Talk:McJob/Archives/2013

400,000 employees

Okay Here's the problem as I see it with the 400,000 number:

1. That 400,000 refers to every employee in the company, including behind the counter people and everybody else. it's not just thoese 1000 people and robots doing everything that isn't behind the service counter. The number means absoulty nothing as it is... it would need to say since mcdonalds has 300,000 Behind the counter employees or whatever.

2. It'd help to have this be the employee's above a certain age that work behind the counter(if that satstic is possible). There's a ton of teenagers who are just working part time jobs.

Well, if you take the number of employees of any sort (400,000), and the number of restaurants (over 31,000, according to a caption on McDonald's Corporation), and then look at the statement that "over 1,000 of the men and women who now own McDonald's franchises started life in the working world behind the counter serving customers" ...then:

31000/400000 = 0.0775 or approx 7.75% of all current jobs at McDonalds are held by Franchise owners (assuming 1 owner per resteraunt)

and

of that 7.75%, only (1000/31000 = ~0.0323) 3.23% of those franchise owners started working at McDonalds serving customers. This leads to the statement that: only 0.25% (1000/400000) of all McDonalds Employees are franchise owners who started work as a McD's server.

That is a terrifically small amount of employees moving on to become franchise owners. Granted, as you say, many McJob workers are only there for only part time jobs, but we are looking at the validity of the original statement.

When the CEO's rebuttal to the statement that a job at McDonalds is "a low-pay, low-prestige, low-dignity, low benefit, no-future job in the service sector" is to bring up a quarter percent of his entire employee work force, obviously that rebuttal must be placed into question. That's the purpose of the sentence in question. Certainly, you're welcome to improve upon it if you wish, but outright deleting it is no solution, and only lends undue weight to an otherwise weak statement of defence.

Out of curiosity, what was your reason for deleting the other large portion of the article? It was not nessisarily npov, only an attempt by an earlier author to explain a potentially confusing sentence. Also, could you please sign your entries? It makes these pages easier to read. Thx. Arcuras 19:44, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, thanks you've made that part of the entry clear. I might make that point a bit more clear, considering it had me confused at the start about why the heck do how many people advance to mangement have to do with people over there in product development.

I'm still a wee bit confused about citing sources on wikipedia. Is simply Saying "has been questioned as being invalid", a valid source? From what I've seen on other article people can have hissy fits about that, they what an actual critic or source and don't like the word some commentors or some critics or has been called into questioned without mentioning who called it in.

Which is the reason I deleted all the other info... it just seemed way way too broad theories without sources.

203.112.19.195 20:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The best course of action would be the cite the person who questioned Cantalupo's contention (with a proper reference, and a quote making it clear why they think McD's 400,000 employeees invalidates his claim). It's not right for an encyclopedia to say "Cantalupo's contention has been questioned" without saying who by. —Stormie 04:16, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. have a read of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for some more about citing sources - the root of it is that people have a tendency to insert their own POV into articles, and then try to make it look NPOV by putting a "Some say.." or "Many believe.." or suchlike in front of it. There are some exceptions listed there, like "when the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify", but a good rule of thumb is: if there's an edit war over a "Some say.." sentence, we need to know who says it. —Stormie 04:22, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

"According to Jim Cantalupo, former CEO of McDonald's, the perception of fast-food work being boring and mindless is inaccurate, and over 1,000 of the men and women who now own McDonald's franchises started life in the working world behind the counter serving customers.[citation needed] Since McDonald's has over 400,000 employees, not to mention high turnover, Cantalupo's contention has been questioned as being invalid, working more to highlight the exception rather than the rule."

Another figure, not given in the article, would be the number/percentage of owners of franchises who once worked at McDonalds. Other relevant statistical facts are, countries and time frames, and what counts as an employees. A McDonalds Corporation executive buying a franchise is not what is trying to be implied in that statement, rather, kids working flipping burgers. - Matthew238 01:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Can we please discuss the line "working more to highlight the exception rather than the rule" first before removing it? There hasn't been any good reason given yet, so we shouldn't continue on with this edit war when we should be discussing it. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 19:26, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

LGagnon, you are right. Reithy 08:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some research when story is unprotected and Chucky banned.[1]

Reithy 00:05, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Dec. 4th/5th paragraph

I'm replacing the paragraph that was the cause of the recent sockpuppet war for the following reasons:

1. The question of it's removal was addressed previously without resolution. ("it just seemed way way too broad theories without sources" - User:203.112.19.195 see above)
2. The sentences in question, while flawed, helps to explain the previous statement in the same paragraph
   • That being said, it does need some attention and editing... but that is no reason to outright delete it (over and over and over again)
3. The user who is being accused of the reverts is currently requested for arbitration for repetitive violations against the 3 revert rule on numerous topics. As such, it should require some other known user to agree in this specific case to lend weight to the deletion decision.

Any suggestions on how to improve the selection? Arcuras 19:12, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is fine. I don't see any POV problems or inaccuracies. We should add a citation, which would be extremely easy. The New York Times Magazine (I think) had a very good piece on college-educated families who had to move back to entry-level jobs due to outsourcing.. these were MBA's mopping the floors at McDonald's. My other suggestion would be to add balancing points, such as the high availability of "McJobs". Chuck should know by now that it's always preferable to add balance, instead of his usual method of simply deleting parts of an article which offend him. Rhobite 20:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Etymology (Need a fact check)

I changed the article to reflect the fact that Douglas Coupland did not coin the term in 1991, but merely popularized it. According to this CNN article, [2], and various other online sources, the OED lists the first known publication of the term McJob with this meaning as being in the Washington Post in 1986. However, since I do not have access to the OED online, I cannot verify this fact. Can anyone with access to the OED fact check this please? Kevyn 09:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pay

There are no facts, either here or on the McDonalds page, on what McDonalds employees actually get paid, or how the company determines the wage of its entry level employees. Obviously, different states and countries would have to have at least slightly different procedures, due to differeing employement laws, but if there is say a U.S. national standard, that would be a good statistic to give. - Matthew238 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be safe - very safe - to assume that these "jobs" begin at min. wage. T.C. Craig 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually McDonald's pay's above min. wage and has an endless list of advancements. In fact, McDonald's is a great place to work and I don't even see how it fits in with the "McJob" definition. No wonder the dictionary is being sued. March 2007

(Prepayed PR Advertisement. Thx.)

Ha! Yes. The opportunities at McDonalds are -truly- endless. --GenkiNeko 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

LMAO, tbf for a multinational company that abuses the rainforest ext, it does pay its employees in the UK quite well, but no stat should be given as im sure in countries where people arnt looking they'll pay less than min wage

I'm only 18 and I get paid 30,000 a year and they pay for my school..what other job does that??

Ref

Came across a piece on this word in the NZ herald. [3] Mathmo ^Talk 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I work in McDonalds in the UK and I'm at university studying management, whilst doing this, I have also trained as a shift running manager. How many other companies would give me this opportunity knowing they are unlikely to get a return on me. No I would not complain if my wages were higher, but they certainly reflect the work I do fairly. At least 1 pay rise is given annually and I earn a pretty decent wage for my age and experience. And I can't speak for any other country but I can assure any readers that in the UK the minimum pay per hour at least matches the national minimum wage, as do many other jobs of the same standard but I don't see anybody bad-mouthing them. 81.102.55.244 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In the news

We need a new definition, it seems. Some people with McJobs find the term to be 'demeaning'. Or at least a certain 'McCompany' finds it so. http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070322/K032211AU.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.27.99.92 (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Just because someone finds a definition demeaning doesn't mean that the definition is incorrect. If you start changing definitions in order to please subsets of people then you're altering the truth for political correctness. That's far more appalling. What's the definition of "nazi"? Shall we change that definition because someone doesn't like it? 62.189.26.100 12:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Metro (a free london paper) is running a story (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=50345&in_page_id=34) stating that MPs (MP Clive Betts and 15 other MPs of all major parties) have thrown their weight behind efforts to have the word "McJob" taken out of dictionaries, also McCompany has started a petition for the same. SkippyUK 15:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref: http://news.google.com/news?q=mcjob

"intracompany advancement"

Does this mean promotion ? 82.47.176.254 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)mikeL

All this discussion may be true, on moral high ground and politically correct, but it's totally irrelevent to a dictionary of any kind. The simple fact is that the word exists in common usage around the world. it's not the job of any dictionary to pretend certain words don't exist. If McDonalds objects to the word, let them sue everyone in the world who uses it.Landroo 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oxford doesn't make up the definitions, they just list the definitions as used by the general populous. Maybe if McDonald's made their jobs more than just "dump the fries in the container and wait for the timer to go off" the definition would change. However, this is not a forum to discuss the subject itself, but how to improve the article. Useight 19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "coupland" :
  • Coupland, Douglas. ''Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture''. St Martin's Press, 1991. p. 5 ISBN 0-312-05436-X
  • Coupland, Douglas.

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Current events

I saw some articles about a demonstration. I think it is important for this article. Most of fast food workers took part in the demonstration on August 29th in fifty-eight American cities.Here is an article about Mcjob workers. --Dhtpgus90 (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Mcjob vs Mcjobs

I don't think that 'Mcjobs, the trademark' is not suitable in this article. I saw an article about confusing between Mcjob and Mcjobs. Mcjobs is that "training handicapped persons as restaurant employees" but Mcjob is not that meaning. --Dhtpgus90 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Mcjop article is very well organized. I leave little to be desired. i think mcjop need several of categorization.--Gotpdud (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think, this article is not neutral and speaks for McDonald's. Every sections include McDonald's comments, but there is no workers'. How about adding workers' comments?--Donghwan Seong (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

I am so happy to see this article. It contains latest social problems. It has deserve to keep on the wikipedia with adding more information. I suggest that find out more interview or real exmaple about 'Mcjob' Becuase it's a new syndrome, so lots of magazines investigated about Mcjob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byung do jung (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Review!

In my think, Mcjob is one kind of the Labor problem, recently. How about finding out other kinds of Labor Problems and add it on this article? As comparison analysis Can help high level understanding. By doing so we can find out specific feature about Mcjob. GaHee Park (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)