this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
608 points (99.5% liked)
Not The Onion
21908 readers
1387 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They didn't fire him for stealing the cookie. They fired him because he's old and probably earning twice what a new hire who could do his job would earn. The cookie was just an excuse.
Every employer, big and small, has a collection of petty rules on the books that are only there to be enforced against people they want to get rid of "justifiably" and not have to pay unemployment.
This tactic goes by the lawful name of at will employment.
At will employment isn't a magic trick, and this case demonstratesit clearly. It means employees can be terminated without cause. But if employees are terminated without cause they get to claim unemployment. That's why they manufacturered a reason here - to keep him from being able to claim unemployment.
It also allows them to term employees for illegal reasons. An older employee making more money and approaching pension can't be fired and denied pension for being old. But if they steal a cookie? Absolutely.
I think unemployment is paid to the State while they are working, no?
Companies get penalized if a lot of their former employees start getting unemployment.