4 ms·
Not quite the same, since McDonalds actually enjoyed the benefit of the labor without paying. So it's as if the customers sat down and ate the meal, then declin
by thombat 5y ago
Not quite the same, since McDonalds actually enjoyed the benefit of the labor without paying. So it's as if the customers sat down and ate the meal, then declined to pay. If the cops get called the consequence is probably worse than merely having to pay what was already agreed.
- dataflow 5y agoNeither is a perfect analogy, but note that in your example the customer is actually depriving the restaurant of their possession of some goods without payment, i.e. it's theft. The example here is about services being rendered.
- Retric 5y agoRestaurants regularly resell goods in cases like this. I’ve had it happen when I was 10 minutes late. Worst case they can give it to workers at the end of the shift.
- dataflow 5y agoI wish they did that more! I haven't seen it happen much personally but I'm glad you've seen it a lot. I know not long ago I went to a restaurant where I saw meals had been waiting for pickup for several hours... right before they were closing. Probably easier for small businesses than chains/franchises I'm guessing.
- verall 5y agoAre you saying that labor being deprived of their, uh, labor, is not comparable to businesses being deprived of their goods?
- dataflow 5y agoI'm saying that legally speaking (not morally speaking), being deprived of intangible things (aka services, think "verbs") is somewhat different from being deprived of tangible things (aka goods, think "nouns"). Neither entirely different (obviously), nor entirely identical (obviously). They're not treated the same way in general and I don't think you'd want to treat them identically for legal purposes.