It’s super frustrating when an employee quits or, worse, walks out mid-shift. According to a picture that’s been going around the internet, a McDonald’s is trying to stop it by prohibiting quitting.
I don’t know if it’s real. My best guess is that it was the bright idea of a single manager or franchise owner. I’ve seen it in English and Spanish, which makes me think it’s a US-based sign. McDonald’s corporate hasn’t responded to a request for clarification.
At-will employment is absolute for almost all employees.
Frequently managers think they can fire people at any time because they live in an “at-will” state. (Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia are at-will. Only Montana is not.) Managers cannot just fire anyone at any time. They can only terminate people if the termination is legal. You can’t, for instance, fire someone for their race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. But an employee can legally quit for any or all of those reasons.
To keep reading, click here: McDonald’s “No Quit Zone” Sign Isn’t Enforceable or Funny
there’s no link to the article…
Do a search on the article title. it’s on Inc.
Thanks, found it. Agree it’s not enforceable, but at least they’re TRYING to resolve situations with employees, rather than just have them quit. Also lets the managers know that employees will be talking to more senior leadership, which may result in more temperate behavior.
Attempts to resolve disputes by stripping autonomy from the other party are a type of abuse. I mean, think about this in a romantic relationship. Imagine a boyfriend telling his girlfriend “I believe every situation can be resolved, so you are not permitted to break up with me until you talk to my parents and my priest.” A REQUEST would be one thing–but refusing to accept that the relationship ends until HE’S satisfied that it should end is abusive. That “he” in the case of this sign is a manager does not change things.
Only it’s worse in this case. Fast food is a temporary job for most people. It’s a stepping stone, a way to earn money and get some work experience. A manager has to assume that a good chunk of their staff are short-term and will be moving on to other things. The idea that a fast-food manager can negotiate someone out of, say, going to college or taking a job in their preferred field, is either laughably naïve or dangerously authoritarian.
I don’t think that this qualifies as “trying to resolve” anything. If they were actually *trying* I think they wold use different language, provide contact information higher up the chain, and instructions on how to lodge complaints and contact a whistleblower line. “You can’t quit until we give you permission” is an attempt to exert control not resolve issue.
It’s here: https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/mcdonalds-no-quit-zone-sign-isnt-enforceable-or-funny.html
That’s not a McDonald’s corporation policy but an individual franchisee owner who is trying to stop employees that he has put through a training program from job-hopping to other fast food jobs. Despite the invalidity of this in labor laws, this reaction by the franchise owners is caused by the behavior of some employees who jump around to get pay increases in hourly wages. Okay most of these jobs are minimum wage jobs and most states in the USA don’t have a higher minimum wage than whatever is the federal minimum wage ($7.25), but most McDonalds do give their employees raises if they stay on working long term, but people don’t realize this and just job hop to get a “raise”.
I am quite sure that this franchise owner has been fined and doesn’t “threaten” this kind of action. What would be helpful is how to address this problem of workers who don’t stay on and cause the constant turnover, hire, train, and repeat cycle beyond the already discussed tactics of creating a positive work experience. Even, what a lot of people currently consider a subpar job, like this, can teach an individual, extremely important workplace job skills, and I am not referring to flipping burgers.
To a certain extent, the franchise owner needs to understand and accept that high turnover is part of the business. People aren’t working there as a long-term career; it’s a stepping-stone to something better. Part of the culture of these sorts of work environments is “My friend got a job at Arby’s, so I’m applying there too.” Trying to stop that is like tryin to ice skate uphill.
Better wages might help, but only marginally. The real issue is that the nature of the job is temporary regardless of wages. For 99% of the employees at a store, working there is merely a stepping stone to something else, and when that something else materializes they’re going to jump on it.
Your post seems to imply that you think employees are being unfair to management by jumping to a higher paying job? If you don’t want employees doing that, pay them more than competitors are paying. Why should people wait for a possible raise for staying, when they can get a definite raise for leaving?