I promise that the workers don’t give a shit. They’re not paid enough to care.
But they’re being recorded 24/7 and if management sees them serving people who do not have cars in the drive thru, it’ll be someone’s ass.
Back in the day, cameras pretty much only existed for the cash register and entry/exit areas. Now, they need to put in laws to keep the companies from installing cameras in bathrooms… That shit is fucking everywhere.
The corpos at the top are mandating that anyone in the drive thru must meet a minimum requirement of a “vehicle” which cars and bikes are (at least in most places), but you, on foot, are not.
This is just them trying to avoid getting sued because you were standing in the drive thru waiting for food and some inattentive fuck pulls in after you’ve ordered and runs you down. It’s really fucking stupid.
The idea that I think they were originally thinking is that people who are walking should go inside where they are reasonably safe from being run over to order/pick up/eat, then they started to keep the drive thru open later than the dining area, and here we are.
I get that they need to clean and whatnot, so they want to close the dining area, and that’s fine, but close the dining area and leave the counter open so people can walk in and get take out FFS. It’s basically just one strip of flooring that customers will walk into and out from while the seating area is closed, so not a big deal to run a mop over it and go home after closing time.
Did this at a place near my old work. I drove 50 miles to work, so when on break I’d walk. They had the walk up closed one day, and told me I couldn’t go through the drive through. So I ate at the place next door every Friday instead. (The rest of the week I brought food). But I liked to live it up on Friday, haha. Not sure why it was closed that one day… But they lost my service every week following because of it
Yep, someone might get sick and therefore all this fresh food is going to waste. We can’t make them sick like that, but we are okay with watching them slowly starve to death.
This reminds me of an anecdote that a friend used to explain the actual meaning behind the trolly problem. He said, forget the trolly, you go out to lunch at the local sandwich shop (hoagies or whatever), and you get a foot long, but only eat half. You walk past a homeless man begging for food. If you choose not to give him the food you are now carrying, and that person later dies from starvation, are you morally guilty/at fault for them dying because you could have helped but you didn’t. On the flip side, you give them food, they later choke/vomit it up (aspirating it or choking on it), and that leads to their death. Since you gave them the food that they choked and died from, are you morally guilty of that persons death because they wouldn’t have had anything to choke on if you didn’t give it to them?
This situation with leftovers is the trolly problem made real. Are companies guilty of letting people starve and die, because they don’t want to be found guilty of making them sick (and possibly dying)? Are they, or would they be guilty of either?
Corpos only know that if someone gets sick from the food given out at the end of the day, they can sue. Dead people don’t sue you. So if they starve and die, then they’re not going to sue, but if they get sick but live, they might.
Corpos see this as a very black and white thing. Giving the food away poses an “unnecessary risk” for little to no benefit to the company. So they don’t do it.
We used to order drive through on our skateboards.
Recently I walked to a drive through, and they refused service because I didn’t have a car at the time. (Their inside was closed).
Guess I know where never to eat again.
I promise that the workers don’t give a shit. They’re not paid enough to care.
But they’re being recorded 24/7 and if management sees them serving people who do not have cars in the drive thru, it’ll be someone’s ass.
Back in the day, cameras pretty much only existed for the cash register and entry/exit areas. Now, they need to put in laws to keep the companies from installing cameras in bathrooms… That shit is fucking everywhere.
The corpos at the top are mandating that anyone in the drive thru must meet a minimum requirement of a “vehicle” which cars and bikes are (at least in most places), but you, on foot, are not.
This is just them trying to avoid getting sued because you were standing in the drive thru waiting for food and some inattentive fuck pulls in after you’ve ordered and runs you down. It’s really fucking stupid.
The idea that I think they were originally thinking is that people who are walking should go inside where they are reasonably safe from being run over to order/pick up/eat, then they started to keep the drive thru open later than the dining area, and here we are.
I get that they need to clean and whatnot, so they want to close the dining area, and that’s fine, but close the dining area and leave the counter open so people can walk in and get take out FFS. It’s basically just one strip of flooring that customers will walk into and out from while the seating area is closed, so not a big deal to run a mop over it and go home after closing time.
But nobody said corpos made sense.
Oh yeah they’re just waiting for their shift to end.
But overall, I’d rather have my statistic be somewhere that doesn’t have a drive thru in the first place.
Did this at a place near my old work. I drove 50 miles to work, so when on break I’d walk. They had the walk up closed one day, and told me I couldn’t go through the drive through. So I ate at the place next door every Friday instead. (The rest of the week I brought food). But I liked to live it up on Friday, haha. Not sure why it was closed that one day… But they lost my service every week following because of it
Same thing happened to me at a Maccas in perth, Australia… On a bicycle.
Does someone have a definitive answer to this? Do they not want people eating in the parking lot?
They probably don’t want to get sued when someone gets run over or such.
Same bullshit they hide behind when they say they can’t give the leftovers to the unhoused.
Yep, someone might get sick and therefore all this fresh food is going to waste. We can’t make them sick like that, but we are okay with watching them slowly starve to death.
This reminds me of an anecdote that a friend used to explain the actual meaning behind the trolly problem. He said, forget the trolly, you go out to lunch at the local sandwich shop (hoagies or whatever), and you get a foot long, but only eat half. You walk past a homeless man begging for food. If you choose not to give him the food you are now carrying, and that person later dies from starvation, are you morally guilty/at fault for them dying because you could have helped but you didn’t. On the flip side, you give them food, they later choke/vomit it up (aspirating it or choking on it), and that leads to their death. Since you gave them the food that they choked and died from, are you morally guilty of that persons death because they wouldn’t have had anything to choke on if you didn’t give it to them?
This situation with leftovers is the trolly problem made real. Are companies guilty of letting people starve and die, because they don’t want to be found guilty of making them sick (and possibly dying)? Are they, or would they be guilty of either?
Corpos only know that if someone gets sick from the food given out at the end of the day, they can sue. Dead people don’t sue you. So if they starve and die, then they’re not going to sue, but if they get sick but live, they might.
Corpos see this as a very black and white thing. Giving the food away poses an “unnecessary risk” for little to no benefit to the company. So they don’t do it.
Corpos are the worst.