it was about his pay, benefits, retirements.

But to even think of using it as an excuse..

In Norway/most of Europe a lawyer would've had a field day with this case.

they are like testing the waters with the 60yo, then they can apply it to other employees.

If I had to guess, I'd say we're way past the "testing" stage and doing this at industrial scale. This just happened to be the kind of egregious implementation of policy that trickles into the news cycle.

For every Kurt Kromm, I'll bet there's a dozen employees fired due parking tickets or misentered vacation or failure to meet some impossible milestone in they're performance plans. More traditional and acceptable routes for firings.

This was just a particularly lazy, sloppy execution

It's worse without unions, but setting expectations beyond capacity and pointing a camera at points of failure is key to a good turnover rate.

If you're looking at 300-400% turnover then you don't really end up with that sort of issue in the first place.

they will just make some other excuse to "fire" him. like his attendance, his workload, being mean to others,,,etc.

Imagine having cookies in the break room that you have to pay $2 for... wtf.

I've gone through psych evals in corporate hiring that ask a bunch of bullshit "would you steal a penny to feed a starving orphan" questions, intended to weed out anyone with an ounce of conscience.

They mostly just teach you to lie to your boss

Well, it's a '49, '50, '51, '52, '53, '54, '55, '56, '57, '58, '59 automobile

It's a '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70 automobile

Yep. I remember having to temporarily sit at the desk of some department head to address a network problem, whose desk was covered in paperwork involving some poor custodian who was asking for a medically necessary limited period of light duty as a result of a work-related injury, and this director's handwritten notes all over it, with shit like "if she can't do the job she shouldn't be here, let's draw a line under this," etc. It was clear exactly what they were getting at; they ALL knew the law, hence the handwritten notes and vague language. The casual nature of it was revolting.

sounds like the one in the article, and an another story i heard years back. a a stewardess was 60-70+yo in her airline job, and the airline accused her of stealing and fired her, she was earning 200k+/year plus other benefits, and she was on the verge or retiring. they knew what they were doing. they are probably figure people wouldnt notice and she would accept it, or they mightve calculated the potential lawsuit costs of firing her.(using this as a template to fire people before they even have a chance to sue).

$1.95 is more than a nickel and a dime... that's a profit center for several people in the supply chain.

There always used to be a joke in the UK about Fords being cheap on the second-hand market. You could get parts easily, so they were cheap to maintain, as well. But you'd see the ads saying 50k miles, new clutch, new exhaust, new CVs, bearings, etc. because they fell apart all the time. This was back when Japanese cars were proving to the world how reliable cars could be. Nobody I knew wanted a Ford, though some people got them if they were really cheap.

they did it to soon, most of them try to get rid of the employee months before they become 65

200k+year is the reason, they just try to obfuscate by saying it something else, and stealing is the easiest to accuse and harder to prove. they probably expect the person to accept it and not lawyer up, because lawyers are expensive.