Malicious Food Tampering vs. Stupid Food Thieves

[Andara Bledin]

Like I said, "should" is a great word.

In a just world, everybody should be able to go about their business unmolested.

But since we live in the real world, it's incumbent upon ourselves to take reasonable precautions against those who refuse to play by the rules.

Or, we could act like brats who never learned that not everybody is going to play fair, stamp our feet, and behave just as badly...

[siead_lietrathua]

Or, we could act like brats who never learned that not everybody is going to play fair, stamp our feet, and behave just as badly...

people saying that it's unreasonable to lock their shit, that a label with their name should be sufficient to mark their property, is not bratty.

saying that punishing people who intentionally steal (don't "play fair") the proper way, through the chain of management, is not footstomping. it's acting like a reasonable adult.

and if we go back to food tampering, we all already agreed that Intending to harm someone is a shit move, so i don't see how we're endorsing behaving badly.

to me, a locking lunch is a less reasonable precaution than having the thief actually dealt with, since one person locking a bag just moves the thief to a new target. it solves nothing for the group, only for one individual.

[NecCat]

people saying that it's unreasonable to lock their shit, that a label with their name should be sufficient to mark their property, is not bratty.

saying that punishing people who intentionally steal (don't "play fair") the proper way, through the chain of management, is not footstomping. it's acting like a reasonable adult.

One time I did see someone take my food, we were all in the break room and one guy took a piece of a scotch egg that was on the counter, he didn't take it out of the fridge he saw it out in the open and thought it was fair game (even though it was from a shop and not what we used for deliveries) I got up and checked the fridge, yep mine wasn't there ergo that one was mine.

I went off on the whole room, the guy eating a piece wasn't seen taking it out of the fridge and ditching the label that had my name on it, he saw one scotch egg from an open twin pack, someone at some point in the day had taken it out and scarfed the first one and left it out in room temperature for god knows how long.

I was on the first cooked lunch break, the 2nd found most of their food in the bin already I was pissed.

After a talking to I was told to not let it happen again, well if my food isn't stolen I would have no reason to,....Nope the closest they got to a telling off was me calling random people who may not have even seen who took my scotch egg a bunch of c**ts and me throwing perfectly good food away.

So when the 2nd lunch started and found little of interest I point blank told em I thew some of the good shit away and why.

If I cant eat, you cant eat.

I was in charge of the reheating of spare stock and the next day I got the stuff ready and just wheeled the containers into the supervisors office and said "I've don't all I'm gonna do get some c**t to cook it."

(Emphasis mine)

Perhaps this is an example of what Andara Bledin meant by acting bratty and foot stomping, not reporting a theft to management or hoping that a properly labeled lunch kit will be sufficient.

Although it seems a bit silly, that in the face of an ongoing problem (repeated food theft) anyone wouldn't want to do something that could actually solve the problem like purchase a locking lunch kit, just because they shouldn't have to. (You know, if the world were perfect, like it should be, reality be damned.)

[siead_lietrathua]

Although it seems a bit silly, that in the face of an ongoing problem (repeated food theft) anyone wouldn't want to do something that could actually solve the problem like purchase a locking lunch kit, just because they shouldn't have to. (You know, if the world were perfect, like it should be, reality be damned.)

except, as i've said before, that doesn't really solve the problem.

if the thief is stealing lunches to simply have the food, they'll just move onto another target. shoving my problem off onto someone else is not a solution that benefits anyone but myself. it's Not a solution.
if the thief is taking someone's food to maliciously target them, a lock will not deter them for long. or they will change their tactics to something unrelated to food. it hasn't addressed their behavior. Not a solution.

i don't get this idea that i'm saying reality should be some perfect world. i'm saying if there is a thief, they should be dealt with as a thief, with appropriate punishment from authority.

edit for husband input: "it's not solving the problem, it's solving a side effect." " a bandaid on a broken arm"

[Andara Bledin]

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't push to solve the actual problem.

Just that you should also treat the symptoms in the meantime.

[siead_lietrathua]

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't push to solve the actual problem.

except when i talk about what would be done to solve the problem i get back derision about not thinking in reality. simply because i talk about long-term, actual solutions.

did i ever say locks are useless? no. at worse i said it was essentially pathetic that locking lunchbags were required for a group of adults. that is was not a real solution but, in the words of hubs, "a bandaid".

[eltf177]

i don't get this idea that i'm saying reality should be some perfect world. i'm saying if there is a thief, they should be dealt with as a thief, with appropriate punishment from authority.

This. But if authority isn't going to do anything then the kid gloves are off. No food tampering, but a suggestion from myself and my equally angry coworkers that he's going to have no need of our food when he's in the hospital intensive care unit.

I'll give management a chance to do something first, but they'd better take real action...

[Ginger Tea]

TBH it was 2 years ago when the scotch egg incident happened, so although I do recall being not very nice in my choice of words, the actual status of the food is hazy, yes I may have ditched the food, or I may have just felt like doing so.

It was 2 years ago, so the details are not clear. But it was food that the company didn't have to dish out, we could have just thrown all use by today/tomorrow food out and never serve hot lunches forcing people to bring their own in.

Some days I had nothing but scraps on the today/tomorrow shelf and disgruntled co-workers said why didn't I use anything from todays leftovers, well if its a leftover, chances are one of the drivers would come back saying "I need 2 X's" and I cant really say "sorry shit out of luck there I fed them to the staff."

Nothing I ditched, if I really did do so, belonged to anyone, it's not as if I found my sandwich gone so I took all lunch bags out and threw them away. These people were finishing their shifts in 2 hours, yet I was doing 5am-job done as the late person wasn't coming in that day and I was asked the day before to carry on, had I been asked to stay to cover, there wouldn't have been a scotched egg to begin with as I didn't stop by the 24hour Tesco's on my way in. Shop bought food was due to the fact we had to fend our ourselves come break.

[s_stabeler]

I'd still say that it'd be immature at best, Ginger Tea. ESPECIALLY for a case where there could be genuine confusion about the status of the food in question. (the immaturity would be in the threat to chuck the food if your lunch disappears. Actually doing it would be worse)

eltf177, good luck when you're fired. ( yes, possibly even for the threat) Threatening to put somebody in intensive care over stealing food? Frankly, I hope I never end up working with you, because that is horrific. ( I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure most people in intensive care end up dying of whatever out them there. So a threat to put someone in intensive care is functionally a death threat. Considering that it certainly requires injuring someone badly enough that they could easily die of it...)

[siead_lietrathua]

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure most people in intensive care ...(and con't)

are we supposed to take hyperbole seriously now? i doubt Eltf would actually put someone in the hospital over a sandwich.

[s_stabeler]

not exactly- I was more warning him that the threat would be excessive to actually do. Considering people in this thread have more-or-less said they don't care about a food theif getting an allergic reaction...

[Ginger Tea]

Considering people in this thread have more-or-less said they don't care about a food theif getting an allergic reaction...

Well as no one has outright said that their employer has banned allergens for lunch we are free to eat what we please.

If I was in a restaurant and someone at the table next to me is talking about their vegan lifestyle, then ordered something I knew had dairy in it I would not correct them, more so if it's obvious for example Macaroni and Cheese.
Why not but in? none of my business. If you are vegan you should know what to NOT order.

If I was the waiter and overheard the vegan conversation I would.
But when I don't know you, not my problem and as it's veganism not allergens you were talking about what do I care what you eat?

I've read too many stories where someone orders something not vegan then gets all pissy because of their mistake, how did you NOT know eggs weren't vegan.

You want to eat a double bacon cheese burger and say how much of a great vegan you are, fine go ahead, those you are talking to will look at you as if you are odd.

We're discussing allergies not veganism.

True, but if some vegans can't even order vegan meals for themselves, then those with deadly allergies should know better right? Right?

If you have a nut allergy what the fuck are you doing buying a snickers? Maybe they are not that stupid, but I am still baffled as to how and why someone with a potentially fatal allergy would just eat any old food.

As this is a long thread I can't be bothered to check how many cases of genuine allergic co workers actually played fridge roulette compared to just a hypothetical co worker.

If I could die or end up very sick due to something insignificant to the person who bought the sandwich isn't affected by but I have no proof until I bite into it that it is there, then why would I risk my own health?

People have posted that they have food allergies and have to steer well clear of pot luck meals and have to bring their own food to such gatherings, possibly feeling bad as they have to refuse every meal offered to them. But if asked, I couldn't tell you if the dye one poster is allergic to is present in a sauce I used, not without going back home to look, which I wouldn't do.

In that case it's better safe than sorry.
"I don't know."
"Sorry but I cant risk it."
"I understand that, maybe there is something else here."

Should this hypothetical co worker have the dye allergy and asks the questions about "does it contain X?" and still eat it when told "I dunno." It's on them, more so if they do not ask if it contains X.

Not all allergens are visible like a slice of lemon on a fish or a PBJ, so just because you can't see anything 'nasty' doesn't mean it isn't there if its something uncommon.

TL;DR

This thought exercise relies on you believing that there is someone with a near fatal allergy who has no regard for their own health as they will eat anything found in the fridge.

My brain breaks down at that point, are people that stupid when it comes to life threatening reactions?

[s_stabeler]

readthe darwin awards sometime (I don't know if its the "official" site for them, but it's got some good stories. In short, yes there are.

[wolfie]

A few pointers: In the hypothetical case that's been brought up repeatedly (prime suspect in food theft is known to be allergic to peanuts), someone publicly stating that they'll be putting peanut products in their lunch isn't necessarily a threat.

Scenario 1: "If the thief is who I think it is, they're going to get a nasty surprise one of these days - they're playing peanut roulette if they take my lunch"

This is clearly a threat, since the motive for including peanuts is to harm the suspected thief.

Scenario 2: "This President's Choice Thai sauce is delicious! I'm going to be using it a lot".

While the suspected thief might interpret it as a threat, the stated motive (something they enjoy eating - and a reasonable person would conclude that a sauce sold for use on food products is a valid thing for someone to enjoy eating, and therefore put on their food) is a legitimate reason to make the addition to their lunches. Management would be on VERY thin ice if they took action against Thai Sauce Person.

Also, someone mentioned "hidden" allergens (oils, little bit of peanut butter under the ham, etc., as opposed to blatant allergens like a PBJ sandwich) as clear evidence of intent to harm rather than deter. However, with hidden allergens, if someone does a bit of planning including the use of a "cutout", they could get away with it (i.e. introduce reasonable doubt).

Scenario: Suspected Thief is found dead, partially-eaten sandwich in hand, empty lunch bag with Frequent Victim's name on it nearby. FV has not made any threats, but forensic evidence finds traces of peanut oil in the (homemade) bread. Sounds like a clear-cut case, doesn't it?

BUT FV has a Baker Friend who makes a delicious multi-grain bread. FV's story is that BF has never mentioned the use of peanut products in the bread. BF's story is that FV has never mentioned food theft at the office, and since on various occasions he's seen all members of FV's family eating snack food that contained peanuts, he didn't see fit to mention the use of peanut oil since anyone eating the bread he gave FV wouldn't have problems with peanuts. So long as they keep their stories straight, any case falls apart due to the lack of provable intent. Person who knew about the peanuts didn't know about the food theft, and person who knew about the food theft didn't know about the peanuts. The absence of threats on the part of FV is the key - if they had made threats (as opposed to a general "WTF?" rant on finding their lunch missing again), intent could be implied.

[siead_lietrathua]

Scenario 1: "If the thief is who I think it is, they're going to get a nasty surprise one of these days - they're playing peanut roulette if they take my lunch"

Scenario 2: "This President's Choice Thai sauce is delicious! I'm going to be using it a lot".

what about scenario 3: "Since they have a peanut allergy, i'll bring a pbj. when they see that's what my sandwich is, they will not eat it."

that's close to scenario 1, in the sense that they are bringing it because the thief has an allergy, but they do not intend for the thief to eat it. it's supposed to be a deterrent, not a punishment. but how, as an observer, could we tell the difference between scenario 1 and 3? other than taking their word for it.