"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On May 8, 10:09 am, "Dave in Houston" wrote:
"Leon" wrote in message

...

Well I agree this is silly. Silly too, is what is not a sensational news
story, is not mentioned in the article. I don't think I would be so
gullible as to believe that this was not the straw that broke the camels
back.

Stupid is the call to fire her over this particular infraction.

Exactly what I was thinking. I suspect she had other "issues" relative
to her job performance and had possibly/probably been warned.



I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out this isn't the whole story.


Unfortunately for Tim Hortons it *is* the whole story. Besides..
whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt?

Well, the news article left out the reasons that might have given the store
the benefit of the doubt. I don't doubt the store may be of equal blame
but with out hearing the whole story the news agency has published a biased
article against the company.


If there were other issues, why chose this idiotic one?

Because the whole truth no longer matters if it may down play a sensational
head line.