Doc Fired Over 'Doughnuts = Death' Sign

[quote]bpeck wrote:
Where did it say he banned doughnuts? The only thing close to it was this quote:

“He angered staff members by barring doughnuts from department meetings and announcing he would throw the fat-laden sweets away if he saw them in the break room. He also banned candy bars in the vending machines, putting in peanuts instead.”

I didn’t see a single place in the article where he told an employee what they could eat. It may be a little extreme to throw away sweets in the break room but they can always keep them in their office and send an email to notify people.

If the employees don’t like what is in the vending machines they can carry in whatever they want and they will probably save money doing it. As for banning doughnuts from meetings I think he should have just banned all foods from meetings because they are a distraction. If I am running a meeting I want everyone’s attention on me instead of food.

bpeck[/quote]

I’ll give you the meetings as long as they’re in a proper conference/meeting setting. But who the fuck is he to dictate what people can and can not bring into the break room? “he would throw the fat-laden sweets away if he saw them in the break room.” You really don’t see anything wrong with that?

Well later guys looks like im gonna die,Had one this morning.

What happened when they tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s to 1930s? Did it stop people from drinking? There are more than 60% of overweight people in the US that won’t let doughnuts or other type of food from being banned.

[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
What happened when they tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s to 1930s? Did it stop people from drinking? There are more than 60% of overweight people in the US that won’t let doughnuts or other type of food from being banned.
[/quote]

Umm… I think they did ban alcohol?

[quote]Therizza wrote:
hawaiilifterMike wrote:
What happened when they tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s to 1930s? Did it stop people from drinking? There are more than 60% of overweight people in the US that won’t let doughnuts or other type of food from being banned.

Umm… I think they did ban alcohol?[/quote]

but people found a way to drink anyways (speakeasies) … plus it gave a market to organized crime (bootleggers, Al Capone)

A law that was instituted because a group pushed their own moral agenda claiming alcohol corrupted society that gave power to the morally corrupt aspect of society. Kind of backfired now didn’t it.

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Therizza wrote:
hawaiilifterMike wrote:
What happened when they tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s to 1930s? Did it stop people from drinking? There are more than 60% of overweight people in the US that won’t let doughnuts or other type of food from being banned.

Umm… I think they did ban alcohol?

but people found a way to drink anyways (speakeasies) … plus it gave a market to organized crime (bootleggers, Al Capone)

A law that was instituted because a group pushed their own moral agenda claiming alcohol corrupted society that gave power to the morally corrupt aspect of society. Kind of backfired now didn’t it.[/quote]

Pretty sure the Kennedy’s got all their money from bootlegging too. Although I could be totally fucking wrong about that, and da googles is broken on my computer right now.

[quote]polo77j wrote:
I’ll give you the meetings as long as they’re in a proper conference/meeting setting. But who the fuck is he to dictate what people can and can not bring into the break room? “he would throw the fat-laden sweets away if he saw them in the break room.” You really don’t see anything wrong with that?[/quote]

I did say it was “a little extreme”. I used “a little” because they work at the Health Department. If it was a regular business I would say it was very extreme.

He could have handled the break room by banning all food and saying it was a health risk. If someone happened to bring in food that was contaminated and people got sick the Health Department could be held liable.

It seems to me that he could have accomplished most of his goals through more easily defended methods.

bpeck

[quote]bpeck wrote:
polo77j wrote:
I’ll give you the meetings as long as they’re in a proper conference/meeting setting. But who the fuck is he to dictate what people can and can not bring into the break room? “he would throw the fat-laden sweets away if he saw them in the break room.” You really don’t see anything wrong with that?

I did say it was “a little extreme”. I used “a little” because they work at the Health Department. If it was a regular business I would say it was very extreme.

He could have handled the break room by banning all food and saying it was a health risk. If someone happened to bring in food that was contaminated and people got sick the Health Department could be held liable.

It seems to me that he could have accomplished most of his goals through more easily defended methods.

bpeck[/quote]

So you’re saying that you 'd condone someone using that type of manipulation (a scapegoat perhaps) to achieve an end of this sort? Do you believe that his employees would actually buy that load of bullshit if he had deployed the method you suggested? Come on meow.

[quote]bpeck wrote:
polo77j wrote:
I’ll give you the meetings as long as they’re in a proper conference/meeting setting. But who the fuck is he to dictate what people can and can not bring into the break room? “he would throw the fat-laden sweets away if he saw them in the break room.” You really don’t see anything wrong with that?

I did say it was “a little extreme”. I used “a little” because they work at the Health Department. If it was a regular business I would say it was very extreme.

He could have handled the break room by banning all food and saying it was a health risk. If someone happened to bring in food that was contaminated and people got sick the Health Department could be held liable.

It seems to me that he could have accomplished most of his goals through more easily defended methods.

bpeck[/quote]

What the fuck are you, 15? So you think banning all food…so people work 8 hours or more without eating…would be tolerable? WTF? So people eating lunch is now a fucking health risk? Guy, that would have gotten him fired long before banning doughnuts.

What you are saying makes about as much sense as someone coming in and throwing everyone’s bottled water in the trash because they are against using plastic for drinking out of.

It doesn’t mater what his beliefs are, if they start to impose on the rights or beliefs of others in the workplace, then he is wrong.

I eat at least 4 times a day at work. I would love to see your little scenario play out.

[quote]polo77j wrote:
bpeck wrote:
polo77j wrote:
I’ll give you the meetings as long as they’re in a proper conference/meeting setting. But who the fuck is he to dictate what people can and can not bring into the break room? “he would throw the fat-laden sweets away if he saw them in the break room.” You really don’t see anything wrong with that?

I did say it was “a little extreme”. I used “a little” because they work at the Health Department. If it was a regular business I would say it was very extreme.

He could have handled the break room by banning all food and saying it was a health risk. If someone happened to bring in food that was contaminated and people got sick the Health Department could be held liable.

It seems to me that he could have accomplished most of his goals through more easily defended methods.

bpeck

So you’re saying that you 'd condone someone using that type of manipulation (a scapegoat perhaps) to achieve an end of this sort? Do you believe that his employees would actually buy that load of bullshit if he had deployed the method you suggested? Come on meow.[/quote]

No, I never said I would condone this. People have the right to eat what they want. I was just thinking of ways he could have done it without anyone being too upset. Kind of like playing Devil’s Advocate.

There are a lot of things companies do to limit their liability so the break room ban wouldn’t seem too unusual. I wouldn’t be surprised if some companies already do this. Eating during meetings is rude and people don’t do this where I work. If they did it wouldn’t surprise me to see a ban.

bpeck

[quote]bpeck wrote:
polo77j wrote:
bpeck wrote:
polo77j wrote:
I’ll give you the meetings as long as they’re in a proper conference/meeting setting. But who the fuck is he to dictate what people can and can not bring into the break room? “he would throw the fat-laden sweets away if he saw them in the break room.” You really don’t see anything wrong with that?

I did say it was “a little extreme”. I used “a little” because they work at the Health Department. If it was a regular business I would say it was very extreme.

He could have handled the break room by banning all food and saying it was a health risk. If someone happened to bring in food that was contaminated and people got sick the Health Department could be held liable.

It seems to me that he could have accomplished most of his goals through more easily defended methods.

bpeck

So you’re saying that you 'd condone someone using that type of manipulation (a scapegoat perhaps) to achieve an end of this sort? Do you believe that his employees would actually buy that load of bullshit if he had deployed the method you suggested? Come on meow.

No, I never said I would condone this. People have the right to eat what they want. I was just thinking of ways he could have done it without anyone being too upset. Kind of like playing Devil’s Advocate.

There are a lot of things companies do to limit their liability so the break room ban wouldn’t seem too unusual. I wouldn’t be surprised if some companies already do this. Eating during meetings is rude and people don’t do this where I work. If they did it wouldn’t surprise me to see a ban.

bpeck[/quote]

I used to drink protein shakes during meetings all of the time, even in the military. If a meeting is going to take 2 hours, you can bet I brought food with me. It would only be distracting if it smelled bad to people around me or made a ton of noise…which shakes don’t.

Who goes eight hours with out eating? While working too? I’d be right there with the fatties if someone tried to pull that. GIMME A GODDAMNED SAMMICH…

[quote]bpeck wrote:
polo77j wrote:
bpeck wrote:
polo77j wrote:
I’ll give you the meetings as long as they’re in a proper conference/meeting setting. But who the fuck is he to dictate what people can and can not bring into the break room? “he would throw the fat-laden sweets away if he saw them in the break room.” You really don’t see anything wrong with that?

I did say it was “a little extreme”. I used “a little” because they work at the Health Department. If it was a regular business I would say it was very extreme.

He could have handled the break room by banning all food and saying it was a health risk. If someone happened to bring in food that was contaminated and people got sick the Health Department could be held liable.

It seems to me that he could have accomplished most of his goals through more easily defended methods.

bpeck

So you’re saying that you 'd condone someone using that type of manipulation (a scapegoat perhaps) to achieve an end of this sort? Do you believe that his employees would actually buy that load of bullshit if he had deployed the method you suggested? Come on meow.

No, I never said I would condone this. People have the right to eat what they want. I was just thinking of ways he could have done it without anyone being too upset. Kind of like playing Devil’s Advocate.

There are a lot of things companies do to limit their liability so the break room ban wouldn’t seem too unusual. I wouldn’t be surprised if some companies already do this. Eating during meetings is rude and people don’t do this where I work. If they did it wouldn’t surprise me to see a ban.

bpeck[/quote]

You think that people wouldn’t get “too upset” if they were not allowed to eat at work? You’ve got to be kidding me, I don’t know where the hell you work, but I’ve never heard of a place where employees are denied food during an 8 hour workday, that’s insane.

I appreciate a good Devil’s Advocate, but honestly, a break room ban? And I agree w/ X on the shakes during a meeting (I did the same thing when I was in the military, it never distracted anyone, it was like drinking water during a meeting … same thing). You’d get a worse reaction from your employees than if you tried to ban cigarette breaks.

LOL @ fireflyz

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What the fuck are you, 15? So you think banning all food…so people work 8 hours or more without eating…would be tolerable? WTF? So people eating lunch is now a fucking health risk? Guy, that would have gotten him fired long before banning doughnuts.

What you are saying makes about as much sense as someone coming in and throwing everyone’s bottled water in the trash because they are against using plastic for drinking out of.

It doesn’t mater what his beliefs are, if they start to impose on the rights or beliefs of others in the workplace, then he is wrong.

I eat at least 4 times a day at work. I would love to see your little scenario play out.
[/quote]

Did you read my first post? Go back and read my original post. I pointed out that nothing in that article said anything about him banning food from the office. If I missed it then point me to where it was said. He was banning people from setting food out in the break room. It never said that people couldn’t have food in their office. I actually pointed out that people could get around this by putting the treats in their offices and letting people know they can stop by to get one. I don’t see the jump to me telling people they can’t eat at work. I agree with you that people should eat whatever they want to eat.

I was also playing Devil’s Advocate by suggesting ways he could have kept doughnuts out of the break room and meetings without looking like he was telling people what they could eat. Obviously you would have to have a break during long meeting so people could get a snack.

bpeck

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
You think that people wouldn’t get “too upset” if they were not allowed to eat at work? You’ve got to be kidding me, I don’t know where the hell you work, but I’ve never heard of a place where employees are denied food during an 8 hour workday, that’s insane.
[/quote]

Please point out to me where I agreed to a complete ban of food from the office? If you banned food from being set out in the break rooms or in meetinga then most people would only be mildly upset. A few people like PX would be really upset about the meeting ban.

bpeck

[quote]polo77j wrote:
I appreciate a good Devil’s Advocate, but honestly, a break room ban? And I agree w/ X on the shakes during a meeting (I did the same thing when I was in the military, it never distracted anyone, it was like drinking water during a meeting … same thing). You’d get a worse reaction from your employees than if you tried to ban cigarette breaks.[/quote]

Shakes are a different story since they are a drink. I don’t think bringing a drink to a meeting is rude. I just can’t think of a time where I went to a meeting and someone brought food and I have been working in an office for 14 years. This excludes lunch meetings and early meetings where they provide food because you might not have had time to eat before the meeting.

bpeck

[quote]bpeck wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
You think that people wouldn’t get “too upset” if they were not allowed to eat at work? You’ve got to be kidding me, I don’t know where the hell you work, but I’ve never heard of a place where employees are denied food during an 8 hour workday, that’s insane.

Please point out to me where I agreed to a complete ban of food from the office? If you banned food from being set out in the break rooms or in meetinga then most people would only be mildly upset. A few people like PX would be really upset about the meeting ban.

bpeck[/quote]

You don’t know what a break room is… Why is that?

Since I’m feeling generous: A break room is the place where many people who work in an office take their breaks. Generally, these rooms include a refrigerator and a microwave for the purposes of storing and reheating lunches and other food items brought from home. You suggested banning food from the break room as some sort of health hazard, and then suggested that people wouldn’t be upset by this.

Every office that I have ever worked in would be full of absolutely pissed off and irate people if the manager went into the break room and threw out all of the food that he didn’t like.

You might be happy sticking your lunch in a warm desk drawer and eating it at your desk, but it’s silly and unrealistic to think that most people would be happy with that arrangement.

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Therizza wrote:
hawaiilifterMike wrote:
What happened when they tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s to 1930s? Did it stop people from drinking? There are more than 60% of overweight people in the US that won’t let doughnuts or other type of food from being banned.

Umm… I think they did ban alcohol?

but people found a way to drink anyways (speakeasies) … plus it gave a market to organized crime (bootleggers, Al Capone)

A law that was instituted because a group pushed their own moral agenda claiming alcohol corrupted society that gave power to the morally corrupt aspect of society. Kind of backfired now didn’t it.[/quote]

You just proved my point for me. No group should ban something based upon the perceived ills it causes humanity. I do not believe in social engineering.