You're fired. No, Re-hired. Courts and labour, arrrgghh.

[fvkasm2x]

Try going to a fast food restaurant with a degree listed on your resume and see what happens. It seems to me that these places want students or under-educated people who aren't going to work for a month and then take off for something better. If people have had other experiences please feel free to correct me.

You've brought up a good point.

So why would you even list a degree on a resume for a fast food restaurant?

Just leave it out. Seriously, tailor your resume to fit the application. Each and every time.

Depends on what is going on in your life and how much of an idiot you are, regardless of your fancy piece of paper.

There was a time in my life (age 26) where I found myself jobless, crashing with a friend and I had 3 degrees... but all that fancy paper couldn't instantly get me a job to pay rent and put food on the table.

I got an entry level job at a fast food place and I put ALL of my education on the resume. During the interview, the manager flat out asked "Why it the world are you applying for this job" and later said in the interview "I have reservations hiring you, because it's obvious you'll find a better job and I'll waste time and money training you and then just have to interview someone else."

My answer was simple (although perhaps unique, because of my situation):

"I'll be honest, I have applications in to various organizations and career opportunities with both provincial and federal governments. I fully expect to get hired by one of them. However, the vetting process for these jobs is quite lengthy and tedious. I'm looking at around 1 full year before I'd get a start date, perhaps longer... depending on how many applications they get.

As you can see, I am highly educated and I'd like to think, an amazing employee regardless of the job. If you want to hire someone else who isn't as hardworking, smart or honest as me... I fully understand. Hire them and maybe keep them around for two years. Three if you're lucky. That's the average length of a fast food job. Or you can hire me for at least a year and that gives you time to assess your store's needs and perhaps utilize me in a way that you couldn't use your average high school kid."

I got the job. He made me evening manager after a few weeks. I worked there for about a year, as promised... before I got that government job I wanted.

It was win-win.

There are several points to take home.

In regards to this topic: No work is too menial for a person. A job is a job. Put your pride away. Also: You're never underqualified or overqualified for a job, providing you're smart and know how to interview well or articulate an argument properly.

[Queen K]

Okay I like how you explained your answer.

But not everyone has the gift of the great answer. You did.

Would JollyGB? Or the next guy? I can't wait to see what JollyGB has to say.

[60-YEARS-in-Ktown]

I just read this in yesterdays Province , did not read the court docs or Castanet story.
What I read they had FREE drinks and 1/2 off food..and it was 1.00 of fries at 1/2 price... 50 cents does not make sense.
The whole thing stinks to me, she asked about the food because she did not have here wallet. when confronted I believe she offered to pay.
At any rate I think its pretty harsh of her boss to do what he did in firing her...he bought a lot of bad publicity over a couple bucks... about a hundred grand worth,,
I could not in good conscience let anyone I know apply for employment with that person...
I dont think I want to enter one of his establishments..

[Queen K]

It is entirely possible with social media being what it is today, there is a grabyourwallet type boycott happening there right now.

But who is ever right then?

Employees are always right? Employers have no control anymore? This is a sad case. She won, but didn't at the same time.

[JollyGreenBully]

I can't wait to see what JollyGB has to say.

For listing a degree on a resume for a fast food restaurant? Because I'm absolutely horrible at speaking to and interacting with people. The degree at least shows I'm not mentally challenged in some way and it can also be used to help answer the inevitable interview questions about teamwork.

If one is using some sort of institution like WorkBC to aid in employment purposes, sometimes the job coaches there also get involved in the process and might mention education.

[Queen K]

From your posts I can't say you are in anyway challenged with the written word.

You do say you are "horrible at interacting with people" and that's the rub with certain jobs. You do have to be personable on some level. And diplomatic.

[JollyGreenBully]

Except the judge said this about those incidents:

The second of these aspects related to the allegations of overserving. I accepted Ms. Palting's evidence. Her testimony was responsive, straightforward and reasonable. She was not shown to have given inconsistent evidence and she was not shown to have any bias or inclination to shape her evidence to favour the defendant. Her testimony about the overserving incidents, in particular, was appropriately detailed, reasonable and entirely plausible. On the strength of that evidence I find that the three overserving incidents did occur as described by Ms. Palting. Accordingly, I also find that Ms. Ram and her son, Evan Ram, were untruthful when they denied the overserving incidents because they concluded admitting the truth would be detrimental to Ms. Ram's case

Ugh, I wasn't even going to respond to this post as it seems you're hellbent on lashing out at me, but here goes: If she was supposedly stealing food years ago and a liar then why wasn't she formally disciplined? Why did the managers in the court case having nothing but good things to say about her? Why didn't they aggressively attack her alleged past of thievery?

It just seems so suspicious to me that she was apparently 'talked-to' but never actually formally disciplined for these alleged overserving incidents, especially given that the manager in question who was informed at some point about these alleged violations has a no-tolerance policy for theft. To me, it sounds like a case of ambiguous rules and policies as well as possibly different standards by different managers.

If these theft incidents were true, then why did it take until 2013 to actually fire the woman? And why was it over some perceived communication error about taking a burger as well as fries and a drink? Keep in mind that the court found that drinks were allegedly free at this Burger King or at Burger King in general. I say allegedly, because there's some line about how when other people were questioned they gave different answers about this drink policy.

It doesn't sound like Ram was entirely honest in this case, but it also sounds like Burger King has significant issues with creating some sort of uniform employee perks program that is actually monitored properly and laid out to employees in an extremely clear fashion.

[maryjane48]

its simple really . it isnt theft if you ask a manager if you can pay when you return and they say yes . thats why she won . anything else is speculation . the laws of bc still apply here . even if the lady was up to something they cant prove beyond reasoable doubt she intended to commit a crime .

[JollyGreenBully]

its simple really . it isnt theft if you ask a manager if you can pay when you return and they say yes . thats why she won . anything else is speculation . the laws of bc still apply here . even if the lady was up to something they cant prove beyond reasoable doubt she intended to commit a crime .

Yeah really, if her intention were to steal she wouldn't have offered to pay on her next day of work or next day in the building. It also sounds like before she had a chance to settle her bill she was accused of stealing and became emotionally distraught.

[maryjane48]

im willing to bet burgerking head honchos are shaking their heads going really ?

[fvkasm2x]

Except the judge said this about those incidents:

The second of these aspects related to the allegations of overserving. I accepted Ms. Palting's evidence. Her testimony was responsive, straightforward and reasonable. She was not shown to have given inconsistent evidence and she was not shown to have any bias or inclination to shape her evidence to favour the defendant. Her testimony about the overserving incidents, in particular, was appropriately detailed, reasonable and entirely plausible. On the strength of that evidence I find that the three overserving incidents did occur as described by Ms. Palting. Accordingly, I also find that Ms. Ram and her son, Evan Ram, were untruthful when they denied the overserving incidents because they concluded admitting the truth would be detrimental to Ms. Ram's case

Ugh, I wasn't even going to respond to this post as it seems you're hellbent on lashing out at me,

??? Get help son. Honestly find a therapist or counselor. I never mentioned you and my response was 100% factual with quotes from the case, talking about the topic. It had nothing to do with you

Yeah really, if her intention were to steal she wouldn't have offered to pay on her next day of work or next day in the building. It also sounds like before she had a chance to settle her bill she was accused of stealing and became emotionally distraught.

I used to work in loss prevention for a couple years many moons ago. Do you know what I heard MULTIPLE times from people caught stealing?

"I have lots of money, I can pay for it. I didn't mean to steal it."

I had people pull out their wallets and say "Why would I steal it if I have all this cash"

It's a convenient excuse to try to get away with something

[ferri]

*Don't start making this personal please. Thanks!

[FreeRights]

I used to work in loss prevention for a couple years many moons ago. Do you know what I heard MULTIPLE times from people caught stealing?

"I have lots of money, I can pay for it. I didn't mean to steal it."

I had people pull out their wallets and say "Why would I steal it if I have all this cash"

It's a convenient excuse to try to get away with something

Although true, in loss prevention the thief rarely asks the GM ahead of time if they could take the item.

In this particular case, she did.

[Even Steven]

I dont think I want to enter one of his establishments..

Well, they do sell poison instead of food, why would anybody go there in the first place

[Queen K]

That's an entirely different thread Even Steven.

And MJ, I'm sure Burger King as a corporation is horrified that a franchise owner got hit with such a large and punishing judgement. IMO it should have been lower if imposed at all. Now anyone getting fired can sue and except a windfall.

Which makes hiring more difficult. Hence my original point.