4 ms·
The McDonalds employees are not likely to know this. The contract itself is abusive, and its unenforceability is not a defense.
by spoonjim 5y ago
The McDonalds employees are not likely to know this. The contract itself is abusive, and its unenforceability is not a defense.
- brewdad 5y agoIs McDonalds really suing min wage workers who leave for Wendy's to get a better schedule or 25 cents more per hour? I get that they could but I can't see how that's ever a reasonable business decision.
- LegitShady 5y agoMaking examples of a few is a more efficient option than suing everyone. But this is insanity, and should be legislated against.
- spoonjim 5y agoThey most likely aren’t. But putting that in the contract can make workers think they can’t take that Wendy’s job. I cannot think of two entities with a bigger power gulf than McDonalds and a McDonalds worker, so the expectations must be calibrated accordingly.
- Ekaros 5y agoNow I wonder what sort of judgement they could even get? Worker has to come back? Worker has to pay some fraction of the perceived losses of that restaurant? Worker has to pay some fraction of their wages? And then would this even pass through the system?
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoI think the most likely judgement would be that the worker has to quit their job at the competing business.
- smorgusofborg 5y agoIf the employee were compelled to quit, unemployment couldn't go after the worker for the lost job, so they would want to go after McDonald's for 2.5 years of unemployment instead of .5 years for every worker they break.