“Since others have addressed the discharge issue, let me weigh in on the business issue.
Such investigations are more complicated than just checking credit card receipts. Firing an employee has a negative effect on a small business; they're facing losing one of their servers until they can find someone to replace them. There are legal issues around firing an employee, even when there seems to be obvious proof of misconduct. When faced with a viral matter like this, there's a lot of scrutiny, so they're definitely not going to want to fire an employee without defensible just cause. These are just a few of the reasons that it takes time to investigate a story like this. I've never run a restaurant, and certainly not one in that state, so I don't know what laws govern their actions.
I actually applaud the restaurant for their handling of this difficult situation. They didn't just make assumptions about the story they were faced with, and it seems they were prepared to defend their employee if they could determine she was telling the truth. Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do?”
AllenMcw on Dec 9, 2013 at 22:32:58
“Look originally I believed Dayna's story.
But what does not add up to me above all is that the credit card company is legally bound to tell the truth when questioned on this charge. The credit card company simply must know WHAT was charged and WHEN. If the WHAT showed the meal + $18.00 tip and the WHEN showed that that entire charge occurred as claimed by the customer then there you go.
E.g., IF the credit card company says the entire $111.55 was charged at the same time then there you go.
Yes I'll grant you that the Bistro does have to be very careful so perhaps I was a little bit harsh on that front..”
“Allowing politicians and political organizations to accept any money would be a disservice to them. Cut off their pay, their benefits and their ability to fundraise right now, and dole out access to a political race fund based on what actions they take that demonstrably improve the quality of life for those who live in their districts, and for all Americans. Let the public vote on whether they deserve more time in office, based not on their rhetoric, but on their cause and effect record.”
“What's infuriating, SweetHome, is that this kind of repressive baloney should be getting repealed and repudiated. Instead, it's getting expanded. Obama shouldn't be blamed for starting this, and I will remind any Republican apologist exactly whose great idea this whole thing was, but he certainly deserves the castigation for not only not stopping it, but supporting this crapola. This stuff is wrong no matter who does it.”
“Agreed on that score. That's not a story I'm going to permit to be swept under the rug. I do a lot of fundraisers. I'm rethinking my strategies. I explicitly voted against Republicans for a very good reason, and this is one of those reasons. No, I'm not going to be switching to Republicans nor to Libertarians.”
“EVERYONE is collecting our private data. This is wrong, the direction our nation is taking is wrong, and we can't seem to get our hands back on the steering wheel. Who owns our private data? Who is taking it? I saw if someone wants my private information, they'd better be able to prove in a court of law that they have a right to what is rightfully mine and mine alone. To take it against my will with or without my knowledge, to force me to divulge it is theft. If theft is legal, we are no longer a nation of laws, but of thieves.”
Austintatious on Dec 9, 2013 at 19:38:10
“It's the politicians, and our failure to make them tow the line. It really IS that simple.”
“Actually, welcome to Bush's America. This is what his Patriot Act explicitly allowed. Go ahead, read them.”
SweetHome2012 on Dec 9, 2013 at 19:36:14
“Now "zingdaddy" why on earth would you want to remind a member of the Tea/Republicans that it was their vote not once but twice that give us the Patriot Act. You know how they are.
Shame on you. (Just kidding)
I too, love reminding my Tea/Republicans friends that allowed the last Republican Administration to create this mess and now they have to live with it. LOL
Why, because the lump heads that voted into the House are to busy going on vacation to fix some of the problems with this Act.
Frankly I believe they do not want to fix it because they like what the Act does. It is just the Tea/Republican Base that does not understand that their leaders like spying on them.”
psileste on Dec 9, 2013 at 19:31:50
“Dear God, that whole two party thing is a scam. Why are you still falling for it? Both you and Everettguy need to wake up. This country is run by corporations that want to enslave you. That is not hyperbole. The republican/democrat schtick keeps you thinking there are people in government that care about you. News flash: They don't.”
Rounder on Dec 9, 2013 at 19:28:35
“It's not just Bush, and it's not just Obama. It's the combination of the two Establishment wings of the Parties. They stick together at our expense.”
StuntHunt on Dec 9, 2013 at 19:27:16
“Good cop/bad cop. They're all playing for the same team, which would the banksters.”
“The whole point of his event was to reach out to black people, and only whites showed up. Obviously he didn't reach his audience, did he? The rest of your post indicates a good reason why he didn't reach that audience.”
mila2013 on Dec 9, 2013 at 13:23:57
“He went to speak to the people of Detroit white and blacks.. and its to bad blacks don't care about to go listen.. after all its there city and it has fallen apart... maybe they had no money for the bus ride..”
“Times have changed, and so have we. I am furious still with those who took us to war in Iraq. They *knew* what they were doing could not lead to a good end, but they did it for profit. It has had a negative effect on Americans and our country, it's had a horrific effect on the Iraqis, and a bad effect on the world. It did, however, bring handsome profit to Halliburton.
I hope TotalIndependent can overcome his or her dislike of the Japanese. Most had even less choice in their nation's declaration of war than we had in keeping our leaders from entering that conflict that wasn't war in Iraq, and those of us who opposed it had no choice at all; we were considered enemies and disregarded or worse.”
“This first paragraph deals with your complaint that it needs 40% in the system paying full price to support everyone else without subsidies, and it doesn't have that right now. Correct?
Assuming that your figures are correct, there are two ways to interpret your comment. One is that it's just a complaint that it doesn't have 40% paying in right now. While that is true, obviously that's going to change, so it's a ridiculous complaint. The other is a complaint about what full price means, and an unspoken assumption that those people shouldn't have to subsidize others. Is that what you meant? Is there another way to interpret your position?
Here's the problem. There's no way to get away from subsidizing others. We subsidize the rich. The poor support us by working for very little. The reason the ACA is going to be more effective than what we had is that it stops the death spiral of the old system, and thus reduces costs by spreading costs over a greater number of people.
I may have misinterpreted your point, but perhaps this can clarify what I'm not understanding. I don't speak fluent conservative, so I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't communicate. Want to try again? ”
itschuck2c on Dec 7, 2013 at 20:11:37
“Full price..not receiving any subsidy, buying on the exchange ( and not using the insurance ).. and no it is not obvious that it will suddenly jump to the 40% needed. There are no indications to support your statement.”
“Oh chuck, don't be a silly sorry sack. My comments are facts. Your views are tantamount to deciding a cake is a complete failure if it's not fully baked and ready to eat when the first egg is cracked, or the Kentucky Derby is an utter failure when the horses start running because a winner hasn't been determined yet. It's like claiming all education is a failure because all the students can't fit through the front door on the first day of school, or that Amazon is a failed business because it didn't make a billion dollars on its very first day of business.
Come back when you're ready to be sane and sensible.”
itschuck2c on Dec 7, 2013 at 07:43:59
“So Sorry..but the first and second paragraphs of your previous post have nothing to do with the subject of my comment..the fact that the system fails without full fare paying healthy folk...
The sad part is you dont even realize it...unfortunately that is the norm on HP..”
“Did you really expect everyone in the nation to be able to sign up the very first day, even if it had been working flawlessly? Seriously??
Here's the problem. The old system was in a death spiral. Greed put insurance out of reach for the poorest members of society. They put off medical care until an emergency dragged them into the system through the most expensive door: the emergency room. They couldn't pay those bills, so the medical system, instead of eating them, passed them along to the insured in the form of higher rates. That dropped more people out of the pool of insured and into the emergency-room care model, raising the rates for those still insured. This little dance was going on every year, with more and more people being dropped out and the rest paying more and more for less and less. That wasn't sustainable. It was on the verge of collapse.
I would have preferred a single-payer model, as would many. However, we got the ACA through the input of the Republican Party. It's really the Romney model. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than what we had? Heck yeah it is, even though Republicans did all in their power to sabotage it rather than allow this president to have any successes.
So here we are. We don't have the best solution, but we have the best solution we could get under the circumstances.”
itschuck2c on Dec 6, 2013 at 21:50:17
“You comment is non-sequitur..facts are facts and there is not currently 40% paying full fare in the system.”
“Well, if they haven't got parents or are 26 or older and can't afford the premiums, there are subsidies that can bring the cost well under $100. I still don't know where you're getting this $200/mo $6k deductible. There are a variety of plans at several price points. Can you show me where you are getting those figures?”
labuyu on Dec 6, 2013 at 06:01:14
“Each state is different. The subsidies that were boasted about months ago were found to be greatly exaggerated for young adults. With subsidies, the monthy premiums will not be less than or equal to $100 for young adults. If you live in a sparsely populated state, you are screwed. Where are you getting that number? There are a variety of plans in some states, but the lower the deductible the higher the monthly premium. The lowest bronze program has the lowest premium and the highest deductible. Most bronze programs have a high deductible for young single adults averaging around $6,000. Bronze family programs can have a deductible exceeding $12,000. You will be paying for the maternity expenses, pediatric medical and dental care, drug abuse counseling and other programs of others you likely will never use.”
itschuck2c on Dec 6, 2013 at 05:55:44
“That is the problem with the ACA..it needs around 40% in the system paying full price ( no subsidy ) and not using the insurance to counter balance those getting subsidies and using the insurance.. So far that is not happening.”
“um...healthy young adults will be covered under their parents' premiums. Where are you getting that $200/mo plus $6k deductible? Link, pls?”
labuyu on Dec 6, 2013 at 05:01:32
“What if they are 26 or over? What if they do not have parents or their parents cannot carry them because they live in a different state? The premiums will vary, but young adults are finding out the govt credits they receive are far less than originally projected. The $6,000 deductible will apply to most young adults under the bronze program. If you upgrade to silver of gold your deductible goes down but your monthly premium goes way up. Either way if you are healthy young adult you are screwed. Pay the fine and buy the iPhone.”
“Just curious. Do you know what percentage of McDonalds' expenditures are fast food worker's wages? Here's a look at their political contributions: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00063164
On all the budget sheets I've found so far, wages don't even appear as a separate expenditure. This is not a company that is suffering a cash crunch. It can easily absorb higher wage costs without raising prices.
So here's where I get curious. If McDonalds can't stay in business without requiring taxpayers to pick up about half the tab for their employees, should they be in business? Should we let them fail and make way for other, better-run businesses that can bear the cost of doing business? If they're forcing their employees to be public-dole moochers, then McDonalds is by definition a moocher company. Given the precarious state of our economy, can we afford big moochers like this?”
“You're right. Perhaps we should all start eating cyanide because nobody dares to question a debate that is declared over by a certain group of people. I mean really, just because they have MD's behind their names doesn't mean they can force their tyrannical leftist ideas on the rest of us.”
MojoMan713 on Dec 5, 2013 at 18:13:19
“I hope you realize I was being sarcastic. I agree with you whole-heartedly.”
“Come on, there are lots of armed and armored cars and trucks, and google is creating self-driving cars...I realize I am horribly prejudiced against our dear fellow corporate citizens, but I'm wondering why they don't need passports, and why we don't allow marriage between meat citizens and corporate citizens. I'm sure if it was legal, my spouse would throw me over for Apple in a heartbeat (since those two have been openly seeing each other for years now).
To be fair, so have I. Quite the threesome we have here. It's worse than that: Apple has been seeing a LOT of other people. Shameless.”