McDonalds / OED

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:53 am

The BBC notes:McDonald's insists it offers more. Supported by some MPs and business leaders, it has urged the OED to change its definition, somehow incorporating the information that a McJob "teaches responsibility". It has instead extolled the "McProspects" it offers - an expression yet to infiltrate the popular lexicon.

What's it really like to work at McDonald's? - BBC News

The publicity unit at McDonalds seems to have no idea of the function of a dictionary. The OED reflects current and past usage, it doesn't act as an agent of change.

Get out from under your McLifeâ„¢, you guys.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:25 am

OK, I actually have some expertise in this area since my first job was McDonald's. (I was on duty the first day egg McMuffins were served!) What is it like to work at McDonald's? Hot, sweaty, extremely greasy, exhausting, a constant cycle of rush, reset, and repeat with a few busses thrown in.

It's also a wonderful way to see the workings of a multinational corporation and learn basic business practices lil stock rotation, inventory control, waste, consistency, and scheduling. You make great friends and have the kind of camaraderie that only the food service industry and military units have. Some of the best friends and the most fun times I ever had was with a McDonald's crew. Pressure tends to bond people. And boredom brings on the most hilarious highjinks! You deal with people. All kinds of people: rich, entitled, poor, sick, elderly, strange, loud, racist, drunk, ecstatic, happy, and creepy people. It's probably the first time you will have to wear a uniform and realize how uncomfortable that it until you get used to it.

It teaches some amazing and powerful life lessons such as , "Just how fast of a learner am I? How much physical strain can I endure?," and "I'll be asked to do things that I do not want to do such as cleaning parking lots and bathrooms. Really, really filthy bathrooms." Then there's the realization that all your hard work actually resulted in a paycheck. You do NOT make a living wage there, but since you are 15 and have low overhead, it's plenty of money to buy a car, pay for gas, and even buy some stereo gear. That is very powerful since it will most likely be the first time you every earned something BIG all by yourself and it makes you realize that you can make your own way in the world, although that way will be hard and difficult.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, but that is what a job in the fast food industry is meant to be. You know what you are getting into. You know it is a dead end job and not a career. You know you will eventually have to get more education and move on to other more challenging and higher paying jobs.

At least...that's how I saw it. (And I suspect, from the desperate and depressed attitudes of the older managers, they thought that as well.)

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:00 am

The reality is if you are a teeneger, never worked and have no employable skils at least jobs like that give you a foot in the door. Living in a small country town I picked raspberries and brocolli as a teeneger that wasn't much fun either.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:58 am

Everything is what you make of it.

I never worked in fast food, but I do know a number of people who have.

A friend's daughter got her first McJob while in high school. She worked a McJob all the time she was in college.

She is now Principle accountant for a rather large and successful corporation.

She made the best of her McJob.

I also have a neighbor who has worked for the local McD Franchise for 30 years. He is not a bright person, but he is friendly and happy with his life. And he has been rather successful with his McJob.

Everything is what you make of it.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:59 am

The only problem with the work at a McDonalds, Burger King, etc.. is that adults are trying to live on wages that were never more than an introductory wage. What used to be a few hours for extra cash picked up by a mom has become the second much needed income to a household.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:37 am

My mistake is in thinking this thread was about the Oxford English Dictionary, and pressure groups trying to establish new words to sanitize old problems.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:42 am

Sanitise ?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:48 am

spot;1477558 wrote: My mistake is in thinking this thread was about the Oxford English Dictionary, and pressure groups trying to establish new words to sanitize old problems.

I am disturbed that the OED even cataloged the "word" in the first place. Frankly, this thread is responsible for my ever becoming aware if the word. The OED committee allows far too many slang terms to be entered into their domain, if you ask me. Do the remove words that fall out of favor?

But then that becomes an entirely new discussion, I reckon.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:13 am

A lot of people I know say, "I would never work at McDonald's, It's beneath me!" As far as I'm concerned, though, if you are unemployed there is no job beneath you.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:37 am

spot;1477558 wrote: My mistake is in thinking this thread was about the Oxford English Dictionary, and pressure groups trying to establish new words to sanitize old problems.

Sadly it would appear you are one of those who cannot accept that english is a fluid language and words enter and leave the lexicon all the time. There are an awful lot of jobs and words to describe them that simply did not exist even twenty years ago never mind thirty or forty. Forum used to be an archaic word from a dead language internet is a made up word and application used to be something you filled in to get a job.

Newspeak if that is what you are refering to is a concept that didn't exist until half way through the last century. Times just keep a changing.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:25 pm

Bruv;1477560 wrote: Sanitise ?

Why would you think so? The OED has no entry under that spelling, but it has an entry for sanitize.

Each must decide which standard to adopt and then to correctly apply it thereafter. There's an adequate discussion at About the use of -ise or -ize as an ending (UK practice)

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:32 pm

gmc;1477565 wrote: Sadly it would appear you are one of those who cannot accept that english is a fluid language and words enter and leave the lexicon all the time.

I've been engaged in a discussion with the Electoral Commissioner's office since last year, when I tried to register The Plebeian Party and was (after some months) refused on the ground that many in England regard Plebeian, or the derivative Pleb, as an insult. It is the standard term throughout the period of the Roman Empire to refer to the common people, I've always used it to refer to the common people and the use in the party name is to the common people.

What the Electoral Commissioner's office can't quite grasp is that *any* reference to someone as common, or one of the common people, is taken by some to be an insult, despite the simple fact that most people in this country are the common people.

The Electoral Commissioner's office is currently considering our proposal that we resister instead as The Vulgar Party, since the word vulgar is still in common usage to mean "common" (as in vulgar fractions, for example) and is used consistently to refer to the common people in, for example, Gibbon's Decline and Fall. I'll report back on how we progress. We would, of course, most like to register as The Commons but that's a definite no-no, even we can see that.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:35 pm

LarsMac;1477561 wrote: I am disturbed that the OED even cataloged the "word" in the first place.The OED catalogs all words which have ever had notable currency in written English, even if only temporarily. That's the remit to which it has operated since the 1860s when the dictionary was commissioned by, I think, the Early English Text Society.

There are other dictionaries which perform different functions.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:21 pm

I once worked in a Burger Joint (Huckleberries) in Southampton. Just as with all the other Fast Food Franchises we were given the hype about how we could work our way up to eventually own our very own franchise branch (yeah, right). While I was working there there was none of this romanticised closeness of all being in the same boat. It was hell. Over exploited, under paid. Rules of having to stay after work to run your uniforms through the laundry, in your own time every day (the company didn't do that for you - that had to be done in your own time, at your own expense, using their coin operated machines). There was contempt towards everyone working there to / from management & among the crew themselves. It's a hateful world to get into & gets you nowhere.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 4:27 pm

So, in other words, the poor working conditions and poor pay, lack of respect, and feeling of being in a dead-end job are not at all uniques to Mcdonalds. I agree with them. The work is discriminatory to a single company.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:44 am

I don't disagree with you in the slightest. What has that to do with recording its existence?

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:17 am

spot;1477596 wrote: I don't disagree with you in the slightest. What has that to do with recording its existence?

Dunno. I am simply agreeing with Mcdonalds that the use of it in current context may be a bit unfair to their corporate image.

They have a battery of legal beagles who do nothing but try to guard that image.

Whether the OED committee should accede to they request, or not, is another issue.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:36 am

spot;1477558 wrote: My mistake is in thinking this thread was about the Oxford English Dictionary, and pressure groups trying to establish new words to sanitize old problems.
Yes, it is. And it is McNauseating, McBaffling, and most of all McExasperating!

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:57 am

spot;1477570 wrote: I've been engaged in a discussion with the Electoral Commissioner's office since last year, when I tried to register The Plebeian Party and was (after some months) refused on the ground that many in England regard Plebeian, or the derivative Pleb, as an insult. It is the standard term throughout the period of the Roman Empire to refer to the common people, I've always used it to refer to the common people and the use in the party name is to the common people.

What the Electoral Commissioner's office can't quite grasp is that *any* reference to someone as common, or one of the common people, is taken by some to be an insult, despite the simple fact that most people in this country are the common people.

The Electoral Commissioner's office is currently considering our proposal that we resister instead as The Vulgar Party, since the word vulgar is still in common usage to mean "common" (as in vulgar fractions, for example) and is used consistently to refer to the common people in, for example, Gibbon's Decline and Fall. I'll report back on how we progress. We would, of course, most like to register as The Commons but that's a definite no-no, even we can see that.

I can think of many words of which the meaning has changed, even in the last 20 years ago. "Spastic" might have been acceptable back then.

While researching our family tree I was presented with various copies of the 1911 census. There is a column on the extreme right that ask one to explain any family members infirmity (it's actually blanked out) and lists "imbecile" and "lunatic" as possible choices. Two words that probably had legitimate origins but have thankfully fell from favour through the years.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:05 pm

I'd be delighted if you could offer me a word (excluding Common, which is banned as potentially confusing with the House of Commons), which indicates the common people (as opposed to anyone who might, for example, appear in Burke's Peerage, Who's Who or the higher tax bands). "Ein Volk" is definitely excluded too. I'm not looking for synonyms of the Proletariat, since members of the Proletariat by definition have a job. We are not Peasants since most of us are urban and few work the land. Have a shot, see where we get.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:28 pm

Nothing wrong with being a Peasant.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:47 pm

FourPart;1477780 wrote: Nothing wrong with being a Peasant.

Indeed there is not. But a party wishing to represent the common people of Britain in Parliament would be wise not to call solely on the peasantry for their vote, do you see.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:53 pm

spot;1477783 wrote: Indeed there is not. But a party wishing to represent the common people of Britain in Parliament would be wise not to call solely on the peasantry for their vote, do you see.

When the peasantry take up the majority of the population they would.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:58 pm

FourPart;1477785 wrote: When the peasantry take up the majority of the population they would.

But they don't! This is a 21st century political party in the United Kingdom that we're discussing!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:08 am

spot;1477787 wrote: But they don't! This is a 21st century political party in the United Kingdom that we're discussing!
Is it, though. The ruling classes (the wealthiest) are still in the minority. The masses (the peasantry) are still in the majority.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:23 am

FourPart;1477807 wrote: Is it, though. The ruling classes (the wealthiest) are still in the minority. The masses (the peasantry) are still in the majority.

You're simply abusing the word peasant. The masses are not all peasants. Very few of the masses are peasants.

The OED gives " A person who lives in the country and works on the land, esp. as a smallholder or a labourer; (chiefly Sociol.) a member of an agricultural class dependent on subsistence farming."

I do wish people would stick to what words actually mean instead of using them as hot air.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 5:50 am

Except that nowadays farmers are among the wealthiest.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:00 am

FourPart;1477811 wrote: Except that nowadays farmers are among the wealthiest.

What part of smallholder, labourer or subsistence farming have you failed to grasp?

It's difficult to hold a reasonable conversation when one party decides to behave like a prat.

Let's try a second time...I'd be delighted if you could offer me a word (excluding Common, which is banned as potentially confusing with the House of Commons), which indicates the common people (as opposed to anyone who might, for example, appear in Burke's Peerage, Who's Who or the higher tax bands). "Ein Volk" is definitely excluded too. I'm not looking for synonyms of the Proletariat, since members of the Proletariat by definition have a job. We are not Peasants since most of us are urban and few work the land. Have a shot, see where we get.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:23 am

spot;1477812 wrote: I'd be delighted if you could offer me a word (excluding Common, which is banned as potentially confusing with the House of Commons), which indicates the common people (as opposed to anyone who might, for example, appear in Burke's Peerage, Who's Who or the higher tax bands). "Ein Volk" is definitely excluded too. I'm not looking for synonyms of the Proletariat, since members of the Proletariat by definition have a job. We are not Peasants since most of us are urban and few work the land. Have a shot, see where we get.

How about the word I used - the Masses.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:33 am

FourPart;1477807 wrote: Is it, though. The ruling classes (the wealthiest) are still in the minority. The masses (the peasantry) are still in the majority.
Metaphors don't go over very well on FG I'm afraid. You can be having a pleasant chat with someone who's on your wavelength then suddenly someone else jumps in and gives you the axe.

Ps. I don't really mean “AXE - it's just a metaphor for getting a bollocking.

Pps. I don't really mean actual “BOLLOCKS - it's just a metaphor for being roughly criticized.

Ppps. I use the term “ROUGHLY not as in an uneven or irregular surface but as in a manner that lacks gentleness.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:49 am

FourPart;1477813 wrote: How about the word I used - the Masses.

When used of people, A large number of human beings, collected closely together or viewed as forming an aggregate in which their individuality is lost? I think my other problem with The Mass Party is the potential for confusion with the Roman Catholic rite, the Higgs Boson and obesity.

We definitely have to appear on ballot papers as The X Party, what we need is a word to replace X. It has to refer to the majority of citizens of the UK who are excluded from royalty, from aristocracy, from the County Set, from public schooling, from leadership and from above-average income.

That leaves most people, some of whom have jobs and some who don't, some urban and some rural, all of whom could elect a government which would act in their interests if only they voted as a bloc.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:42 am

Is "The Peoples Party" too simple ?

With or without the apostrophe.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:07 am

spot;1477815 wrote: When used of people, A large number of human beings, collected closely together or viewed as forming an aggregate in which their individuality is lost? I think my other problem with The Mass Party is the potential for confusion with the Roman Catholic rite, the Higgs Boson and obesity.

We definitely have to appear on ballot papers as The X Party, what we need is a word to replace X. It has to refer to the majority of citizens of the UK who are excluded from royalty, from aristocracy, from the County Set, from public schooling, from leadership and from above-average income.

That leaves most people, some of whom have jobs and some who don't, some urban and some rural, all of whom could elect a government which would act in their interests if only they voted as a bloc.

You complain about the misuse of a word, yet you ban the word "Common" in case of it being confused with "The House Of Commons", yet you choose to differentiate from the people & Royalty. Well, there you have it. The House of Commons means exactly that. It is the house of the Common People, as opposed to Royalty. To bar a word in case of its misuse when referring to its meaning what it actually means is misuse of the word itself. The Common People. The Masses.

Also, 'Mass' is a term that was in use long to describe numbers of people before Physics ever started to use it. If anything, it is the Physica usage of the word that is the misuse.

"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:03 am

FourPart;1477819 wrote: you ban the word "Common" in case of it being confused with "The House Of Commons"
Not me - the Electoral Commissioner's office has a list of words which may not appear in a party name, and that's top of the list.

The Christians have been referring to their love feast as a Mass for fifteen hundred years.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:35 am

Bruv;1477816 wrote: Is "The Peoples Party" too simple ?

With or without the apostrophe.
I'm by no means certain that "the people" excludes any group at all. Surely it's synonymous with "citizens" when talking of a national unit. David Cameron is a citizen, for example. He is numbered among the people of the UK. He is not common, he is not plebeian, he is not vulgar.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:04 am

spot;1477823 wrote: I'm by no means certain that "the people" excludes any group at all. Surely it's synonymous with "citizens" when talking of a national unit. David Cameron is a citizen, for example. He is numbered among the people of the UK. He is not common, he is not plebeian, he is not vulgar.

You want a name for a political party that excludes sections of the population ? UKIP? BNP? TUSC ?

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:16 am

Bruv;1477828 wrote: You want a name for a political party that excludes sections of the population ?

That's what plebeians are. A nominated section of society. In Rome they were not the Senators, they were not the Patricians, they were not the Knights, they were the unranked citizens. What might the correct English word be for Plebeian, I ask. Of course I exclude the upper ranks of British society, I am not appealing to them, I do not solicit their vote, I solicit instead the vote of the majority.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 12:17 pm

spot;1477829 wrote: That's what plebeians are. A nominated section of society. In Rome they were not the Senators, they were not the Patricians, they were not the Knights, they were the unranked citizens. What might the correct English word be for Plebeian, I ask. Of course I exclude the upper ranks of British society, I am not appealing to them, I do not solicit their vote, I solicit instead the vote of the majority.

You are not appealing to me either, any party that seeks support from only a part of the citizenry is by any other name elitist, and I thought you were against such divisions.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 12:43 pm

spot;1477821 wrote: Not me - the Electoral Commissioner's office has a list of words which may not appear in a party name, and that's top of the list.

The Christians have been referring to their love feast as a Mass for fifteen hundred years.

I can't find any such document. How about the "Common Good" party, or the "Common Wealth" party (both genuine party names)?

The nearest I can find to such a list is this:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/_ ... ted-rp.pdf

And I must say that the Category 2 list has me confused.

Category 2 Words

Britain, British, England, English, National, Scotland, Scots, Scottish, United Kingdom, Wales, Welsh, Gibraltar*, Gibraltarian*, Combined region*

You can only use Category 2 words if your party's name, descriptions and emblems do not include the name of an existing registered party, or the word 'party'.

If that is the case, how about the British National Party, or the Scottish National Party, or Independant Labour / Conservative / Liberal, etc.? There seem to be plenty of parties that use these supposedly prohibited words in their registered party names.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:02 pm

FourPart;1477842 wrote: I can't find any such document. How about the "Common Good" party, or the "Common Wealth" party (both genuine party names)?I'm not at home for the next week, where I have the Election Registrar's guidance notes which I followed.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:04 pm

Bruv;1477838 wrote: You are not appealing to me either, any party that seeks support from only a part of the citizenry is by any other name elitist, and I thought you were against such divisions.

I'm talking about that section of society among which I would expect the majority of the Party's support to stem, just as the Conservative grassroots are among the propertied class and Labour's used to be among the waged rather than the salaried.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:17 pm

It also raises another, slightly unrelated point, and that is how the misuse of words can change their meaning. In particular, in this instance I refer to the infamous "Plebgate" affair, which I always found to be rather farcical, where a copper was doing his job by not letting an MP into Number 10 without the correct documentation, and was insulted by being called a 'Pleb' which is, obviously, short for Plebian. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with being a Plebian, so why should it be used as an insult? I believe the whole case was hyped by the media as they had nothing else to write about.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:53 pm

As far as I'm concerned, Plebeian is a term of respect. I've no idea why anyone would consider it a term of abuse, not even a half-baked status-obsessed member of the Establishment.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:11 am

spot;1477849 wrote: I'm talking about that section of society among which I would expect the majority of the Party's support to stem, just as the Conservative grassroots are among the propertied class and Labour's used to be among the waged rather than the salaried.

So..................Tony Benn would be unwelcome in your new party ?

Post by **spot** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:24 am

Bruv;1477874 wrote: So..................Tony Benn would be unwelcome in your new party ?

I think in all fairness you need to pick someone who's at least alive.

intan · Post by **intan** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:25 am

mc donald food is good

[moderator note: this post originally included a 1x1px IMG which allowed malware Javascript to run on any machine which displayed it. It's been removed.]

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:29 am

spot;1477875 wrote: I think in all fairness you need to pick someone who's at least alive.

Fairness ?

We are talking of an imaginary nameless political party are we not ?

I am sure there are living men of noble birth with left leanings, the fact I don't know their names off hand shouldn't bar entry to any reasonable political party.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:40 am

spot;1477875 wrote: I think in all fairness you need to pick someone who's at least alive.
That's Mortist.

Post by **spot** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:57 pm

Bruv;1477878 wrote: Fairness ?

We are talking of an imaginary nameless political party are we not ?

I am sure there are living men of noble birth with left leanings, the fact I don't know their names off hand shouldn't bar entry to any reasonable political party.

I'm not entirely sure you understand the appeal and attract aspect.

Our core support must come from the plebeian class, we offer benefits to the plebeian class, we solicit votes from the plebeian class, we hope in due time to form a government to represent the interests of the plebeian class. I expect we will even field candidates from the plebeian class. Speaking entirely for myself for a moment, I undoubtedly fall within the category of the plebeian class.

Tony Benn was a patrician. Even after he surrendered his inherited honours he was a patrician. I would, were he alive, be delighted to even attract a moment's attention from someone who worked so hard and so successfully for so long in the interest of the plebeians of this country.

Does that help?

Post by **spot** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 1:01 pm

intan;1477876 wrote: mc donald food is good

If I had a manifesto, mate, I'd pass you one. Thank you for your welcome expression of support.