By Anonymous - 19/10/2009 08:46 - United States

Today, I started my first day at work, I've been unemployed for a while and am in college, so naturally I have no money. At the end of my shift, I ask what we do with the extra bread, and they tell me to throw it away. Being poor and hungry, I decide to take the bread home. I got fired for stealing. FML
I agree, your life sucks 49 451
You deserved it 10 304

Same thing different taste

Top comments

You should have just asked if you could have it.

You should've asked first. Some places have very strict policies about things like that, but they may have said yes if you had asked. Technically, you WERE stealing.

Comments

perdix 29

Sadly, that HAS to be the policy. If you were permitted to take leftover bread, you would have an incentive to make too much or somehow discourage customers from getting it. It sets up a conflict of interest, and it has to be forbidden absolutely. because if a certain level of "stealing" is permitted while another is not, then the appearance of arbitrary discipline arises. As you get into the "real world," you are going to be stunned and amazed at the corruption and fraud that goes on in the corporate world and the little sins that are capital crimes.

This is exactly why I had to crack down on my staff at work for taking food home. They were routinely making so many extra pizzas that everyone took one home... mostly out of laziness (preparing food in advance) but also with the intent of ganking the leftovers. It sucks to throw food away, but management is running a business, not a charity. Don't expect any perks just because you work there. Isn't it enough to have a job?

Exactly! Well said. And multiply the loss by each end-of-day worker and it could add up. To the OP: would you rather they paid you in bagels each week?

I agree. When the grocery store I worked at instituted this policy in the pre-made foods section, it was amazing how much less food was left over at the end of the night. It was obvious that employees had been intentionally making way more than what was needed so that they could take it home.

This is exactly right. When people get leftovers for free, unscrupulous people will purposely make too much. I've seen it all over. People routinely overbaked when I worked at a cookie place. My cousin worked at a pizza hut where the cooks would mess up pizzas on purpose because the staff got to eat the mistakes. I work at a craft store and we cannot keep the edge trimmings from the remnants for the same reason... if we could, some people would trim too much and take 5 inch strips home to use in their quilting.

Unless they're being paid enough to not need to steal food to eat, then no it's not good enough to have a job.

We're talking about having a job BEFORE the first paycheck.

AndreaHatesYou1 0

Would it really have taken that much energy and effort to say "well then would it be okay if I brought it home?" YDI

i do have to say that it is a bit harsh to get fired after your first day for doing that, seeing as how you didn't know, and should've just gotten a warning. that being said, i have to agree with what everyone else here said, and you ALWAYS ask before just taking things no matter where you work, because yeah, otherwise it is stealing

Sickly_Slick 4

well thats capitalism for you.

Unless you are on Welfare or work for the Government, it is why you eat and have a place to sleep douche bag.

and it also is the root of thousands of instances of unbelievable selfishness in this world.

No matter how arbitrary or Byzantine some policies may appear, there's usually a good reason behind them. Many companies used to donate leftover food to the local homeless shelter, but nowadays there are liability issues associated with that kind of practice. Explicitly allowing employees to take leftover food home invariably leads to some people hiding food throughout the day. At the end of the day, that leads to extra food being marked off as waste, and more to take home with them. If everyone was honest there wouldn't be a problem with letting employees have excess food, but that isn't the world we live in.

Darling_Cherry 5

I was really sad when I read this. Maybe this could have been avoided by asking if you could take it home?

It happens. Unfortunately. Hope you found a new job.

as a college student, i get the not-having-much-money thing, but don't act like you don't have a dollar to eat with. you probably have a meal-plan paid for by mommy and daddy and get to eat 3 times a day at the dining halls but choose not to because you don't like the food. its called a credit card? not that debt is a good answer, but until people realize that the bad economy is caused by people not spending money, its going to be a bad economy.

Gelatin 0

Who the **** are you to assume all this? Do you know this person? Do you know their parents? Shut the **** up. While your at it, quit saying "mommy and daddy." It doesn't make you sound any older or cooler than if you just said parents. Asshole.

letitbe56 0

guitardedman, the recession was caused by people spending money they don't have. That's what a credit card is: a piece of plastic that lets you spend money you don't have. Yes, the economy needs people to spend money in order to function, but it needs people to spend REAL money, not imaginary money. Credit cards are not the answer; they're what got us where we are.

There are numerous reasons for a recession. While you point is valid, the recession was exacerbated because Oil shot up... expensive gas meant people could not pay credit cards, mortgages, automobiles, etc.

letitbe56 0

True, there are always numerous causes. I was just alarmed by the person who was basically saying that if the OP got a credit card, it would help the economy. The inability to grasp the difference between buying with money and buying with credit is a huge problem in our society.

The following is in response to 120. FMylife posted here (?) by mistake. 1) First, I did not state what you insinuate. Read it again. 2) Second, of course 73 has the right to his opinions. Many have died for his right to be unhappy. You are tilting at wind mills. If he is unhappy, he should go somewhere else. Am I less undemocratic because of my position? Of course not. But if you start bitching about the ideals that make this country great, prepare to defend your position. 73 cannot defend his position, and your's is germane to the discussion. 3) Third, I do not accept your premise about charity. I am intolerant about law breakers, period. What I give away or contribute is for me to decide. What YOU "think" I should do does not concern me in the least. Your whining appears to allude to the fact that the "big bad corporate employer" should have "given" away what they produce. Nonsense. It is their's to give, their's to keep, their's to throw away. OP was told not to do something, he did, and got fired. You obviously think the World, especially America, owes you a living. No one, not even Canada, gives more to the rest of the World... and you question our personal, corporate, and federal charity? You are ignorant. 4) Fourth, most American's do not care what OTHER American's think. Do you honestly believe most of us give a damn what the rest of the World thinks about us? No one can change another's attitude or opinion. We were, are, and shall be hated for our success, perceived arrogance, opinions, and doctrines. When you start worrying what other people/countries think of you, then you have a DMSO certifiable mental illness. Just how many countries care about what the USA's socio/political/economic ideals? We don't know, and we don't give a damn. Please feel free to worry about it; especially if you think it makes you compassionate and helps you sleep at night. Finally, I hope you feel better after your moot, lame-ass attempt to question my disgust with one of MY countryman. And before you pre-ejaculate your ill-considered diatribe next time, consider knowing your facts before shooting off your mouth, boy. When you require further education on USA politics and ideals, send me a private message.

I am well-prepared to defend my position, Mr. FarSide. Now, you seem to feel offended because you think I intend to impose my beliefs upon you, as evidenced by your comment "What YOU "think" I should do does not concern me in the least". This suggests that you, too, are "tilting as windmills", as you so aptly put it. But if you don't care, why did you take the time to write a reply? I will be frank: I do care what you have to say, and that's why I am replying to your comment. So if you really don't care, and you write another reply after this one, you won't be wasting my time, but you'll be wasting your own. And if you want the last word, I'm fine with that too - just tell me. Now, the notion that anyone discontent with his own society should simply move somewhere else is flawed. The purpose of democracy is to give the people the opportunity to reform the society they live in. I make the point that people are not going to assume you want to give them sincere advice if you go out of your way to use harsh language. You wrote, "STFU or get the hell out of the USA". That is not an encouragement to move to a society with a different social climate -- that is a demand to take his unwanted ideals somewhere else, an assertion that his expression of his ideals hurts his country (instead of strengthening it). My point here is: Logic without according rhetoric will never be effective in communication. I made no reference to any "big bad corporate employer". It is not relevant if the OP worked for a large company or a small company. The point here is that the attitude of "I don't want this but you can't have it either" is not ethically justified, regardless of whether or not it is legally justified. To prepare food and then not eat it, while unfortunate, is sometimes difficult to avoid. But if someone is there to take it off your hands, you ought to be glad that the energy and raw materials that went into its production will not have been wasted. Intolerance against lawbreakers is misdirected. I'm sure you have heard this a great many times and do not really want to hear it again, but I still have to say it: we should always be conscious of the reasons why laws exist before becoming overzealous about their enforcement. Be intolerant against those who cause harm to the society in which they live, or to its members, but be intolerant only against such people. Why have you made the assumption that I think America and the rest of the world owe me a living, and how is that even relevant? And why do you think I have questioned the personal, corporate, and federal charity of Americans? You also misinterpreted my comment about the American stereotype. I meant not to imply that you should really care. After all, we Canadians aren't ever upset that Americans laugh at our "socialist" ways. I was just pointing out that you are intolerant and that you are intolerant in a way that is stereotypically, if untruthfully, associated with Americans - the way of pretending not to care. For you are just as much a human being as I am, and I am sure you have compassion, even if your upbringing has suppressed it. Just something to think about.

Omg agreed. Reading that comment pissed me off so much as well.