this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
222 points (97.8% liked)
Not The Onion
16263 readers
677 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a nice ideal, but historically the companies don't think like that and in most cases the workers don't get paid enough to be that passionate. 4/5-star restaurants? Sure. Not fast food, though.
Also consider the sheer amount of food orders a fast food place gets in a day, especially with things like DoorDash on top of in-person and drive-thru.
I get where you're coming from. But I still disagree.
What you describe makes sense from a realistic standpoint BUT I don't see why we shouldn't hold corporations to a higher standard since they are selling this exact higher standard to us.
Yes Fastfood workers likely aren't paid enough to care about customized orders but that isn't a ME problem. It's the company's problem since they can't keep up with their promises. So time to hold them responsible.
Also my two cents to add to the general issue: if I can't cater to custom needs or don't want to, I can still lie to the customer and tell them it's not possible instead of risking to kill them through my apathy.
Reading the article and only applying the information available in it, this is the individual's responsibility.
The article states he asked for a no-onion order, not that he notified the restaurant that he had an allergy and needed the onions removed. Asking for an item to be left off and notifying of an allergy are very different because allergy prep is done very specifically.
Also, they had a similar issue at a different restaurant in 2024 that they sued for. If they can demonstrate negligence, which will be hard, then maybe they have a case but if the customer didn't specify an allergy and didn't check before eating the burger, then the failure is as much theirs.
When I was a child and learning about traffic safety we were taught that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way over cars but it was stressed that right of way won't stop a car from killing you if you step into traffic.
That's fine. I'm not necessarily saying it's a you problem, it's definitely on the company. Think, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" kinda vibe.
I just distrust both the corporations that are for-profit, and the government we would have to rely on to regulate and help us make them accountable. I just don't see companies changing for the good of the proles under the current administration, no matter how much we make a stink about it.
I guess my subconscious point is more along the lines of "vote with your wallet" and stop supporting companies that don't make this kind of thing a priority. There are certainly some fast food companies that actually do care, but I couldn't name one at the moment.
That's something I can wholeheartedly agree on!
And that's why it's fair to sue them. What you're describing is callous indifference to the well-being of others that has caused demonstrative harm.
I think everyone agrees on what the fast food place is thinking. The issue is that that line of reasoning is dangerous and has legal penalties.
Think of it with "hand washing" and "fecal coliform bacteria" instead. "It's too expensive to train our workers to wash their hands after pooping, and most wouldn't anyway because we don't pay them enough to care" just isn't a defense when someone gets sick as a result.
What I'm saying is stop supporting companies that don't care; stop giving them money and don't eat there again if they can't follow your request. I'll say it a 3rd time, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
That's not callous indifference, that's 1) voting with your wallet and 2) trying to promote a little self-reliance.
Just for the record, other people haven't necessarily seen other comments you've made. Acting indignant about that is frustrating.
What's callous indifference is the company having an attitude that allergy safety is too much work, not thinking you should vote with you wallet.
A lawsuit is part of voting with your wallet. More specifically, giving them a financial incentive to take food safety more seriously.
I seriously doubt the guy is going to go back to either restaurant, so voting with his wallet and not giving them money for a burger is done, and likely doesn't cover the costs he incurred as a result of their error.
When is a lawsuit appropriate if not after a business decides to cut corners and hurts you?
What's frustrating is people thinking they can fight a corrupt system from within the corrupt system, playing by their rules. The story of Winston Smith in 1984 is a lesson, not something to model your life after.
Suing someone, if you have the capitol to do so and actually win, doesn't do a whole lot in the long run and it isn't accessible to a lot of people because of the cost. It's part of the operating costs for large corporations these days.
Let's take Whataburger. Their best year they pulled in $6.7m profit. If you had 7 suits @ $1m payout all occur at the same time and win, then great, you might do something. However, neither of the two cases this guy is suing for have come to a conclusion yet, and it's just one person. They also still have an income source from patrons that are still buying their product, so they will make it back and they know that.
If you instead spread the word and cut off their income source by raising awareness of it, it becomes much more effective and there's no BS legal crap going on that can be twisted by lawyers. Just pure loss of profits.
ETA: I repeated my comment precisely because I expected you didn't dig through all the comments. For those that do read through them all, they know I understand that I'm repeating myself because of all the spawned threads in here.
It can simultaneously be dumb for him to trust the company and for it to be the company’s fault that he was fed something he specifically asked not to be served.
Indeed. I said it in another comment just now, but what I'm getting at is more: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"