• FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    45·
    12 days ago

    No.

    stands in drive through

    Get absolutely fucked and then give me my God damn meds.

    Also, stop violating the ADA.

    Highly illegal.

    Thanks.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zipEnglish
    38·
    12 days ago

    I’ve been to many places where they close the interior and only do drive thru.

    Sometimes they will be completely ok with you just walking through the drive thru on foot.

    Almost always any other cars that show up will have people inside who will act terrified, like you are completely insane and may at any moment attack them.

    Even though they’re the ones that just almost ran you over.

  • bitwolf@lemmy.oneEnglish
    25·
    12 days ago

    We used to order drive through on our skateboards.

    Recently I walked to a drive through, and they refused service because I didn’t have a car at the time. (Their inside was closed).

    Guess I know where never to eat again.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
      12·
      11 days ago

      I promise that the workers don’t give a shit. They’re not paid enough to care.

      But they’re being recorded 24/7 and if management sees them serving people who do not have cars in the drive thru, it’ll be someone’s ass.

      Back in the day, cameras pretty much only existed for the cash register and entry/exit areas. Now, they need to put in laws to keep the companies from installing cameras in bathrooms… That shit is fucking everywhere.

      The corpos at the top are mandating that anyone in the drive thru must meet a minimum requirement of a “vehicle” which cars and bikes are (at least in most places), but you, on foot, are not.

      This is just them trying to avoid getting sued because you were standing in the drive thru waiting for food and some inattentive fuck pulls in after you’ve ordered and runs you down. It’s really fucking stupid.

      The idea that I think they were originally thinking is that people who are walking should go inside where they are reasonably safe from being run over to order/pick up/eat, then they started to keep the drive thru open later than the dining area, and here we are.

      I get that they need to clean and whatnot, so they want to close the dining area, and that’s fine, but close the dining area and leave the counter open so people can walk in and get take out FFS. It’s basically just one strip of flooring that customers will walk into and out from while the seating area is closed, so not a big deal to run a mop over it and go home after closing time.

      But nobody said corpos made sense.

      • bitwolf@lemmy.oneEnglish
        1·
        11 days ago

        Oh yeah they’re just waiting for their shift to end.

        But overall, I’d rather have my statistic be somewhere that doesn’t have a drive thru in the first place.

    • Kairos@lemmy.todayEnglish
      2·
      12 days ago

      Does someone have a definitive answer to this? Do they not want people eating in the parking lot?

      • kungen@feddit.nuEnglish
        7·
        12 days ago

        They probably don’t want to get sued when someone gets run over or such.

          • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
            3·
            11 days ago

            Yep, someone might get sick and therefore all this fresh food is going to waste. We can’t make them sick like that, but we are okay with watching them slowly starve to death.

            This reminds me of an anecdote that a friend used to explain the actual meaning behind the trolly problem. He said, forget the trolly, you go out to lunch at the local sandwich shop (hoagies or whatever), and you get a foot long, but only eat half. You walk past a homeless man begging for food. If you choose not to give him the food you are now carrying, and that person later dies from starvation, are you morally guilty/at fault for them dying because you could have helped but you didn’t. On the flip side, you give them food, they later choke/vomit it up (aspirating it or choking on it), and that leads to their death. Since you gave them the food that they choked and died from, are you morally guilty of that persons death because they wouldn’t have had anything to choke on if you didn’t give it to them?

            This situation with leftovers is the trolly problem made real. Are companies guilty of letting people starve and die, because they don’t want to be found guilty of making them sick (and possibly dying)? Are they, or would they be guilty of either?

            Corpos only know that if someone gets sick from the food given out at the end of the day, they can sue. Dead people don’t sue you. So if they starve and die, then they’re not going to sue, but if they get sick but live, they might.

            Corpos see this as a very black and white thing. Giving the food away poses an “unnecessary risk” for little to no benefit to the company. So they don’t do it.

            Corpos are the worst.

  • Jomn@jlai.luEnglish
    17·
    12 days ago

    I think I already have trouble understanding why a pharmacy has the need for a drive through

    • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      12 days ago

      They’re really annoying since they only do prescriptions. I suppose that’s useful sometimes but so is regular stuff. It seems like such a small part of their business

      For example, one time my toddler was sick and my wife was out of town. I needed some Pedialyte and I forget what over the counter medicine, and it’s not like I could leave the little guy. I pull up in a cloud of stench with him vomiting out both ends, and begged them to let me buy stuff in the drive through. But nope, I had to take that into the store

    • GHiLA@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      12 days ago

      I’ll spell it out.

      WALMART

      but… It does make sense. The elderly that can easily drive but not so easily walk benefit immensely. CVS and Walgreens in the US also have drive thrus usually.

      I have my mother’s prescriptions delivered by her pharmacy, as it’s 100% USPS, but we have the Walmart as a backup if she needs something asap.

    • superkret@feddit.orgEnglish
      17·
      12 days ago

      Yes, but it’s not illegal discrimination.
      Pedestrians aren’t a protected group, and neither are poor people.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      7·
      12 days ago

      Yeah, I can’t imagine this would stand up to an ADA claim in the US. Forcing a person who can’t drive due to a disability to pay an extra fee to pick up medication in a vehicle instead of just fucking handing it to them is stupid.

  • stevedice@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    12·
    12 days ago

    I hate this community because my instinct to most posts is to downvote until I remember the OP is laughing at it, not with it. I guess that’s where the 10 downvotes come from.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.caEnglish
      19·
      12 days ago

      Is there a thought to not subscribe to subs where your intent is to downvote everything? Or is this every lemming mission?

      • stevedice@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        12·
        12 days ago

        Is there a thought to actually try to understand what is being said before uselessly getting into an argument? Or is this every lemming mission?

          • stevedice@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            7·
            12 days ago

            Ah, I see the problem. You forgot to read more than half of the post you’re replying to. Can’t say that’s on me.

  • kipo@lemm.eeEnglish
    10·
    11 days ago

    I used a bicycle in a Walgreens pharmacy drive though for the whole summer, and then one day a manager told me they won’t serve me there anymore because of “safety reasons”.

    What they meant was for their safety, from liability, like if a car hit me.

    I don’t use Walgreens for prescriptions anymore.