• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Woman is awarded $100,000 for wrongful termination from McDonald

Thats not a lot of money. She probably can't even retire on it.

She wasn't going to retire on a McDonalds' salary anyhow.

What's weird about the case though is it seemed like someone specifically had it out for her. It didn't feel like corporate indifference so much as personal callousness.
 
This is a fair point.



I buy that if an item of work is as a menial task that's well defined, like swinging a hammer or cooking a cheeseburger. What about for middle management positions who's job is not to swing a hammer, but to make sure that all hammers swung according to the executive's wishes?



Not being able to get rid of an employee that you no longer want around is not mutually beneficial either.

BTW, I think your use of "funsies" isn't constructive because it implies that somebody is firing people because it's amusing to them, rather than it being a business decision. I'd assume that firing people for "funsies" is exceedingly rare.
Firing somebody for personal reasons isn't mutually beneficial.
 
In this thread: people blame big corporation without even knowing if they were directly responsible or not.

85% of McDonald's are owned by franchisers and not the actual company itself.
Direct your blind hate and disdain towards the franchising company, and not the corporation.
 
In this thread: people blame big corporation without even knowing if they were directly responsible or not.

85% of McDonald's are owned by franchisers and not the actual company itself.
Direct your blind hate and disdain towards the franchising company, and not the corporation.

Who is the legal team representing?
 
Who is the legal team representing?

They are representing the franchising company.

Again, not McDonald's.

It literally has nothing to do with them. Franchising companies set their own CEOs, executives, and managers. They don't even answer to McDonald's - the only authority McDonald's would have over the franchise owner is the ability to terminate the operating license under certain criterias (failing health codes, failure to pay royalties, and such).

Franchisers operate absolutely independently of the entity they 'represent'. No different than car dealerships, which are also ALL privately owned.
 
Eh, I see we have a mod restriction. Nevermind.
 
Top Bottom