3 ms·

Well – that's the problem with service related jobs. Customer contact and production are so close together that production of your product becomes very distribu

Well – that's the problem with service related jobs. Customer contact and production are so close together that production of your product becomes very distributed/de-centralized. As chains like this compete on price and have grown quite large, they are forced/decide to pay their workers low wages. Low wage workers have less concern, loyalty and often less insight into the ramifications of their choices. The last claim is predicated on the idea that many low-wage/fast food jobs are held by teenagers who, biologically/neurologically are not wired to consider longer-term consequences. I'll find a cite if needed. So, I'd ask, how responsible is BK for developing a business model that puts low-wage workers front and center as their primary point of production and primary point of contact with consumers? Lastly, if BK did bring suit, what do you think they'd be able to recover? At best, garnishing minimum wages – if the person had better financial reserves or means, they'd likely not be working production at BK.

milesokeefe 14y ago
> if BK did bring suit, what do you think they'd be able to recover? The lawsuit would be punitive, not for profit. And it wouldn't hurt their PR to assure people that the safe handling of their food is taken seriously.
- incongruity 14y ago
  My point remains the same. There's no value in impoverishing the already nearly impoverished. The rapid firing of the employee did a lot to keep BK's reputation...or at least made it no worse. Indeed, the morning manager's instant decision to fire the person is a clear signal. Suing him would probably end up looking bad for BK – certainly worse than the incident was.
  - jgmmo 14y ago
    I disagree. The value is in demonstrating actions have consequences. This guy decided upon himself to sabotage his employer in order to destroy hard fought good-will. That goodwill is very valuable, and this minimum wage punk decided to destroy some of it. He should be held responsible for that goodwill he destroyed, and simply losing his job does not do anything for the damage caused.
    - cheddarmint 14y ago
      I think firing the guy and leaving it at that is the optimal thing for BK to do. Let's agree that it probably won't be cost effective to garnish the guy's wages, in terms of legal costs to take him to court, the potential future income he'll have, etc. On BK's side, there's a lot of risk of negative publicity involved with taking him to court. I don't think being fired is being let off easy - surely this stunt will make it at least more difficult to be hired at another fast-food place.

milesokeefe 14y ago

> if BK did bring suit, what do you think they'd be able to recover? The lawsuit would be punitive, not for profit. And it wouldn't hurt their PR to assure people that the safe handling of their food is taken seriously.

incongruity 14y ago
My point remains the same. There's no value in impoverishing the already nearly impoverished. The rapid firing of the employee did a lot to keep BK's reputation...or at least made it no worse. Indeed, the morning manager's instant decision to fire the person is a clear signal. Suing him would probably end up looking bad for BK – certainly worse than the incident was.
- jgmmo 14y ago
  I disagree. The value is in demonstrating actions have consequences. This guy decided upon himself to sabotage his employer in order to destroy hard fought good-will. That goodwill is very valuable, and this minimum wage punk decided to destroy some of it. He should be held responsible for that goodwill he destroyed, and simply losing his job does not do anything for the damage caused.
  - cheddarmint 14y ago
    I think firing the guy and leaving it at that is the optimal thing for BK to do. Let's agree that it probably won't be cost effective to garnish the guy's wages, in terms of legal costs to take him to court, the potential future income he'll have, etc. On BK's side, there's a lot of risk of negative publicity involved with taking him to court. I don't think being fired is being let off easy - surely this stunt will make it at least more difficult to be hired at another fast-food place.