Letter: Who deserves what?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 9:57 p.m.

    We live in a society where economic hardship yields brutal results to good people, every day. Work your butt off, stay loyal to a company for 20 years, then get dumped because the job can be done by a machine or somebody in another country for far, far less.

    Why should we shield children from this type of reality, the reality that they will soon enough have to learn to live with?

    It would be refreshingly honest to let children know, and let the rest of the kids know, which parents are losers. Life in our society and economy is very unforgiving. We should prepare students for that reality.

  • Jl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    Mr Sven, show me a corporation that pays a 39% tax rate and I will show you a CFO that is on the unemployment line. Please source (official) your rant.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    Sven, how does yanking a lunch from a child end up being about Obamacare. Sometimes the twists are just not right.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    The parents deserve to be notified in advance over their child's funds.

    The school didn't do that. I don't care what the excuses are. They didn't and kids were humiliated because of it.

    Had the parents been notified and still refused to pay, then we'd be talking about a different story.

    That's it, period.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    J Thompson,
    I totally agree with you dude! In fact that's what I said in my comment.

    The kids aren't responsible for keeping their lunch account up... their parents are. That's why it was inappropriate for the lunch worker to take it out on the kids. She should have addressed it with the parents (and I think they have decided that's how they will handle it in the future).

    I never defended the lunch worker or said what she did was appropriate. Nobody has.

    What I said is... they need a way to notify the parents, in case it was an oversight and so they can fix it ASAP. And if the parents refuse to pay for their kids lunches... the school administration needs to meet with them and come up with a solution (like packing a lunch from home, or getting some aid).

    But never should they do what they did.

    I agree it's the parent's job. And the school should deal with the parents (not the child) in instances like this.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 1:00 p.m.

    @ 2 bits,

    The children are not financially responsible to the school or to the district to pay for lunches. That duty is the duty of the parents. No adult anywhere, any time has the right to strip a lunch from the hands of an elementary school student because the PARENT didn't furnish lunch money, and then throw that lunch in the garbage. If a student did that, that student would be expelled from school for bullying.

    The school has no responsibility to feed the children. The parents have that responsibility. If the school offers "hot lunch", then the parents may choose to buy it for their children.

    If a child has no money in his account, it is the duty of an adult to talk to that child BEFORE lunch and offer the milk and fruit - if that is the school policy.

    Child services should be called if the parents neglect their children, but no child deserves to be bullied by a District employee, a lunch lady or the Principal. The law does not recognize an elementary school age child to be financially responsible.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    Jl said:

    "I for one would gladly trade subsidies for businesses to export jobs overseas for investment in our most precious resources, our children."

    Ever ask yourself the question as to why many of these businesses are exporting jobs overseas? Let me help you; we have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world at 39.2 percent. Why should these businesses be chumps and pay the Federal Government this insane tax rate? This also makes these same businesses prone to being purchased by foriegn companies who work under a much lower corporate tax rates. These businesses are effectively moved to their new owners home country. When businesses thrive, they are able to grow and hire more people. Our government has been the catalyst for businesses moving operations overseas. Really not that complicated.

    Thanks to Obamacare, many full time workers have had their full time positions cut to 29 hours per week in order for their employers to comply with the Obamacare mandates. Just wait until the "Employer Mandate" kicks in; think it's bad now? You ain't seen nothing! Under our Glorious Dear Leader we have 92 million Americans out of work, and over 50 million on food stamps! Hope and Change!

  • Jl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    I for one would gladly trade subsidies for businesses to export jobs overseas for investment in our most precious resources, our children. I wonder if Sven from Morgan realized that whites constituted the majority of SNAP recipients and that the majority of recipients are working. This convoluted perception has been perpetuated from Reaganomics and trickle down economics and unregulated capitalism. Utah and America have too many that have been driven from knowing where their next meal is coming from and it is not from a lack of willingness to work. High unemployment, a lifetime of education debt, no voice in the workplace,and wages that haven't even come close to keeping up with the cost of living are designed and are doing what they are designed to do. Paul Gibbs, you make a good point.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 6, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    I might be psychologically ruined for life if I were a kid on the receiving end of Sven's comment. Let's remember - kids depend on adults to put some order into daily life. Having your lunch yanked away by someone you are supposed to trust will no doubt stay in your mind much longer than in the minds of the school's bosses.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    This idea that public schools should provide children their meals is insidious. First, it removes the responsibility of the parent to provide THEIR CHILDREN their meals. Secondly, it's a way that liberals use to indoctrinate children early on, that it's the government who provides for their well being, and the essentials of life, not mom and dad, and family.

    Doubt me? Take a look at the Black Family in America. Liberal welfare programs and policies have all but destroyed this minority. Over 70% of Black Children have no Father. Again, why do they need a two parent family when the Government is there to provide all they need. Let's not even talk about the disproportionally high crime rate among this population.

    Sorry, but schools are in the business of teaching, not providing meals for kids. Maybe parents should start acting like parents and take on their adult responsibility of providing for their children. I know, I know, I'm just a big bully.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    J Thompson,

    Who "justified the actions of the District employee"??

    I think you need to read the article again and focus on comprehension of what is actually written (not what you want to see)


    This is not a simple push-button topic. We need to think about it.

    Obviously what the employee did was not right, and nobody said it was done right. They apologized and said it was done wrong. And nobody said they would do it this way again.

    IMO They need to find a way to notify parents in this situation. If it was an oversight, they can take care of quickly. If it was not an oversight, and it was just irresponsible parents who don't intend to pay for their children's lunches.... Allow the kids of the irresponsible parents who refuse to pay for their lunches to eat lunch for now, and settle the deficient account later (before they can register for school again). If they refuse to pay for their children to eat... tell them they need to pack their lunch or transfer to a different school. Or start a fund people can pay into to help families like this.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Feb. 6, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    Could another form of bullying be taking money from one person so another can have food, rent and electricity. Bullying there I think. You are not entitled to the fruit of your neighbors labor.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 3:19 a.m.

    Let's see if I have the facts straight. A District lunch worker seized lunches already served to elementary school students when those students went through the "payment" part of the lunch line. When the District lunch worker saw that the student's account had no money, the District lunch worker threw the entire lunch in the garbage and then gave the student a carton of milk and a piece of fruit for lunch. Those are the facts as I remember hearing them.

    1. Is a child in elementary school an adult?
    2. Is a child considered to be a financially responsible person under the law?
    3. Were the (approximately) forty students humiliated in front of other students?
    4. What are the written District rules about wasting food that has been served to elementary age children?

    Finally, how does the letter writer justify the actions of the District employee when comparing government regulations for welfare to the actions of a District employee who works for a school district which humiliated forty students?