47
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
47 points (100.0% liked)
News
13 readers
2 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
it’s a small burden in terms of time and money, yet I won’t dispute that even a small burden is still a burden.
My understanding is that the capitalist business owners continually make the complaint “no one wants to work anymore.” If they’re all making that same complaint, it seems that if I no longer wanted to work for In-N-Out anymore, there’s likely high demand for workers at every other fast food place.
I’ve never been to an In-N-Out but I can’t imagine too many of their employees that have a desire to continue to wear a mask are going to be in conflict with their unwavering desire to work for In-N-out, they’ll just go work somewhere else.
This implies there are 1) similar employers 2) in a similar location, and 3) that are looking for workers, which isn't a guarantee.
And even if there was, that puts the burden of looking for a new job on the workers. Why should it be their responsibility? We don't have to get to this part of the conversation in the first place: In N Out shouldn't be banning masks in the first place, regardless of what contingencies are available or unavailable to their employees.
I agree that they shouldn’t be banning masks, but they are. Complaining about it isn’t a solution.