Jump to content



Photo

No lunch $$, no lunch, school kids told

massachusetts whitsons culinary group apology

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31 rr_dRock

rr_dRock

    Resident Magical Lion v1.2

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 06
  • Location: Time Warp, Canadian Arctic
  • OS: Windows 7 x64, Windows 8 x64, Windows Server 2012
  • Phone: Galaxy SIV (CM11), iPhone 4S

Posted 05 April 2013 - 16:56

Regardless...its stupid to deny anyone food over 5 cents. Not, if this was a regular occurrence then maybe...but again, a notice should of been sent to the parents first.


It's not just five cents though... if they were already 5c under, then got another meal, it could be ~5 dollars maybe more... imagine 50 kids don't have that five dollars, that's $250. Now, if you think that's an insignificant amount, please, feel free to share.



(edited to 250 as the fact I am an imbecile was pointed out.)


#32 majortom1981

majortom1981

    The crazy one

  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 01

Posted 05 April 2013 - 16:56

Maybe you need to read the damn article then. When I went to high school, those that got free food from school were the one that qualified for free meal. Can you explain for me why these kids required pre-paid card if the school suppose to feed them free. Are you one of those irresponsible parents?


This was added into the federal law in 2011 as in a linked article

http://www.turnto10....ay-you-cant-eat

"Federal subsidies also require that schools at least feed students a grilled cheese sandwich if they aren't on free or reduced lunches but still cannot pay. This option was seen as controversial when introduced back in 2011."

it states that even if they have to pay if they do not have the money they are to receive a cheese sandwich. The article stated they were not given this cheese sandwich which goes against the federal law. Both the principle and the head of the private contractor said the employees were wrong for doing this since its against the law to do so.

#33 majortom1981

majortom1981

    The crazy one

  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 01

Posted 05 April 2013 - 16:59

When you go and apply for free lunches you get the same meal everyone else is getting.
Cheese sandwhich and apple juice is something else.


Yes I know but the article states the kids were denied anything. the law states they were supposed to receive a cheese sandwhich. The cheese sandwich is a minimum type lunch. keep in mind the article states this is new as of 2011. The law states every kid gets food.

#34 hagjohn

hagjohn

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,183 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 03
  • Location: Pennsylvania
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Yellow 1020 w/ 8.1

Posted 05 April 2013 - 17:02

Poor kids. They shouldn't have to bear the brunt of this.

#35 +chconline

chconline

    I review, not promote.

  • 13,155 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 04
  • Location: Calgary, AB, Canada

Posted 05 April 2013 - 17:04

I'm fully supportive for two tier health care. Screw the poor, it's not my fault they made bad decisions.


Uhh sarcasm? As much as I'd like to agree with you, not everyone is poor because they've made poor decisions (Why there are many who did).

But yeah, rules are rules. No money, no lunch. This is not a charity. What's next, me complaining a restaurant won't give me food because I don't have enough? :s

#36 majortom1981

majortom1981

    The crazy one

  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 01

Posted 05 April 2013 - 17:06

Since you care so much you should start a cheese sandwich factory, and feed all the hungry children of the world.


I hope you never collect unemployment or never get old. The fact is the school is collecting federal funds. if they do not want to abide by the laws concerning those funds then they should stop collecting the funds in the first place.

ojh by the way even the company released an apology

"Whitsons Culinary Group


To the Attleboro Community:

Whitsons School Nutrition has issued a statement apologizing to the students and the school community and we are in the process of conducting a full investigation. Please be assured that the individuals responsible for this were acting on their own and not under the direction of Whitsons School Nutrition. Whitsons’ standard operating procedure is to follow the district’s policy on handling unpaid meal balances. Our role is to collect these funds on the district’s behalf and deposit them into the school lunch fund, while following the district’s policy. In the absence of a formal policy approved by the board, we follow the written directives the district. If we receive no written directive, our policy is to serve a full and complete meal to all students, regardless of their outstanding meal balances.... At Attleboro, the informal approach agreed upon over the past four years has been to alert the district when a student’s account is five meals overdue. The district communicates with the parents and, in the meantime, our staff has been instructed to provide an alternate lunch, such as a cheese sandwich entrée and the other components of a complete meal, including fruit, vegetable and milk. When we learned of this incident Tuesday afternoon, we redirected our staff to provide a full meal (with no restrictions) to all children, regardless of outstanding meal balances, until the district has approved a formal policy, which will be clearly communicated to the school community. Again, Whitsons apologizes for this incident and wishes to assure the community of Attleboro that we are investigating and handling the incident in accordance with our human resource policies. In the meantime, you can be assured that no child will be denied a meal, regardless of outstanding balances."

Uhh sarcasm? As much as I'd like to agree with you, not everyone is poor because they've made poor decisions (Why there are many who did).

But yeah, rules are rules. No money, no lunch. This is not a charity. What's next, me complaining a restaurant won't give me food because I don't have enough? :s


they didn't follow the rules though. the rules state the kids where to get a cheese sandwich if they didn't pay.

#37 threetonesun

threetonesun

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,943 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 02

Posted 05 April 2013 - 17:07

It's not just five cents though... if they were already 5c under, then got another meal, it could be ~5 dollars maybe more... imagine 50 kids don't have that five dollars, that's $500. Now, if you think that's an insignificant amount, please, feel free to share.


50 kids...

5 dollars...

500 hundred dollars? :laugh:

#38 rr_dRock

rr_dRock

    Resident Magical Lion v1.2

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 06
  • Location: Time Warp, Canadian Arctic
  • OS: Windows 7 x64, Windows 8 x64, Windows Server 2012
  • Phone: Galaxy SIV (CM11), iPhone 4S

Posted 05 April 2013 - 17:31

50 kids...

5 dollars...

500 hundred dollars? :laugh:


Yeah, my maths suck today. sorry man. $250. I will concede that I am a moron.

(or I could just say I meant to put 100 kids.... lol.)

they didn't follow the rules though. the rules state the kids where to get a cheese sandwich if they didn't pay.

Unfortunately this.


As against social services and using taxpayer funds to help the poor continue to be poor as I am. You cannot have a service provider break the law, and know that that was the only law they're breaking... I would assume if they are lenient about breaking this one, other things must get "overlooked" as well, such as sanitation.

#39 +techbeck

techbeck

    It's not that I am lazy, it's that I just don't care

  • 19,642 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 05 April 2013 - 17:33

It's not just five cents though... if they were already 5c under, then got another meal, it could be ~5 dollars maybe more... imagine 50 kids don't have that five dollars, that's $250. Now, if you think that's an insignificant amount, please, feel free to share.


Five cents of debt was enough for cafeteria employees at the Coehlo Middle School to instruct kids at least one day this week to dump out the food


It was over 5 cents. And they had to dump out the food? What a waste.

#40 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 63,500 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 05 April 2013 - 17:35

Schools should not even be in the Lunch business.

This has become a mismanaged racket.

#41 rr_dRock

rr_dRock

    Resident Magical Lion v1.2

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 06
  • Location: Time Warp, Canadian Arctic
  • OS: Windows 7 x64, Windows 8 x64, Windows Server 2012
  • Phone: Galaxy SIV (CM11), iPhone 4S

Posted 05 April 2013 - 17:36

It was over 5 cents. And they had to dump out the food? What a waste.


Again. Do you not notice they didn't say if it was previously existing debt? IT'S NOT 5c if they ALREADY owed five cents BEFORE they picked up their meal. The cost of the meal is lost either way.

#42 +techbeck

techbeck

    It's not that I am lazy, it's that I just don't care

  • 19,642 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 05 April 2013 - 17:55

Again. Do you not notice they didn't say if it was previously existing debt? IT'S NOT 5c if they ALREADY owed five cents BEFORE they picked up their meal. The cost of the meal is lost either way.


Debt means its already owed. So there are 2 scenario here..

Before
So a kid owes 5 cents for a previous meal and goes to pay for another. They are denied food and told to toss it out because of the previous debt. So this is over 5 cents.

After
A meal costs 3.05 and the kid only has 3 bucks on him. The kid is told to toss out the food. The kid should get his $3 back since he received no food and it then is still over 5 cents. But this isnt debt since the kid didnt owe anything because he received no goods/services.

Maybe I am just not understanding you correctly....i dunno.

#43 rr_dRock

rr_dRock

    Resident Magical Lion v1.2

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 06
  • Location: Time Warp, Canadian Arctic
  • OS: Windows 7 x64, Windows 8 x64, Windows Server 2012
  • Phone: Galaxy SIV (CM11), iPhone 4S

Posted 05 April 2013 - 18:34

Debt means its already owed. So there are 2 scenario here..

Before
So a kid owes 5 cents for a previous meal and goes to pay for another. They are denied food and told to toss it out because of the previous debt. So this is over 5 cents.


After
A meal costs 3.05 and the kid only has 3 bucks on him. The kid is told to toss out the food. The kid should get his $3 back since he received no food and it then is still over 5 cents. But this isnt debt since the kid didnt owe anything because he received no goods/services.

Maybe I am just not understanding you correctly....i dunno.


No you're not. He takes one and goes to pay for it which is 3 bucks.... He doesn't have the five cents extra nor the three dollars, so now its 3.05 he owes, as he has a meal, and still needs to pay for the previous 5c debt. so he's told to throw it away (at which point he no longer owes the 3 dollars, as he doesn't have any food, although a (ridiculous) argument could be made to have him pay that as well). The meal costs 3 bucks, which is ADDED to the existing debt, not just thrown out the window. So they're being denied because they can't pay 3.05 (debt + new mea). not .05.

(as ****ed up as that paragraph is now that I read it. It's essentially he's trying to add more debt, but the bank wont loan him any more money because he's five cents overdrawn, so they take his new loan back as well ( and chuck the cash in the burning barrel). is that more clear?)

In your second scenario, the customer service rep, whatever they're called, should eat his own hat.

#44 +techbeck

techbeck

    It's not that I am lazy, it's that I just don't care

  • 19,642 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 05 April 2013 - 18:51

No you're not. He takes one and goes to pay for it which is 3 bucks.... He doesn't have the five cents extra nor the three dollars, so now its 3.05 he owes, as he has a meal, and still needs to pay for the previous 5c debt. so he's told to throw it away (at which point he no longer owes the 3 dollars, as he doesn't have any food, although a (ridiculous) argument could be made to have him pay that as well). The meal costs 3 bucks, which is ADDED to the existing debt, not just thrown out the window. So they're being denied because they can't pay 3.05 (debt + new mea). not .05.


In your explanation, he doesnt have the 3 dollars to pay for another meal when he previously owed 5 cents. In mine, he does. Bottom line is we are both right depending on what the real story is...and unfortunately, we were really not given any more info to go by.