4 ms·

I just read this article about vanishing bathrooms at Starbucks and other fast food restaurants which are pivoting to mobile pickup and drive-thru locations. h

I just read this article about vanishing bathrooms at Starbucks and other fast food restaurants which are pivoting to mobile pickup and drive-thru locations. https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/19/business/starbucks-mobile-orders-third-place/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/19/business/starbucks-mobile-ord... It doesn't look like the linked article mentions restaurant bathrooms but it can't be a coincidence. This all strikes me as a passive-aggressive reaction to FUD about homelessness and "out of control cities".

lolinder 2y ago
It could be passive aggressive, or it could be that frontline employees at these places are seeing things that you're not and headquarters is making changes to protect their employees and their property. Not every instance of fear is FUD, sometimes the danger is real.
- c-linkage 2y ago
  Change "protect employees and property" to "limit exposure to liability" and I'd agree.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Take whatever monetary incentive you like, the point is that it's more likely that there are real risks that people who work in these places know about than that it's all FUD and OP's anecdotal sense that there is no real problem is reflective of the reality on the ground.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    Presumably employees are more expensive than property here. Both paying them to take care off and loss incurred because they left to work somewhere else where the conditions are better.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > headquarters is making changes to protect their employees and their property. Or to simply retain employees. If you had your choice between two fast food jobs with similar pay but one of them requires employees to take rotations cleaning the public bathroom throughout the day, which one are you going to pick? The issues with drug users are also very real depending on the city and location. Having to have cops or emergency medical people show up to your location a couple times for no other reason than you offered public restrooms is a quick way to make a company decide to no longer offer them.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Or to simply retain employees. Protect employees in order to retain them, yeah. You're welcome to impute for-profit motive here, but either way I fully agree that I wouldn't want to be responsible for maintaining a public restroom in a city center.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lotsofpulp 2y ago
> This all strikes me as a passive-aggressive reaction to FUD about homelessness and "out of control cities". No, it is just that very, very few people want to clean and repair bathrooms. I would rather work at a restaurant that has no public bathrooms, so that I never have to clean them. Hence I am willing to work for less compared to a place with public bathrooms, hence my employer has lower labor costs. Pretty sure that goes for all the keyboard warriors too. It’s pretty well known that almost any job where you have to deal with the general public is worse than a job where you don’t.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  I worked as a McDonalds janitor when I was a teenager, and I specifically requested it instead of cooking hamburgers. It was actually pretty pleasant. You got to walk around, talk to customers, go outside (to empty the parking lot trash cans) and so on. Yes, the bathrooms were messy, but I cleaned them so often they didn’t really have time to get totally disgusting. Of course nowadays, I bet it’s not a dedicated job, and they make the single person working alone in the store do everything…
Aurornis 2y ago
> This all strikes me as a passive-aggressive reaction to FUD about homelessness and "out of control cities". Anyone who has ever worked in retail or food service could tell you that nobody wants to have to deal with the public restrooms. They need to be cleaned frequently and it’s not a fun job. It’s not just homeless people or FUD. It’s because the general public has enough outliers who cause problems that when 100 people use your bathroom every day, you’re guaranteed to get a couple who create some sort of mess.

lolinder 2y ago

It could be passive aggressive, or it could be that frontline employees at these places are seeing things that you're not and headquarters is making changes to protect their employees and their property. Not every instance of fear is FUD, sometimes the danger is real.

c-linkage 2y ago
Change "protect employees and property" to "limit exposure to liability" and I'd agree.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Take whatever monetary incentive you like, the point is that it's more likely that there are real risks that people who work in these places know about than that it's all FUD and OP's anecdotal sense that there is no real problem is reflective of the reality on the ground.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  Presumably employees are more expensive than property here. Both paying them to take care off and loss incurred because they left to work somewhere else where the conditions are better.
Aurornis 2y ago
> headquarters is making changes to protect their employees and their property. Or to simply retain employees. If you had your choice between two fast food jobs with similar pay but one of them requires employees to take rotations cleaning the public bathroom throughout the day, which one are you going to pick? The issues with drug users are also very real depending on the city and location. Having to have cops or emergency medical people show up to your location a couple times for no other reason than you offered public restrooms is a quick way to make a company decide to no longer offer them.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > Or to simply retain employees. Protect employees in order to retain them, yeah. You're welcome to impute for-profit motive here, but either way I fully agree that I wouldn't want to be responsible for maintaining a public restroom in a city center.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lotsofpulp 2y ago

> This all strikes me as a passive-aggressive reaction to FUD about homelessness and "out of control cities". No, it is just that very, very few people want to clean and repair bathrooms. I would rather work at a restaurant that has no public bathrooms, so that I never have to clean them. Hence I am willing to work for less compared to a place with public bathrooms, hence my employer has lower labor costs. Pretty sure that goes for all the keyboard warriors too. It’s pretty well known that almost any job where you have to deal with the general public is worse than a job where you don’t.

ryandrake 2y ago
I worked as a McDonalds janitor when I was a teenager, and I specifically requested it instead of cooking hamburgers. It was actually pretty pleasant. You got to walk around, talk to customers, go outside (to empty the parking lot trash cans) and so on. Yes, the bathrooms were messy, but I cleaned them so often they didn’t really have time to get totally disgusting. Of course nowadays, I bet it’s not a dedicated job, and they make the single person working alone in the store do everything…

Aurornis 2y ago

> This all strikes me as a passive-aggressive reaction to FUD about homelessness and "out of control cities". Anyone who has ever worked in retail or food service could tell you that nobody wants to have to deal with the public restrooms. They need to be cleaned frequently and it’s not a fun job. It’s not just homeless people or FUD. It’s because the general public has enough outliers who cause problems that when 100 people use your bathroom every day, you’re guaranteed to get a couple who create some sort of mess.