Artificial Intelligence & Wendy’s
- Thread starter 57stratdawg
- Start date
You joke. But I have a pass to get onto Redstone Arsenal. I have never shown it at the main gate. I just get the thumbs up and go on through. Right past the sign that says facial recognization tech in use.
But Buc-ee's won't let you sit around and play on your phone all day. So they are evil according to Gen Z
That's kind of what I figured. I did see a taco bell advertising for $10 an hour for new employees several months ago. The McDonald's were advertising $15 an hour closer to Covid and I was told the local Chik fil a was advertising $18 an hour starting hourly rate during covid although I did not see that one. The Taco Bell did take down the sign, so I guess they were actually able to hire somebody at $10 an hour but I laughed when I saw it thinking there was no way they were going to find somebody decent for that. I'm assuming they didn't, unless it was a high school's studnet first job or an elderly person that somehow did not realize what the job market is like today.
If you’re completely new to the job and have zero experience then minimum wage is all you’re getting to me. We’ve had guys on MW but once you commit and show your work ethic you get a bump pretty quick.
Incentive based compensation???
You soulless capitalist!!!
You have to account for TikTok influencing and methadone clinic appointments.
You really think a visible tattoo is 'self inflicted harm'?
I know many people with advanced degrees that have visible tattoos. Hell- 3 are lawyers, a bunch of teachers with masters degrees, an ER Dr that served multiple tours as a field medic, and more.
None are neck tats or teardrops or whatever, but all have visible tats on their forearm, ankle, or behind the ear.
None were impulsive tattoos, to be clear.
A tattoo makes you less marketable. If you have skills and are generally high aptitude, that’s easy enough to overcome. If you don’t, you are limiting your options when you already have a thin margin for error.
Nah. Many businesses are removing their "self pay" lanes, even after having made the install costs, and going back to employees to do check outs. Why? The tech was more hype than reality, but also, customers are just as stupid as MW employees. They need a person to hold their hand, amd tech can't handle it.
Times have changed. Maybe that was the case 10 years ago but it’s not reality now. Sure neck, face and naked women tats are gonna be deal breakers a lot of times but people with arm and leg/ankle tats are all over now.
Look, I make a good faith effort to scan it - not my fault a gravy packet was covering up the prime brisket barcode.
That may be the case but there’s also a lot of theft at self checkout too.
Yes, they are self-inflicted harm. Like it or not, people who do that limit their options, particularly if they are pursuing employment in professional settings.
Not only that, but many of these companies (CVS, Kroger, Wal Mart) have blatantly said that theft was the reason they were eliminating/limiting them.
I talk to one of the managers at the Hernando Kroger all the time. Said they have estimated on average daily across their stores that there’s enough stolen to pay for at least 10 employees and then some.
That’s what he said. I thought that it sounded a bit high honestly but he swears that’s what they were told. He said that’s on average so some are obviously worse than others. The theft was so bad at one location that they were considering closing it.
The inflation of the money supply outpaces the deflationary effect of technological progress.
The Price of Tomorrow: Why Deflation is the Key to an A…
"Your world view will transform instantly" - Salim Isma…
Wow, that's a lot of stealin. I don't really doubt it. I've been rung up for a higher price than what's on the shelf so many times it makes me wanna steal something.
You say times have changed yet Bucees has a pretty stringent no tattoos policy and lots of Chik Fil franchisees have them, although I'm not sure what parts, if any, of those policies are dictated by the franchise agreement. Sure, it's much less damaging now than it used to be, but if you're talking about workers that in the range of minimum wage, making themselves less marketable is generally a pretty bad idea.
Ten employees per store seems completely believable to me for some locations, but I'm curious as to how much difference self checkout makes. I would assume in worse locations there is a lot of theft the employees can't really stop either. I was in an autozone in a place that was not blue and generally still treats petty theft as a crime and a guy just walked in and took an expensive item off the shelf and walked out. The employees just said there he goes again and said he comes in and blatantly steals occasionally and the police know who he is and will get him later but nothing really happens to him.
To call it 'self-harm' is just goofy. Even if it eliminates you from a job, fee to claim you have harmed yourself simply because of a tattoo.
Also, if anything, it's self-inflicted on the employer's side since it's their rule. They are limiting the pool of employees that have the ability to do the job.
Its their choice to set limits, but in a time when there are general complaints about not being able to fill entry level jobs, limiting who can work based on simply having a tattoo is as self-inflicted as it gets.
Is $18-20/HR 'entry kevel'? Depends on region/location.
In many places, that would be enough to draw enough talent to be able to set qualifications like no tattoos, and not struggle to fill positions.
Last edited:
I’m glad you posted these because my perception for the last couple years has been that while Chick-fil-A’s prices have undoubtedly increased, other fast food chains have been surging at a much faster rate.
The whole thing is just wild because at least for me… I don’t mind spending $10-12 on a combo when it’s consistent quality, everything in the bag is right, and the service is good. I do mind paying that for basically any fast food that’s not Chick-fil-A, one of the better sub places, or Freddy’s though, and it’s amazing to me that these franchises continue to do things their way rather than thinking… maybe there’s something to this Chick-fil-A model
CFA is the only fast food I eat. We should moderate our fast food intake, but if you're eating fast food, why would you choose anything other than CFA?
In the context of my comment, it's not goofy. I work in a professional setting. There's this little thing called first impressions - candidates want to create the best first impression possible - that's why they wear suits to interviews and brush up on the company they're interviewing with. If I'm hiring someone to interact with customers and the first thing I see is a neck tattoo, that's a bad first impression. Now, that can be overcome, and with me it has been overcome over the course of an interview. But that's the way it is.
Blue collar and hourly-wage jobs are different, although some employers still value professionalism. You don't typically see tatted up folks at Chick Fiil A or In-N-Out Burger, for example.
100% agree that impressions are important. And I can understand situations where some tattoos that are visible could potentially hurt a relationship. This could especially be true if the customer is some closed minded stodgy dbag that cant handle seeing a tattoo. <--extreme comment from me, I am aware.
While I agree that first impressions are important, I do think someone that is customer interfacing and wears a suit every day is vastly different from entry level employment like gas stations, fast food service, etc.
As I mentioned earlier, a teardrop tat, neck tat, or whatever is different from what I initially responded to, which is that simply having visible tats is evidence of a lack of impulse control and is 'self-harm'. As I mentioned, I am friends with multiple professionals that hold advanced degrees and have visible tattoos. They arent negatively judged, or if they are, it sure isnt hurting them.
These are ankle tats, behind the ear, on the forearm, etc and are nothing like Post Malone...but they are visible. Its bonkers that someone with a Medical Degree or JD would be viewed as lacking impulse control and causing themselves 'self harm', and therefore be disqualified from working at a Fast Food job, just because they got an inoffensive tattoo that is visible.
This sort of thing, to me, is a case by case basis.
Its like piercings- a woman with 5 piercings in an ear can, to me, look totally professional still. But if one is a chain that connects to a nosering?...eh, maybe that isnt the best for all front facing jobs.
Seems like no face, neck, or hand tats and no problem. That leaves 80% of the rest of your body to do whatever you want. Assuming you are smart enough to wear long sleeves in the interview.
And to my original point, if you are getting an advanced degree and aspire to work in a professional setting, and decide to get tatted up while you're in school, you're creating headwinds for yourself that's going to make it difficult. And yes, many view it as self harm or lack of impulse control, or just an exercise in bad judgement. Hell, I saw a crazy article not too long ago that said almost 40% of people with tattoos regretted getting them. I certainly think everyone is free to do whatever they want to do to themselves - but they need to understand at the same time that those decisions can limit them at some point. I didn't invent the rainy day on this...
Over time, people regret doing all sorts of things that they cant fix/change, but that doesnt mean the thing they did was due to a lack of impulse control or was 'self-harm'.
In the end though, yes I recognize that in some instances, visible tattoos can limit employment opportunities. That definitely is a potential result of such a decision. Its no different from how you dress, your hair style, how you speak, etc- these things all impact employability in certain instances.
I just find it funny that the a tat was called 'self harm' because that phrase typically means something different to me, and also because companies that struggle to hire and retain entry level employees while they limit the pool of potential capable candidates just because a tattoo is visible, regardless of what it says/depicts, are also 'self harming'.
To me, doing something to yourself that restricts or limits your ability to reach your full potential is the very definition of "self harm."
They aren't negatively judge by some people, and to the extent they are, they are probably able to overcome negative first impressions by being competent and/or intelligent and/or pleasant. Not everybody is in a position to do that.
If they have the intelligence to get a JD or MD, the cost of an inoffensive tattoo is usually going to be small, particularly compared to their earnings. To the extent it ever cost them significant compensation, they'd likely never know b/c it wouldn't be communicated to them why they left a negative impression.
ETA: Also, you were the one that referenced "self-harm" originally. That sounds like cutting or suicide attempts or something. "Self-inflicted harm" or "self-inflicted injury" to me is a turn of phrase that does not necessarily imply physical harm or injury. You could also refer to it as an "own goal" (to put in the pansy communist sport terms that I assume you prefer**)
Exactly. Again, if you are looking at jobs at or near minimum wage, you don't need to be doing anything to further limit your options. A disinterested observer could probably pretty accurately peg who is really going to have no trouble overcoming "normal" tattoos and who needs to maintain every advantage they can by the time they're 16. Of course the 16 year old or 18 year old or 22 year old that can least afford to add any potential disadvantage is exactly the type that would be least likely to recognize that fact.
Last edited:
I personally don't know any robots with tattoos. I guess I live in a bubble.
