Taco Bell taco licker fired, what now?
A young Taco Bell worker posted a prank photo of himself licking a stack of taco shells, ultimately resulting in his being fired as he has confirmed on Reddit. The photo went viral and fans expressed outrage and fear that they would be victimized by being served licked taco shells.
Prior to firing the employee, Taco Bell said in a statement, “Nothing is more important than the safety of our customers and team members, and we have strict food handling procedures and zero tolerance for any violations. When we learned of the situation we immediately contacted the restaurant’s leadership and although we believe it is a prank and the food was not served to customers, we are conducting a full scale investigation and will be taking swift action against those involved.”
The statement alludes to speculation that the shells were probably on their way to the trash anyways, but fans stated outrage nonetheless, with one Facebook user saying it didn’t matter whether they were trash or not, as “he is a representative of Taco Bell while working and in uniform and by doing this and posting it online for the world to see he is ruining the reputation of the company… Who would want to go to a restaurant if there is the possibility that their food is being licked?”
Wes Abdi wrote on Facebook, “I know the person in the photo, not just from work, but from school as well; and I know that he is not dumb enough to lick a stack of taco shells and then serve them to the public,” Wes Abdi wrote. “There is a 99% chance that that stack of Tacos was getting thrown out, as in: getting thrown away, so it’s not as if they were going to be served to anyone… This was obviously done out of humor.”
The underlying problem most have overlooked
People in the service industry have been spitting in food since the dawn of time. They’ve been young, underpaid, smart alecs in many, many cases, so why is anyone surprised at this prank photo? We agree with Abdi that it was clearly a joke and while it is within Taco Bell’s right to fire the kid, they have clearly failed to properly train their employees, as most brands have failed.
They didn’t fail to teach food safety, no, they failed to illustrate the value of their brand, their copyright, and their logo to their team members. The big deal here is not that the kid shot a silly photo, but that he’s in uniform. Anyone under 25 inherently is comfortable in front of a camera and is willing to share every detail of their life publicly through the web, so this type of prank behavior is simply transitioning from the private to the public and will become increasingly more common. So what do brands need to do?
Brands of all size must will look at this clash between common youth culture and corporate culture and overreact. There will be forms to fill out that make all applicants swear they will never take a photo of themselves in uniform or mention the brand name or put on LinkedIn where they work, lest the suffer the consequences.
What brands must do, however, is train on what the logo and brand name mean, and how using words or images that are trademarked can lead to negative attention to the brand and put the reputation of a company and that every employee’s standing at risk. But what would have happened if this kid had taken a picture of himself saving a kitten from a well? He’d be a hero and the brand would be pumped, but young people fail to understand that it isn’t whether attention is positive or negative, but that the brand get the chance to be involved in that message before it is public.
Kids understand social media, but not the professional reputation management portion of it, and why would they? They’ve never used it professionally. So brands, make your trademarks a part of training without threatening, simply help them to understand how taco licking in uniform is bad.
Removing remote work options creates a new caste system
(BUSINESS) Remote work has created a democratization of sorts in the workforce, and companies desperate to nix the options could take a hit.
Many companies are mandating a return to the office after over a year of allowing employees to work remotely, and, according to a recent study, over half of workers surveyed say they won’t stand for it. As remote work becomes more normalized for all levels of employment, it is crucial that employers retain the option for employees to work in this capacity wherever possible – even if it means employing nontraditional methods.
Harvard Business Review references something called “the democratizing effect of remote work” – the great equalizing that took place during stay-at-home orders nationwide.
In short, this philosophy entails workers having their needs met while continuing to fulfill their contracts of employment. Theoretically, this is a win-win situation.
But employers have their own predilections toward in-house operations, with remote flexibility often being reserved for the highest-ranking officials while “lower” employees are expected to commute. It’s a business model with which we’re exceptionally familiar; why change?
The answer to that question may be employee-driven, as many employees cite a preference for hybrid or remote work environments post-pandemic. “Employees are leaving workplaces that don’t suit their needs anymore,” cites HBR.
Many of those needs are emotional, too. Non-white employees and female employees face a higher level of discrimination in the workplace than their white and/or male counterparts; Black employees, in particular, reported stressful work conditions, with HBR citing that only three percent of Black employees demonstrated an interest in returning to an in-office environment (as opposed to 21 percent of white employees).
Allowing stressed and oppressed employees to work from home can improve their mental health, stress levels, and even their “feelings of belonging at their organization” in the case of Black employees.
Outside of race and gender, the publication also stresses the negative effects that mandating a return after allowing for remote work will have: “Creating a new caste system where elites have anywhere jobs and non-elites are shackled to the office full time is a recipe for high attrition among employees who often have a lot of firm-specific knowledge that is valuable to their employers.”
The less-subtle breakdown is this: If companies that are capable of offering remote work want to retain employees, they need to offer some remote options.
We saw the effects of employees in frontline occupations refusing to show up to work because of poor wages and working conditions earlier this year. It isn’t outside of the realm of feasibility to expect the next major workforce shortage to impact corporations as well.
If the solution is as simple as letting employees work from home a few days per week or permanently (especially if their productivity doesn’t suffer), that’s a pretty small price to pay for continued prosperity.
The case for nixing your company happy hour forever
(BUSINESS) Happy hour is designed to bond teams and offer a perk, but the design is outdated to benefit few workers – let’s just get rid of the practice.
The world of work has forever changed from the pandemic. Melinda Gates hopes that COVID-19 makes society get serious about gender equality. Some people are wondering how many people really want to return to the office at all. There are questions about providing customer service, not to reduce costs to the business, but because shoppers don’t want help in the store.
Let’s tackle another tradition in the office – the happy hour. Wondering if employees really want happy hours? Do they even help?
Why do we even have happy hour?
Happy hour is a tradition that dates back to the early 20th century and the United States Navy. It was originally a weekly entertainment created to alleviate boredom on the U.S.S. Arkansas when sailors were at sea. The practice became popular in the Navy, but over time, the emphasis changed from entertainment to drinking. As drinking became less stigmatized after prohibition, employees began drinking at work and after work. Although happy hours declined in the 1970s and beyond, there was a resurgence in the 2000s.
Why do offices hold happy hour?
Hosting a happy hour is thought to help a team develop positive relationships and encourage employee engagement and productivity. Drink o’clock can be a time of celebration to help employees feel good about the work they’re doing.
Employees can interact with each other outside of the stress of work. It sounds pretty innocent, just getting together at the end of the workday at a local pub or bar, but it comes with a lot of issues.
Is it time to nix the work happy hour?
Happy hour can come with a lot of pressure for employees. Some people believe they have to attend in order to keep moving up in the job, because skipping out can be seen as not being a team player, and many who don’t show up to the “optional” happy hours are also the ones who didn’t get to schmooze with the bosses and thereby are not the ones who get promotions.
This disproportionately hurts women, who typically still have the majority of caregiving tasks in the family and can’t stay out drinking on weeknights.
Transportation issues or flexible schedules don’t lend themselves well to the traditional happy hour after work. And don’t forget the drinking atmosphere doesn’t appeal to everyone. There are many religious, cultural, and personal reasons for people to avoid alcohol, bars, and happy hour functions.
This doesn’t even scratch the surface of liability issues for employers. Can your business risk an accident by an employee who went to happy hour and was a little buzzed when they left?
While we’re rethinking workplace traditions in the post-pandemic era, let’s think about how to get employees engaged. Maybe this outdated practice isn’t the best way to build your team anymore.
You absolutely don’t need to be a 100% match for a job to apply
(CAREER) Most people believe they should only apply for their dream job if they’re a perfect match, but studies say that’s the wrong approach.
You don’t need to be a 100 percent match for a job to apply. You just don’t.
We’ve all seen the crazy job postings:
-Must be fluent in Mandarin
-Must be be full-stack coder
-Must also have real estate license
-Must be a rockstar ninja (uuugh)
After seeing endless open positions with specific requirements, it’s no wonder that so many job seekers become discouraged. How can anyone fit 100 percent of the requirements on the job listing? And actually, most people don’t. According to a recent study, you only need to meet ~70 percent of the job requirements to be a good fit for a job.
So you’re telling me a requirement isn’t actually a requirement?!
The study analyzed job postings and resumes for over 6,000 positions across 118 industries, and they found that applicants are just as likely to get an interview whether you meet 50 percent or 90 percent of the requirements.
Crazy, I know. That law of diminishing returns will eff you up.
But what about women? I wondered the same thing. Surprisingly, the interview data was in favor of women that meet less of the requirements. In fact, the study shows that as a female, the likelihood of getting an interview increases if you simply meet 30 percent of the requirements. Also, female applicants are just as likely to get an interview if they meet 40 percent versus 90 percent of the job requirements.
Before you start complaining that women have it better in the job search process, correlation doesn’t equal causation.
Interestingly enough, 64 percent of the female users rejected at least one job where they matched 50 – 60 percent of the requirements, while only 37 percent of male users did. This leads us to believe there more implicit factors to take into consideration, like imposter syndrome throughout the interview process.
If you’re a recruiter or employer, this may seem like more work. But in an increasingly competitive job market for both employers and applicants, this presents an opportunity to get to know people for who they actually are, not just on paper. And resumes often do a poor job of reflecting that — especially the ever-important soft skills.
As we’ve gone through this study, here are a few practical action items for job seekers:
1. Apply for a lot of jobs to increase your number of interviews.
The study shows that increased interviews are a direct result of increased applications, not just picking and choosing what you think you’re a good fit for. Which brings us to our next point:
2. Go for those “stretch” roles — you never know what may come of it!
Send in a lot of applications, but don’t let that stop you from approaching the process thoughtfully. Recruiters can tell if you’ve skimped on the cover letter or your resume, and a thoughtful approach to the application process will be noticed and appreciated by recruiters, especially for those reach roles.
3. Don’t second-guess yourself.
We’re always our own worst critics, and according to this, we don’t need to be — especially throughout the job application process. Job hunting is stressful enough, so put on your most upbeat playlist (or Beyonce), say your affirmations, and go on with your bad self and start applying!
This story was first published here in December 2018.
Business Entrepreneur2 weeks ago
6 entrepreneurial tools to keep startup productivity high
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Why tech talent is in the process of abandoning Austin
Business Entrepreneur4 days ago
‘Small’ business was once a stigma, but is now a growing point of pride
Opinion Editorials4 days ago
Minimalism doesn’t have to happen overnight
Business Entrepreneur4 days ago
Why and how to acquire a business – 4 tips for radical success
Business Entrepreneur2 weeks ago
Here’s why you shouldn’t start that startup
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Why robots freak us out, and what it means for the future of AI
Business Marketing2 weeks ago
7 Low-budget marketing ideas for small businesses [sponsored]