The reality of the situation is this guy’s gonna suffer for this action, and he could have achieved the same result with no loss. Sure maybe he can find some legal recourse that might repay him some or all of whatever he might loose, but right now he has expenses. If he was a buddy of mine and said “what do you think I should do”? I would have not suggested this. There is no chance a health inspection provoked by his complaint would not have closed this place down, and the needed remedies will likely preclude re-opening. And he would still have a job. Maybe that’s not important to him, but his subsequent plea for assistance suggests otherwise.
Other customers of the firm may object to the prospect of hosting someone who has uploaded video obtained on their premises while there doing deliveries. This situation, as I originally stated, clearly needed to be addressed and there were other ways of doing it. What if the driver decided to light some business up for using Thai shrimp? Not illegal, and not unusual, and my personal stand on this issue is NFW (and the restaurant I work for won’t use it) but it’s not the cartage firm’s fight. Note this may not be a “fuck the billionaires” moment; I have an acquaintance who owns a trucking firm and he drives a cab while having eight trucks on the road (hauling gravel not produce). He is too old to handle the trucking and doesn’t make enough income from the business.
Sure, but that’s not a reason for us to carry water for them.
What if we judge people by their actions and not counterfactual hypotheticals?
It’s in the public interest to know if a restaurant is infested with rats. From the level of infestation, this has been ongoing for a while. No doubt it would be better for the owners of the Popeye’s and the delivery company if he didn’t post the video. The potential customers of the place are better off that he did. The question comes down to do we value the concerns of the customers (and the employees working in a rat den) more or less than those of the businesses. For me at least that is a really obvious choice
6 Likes
That is indeed just the kind of judgement potential users of the firm will make: “can I trust letting this person into my business won’t cause unforeseen problems”. The issue is not what he might do, but what he did. I chose an example that illustrates there are potential issues that are matters of taste rather than immediate public interest that may be at play here, but the issue is what he has already done. If you manage a restaurant you will find it in your interest not to invite someone into your establishment who has demonstrated that they will post content to social media that may damage your business. Of course having this “rat” situation brought to light is in the public interest but the way he chose to do it has impacted him negatively and he need not have done it this way. I should point out as well there is a lot more wrong here than the rat infestation. I hope the site will be demolished. If this worker had been employed by the “Popeye’s” then I presume he would enjoy whatever whistleblower protection was available to him; I believe Popeye’s are franchised, so good luck collecting. Since he works for someone else, that protection may not be available to him.
Well, that’s bullshit. There is no recourse for the working classes who blow the whistle.
What makes you think that? Why do you trust institutions that are understaffed, overworked, and been targeted by years of corporate attempts to shut them down so they can get back to exploiting their workers and poisoning us.
Stop trusting in corporations and government institutions that have been gutted in the past few decades to do the right thing without public pressure. This is the ONLY way shit works for us anymore.
8 Likes
Direct action is the ONLY way to get results. All else are bargaining from a position of weakness, and capital does not share power.
7 Likes
There might have been a time when you could put your trust in regulatory bodies, but the good folks who work at them are now overworked and underpaid. And the assault on our public institutions (driven by corporate dollars) that wishes to gut them continues.
6 Likes
I agree. As for health inspections, you would know more about what one might expect in the US than I do. Where I live and work, if you call them they are there same day, and ready to close you down on the spot if they feel it’s needed. They’ll come even if the original complaint is unfounded, like “the potatoes aren’t kept in the walk-in” because they take an “if there’s smoke there’s fire” attitude . But yeah, seeing this video it’s very hard for me to understand how it got to this stage. Did all this (broken tiles, food on the floor, general lack of cleanliness) happen since the last inspection?
You can easily flip that one around. Can customers of the business who fired him trust them not to be complicit in covering up severe problems at their locations? Because for chains like Popeye’s, the location isn’t paying for the deliveries, corporate is. If I think a delivery firm is going to play along with a bad local manager, I will find a different one.
5 Likes
Because we underfund our health inspection system, like I said.
6 Likes
Really, the issue here, for the operator of the business, is there is an understanding when they are letting the cartage firm have access to their premises without staff being on hand. There will be an expectation of those who are given this access that they won’t abuse it ( it is in the interest of the cartage firm ). I have worked at places that will insist on having a security guard accompany delivery or trades people when staff is not around, for whatever reason. I am speaking in tangibles here; this is how these businesses operate in my experience. I would like to think anyone who witnessed this place would report them; what about whoever made the dry goods delivery? This is also a situation that has been existing for a while; even this driver was aware of what he would find in there. I am only trying to point out this guy did it in such a way as to negatively impact his life and he didn’t need to. Other’s have suggested an anonymous report wouldn’t have resulted in action in the USA, so maybe this was the only way.
DUDE… This isn’t REMOTELY abuse. It’s the revelation of a fucking CRIME and a threat to public health!!! Would it be a transgression if there was a dead body in the back? 
4 Likes
Did I say it was? As I stated, he was evidentially already aware of what he was going to find and should have reported it sooner. What I did say is that if another business contemplating using the cartage firm observes that one of the employees of that firm uses the opportunity of access to their customer’s premises to make content for social media they may well have an issue with this.
EDIT: spelling
Honestly if not for the rats, in a lot of places that’d earn a C-grade, which is essentially “dirty, but we’re not going to fight them.”
The only lower grade is an F which is just plaun failed inspection.
This isn’t abuse. Quite the opposite.
2 Likes
Well, that’s too bad… The condition of the tile alone would put a sign on the door where I live. No grout is a big deal, not to mention missing tiles, etc. Food on the floor, lack of cleanliness. And the rats! No rats where I live, would not want to deal with that.
1 Like
It’s pretty difficult to get failing grades outside of big cities in the US. The big cities are the only places with enough money to do regulation at all properly. The cities also know they have more at stake.
If a subway is bad in downtown Seattle a thousand people could get harmed in a day.
If a subway in Moses lake is bad, it might hurt 12 people.
So you only get meaningful enforcement where the city cares about it.
I’m sure @Papasan can attest that a lot of places you can get off lightly
2 Likes
Ya, I’m sure the problem here is my turgid prose. I in no way endorse the action of the fast food place and I really am sorry this guy is probably going to loose income or his job. I do however understand why he might be considered a liability by his employer. If he really couldn’t report this in the normal manner and expect resolution, then you guys should fix that.
1 Like
I understand why capital would do anything it can to not lose a sale, include firi g someone for embarassing a customer.
I don’t care about that angle. Morally, in my estimation this guy did an unmitigated public good.
That a business may be hurt by it is right. Businesses aren’t moral agents (really, they’re purely evil, if you ask me). Any concern about a business’s wellbeing comes absolute last in any moral calculation.
3 Likes
4 Likes
