• 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 29th, 2023

help-circle





  • Doesn’t that ultimately punish not the company, but anyone who lent money or sold material to the company? Usually assets would be liquidated to pay off creditors but if all the assets go to employees creditors don’t get paid. This really hurts all the small businesses who sold supplies or materials to the company and haven’t been paid for them yet.

    And of course, this all ignores the fact that for most companies most of their valuation is in their intellectual property, mainly their brand identity and recognition. And for manufacturing company’s, even most of the tangible assets are going to be things like factory buildings and equipment. Those things are all highly specialized so it’s very difficult to get someone else to come in and use that space to the same level of productivity. That will result in major damage to the local economy when a huge source of tax revenue and jobs suddenly disappears.

    I’m not saying all this because I think companies should get away with whatever they want. Not at all. I just want to give some context for why these “obvious solutions” aren’t being used. It’s not that the entire world is in some conspiracy. Many of these problems are legitimately very difficult to solve.






  • I think there’s some ability to distinguish as anything intentionally discarded due to spillage or damage should be accounted for directly, as opposed to only showing up at inventory

    Obviously it is impossible to separate out honest mistakes, intentional theft, and disgruntled employee semi-intentional shrink. If you ask the company, 500% of shrink is theft by organized crime rings and the general public should definitely be spending taxpayer dollars on police enforcement and jail time for pretty thieves. So I would assume most of it is actually accidental check out mistakes and employees “accidentally” checking things out wrong.





  • Since no one seems to have read the article, and the summary doesn’t answer the headline, I gave it a skim. Basically, regulations on lead in food are a work in progress, but progress tends to be slow when there isn’t much political pressure behind it, and that pressure tends to only come after something goes wrong.

    The big problem is threading the gap between what is technically possible with existing technology and infrastructure, and what the limits would ideally be from a public health perspective. Everyone agrees there should be a limit, but finding the best number for each food product is a complicated process.

    it can be difficult to agree on recommended lead levels because fruits, vegetables and whole grains all contain varying amounts of the heavy metal.