I mean… In-N-Out burger at #2.

  • Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Take a step back and realize it the other way around. A burger chain is the SECOND BEST EMPLOYER by study of 400 companies, likely including many of the fortune 500. The issue isn’t that it’s a burger place, that in and of itself really shows how dystopian how the rest of the pool is. It’s not in spite of In-N-Out, it’s In-N-Out showing what employment should mean. If a burger chain can do it… why can’t… everyone?

    • L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I agree with the sentiment, and understand completely what you’re trying to say. But I digress, because the lack of logic in this sorry excuse for an argument has to be dealt with.

      So along with insulting me by assuming that I didn’t click on the link and was unable to figure out that In-N-Out was in the second position in that list, you are also trying to imply that the a burger place doesn’t belong on a list of 400 companies that are good to work for, simply because it’s a burger join. Simultaneously we must assume that being a burger joint is irrelevant, while ending the statement with the implication being that anyone can be a good employer if a lowly burger joint can figure it out.

      Is the argument that a business built around the production and sale of hamburgers appearing on a list of good companies is a bad thing? Cuz that’s what the words say, it I don’t think that’s what you are trying to communicate.