I do legitimately believe there is no other logical explanation for this sign existing except for management having fully penetrated their own anus with their heads in a back-breaking display of both physical and mental acrobatics.
The word "theft" is rendered meaningless in a capitalist system. Anything which goes the greedy desires of the elite few is always labelled "theft", in the most illogical of ways. I download a song for free on the internet? THEFT! I get my local bakery to hand me a loaf of bread they weren't planning on selling anyway? THEFT! I need a research paper for my thesis so I ask my professor to print me a copy instead of paying some greedy publication who had no part in neither funding nor do the actual research required to make the paper? THEFT! Theft, in the mind of a sane rational human being, is depriving someone of their personal property against their will. Notice how that isn't even remotely what's happening in any of these examples. "Theft" in the twisted mind of the greedy capitalist is anything which can in their wildest imaginations lead to profit but which hasn't because someone got something for free.
The profit the business owner makes is a direct result of the exploitation of workers, the workers are consenting to being exploited, to have a part of the value they generate through their labor be taken by the business owner. If they choose to withhold some of their productivity for themselves rather than to give it to the business, that's not stealing. In fact, if any of this is to be labelled theft, it should be the business owner whose stealing by taking a profit margin from the labor entirely generated from his workers.
Yet the employer chooses to hire employees. Say he spends $1000 on food, and through hiring employees who processes and sell the food manages to earn back $3000, that leaves him with a profit of $2000. Those $2000 is the value that the employees added to the food, the value of their labor is $2000, yet they don't get $2000 do they? If they did, the business would break even and the owner wouldn't turn a profit, so he has to take a slice of the pie, and give the workers less than what their labor is worth. Is that not theft?
When you throw food in the trash, that is a clear sign you no longer want the food, you are implying your resignation of ownership from that food. Why not instead give that food to someone who needs it instead of throwing in the trash? Besides, the owner bought the food, of course he has to buy a certain amount of food, and the food that isn't sold gets thrown in the trash. The problem doesn't lie with the workers taking the food that doesn't get sold, the problem is that the owner clearly bought too much food to begin with. That excess food can either be processed and eaten or thrown in the trash, either scenario doesn't make a difference for the owner. It does however make a difference for the people who could potentially eating the food, so why would the owner care?
1
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '21
[deleted]