You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The BBC have clearly picked up on a story and are running with it as it grabs the headlines.
My own views on it are:
1. I wasn't in the least bit surprised - although luckily the McDonalds I worked in many many years ago didnt have this issue.
2. I have seen this multiple times in large organisations - I worked in a very large national Building Society and this kind of behaviour was there in spades
3. Rather than doing real journalism and uncovering the reasons why this state of affairs is there and present in other organisations its easier to just do the headline grabbing.
In my opinion the problem starts where you have poorly skilled / educated people leading teams of people. When I worked at McD's (and we are talking at least 30yrs ago!) there wasnt sexist or racist behaviour, but there was some bullying. It was putting people in positions they were not competent to perform in (giving them a manager title). Once a quarter or less the regional manager would come round and the whole atmosphere would change and everyone would be on their best behaviour.
It was the same at the building Society I worked at. It grew and changed massively so they needed a large, largely unskilled workforce. They took some of the bigger personalities and promoted them in to 'management roles' and then the bullying/discrimination etc started.
IMO if you pay people just above minimum wage, give them the title of 'manager' it is a dangerous combination.
So the answer is pay a little more, choose managers wisely, and give them the correct training. But how many organisations are trully prepared to put people above profits ?
I seem to remember some research that showed that jobs where people had authority over others, but little actual autonomy themselves massively increased the risk of bullying.
Similarly giving people responsibility without autonomy is a recipe for workplace moral injury (used to be known as “burnout”).
Reading the article one of the challenges with McDonalds was that the policies and procedures for reporting this behaviour were not effective. There are dick-heads everywhere and bad things will happen. The problem is that for McDonalds they didn't act on any of the concerns raised, according to the article.
Not sure how it works in a franchised operation, is it dealt with by the franchise or by McDonalds centrally? That being said seems like it's an issue that went right to the top, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64211747
challenges with McDonalds was that the policies and procedures for reporting this behaviour were not effective
Obviously me experience is out of date, but I think the model is still similar. The restaurants themselves are semi autonomous, with a Manager (maybe 2 running the restaurant) You have to raise concerns with the restaurant manager, so your stuffed there immediately.
You could argue an online reporting system nationally would work, but then those reports would be fed back to the store manager (point of failure again). I guess it would only work if you had regional HR managers, who are independent of the regional managers.
Not sure how it works in a franchised operation, is it dealt with by the franchise or by McDonalds centrally?
I am not sure what it is now. But back in the day you very rarely if at all saw the franchise owner. Just the regional (McDonalds) employed managers who quite clearly only had a remit of increasing performance and output. I assume its still the same model today
My daughter started waiting-on in a local pub when she was 16 - the staff were fine and she had a really good laugh.
...the customers - pervy old men - where a different matter though!
There's probably an element of shock as well for kids - your welfare being looked after in a school environment and suddenly being in a sink-or-swim work environment with people who don't give a shit.
Complete organisational failure, and clearly a risk with very young people.
I've been in work 35 years now and what was "acceptable" or "tolerated" back then would be totally unacceptable where I work now, attitudes have changed, thank goodness.
Clearly McDonalds have failed in dealing with these reports and will need to show they have changed going forwards.
That said, I'm not sure there's a sense of perspective regarding the scale of the problem. Given the numbers of branches and staff, the poor behaviour may be more isolated and localised than the headline suggests, despite the corporate failure to deal with complaints.
McDonalds often come out highly in "good employer" surveys, and when Jnr was looking for part time/summer jobs they were considered a really good option by friends - male and female - who had worked there.
In the UK (and other places to be fair) the concept of 'management' is not taken seriously at all. There are some people who are good at it anyway, and my god does it make a difference to everyone's work and life. There are a few employers (mine is one) who do take it seriously, and that's the main reason why I don't want to move companies despite my current actual manager being sub-par - the first poor one I've had here.
the concept of ‘management’ is not taken seriously at all.
I think this is at the heart of it. Often times the manager is the person who been there the longest, is the subject matter expert, or is the person willing to be an asshole to everyone else to ensure performance/targets are maintained. None of those guarantee that the person in charge is suitable, and at that level (one or two above the actual workforce, very junior managers) lots of organisations don't really give a shit either. They are there just to have someone accountable for failure.
the majority (85%) of macdonalds in the UK are franchises - they're owned by local businesspeople, and just rent the brand/buy the ingredients from macdonalds central. Macd's don't have any control of the hiring, firing or HR procedures, nor do they have a duty of care.
obviously to protect the brand they may choose to revoke the franchise of a branch that has HR issues, but its not (imo) for them to find out if that's the case.
Rather than doing real journalism and uncovering the reasons why this state of affairs is there and present in other organisations its easier to just do the headline grabbing.
This is silly, smug and trite moaning. The piece involved interviewing a large number of people across every part of the UK, putting it into context, and then presenting the common themes to a mass audience. Knowing how powerful, rich and litigious McDonald's is, every aspect will have been pressure-tested interally before publication. Remember that McDonald's spent hundreds of thousands of pounds suing...a couple of vegans giving out leaflets outside their shops.
It is real journalism in a long tradition of mass market investigative journalism in the UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
Rather than doing real journalism and uncovering the reasons why this state of affairs is there and present in other organisations its easier to just do the headline grabbing.
I think that is a little unfair to say the least. Expecting what was probably a small team to only go to press once they have uncovered the reasons for this across ALL employers is totally unrealistic. They had credible evidence of serious wrong doing in a major company, investigated it, corroborated it and published it. In shining a light on this, they will undoubtedly encourage other victims to come forward and other employers to review their training and procedures. It's the definition of good journalism in my book.
I think that is a little unfair to say the least
I dont mean what they have done is wrong, but the next step of the conversation is to why this happens in many organisations, some of which has been alluded above by others