3 ms·
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
by 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 agoChange "protect employees and property" to "limit exposure to liability" and I'd agree.
- lolinder 2y agoTake 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 agoPresumably 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]