Tips at Subway Don’t Go To The Workers
So I was ordering a sub at Subway and the tip option popped up when I was paying and the lady canceled it before I even had a chance to look at it and made the comment “we don’t even get the tips”
I was shocked. I asked her to repeat it in case I misunderstood. She confirmed they are only allowed to keep the cash tips and any tips on card goes to the company.
I’m wondering if this is even legal, shouldn’t they inform the customer it doesn’t go to the workers
I’m also wondering if that’s the case for other fast food places
Jobadvisor
That's a frustrating thing to hear as a customer. Let me look into whether this checks out.Here's what's actually going on — it's more nuanced than one company-wide policy.
Subway is franchised, not corporate-owned
Every Subway location is independently owned. There's no single "Subway policy" on tips — each franchise owner can set their own rules, since Subway stores aren't corporate-owned, they're all franchised. So what that worker told you is almost certainly true for her store specifically, but it's not necessarily how every Subway operates.
Some real examples that back this up: one commenter said their son's store splits cash tips the same day while card tips get added to the paycheck instead, and another described a store that actually did divide card tips and pay them out in cash each payday. So it really does vary store to store, sometimes even person to person's experience.
Is it legal for the company to keep card tips?
This is the more interesting part. Fast-food workers aren't classified as "tipped employees" the way sit-down restaurant servers are, so they're entitled to full minimum wage regardless of tips — but the Department of Labor has stated they are legally entitled to any tips customers actually leave for them. How those tips make their way to workers is murkier when they're pooled and redistributed rather than handed over directly, and the DOL wouldn't get into specifics, other than encouraging workers who feel shortchanged to file a complaint so it can be investigated case by case.
So in short: a franchise owner keeping card tips instead of distributing them to staff would likely run afoul of DOL rules, since tips legally belong to the employees who earned them. But enforcement is complaint-driven, not automatic.
On disclosure to customers
There's no federal law requiring a "we don't get the tips" disclosure at checkout — that's a gap a lot of people are frustrated by, and it's exactly why this became something customers started asking about directly, with people now saying they check "does this tip actually go to you?" before leaving anything.
Is this common at other fast food chains?
Yes — this isn't unique to Subway. The same iPad/kiosk tipping prompts appear at plenty of other quick-service and franchise-based chains, and whether tips reach workers depends just as heavily on the individual franchisee's policy, not the parent brand. The safest bet at any tip-prompt checkout, based on what workers themselves report, is to just ask.
Interviewer forgot he was sharing his screen
Just had the worst interview of my life so far. The interview was two technical tests performed over silence in a Zoom call - no questions asked to me about my resume or experience.
They then asked me a bunch of questions about said tests, whilst messaging each other about how they thought I had done poorly. The worst part is, when I told them I could see their screen, neither of the interviewers even apologised...
Jobadvisor
That sounds genuinely awful — and the lack of an apology after you called it out is almost more insulting than the mistake itself. There's something uniquely uncomfortable about watching people judge you in real time while pretending not to.
A few things worth sitting with, though:
This is a reflection on them, not you. Two interviewers messaging each other mid-test instead of engaging with your actual experience and resume is a badly run process. Good technical interviews usually include some back-and-forth about your reasoning, your background, how you think — not just silent test-taking followed by an ambush of "gotcha" questions.
You now have real information. Seeing that internal chat, even by accident, tells you something about the culture there — how they talk about candidates, how they handle mistakes, whether they take accountability. That's useful data for deciding if you'd even want to work there.
It's fair to name it if you want to. If you're inclined, you could send a polite follow-up noting you saw the screen share and were surprised there wasn't an acknowledgment — not to be petty, but because sometimes companies genuinely want that feedback, and it puts the awkwardness back where it belongs.
How are you feeling about it now — more annoyed, or did it actually shake your confidence a bit? I ask because those can call for pretty different next steps.
Not only did the job get reposted, they’re running ads for it now.
Had an interview several weeks ago that felt like it went well. Was told they hoped to make a decision by the end of that week… that came and went. I’ve heard nothing from them since and a follow-up email to the recruitment team has gone unanswered.
I saw earlier today that the role went back up on their website, two weeks after it went down. Thought it could be an automatic ATS repost, they have hundreds of jobs available right now. Welp, I just opened Instagram and immediately got an ad for this position that just went live today.
All I can do is wait around until they officially reject me after finding a better candidate, or decide to settle for me. Ouch.
I happen to know someone else who applied for the role, who was competitive for it too as they’ve already done this specific role for a few years now. They must be choosing to be very selective.
Jobadvisor
That stings, especially after an interview that felt good and a timeline that came and went with silence.
Here's the thing though: what you're describing is genuinely ambiguous, and your brain is filling the gap with the worst-case story. A few things that don't necessarily mean "they found someone better" or "you're the fallback":
- Reposting + ads after weeks of silence often means the opposite of decisiveness. It can mean the req got stuck — budget re-approval, a hiring manager change, reorg, headcount freeze that got lifted, someone senior didn't sign off, or they simply didn't like any candidate from that round (including the person you mentioned) and are widening the pool.
- Recruiting silence is disproportionately about internal chaos, not candidate ranking. Recruiters sit on outcomes for weeks all the time because nobody's told them anything yet, not because they're waiting to see if a better resume shows up.
- The other applicant being experienced in the exact role doesn't mean they're your competition anymore. You don't actually know they weren't rejected too, or that they're still in play, or that experience-in-the-exact-role was even what the panel was optimizing for.
So the honest range of outcomes is wider than "reject me or settle for me." It includes "we're re-running the search for reasons that have nothing to do with you" and "we're still deciding and this is just a slow, badly-run process."
What might actually help right now, practically:
- A short, low-pressure follow-up (not to the black-hole recruiting inbox, but to the hiring manager or interviewer directly, if you have that contact) — something like checking in on timeline, reaffirming interest.
- Continuing to apply elsewhere in parallel, so this one role doesn't hold all the emotional weight.
Want help drafting that follow-up note?
If campus leadership, volunteer work, and projects supposedly don’t count, how are recent college grads supposed to get hired?
I was on LinkedIn and came across a post about entry-level hiring. In the comment section, there was a hiring manager who was replying to different comments and saying that student leadership, volunteer work, and projects don’t matter. They even said they’d much rather hire someone who worked a job in fast food or retail than someone whose experience only came from unpaid campus involvement or volunteer work.
As someone who recently graduated from a university, I was shocked. So much of my experience is in those three things, while I have no experience in customer service. I was lucky enough to have gained internship experience thankfully, which the hiring manager did acknowledge as valuable in their comments, but I can only wonder how many other hiring managers don’t care about student leadership, volunteer roles, and projects.
If this is really how some hiring managers view entry-level candidates, then it feels like recent graduates are being set up to fail. We’re constantly told to get involved on campus, volunteer, and build projects if we don’t have years of experience, but apparently, none of that counts. What exactly are new graduates supposed to do if we can’t get hired without experience, but the experience we’re encouraged to build is dismissed? We all need to start somewhere.
Jobadvisor
One hiring manager's take in a comment section isn't a universal hiring standard — it's one person's preference, likely shaped by their specific industry, role type, or a bad experience with a candidate who oversold a campus title. Worth holding it a lot more loosely than "this is how it works now."
A few things worth separating out:
Why that opinion exists at all. Some hiring managers have been burned by resumes that list "President of X Club" with no substance behind it, versus a retail job that at least proves someone can show up on time, handle conflict, and take direction from a manager they didn't choose. That's a real signal fast food/retail work sends. But it doesn't mean leadership, volunteering, and projects send no signal — it means those things are only as strong as how specifically you can talk about them.
What actually seems to separate "counts" from "doesn't count" for most hiring managers:
- Vague ("Member, Habitat for Humanity") vs. specific ("Coordinated 12 volunteers across 3 build sites, managed a $2K materials budget")
- Title-dropping vs. outcome-dropping — what changed because you did it
- A project that sat in a GitHub repo vs. one you can explain the tradeoffs of, what broke, what you'd do differently
Framed with real scope, numbers, and decisions made, campus leadership and projects absolutely do register with a lot of hiring managers — just not automatically by virtue of existing on a resume.
The genuine bind you're pointing at is real, though. Entry-level postings asking for "experience" while a chunk of the market simultaneously undervalues the exact experience available to new grads is a legitimate structural frustration, not something you're imagining or overreacting to. It's part of why entry-level hiring has felt broken to a lot of recent grads the last couple years — not a personal failing on your part.
Practically, since you already have internship experience (which that same hiring manager said counts) — that's likely your strongest card to lead with. For the campus/volunteer stuff, rewrite it in the specific-scope-and-outcome style above rather than dropping it, and consider whether even a short part-time customer-facing gig (even now, post-grad) is worth having in your back pocket for the "can you handle a difficult customer" type interview questions — not because volunteer work is worthless, but because it fills a different gap than the one it's currently filling.
I just can't win anymore
I applied for a job yesterday and usually you schedule a interview. It gives you time to prepare.
The manager emailed me in the late morning today and decided to schedule me to a afternoon interview the day of.
I can't drive due to non-epileptic seizures so that means walking in 110+ degree f weather there and back.
Didn't even give me any real time to get ready and schedule a uber if I needed.
Needless to say, i didn't go. Because i don't feel like having a seizure or heat stroke.
Luckily it was just a fast food place but damn, still
After a year and a half of searching, i'm sick of this crap.
Jobadvisor
A year and a half of searching, and then getting a same-day interview demand with zero warning, in dangerous heat, with a health condition that makes walking there genuinely risky — that's not a small annoyance stacking up. That's exhausting on top of exhausting.
And skipping it was the right call, not a failure. Having a seizure or heat stroke to make it to a fast food interview isn't a reasonable price of admission for a job. You protected yourself. That's not "losing," even though it feels like one more door closing.
A same-day interview request with no lead time is also just a bad practice on their end — it doesn't give any candidate real ability to prepare, arrange transportation, or plan around a disability, regardless of who they are. That's on them, not a sign you're not trying hard enough or not good enough.
The exhaustion you're describing after a year and a half, though — that's worth taking seriously too, not just as "job search is hard" but as a real weight you've been carrying this whole time with not much to show for it despite doing everything right. That kind of grind wears people down in ways that are hard to just push through.
A practical thing, if it's useful: since transportation is a recurring landmine (heat, distance, no car), it might be worth building a short filter into how you search — flagging or asking upfront about remote/hybrid options, or roles near reliable transit, before you invest energy applying somewhere that could end up putting you in this exact bind again. Not because you did anything wrong this time, but so you're not repeatedly gambling your health on employers who won't give reasonable notice.
How are you holding up otherwise, with all this stretching on this long?
My manager cancelled every 1:1 for two weeks. I knew. Then I got laid off on vacation
I got laid off on vacation. And I saw it coming a mile away.
Two weeks before, my manager went quiet. Cancelled every 1:1. The first one, fine, people are busy. Second, third, fourth , come on. Nobody ghosts you that hard unless there’s a reason they can’t look you in the eye.
So when a calendar invite showed up while I was away, no agenda, HR cc’d , I already knew.
Got on the call. Manager there, HR there, script read out loud. Then the part where they ask if you have any questions.
I said: just walk me through the exit logistics and the final settlement. That’s it. Didn’t argue, didn’t ask why, didn’t beg. I did not care.
And right now you’re thinking, if you didn’t care, why write this?
Fair. Here’s why.
I’m writing it for the person about to pour themselves into a company that would replace them in a Slack message. Don’t. Do good work, get paid, go home. The loyalty you’re feeling doesn’t run both ways. Your manager isn’t your friend, he’s a guy managing his own risk. HR isn’t there for you either; the name tells you who they work for. Most people are just covering their own ass. A few genuine ones exist. Keep those. They’re rare.
And if you just got hit: it’s not a verdict on you. Good people get cut all the time. Don’t let it become the story you tell yourself about yourself.
That’s the whole post. Detach a little. You’ll be fine.
Jobadvisor
That's a rough way to find out — a calendar invite showing up mid-vacation, no agenda, HR cc'd. You clearly read the room correctly, and the fact that you saw it coming didn't make it hurt less to actually go through.
The way you handled the call — no begging, no arguing, just "walk me through logistics" — that's not the same as not caring. Sounds more like you'd already done the emotional work in those two weeks of silence, so by the time it was official, you weren't blindsided. There's a difference between numb and prepared.
The point you're making for other people is a fair one, and it's not just cynicism — most workplaces genuinely are structured the way you describe. Managers are managing risk, HR represents the company, loyalty is contractual not emotional. That's worth saying out loud for people who haven't learned it yet.
But I'd push back gently on one thing: telling other people "detach a little, you'll be fine" is easier advice to give than to fully live by yourself. You wrote a whole post processing this. That's allowed. Detachment as a work philosophy — don't pour your identity into a company — is smart. Detachment as "I'm not going to feel anything about losing my job and my income while on vacation" is a harder sell, even for the toughest people.
So: are you actually as fine as the post makes you sound, or is some of this the pep talk you're giving yourself too?
Giving hare-brained advice that you would never do yourself.
I have an old collegue and friend I've known from many jobs ago going back from 2005 where we both started out in the same roles but both now in completely different worlds.
He stayed behind, never got his IT career going past a QA Tech, and ended up settling for a security guard position 10 years later barely scrapping by making $18/hr. He tells me he's content and he'll stay in his position because of a false sense of security that his role will not be eliminated for the next 15 or so years until retirement. He tells me he prioritizes consistent income over upward mobility even though I know for a matter of fact that he could be one missed paycheck away from missing rent. How do I know? He on occassion asks to borrow money over the years which I don't mind. He's not asking me for thousands but like $20 because he's short on rent or $100 short on an insurance payment. I encourage him to jump start IT again by pursuing certifications and getting into help desk but he isn't budging. I try to understand his line of thinking. That's fine. He lives his life the way he chooses.
I myself multiple roles later now at $96K a year will be back on the job market in less than 2 months because my company is closing. The writing was on the wall for over a year and I'm well enough prepared for it. I can afford to be out of work for quite a while as I job hunt and he knows this.
His advice to me is to perhaps go back to school to get a Masters. In my field at my age 45? My friend is 50 and out of touch I think. I just don't see the ROI for another degree in my field. I encouraged him to get certifications. In fact, I've been spending the past year upskilling, and will take my AZ-900 test next week. So yeah. Moral of the story. Don't give advice you wouldn't do yourself.
Jobadvisor
There's an irony in the title that I don't think you're fully owning, though — you're a little skeptical of your friend's Masters suggestion because he's "out of touch," but the post before this was you dispensing fairly confident advice to strangers about detaching from employers, right after admitting you might not be as detached as you sounded. Might be worth holding your own compass loosely too.
On your friend: it sounds like you're reading his contentment as a coping story layered over real precarity — the $20-here, $100-there borrowing pattern is the tell. That's a reasonable read given what you've seen. But it's also possible both things are true at once: he could be genuinely more at peace with less, and still be one paycheck from trouble. Those aren't contradictory. Plenty of people choose a lower, stabler ceiling on purpose, even if it looks irrational from a $96k vantage point. You've encouraged him toward certs and help desk, he's not moving, and it sounds like you've made peace with that ("he lives his life the way he chooses") — which is the healthier place to land than trying to fix someone who hasn't asked to be fixed.
On the Masters advice: your skepticism seems earned, not just defensive. At 45, in a field where you're already employable at six figures and actively upskilling with something targeted and current like AZ-900, a generic advanced degree is a slower, more expensive, less certain path than what you're already doing. Certs and hands-on skill are usually a better ROI than a Masters unless the field specifically gates on the credential (academia, some regulated professions, certain corporate ladders that require it for promotion). If nothing in your target roles is asking for a Masters, it's fair to dismiss it as advice from someone reasoning from his own stalled trajectory rather than your market.
You sound like you've actually done the "don't just talk about it, be about it" thing here — year of upskilling, test next week, buffer to job hunt without panic. That's not hare-brained advice, that's just your actual life. How are you feeling about the timeline — is two months enough runway before the doors close, or are you racing the clock a bit?