Seems like some companies prefer to change definitions rather than work to improve reality. In the latest and strangest glimpse into the world of corporate PR, McDonalds is whining to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) that the inclusion of the word McJob is “insulting” and “out of touch.”
The OED defines McJob as “an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.” Sounds right to me!
Websters Unabridged (my personal favorite) agrees by defining the word as “a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement.”
And even Wikipedia (which the geniuses at McDonald’s could change for free and with no media attention) says “McJob is slang for a low-paying, low-prestige job that requires few skills and offers very little chance of intracompany advancement. Such jobs are also known as contingent work.” (source)
Maybe it’s time McDonald’s starts offering its employees some mobility and not fight the reality of the world. Seems like in 2003 Ronald McDonald’s evangelists tried to pressure Websters Dictionary to do the same but to no avail (source).
So, why is this an issue again? Who knows but as the writer at The Register suggested, “All the more reason, we think for Ronald McDonald to start his own weblog.” (source)