Yet another example of the over reaching of the courts, the violent attack on business, and how no one is paying attention to this vicious assault.

In the Netherlands, a worker at McDonald’s was fired for putting cheese on a hamburger for a fellow employee.  There was an employee was on break who ordered a hamburger.  Her friend, making the hamburger, decided to be nice on the company’s dime, and added some cheese to the regular burger order.  This was caught by management, and the employee who made the burger was fired.

Enter the lawsuit.  Enter the courts.

The Dutch court decided that the employee was unfairly terminated.  That being fired, for theft, was simply too great of a punishment.  The court decided that the employee deserved back pay, totaling $5984 (USD), as well as paying all court costs and legal fees.

The rational of the court?  ”It was just a slice of cheese.”

Last I checked, there are still laws in the Netherlands.  Also, last I checked, theft is still against the law.  It doesn’t matter if it is a slice of cheese, a loose diamond or a luxury car.  Theft is theft.  For the court to decide that the theft from a major corporation doesn’t measure up is absurd.  For the court to decide that the crime is irrelevant because it was “just a slice of cheese” is arbitrary nonsense, and calls into question the clarity and competence of the court.

If we are going to now decide whether or not something is theft based on the perceived insignificance of the item being pilfered, then what about people who steal a $.99 song?  That can’t be something you can sue over.  After all, it’s just one song…right?  It’s just $.99, right?  Right, Metallica?

Is it not theft because the target of the crime was McDonald’s?  Is there an assumption that this company, with locations around the world and an iconic brand (built on cheeseburgers and paid for from the profits of cheeseburgers!) can, should and must accept theft from its employees because of their size?  Must McDonald’s now build theft in to their operating costs?  I’m not an economist, but that would mean McDonald’s would have to either raise the price of their burgers, or fire employees to manage the cost of this newly, court imposed “tax.”  Firing employees who are doing a good job (and not stealing!)  hurts the employee, and hurts the local economy.  Raising prices on the burger hurts the consumer – and we did nothing wrong.  Why should we have to subsidize the actions of a thief?

The court system simply does not recognize the rights of business.  And, in this case, it went out of its way to attack business.  So did the writer of this article in the Telegraph.  The article ends with a mention of McDonald’s fourth quarter profits:

The decision came days after the fast-food chain reported an increase in net profits by almost 25 per cent in the last quarter of 2009.

De Facto, this reporter is trying to create some type of moral rationale for awarding this thief over $5k, and not punishing her for stealing.  McDonald’s had a great quarter, the reporter is trying to tell us.  They can afford to part with a measly piece of cheese.  Why are they so consumed with profits?!?!?  However, the use of the stat backfires.  By telling us of McDonald’s impressive fourth quarter numbers, we are reminded of McDonald’s ability to control costs, provide a solid product with unmatched consistency and best manage its operations.  We are reminded that – even in this global economy – businesses can achieve financial success if they properly run their companies.  We should be applauding this, and learning from their example.  By adding the profits of McDonald’s as a way of attacking the company, the reporter unwittingly acknowledges the worthless and irrational decision of the court.  The reporter also acknowledges their own remarkably inept observations.

McDonald’s knows better than the courts how to run their company, and was well within their rights to fire this employee.  For the court to think otherwise is an assault on businesses.  We’ve already proven that McDonald’s system is best for employees, customers and local economies.  If the court moves in these directions, and decides to become the HR department for business, then we ensure higher prices, less growth and far more unemployment.  For the reporter to add mention of McDonald’s profits as a way of portraying a David vs. Gloiath situation over a “piece of cheese,” is to further attack business for actually being in business, and is condoning theft of large corporations.

A slice of cheese costs $.13.  McDonald’s hires approximately 1.5 million people.  If each person gets one extra slice of cheese a day for “free,” it will cost McDonald’s $195,000 per day, or  $71,175,000 per year.  How long do you think McDonald’s will stay in business if you moralize theft, and condemn smart business decisions?

Better get that Big Mac while you can.