Smash burgers and delivery classism: The viral debate

Delivery riders, burgers, and classism: the viral controversy

Can you imagine being unable to order a burger because someone wants to avoid having a Latino rider bring it by bike for three euros an hour? This question, posted on social media by a user, triggered a storm of criticism mixing racism, classism, and labor precarity. The original message not only assumed that delivery workers should be treated as useless but also implied that ordinary people should accept this model without complaint. The response was immediate: accusations of hypocrisy and analyses of how platforms like Glovo actually work.

The debate quickly shifted to the labor model of delivery apps. Some argue that before regulation, riders operated as false self-employed, with freedom to choose hours and reject orders, but lacking employment contract protections. Others point out that legal reforms turned the sector into low-wage jobs with split shifts and road risks. The discussion went beyond economics, touching a nerve: is it acceptable for essential work to depend on migrant precarity?

Classism creeping into the conversation

The user’s phrase—“they must be treated as such”—was interpreted by many as an involuntary confession. It wasn’t just about ordering food, but accepting that some people’s social value lies in serving others for pennies. Several messages highlighted the contradiction of those who preach solidarity but do not hesitate to exploit those delivering their dinner. Irony spiked: “Imagine going out to check your cotton plantation and seeing no Black people working it,” wrote one participant, paraphrasing the argument as if from another century.

Racism, though denied by some, hovered over the entire exchange. There was debate over whether the term “Latinos” hid prejudice against those from Latin America, and if complaints about insecurity were excuses to justify exploitation. Most messages agreed on one thing: the original tweet author showed a lack of empathy hard to defend.

Glovo, reform, and the business of precarity

The thread moved to the impact of labor regulation on platforms like Glovo. One participant explained that previously riders could open the app and work when they wanted, reject orders, and combine platforms, which he saw as an advantage. After the reform, he argues, Glovo became “absolute trash”: imposed schedules, split shifts, and low wages while risking lives on the road. Others countered that this “freedom” was disguised precarity, and that regulation aimed to end false self-employment.

The discussion also touched on the type of employment the country generates. “Is this the best our country can offer as a job?” asked one message, noting that the proliferation of riders reflects a low-wage labor market. The implicit conclusion: if a job depends on exploitation, perhaps the problem isn’t those who refuse it, but those who impose it.

Left-wing hypocrisy and captive votes

Several messages pointed to an ideological contradiction. Certain left-wing groups were accused of being “more classist than an 18th-century French marchioness,” defending a model that precariousizes migrants while presenting themselves as anti-racist. Criticism extended to voters: “These people vote,” was repeated as a warning sign. Some directly called for abolishing universal suffrage, while others joked that the problem isn’t the system, but the quality of the electorate.

The debate also reflected a generational and class clash. The author was described as a “pogre snob” living disconnected from reality, and generalizations were made about new-generation Spanish women with derogatory comments that, while present in the thread, added no analytical value. At this point, the conversation lost its economic focus and became a cultural score-settling.

Jobs nobody wants and the shadow economy

One message posed an uncomfortable question: “How did this country function until 1995 without anyone harvesting fields, caring for the elderly, or delivering food?” The implicit answer is that these jobs always existed, but were done by locals under equally precarious conditions. Mass immigration allowed externalizing the social cost of these jobs, and now it is taken for granted that only migrants can fill them.

Another participant added a third idea: that a migrant might achieve social mobility or start at a better rung seems inconceivable to many. Classism, therefore, affects not only riders but any attempt at mobility. Far from resolving, the discussion exposed a society that wants cheap services but refuses to acknowledge their consequences.

---

In the end, the user’s question still hangs in the air: Can you imagine not being able to order a smash burger via Glovo? Yes, and perhaps the problem isn’t that, but that someone believes there are people whose only value is bringing it to you.