I don't see how what she did had anything to do with her AS *whatsoever*. If it's against the rules (no matter how silly those rules are - they apply to EVERYONE, AS or not, this is not discrimination just overly strict rules!) then her employer has every right to sack her for this.
PS: I *do* know that Subway allow pouring yourself free drinks, I have however never seen any of the staff do so and then sit in the restaurant with customers, so this may be where the problem lies. We'd really need to know the actual circumstances to know whether or not this was unfair.
There was no mention of AS on that article at all. It's not really that relevant to the story, is it? I thought the issue was that she'd apparently broken some unwritten rule -- in which case they (management) should have made their rules clearer!
It isn't an unwritten rule if the rule states "You are allowed to pour YOURSELF drinks" - if you then go and pour yourself a drink and pour your friend another cup, then only the first cup those fits the condition "pour yourself a drink".
If she goes and pours her friend a drink without charging then that's a breach of the rules, whether or not she has a free drink herself at the same time doesn't matter.
Although subway should not have accused her of theft of TWO cups since her own was free according to regulations.
PS again: I do understand that you could argue that she could have chosen to drink TWO cups all by herself and the company would not have made any money from that, however by that logic you could also start giving away free drinks to everyone you know arguing "If I had been REALLY thirsty that day I would have drunk all that myself, so you don't lose any more by me giving the drinks away instead".
But since they want to prevent this, they make it explicit that only drinks for yourself are included in this free drinks policy. Giving drinks away and then claiming they were for herself is just a way of trying to lie about what she did - the fact appears to be that she poured one for herself and one for her friend, never intending to drink both drinks at the same time.
I still think it is petty to sack someone for a first-time offence but they are entitled to make these rules as strict or generous as possible.
In fact I would hazard a guess that it is only possible for them to profitably allow their workers such free goodies as long as they are very strict about enforcing the rules that the drink has to be for yourself and not your mate(s).
Security video footage of the incident shows Lang sharing the drink with her friend, then refilling the cup and leaving it on the table when she returned to work.
From another article online - the refilling and leaving it for her friend seems to be what is the problem, first and foremost. I doubt that sharing ONE drink would have had the same consequences, but explicitly filling a cup and then taking it to her friend's table when her break ended, that is very clearly an intentional act, rather than "sharing".
This is the story
http://www.stuff.co.nz/westcoast/4050150a10.html
and here was the filled in online feedback form
Hey guys I heard about you firing that girl with Asperger's Syndrome for sharing a Coke.
I wanted to tell you that I believe it was a fantastic PR move.
I think the crime of sharing Coke ought to be fuly punished to the extent of the law...and beyond.
Why not punish her in a way that not only will alert her to her offense BUT cause her traumatic stress well in excess of what neuro-typical functioning people will feel?
Make her chances of gaining employment incredibly hard (never mind the fact that is is hard because of her condition).
Drive her self-believe in her attempts to socialise and integrate into the ground.
Hang on you have already done this.....but she deserves it of course!
Or does she? Was it actually picking on a marginalised person in society, who is vulnerable to misreading social conventions.
Might a spelling out of the policies have been a little more appropriate in this circumstance, and ruining a marginalised person a bit too much?
If this is so then surely SUBWAY is a despicable uncompassioante employer and has branded itself by its own actions as a socially irresponsible corporation.
I will help put the story out for you, to see what other people think....Hope you don't mind.
What do ya reckon?
"It's a human thing to do to offer a drink as comfort. If Subway doesn't like it, they have internal procedures to deal with that."
(From the same article)
It is a human thing but if the drink belongs to your employer it's not "sharing", regardless of whether you use a new cup or use your own, then fill it and give it to your friend.
Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/westcoast/4050150a10.html
(This one does mention AS)
I don't see how what she did had anything to do with her AS *whatsoever*. If it's against the rules (no matter how silly those rules are - they apply to EVERYONE, AS or not, this is not discrimination just overly strict rules!) then her employer has every right to sack her for this.
Well, firstly these rules should have been explained to all staff before they started. Secondly, I think these people overreacted very badly and so I think they have victimised this lady and I hope she wins her case against them.
Well, firstly these rules should have been explained to all staff before they started.
These rules (That you are allowed to peruse the drinks machine for your own personal consumption) are in the staff handbook, even the lady's lawyer has admitted that. She was obviously aware of that rule, otherwise she would probably not have just served herself free drinks in the first place.
If she chooses to try and get around the rules by re-using her own cup and then taking the drink to her friend, that still makes it very explicitly NOT for her own consumption.
Secondly, I think these people overreacted very badly
Yes I agree I mean give her a warning, because she *did* fill a cup and take it to her friend and that is very much against the rules (there's no way that can be considered 'sharing' even if she did share the first cup - if you fill a cup, take it to a table and then leave, you're not intending to drink that yourself)... but unless the person has previously broken staff rules it seems decent to at least give her a verbal or written warning, rather than just dismissing them.
I think she should have been given a warning, or asked to pay for the soda given to her friend, which I'm sure she would have done so. Criminal charges were a bit too extreme, as was firing her for one little mistake. It would be a different matter if she was caught on videotape taking money from the cash register, or stealing a bag of potato chips, but the employee handbook stated that employees get a free drink on their breaks. I have no problem in boycotting Subway because there are places that make better sandwiches anyway such as Togos which also has some good soup.
I always tell people that the law says I can not be fired for having AS but any excuse or mistake I make can be the excuse to fire me. Most work places would just take the money from her pay cheque to pay for the drinks and give her a warning. Most places will have a limit on how much employees get for free and about sharing. They should not have fired her.
Thursday, 10 May 2007
Subway worker theft charges dropped
Police have dropped a theft charge against a Dunedin Subway worker who was sacked for sharing a drink with a friend during a break.
At a status hearing in Dunedin District Court this morning, police used their discretion and withdrew the theft charge against Jackie Lang.
Ms Lang was fired from her fulltime job and was to face a theft charge in court on May 21 after she shared a Diet Coke drink while consoling an upset friend.
Subway allows free soda and water to staff who are working.
However, police brought forward the status hearing to this morning and formally withdrew the charge.
News of Ms Lang's dismissal was published in newspapers across the Tasman and on the internet, prompting the multinational fast-food giant to distance itself from its Dunedin franchise.
The sacking also sparked union outrage, with the Otago University branch of the Labour Party organising a protest march targeting the George St Subway branch, where Ms Lang was employed, and calls for a nationwide boycott.
Autonomous Workers' Union organiser Bill Clark told NZPA today the charge was dropped, saying it showed "commonsense is finally winning out".
Accusing Ms Lang, who suffers from Asperger's syndrome, of stealing a free staff drink, sacking her and having her charged by police was an "absurd and vindictive act" by Subway, Mr Clark said.
"It's just a shame it's taken international condemnation and a concerted local campaign to make them see that."
Mr Clark said he hoped the "good sense that's prevailed over the charges today" continued through mediation with Subway management over the issue.
"The fact remains that Subway sacked Jackie unlawfully and then added the stress of criminal charges," he said. "The company needs to be held to account for their behaviour."
Ms Lang said she was relieved to have the charge dropped after having it hanging over her head for almost a month.
"To have the police turn up at my house, take me to a cell and then tell me I was charged with theft was a real shock," she said in a statement released through the union.
"I'm pleased my name has been cleared, but I'm still not very happy about what happened."
Ms Lang said she was amazed at the support she had received.
"It's helped me feel like I'm not alone in this."
Subway and the union are to meet next week in mediation.
Subway initially refused to comment on the issue, saying the matter was confidential between employer and employee.
However, the company issued a statement on Tuesday pointing out that all Subway restaurants were owned and operated individually by independent franchisees.
Dunedin's George St Subway was owned by Galcol Ltd.
Subway said Galcol had "expressed its continued willingness" to resolve the matter through mediation.
Well, I think she should be compensated for all the pain and suffering she went through.
In my youth I lost several jobs for first offenses and for things that co-workers seemed to do regularly.
In most such cases it is usually more a case of the others (NTs) doing it more covertly (i.e. you may have noticed them doing these offenses but they skilfully hid them from their superiors) than of a person being discriminated against for their AS (especially since as you said it wasn't a diagnosis, so they couldn't have possibly know you had AS).
People with AS can be more blunt and open and less driven to lie or cover up things that are deemed "inappropriate", at least when the AS person is under the impression that the "inappropriate" action is not actually "inappropriate" (since others do it too).
If on the other hand you knowingly and wilfully break a rule then to be honest I don't see why you shouldn't get punished if caught.
I always tell people that the law says I can not be fired for having AS but any excuse or mistake I make can be the excuse to fire me. Most work places would just take the money from her pay cheque to pay for the drinks and give her a warning.
I do agree but as her lawyer stated it seems common in this industry (fast turn-around of staff etc.) for staff to be let go for identical offenses (it wasn't sharing her first cup that was the issue, it was refilling it and bringing it to her friend's table, after her break, that was the actual offense).
Not that I agree with that practice but if they normally sack someone for this sort of theft then I don't see why they should treat this lady differently - if she just wanted to comfort her friend I'm sure she could've afforded to pay for that drink if she had been honest.
I don't think she should have been sacked for anything so petty and I also don't think it was theft.
I agree with the first part and sort of with the second, it's not theft as such but a breach of the rules. Regardless of how emotional she gets over her friend, she shouldn't have "forgotten" about the rules or assumed herself to be above the law just to make herself look good in front of her friend. You can impress your mates in your spare time, and preferably not on other people's money...