday that the homeless woman had previously been disruptive in the store. "Anyone who poses a risk
to a safe customer environment is not welcome in the stores, especially if they have a history of making threatening disturbances," Douglas wrote. "Staff was reacting àto that history; of course the customer could not have known that."

Tim Hortons later apologized Lee. "We strive for 100 per cent customer satisfaction but we appreciate the need to do even better," Douglas wrote.

Two weeks ago, a single mother of four was fired from a Tim Hortons franchise in London, Ont., for giving away a 16-cent Timbit to a baby, although she was quickly
rehired. Nicole Lilliman, who had worked at the store for three years, said she thought little of the incident since Timbits are often doled out to dogs and children.

Lilliman said the baby girl was about 11 months old, and she gave her the treat to quiet her because her mom - a regular customer - had been "having a bad day."
She didn't think anything about the incident until she was summoned into the store's office by three managers two days later. The managers told Lilliman she
had been caught on video giving free food to a child, and she was fired for theft.

A lawsuit against a Toronto franchise owner over an allegedly pilfered toonie is also before the courts. Charlene Walsh was fired from the Tim Hortons she worked
at in June 1999, when she was seven months pregnant.

The franchise managers and owner alleged she stole the $2 coin, but Walsh has maintained she earned the money in tips.

 

[MedTechStudent]

I love how it makes headlines because its Tim Hortons.  If it were any other Whata Burger or fast food deal then no one would bat an eye IMO.

 

[kratz]

Last week we drove through the Timmies in Treton a few mornings with our dog in the back seat in his seatbelt harness. Everytime the staff saw him, they offered us a free doggie treat. Many of the Tim's that we  visited on the highway back to Halifax asked if the single plain Timbit that we were ordering was for our dog/child. When we acknowledged it was for our dog, they chose not to charge us for the Timbit. Just our recent experience on the topic.

 

[ENGINEERS WIFE]

I wonder if I said my dog wanted an Ice Cap, if he could get one for free?  That would be great ;D......mmmm......Ice Cap ;D