That's great.. I just love when the community bands together like that for a cause and it actually makes a difference!

While I couldn't agree with you more rgreen sometimes we have to keep focus on the better parts of the situation. The woman got her job back and the school authorities, no matter how they slice it has egg on their faces AND this situation will hopefully bring some change to some policies that obviously need to be addressed.

btw, rgreen, I absolutely loved your input on the topic in both threads, brilliantly put.

rgreen48, your first paragraph says it all and I agree completely

In the original thread, Moni had written, "I was working in schools in the inner city, were a lot of poverty level families live. If you are in an lower income bracket, you can qualify for a free lunch. ALL breakfast are free. We had three tiers. Free, reduced, and full pay students. The free was the BIGGEST group."

My nephew is now 29 years old, so it has been quite some time since he was in school. When he was in school, he qualified for free lunches because his mother is a disabled, low-income single mother. The "free lunch program" is still in existence today. If the girl in the original story truly cannot afford to pay for lunch, even the small amount of $1.70, she would qualify for the FLP and wouldn't need to be pleading for free food from any of the cafeteria workers. As JemDandy said (also in the original thread), "I don't think this was about a single $2 event. The management could not allow a precedent to develop that free food is available if you 'work the system'. If they allowed this for one student, they would have to permit it for any student else they could be cited for favoritism." Kids in middle school range in age from about 12 to about 15. They can be very clever. One kid can score a free meal by telling a cafeteria worker that he/she has no money, then that kid tells his/her friends, who try it the next day or a couple of days later, and pretty soon there will be a whole mess of kids pleading for food from the cafeteria workers. Don't think it wouldn't happen.

SeniorGal had commented (also in the original thread), "Seems to me that we need to know WHY the child needed a free lunch." I completely agree. If the child is from a family that cannot afford to pay for a hot lunch, the child would qualify for the FLP and wouldn't need to be cajoling a cafeteria worker into giving food for free. If the child had lunch money at the beginning of the day, but spent it on junk from the vending machines, should she be rewarded for her poor choices? (Maybe she still had the money in her pocket but didn't want to spend it on lunch, preferring to save it for something else.)

As had been pointed out by other folks, the food was not the cafeteria worker's to give away. Also, in the OP of this thread, Moni included, "Students are allowed to charge up to $11.00, but workers can still give them some food if they exceed that limit, according to reports." I'm wondering the child at the center of this controversy had already charged $11 worth of food and was still asking for more free food.

Yes, it's a shame (and to some folks, a crime) to throw away extra food at the end of the day. But that's not something that's going to be changed unless the school district's policy changes. That's something to be brought up at school board meetings. And food that has been allowed to sit out for an extended period of time would be deemed unsafe and shouldn't be given away to anyone to consume.

This is such a hot-button issue because it involves food and children. Would your reaction have been the same if the story had been about a Post Office employee giving free stamps to a customer because the customer couldn't otherwise mail her Christmas cards?

A final comment... The cafeteria worker is described in the original article as a "server." The people who are serving/handling food cannot handle money (because money is filthy). So, there would be another worker who was the cashier. Also, the story says that the server "handed the girl the food and told her they'd take care of it in a minute." The server did not offer to pay for the food until after she had been busted by her supervisor. The implication in this is that the server handed the student the food, and then had the student go directly to a table to eat, without going past the cashier. The server didn't tell the cashier, "It's okay, I'll pay for it as soon as I can take a break and get to my purse," nor did the cashier take money out of her own pocket and give it to the child to take to the cashier. So that implies that the server knew what she was doing was against policy.

And there it is... Wrapped up in 90 rational sounding defenses of a policy.

Looks good on paper. Has everything except a humane understanding that a 12 year old girl didn't have enough money to buy lunch. "I'm not going to let those wily kids trick me into having a heart! I'm going to defend the system until..."

Lol... this is the world we live in, to some, this is the spirit to be defended.

There is no doubt that the information with which we are presented does not tell the entire story, but any community that can't find a way to feed any child - on any day - has serious issues. All of these "what if" scenarios aside, if you really think a person deserves to be fired over a, one-time, $1.70 breaking of policy, then I thank you for the reminder of why I do my best to be 'no part of this world'!

How do I know it's a one time thing? Because if it hadn't, it would have been included in the District's statement, and they wouldn't have hired her back!

At the core of this is a 12 year old girl. Does a 12 year old deserve to be sent to the rest of her classes hungry because she might have made bad choices? Is a 12 year old that responsible? There are so many things that have might have been... her mom or dad may have forgotten. Her Grandparents may have died. Her dog might have ate it. A bully could have stolen it... on and on...!

This is $1.70 that a woman let go and may have intended to pay. Even if she didn't, is she that bad of a person that she deserves to lose her job over it???

I'm sorry, but you can keep your robotic defense of an inhumane system!

I'm sorry, I get worked up sometimes and forget myself...

Lukkiirish, thank you for you kind words. You are right. It's always best to focus on the positives.

lindaohnowga, thank you. I just can't stand when children are swept up in so-called policy debates. There's a quote is attributed to President Lincoln, but there is no real evidence he said it... in any case, it's still a good adage:

"I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."

In this case... substitute system, policy, or way of life for 'religion' - and children for 'dog and cat'.

Lindsey not all states have the same policies...you're thought process however does not surprise me in the least...same oh same oh

And your meanness, irish, doesn't surprise me in the least. From now on, please don't click "like" on any of my posts. I am notified each time, in case you didn't realize it.