A Government of the Military, by the Politicians, for the Corporations

Submitted by Jaime Kasztelan

Every year there are campaign ads on television, billboards and signs out front of people's lawns. They all promise to tax the rich and put more money in the working class pocket. Our own modern day Robin Hoods. Everything they promise would change the world. However, changing the world can take a lot of time and a lot of money. What also takes a lot of money? Running for office. If a politician doesn't raise over a million dollars for their campaign it can almost be guaranteed that they will fail. While many politicians can fund parts of their own campaign they still need contributors. They turn to the rich or Political Action Committees (PAC's). What do the rich want in return? To stay rich. So the "good intentioned" politician who once had dreams of changing the world now has to answer to the powerful elite that wants to keep the country running exactly the way it is. In order to accomplish this for their benefactors they continue debates for years over passing a bill or find loopholes so that the corporations destroying the planet can keep up production. In documentaries about this problem they want the public to work for change. They want us to protest and boycott the corruption. While it can make a small difference it will never cause a dent as long as the ones in power want to continue. It is not entirely up to the public to change, we need a government that is again or perhaps for the first time of the people, for the people, and by the people.

 Unfortunately, what goes on in the government is not shared with the public. We usually go by rumors. The only evidence we see is our country hanging by a thread. People are losing their jobs, homes and life savings. Our world's natural resources are quickly disappearing and poisonous toxins are being disposed into our atmosphere. The corporations hiring minorities who work for nothing, destroy forests or any natural resource to make their product and dispose of their toxic waste into our atmosphere are protected. Where is the government? They are attending a benefit to shelter the homeless or eating at a $10,000 a plate dinner to feed the hungry. They make us believe they are trying to save the world but in actuality they are allowing those corporations to continue. They allow this to happen because they are either cashing in on it or they are returning the favor for their seat in office. Marx views this system as an unstable one and believes one day it will fall. I have to agree.

Everytime I see a documentary about the food industry or a commercial about saving a sick child by donating 50 cents I get a feeling of change. I get a feeling that I can be a part of that change. While donating the money is easy enough it can be hard to become vegetarian or choose a higher priced organically grown chicken instead of the genetically enhanced super chicken. Even if I do change my life there are billions of Americans who will probably never change. Slowly the feeling, or strong urge to fight for equality and change slowly dies. I don't have the power to reshape what those in power have created. Yes, we outrank them in numbers but we are not organized, we don't have the funds and don't have the time to go against the man. We are too busy working to pay bills and taxes. So the rich get to be rich, while the poor get to stay poor. It is the power elites hegemonic power over our society. Our only way out is if Oprah decides to run for president. If not Oprah, which I highly doubt would happen, than we need politicians in office who don't answer to anybody accept the public. Who believe in filling our bank accounts instead of their own and who believe in saving the world and its resources for generations. Only then will the world change.

McDonaldization not just at McDonalds

 We've all been into a McDonald's (at least everyone I know has) and we know the routine. It's always the same. The employees all act the same and even if by chance you do have a conversation with one of them while ordering, you can't help but to just feel as though they are acting out a role. McDonald's achieves this through means of efficiency, calculability, predictability, control and irrationality. While many may only think of McDonald's or other fast food restaurants when discussing this topic, I actually think of many other places of work becoming more and more similar in those aspects.

For example, I have worked at a dentist office for the last 4 years. Most of us have been to a dental office and let's start thinking about it. When you walk in, you sign your name in at the front desk then sit quietly in a chair in the waiting room reading your Home Garden or Time magazine until the woman calls your name to come back into the room. Once you're back in the room, you open your mouth and shut up unless the woman asks you a question to create some small talk here or there. As an employee there, I know exactly what to do and how to do it. I call a patient back into the room, sit them down, put their bib on and go to let my boss know that they are there. When assisting my boss in a procedure, I am quiet and courteous and I know that if I talk out of place I will probably get a really dirty look from my boss. In the operatory room, we are quiet and there to get the job done right. In this sense, I am a McDonaldized employee even though I'm not exactly flipping burgers. I have little machines I use with timers and switches that tell me when materials are done mixing to be used for fillings. I know my place, I know I cannot really let my individuality shine because we are there to work on someones teeth and that is about it. When we are finished with the procedure, I write in the person's chart, walk them to the front desk and say "Ok they will help you out up here, have a great night!!" with a big smile on my face. Then it's right back to the room to clean and set up for the next patient on the schedule. We achieve this functional work place in the same way McDonald's does: with computers, an assembly line in a sense, repetitiveness, and much predictability in at least what to expect in a dental office. Obviously this isn't an extreme like McDonald's but it definitely reflects a lot of the same aspects.

I believe McDonaldization is seen in all different work places, not just fast food restaurants. All over, more and more people are becoming like robots in their work place because efficiency and quantity over quality or meaning is becoming more and more important.  Employers want to make money and do it quickly so they a lot of the time take the color out of their workplace and employees. Employees are alienated at many workplaces from their creativity and personality in order to fit the demands of success in their workplace. So you don't have to flip burgers at McDonalds to be McDonaldized.

18 to enter, 21 to drink

Submitted by Jaime Kasztelan

Underage drinking has always been known as a negative sanction, however is it breaking a norm of society? Can one say that it is deviant behavior to drink underage if most have done so in their lives? Ask a 21 year old when they started drinking, the answer should be when they turned 21, right? Typically that is not the response you will receive. It is usually in their teens that they have sipped their first beer and was introduced to a new thrill or a way to make their parents angry.Over the weekends, to relieve the stress of high school they party hard, experimenting to see just how far they can go. It's the ones that can last the longest who are the top dogs in their sub-culture of misbehavior. As a result, each year it becomes acceptable in those sub-cultures to start drinking and experimenting at dangerously young ages. Police officers, parents and teachers try to educate them in the dangers of drinking and the lives it has already taken but it could be falling on deaf ears. In a better society it would be perfectly acceptable to start drinking at an appropriate age, unfortunately that is not the world we live in. It seems that this form of deviant behavior has become a norm of society.

The fact of the matter is that, in the United States, it is illegal to drink under the age of 21. It is a written law of our society and therefore is one of the highest forms of deviant behavior and should end in a negative sanction. We have come a long way from the 70's era, in which it was easier to underage drink and get away with it. Stories from my parents amaze me of the leniency that was given to them whenever they were caught. However serious the situation they were, in most cases free to go with no form of punishment. The penalty today is much more severe and can stay on ones record for years, often making it difficult to get a job. An outsider would ask, why risk it? The answer is that kids will do anything to be a part of the in-group of society. They want to be recognized by all their peers as the coolest guy/girl at school. This is simply why they comply with the rules of popularity and what you have to do to be accepted. By not taking the risk, they could be viewed as a coward or a wimp and become outcasts. This then results in bullying from their peers and no one wants to go through four years of torture. Either society works to change the positive sanctions given from peer to peer for drinking underage or the problem could reach children at a younger age each year.

Take this image, for instance. Most people would take a look at this and get a laugh or a small chuckle at least. All I know is I wouldn't want my children in a picture like this, making me look like a horrible parent and a contributor to the norm of underage drinking. The images we should be taking a closer look at and taking seriously is this,

When we give our impression management to our peers we shouldn't have to lie. We shouldn't have to do something we know is wrong to only give off the impression that we're cool and deserve respect. Respect should be given in spite of that. Also, who takes the blame for the image above? Who is given responsibility? Is it the individual themselves or can we put the blame on the friend who allowed them to get in their car, or the 21 and over individual who purchased the alcohol? Many would put it on the individual, calling it voluntary participation. While that is true, we can also give responsibility to those who had a chance to stop it and did nothing. This is Milgrims, "bystander effect" in which they assume someone else will take responsibility and do what needs to be done.

There is no way to stop this problem if it is always regarded as typical deviant behavior. Everyone knows that it is going on and chooses to not allow it to happen but not to take any extra steps to stop it. I can take blame for participating in underage drinking. I have received an underage or citation from a police officer and should probably have been given more than that. If you asked me why I take the risk, I would simply tell you it was something to do in high school and became a huge part of my life once I went on to college. So for some it is voluntary, others it is normative compliance to society or it is social control. Either way it is a form of social deviance, one of the worst in fact and needs to be dismissed as a norm of our society.

Deviant Love?

                                                                                                                                         By Amy Hutton

In 2011, I do not think of myself as a deviant woman. If I were to back to 1958, I would be the ultimate deviant.  I do not commit crimes, hurt people, nor am I an ignorant person. I am a deviant woman because I date interracially.

Things were much different before the year of 1958. Half of the States in the United States had laws that prohibited interracial marriage. One such law stated that “all marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.” In 1948 about 90% of American adults opposed interracial marriage.

It wasn’t until 1958 that a black woman by the name of Mildred Jeter and her husband, a white man named Richard Loving, changed the way the United States looks at interracial marriage. They lived in Virginia which abided by the same laws as Pennsylvania. They were arrested and banned from ever coming back to the State for at least 25 years. Ultimately they did come back to Virginia to visit family and were arrested again.

Mildred, while she was released on bail, wrote to Attorney General Robert F Kennedy asking for his help. The case went to the Supreme Court and finally in 1967 the Court legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the United States.

How much has really changed?

In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage and 48% felt that marrying a person of another race should be prosecuted as a criminal act. These were very high percentages given that was the year that interracial marriage finally became legal. In 1991 adults who opposed interracial marriage became a minority.

A current statistic says every one in seven new marriages are interracial. This says a lot. I grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood but did attend public School. I was taught never to judge anyone on the color of their skin. But when it came to dating I knew I was expected to date within my race. However, that is not what I am attracted to first.

As I grew up my best childhood friends were a mix of black, latino and white. It was only a matter of time that I would begin to date. My first boyfriend was Puerto Rican. The next several men I dated were also of latino descent and within the last ten years I have dated mostly black men. The only difference I see in these men is the color of their skin.

Socially, interracial marriage has almost doubled since the 1980’s. Only about 6.8% of newly married couples reported marrying outside their race but in 2008 that percentage jumped to 14.6%. Many more people, especially in the current generation, support and accept interracial marriages. I feel it is no longer a deviant act when 85% of those between 18 and 29 years old accept interracial relationships. Not everyone will agree with this social change today but as older generations pass away and newer generations take their place, interracial relationships won’t be such a "deviant" issue.

Standing up for Your Rights: Is that Deviance?

Submitted by Katiria Garcia

In the current days, our country has been experiencing many economic issues. This caused the United States government many issues when it comes to dealing with the budget. Economic problems make government to cut funding for many programs. Since government is not satisfied with the amounts of money that it is receiving through taxes to fund those programs, they are raising taxes for lower and middle class people. Since many government officials do not want to be left with less money they are not raising taxes for richer part of population, thus causing more economical problems and making people angrier. How much are we being affected by the erroneous structure of the government? Should the government take care of the well-being of everyone in the society and not just rich ones? Where did the government leave the values which this country has been found on?  Why have more and more people have to sleep on the streets of Philadelphia? Why do people have resort to crime in order to find ways to pay for luxuries which government is providing for them? However, if everyone has the same needs in this world, why can’t we work to achieve as much equality as possible? In many places in United States people are protesting against the social inequality, which, according to the signs in the protest, government has caused it. Are these people deviants because in the current society because they take the action?

The City Hall in Philadelphia has been affected by this protest already for several weeks.

There are many people who are tired of unemployment, who cannot afford food and lodgings and live in the tents near the city hall.

 This protest can be considered as deviance because this movement is breaking the norms of the passive culture which many Americans have been experiencing for couple of decades. This might be the biggest protest against the government action ever since the famous Million Men March.

Even though there are a lot of people of different backgrounds in the protest, most of people are considered to be deviants because they decided to live in tents for already few weeks until they are not satisfied with results.

Protesters come from many different social backgrounds: from the lower class to the middle class people who want to have a job and any solution for the future of their children.

These people are exhausted to obey a government which doesn't show any interest in their problems. They are also disappointed because according to their opinion corporations have too many advantages given by the government and thus are not letting low class and middle class people to prosper.

The movement has had a great effect even on students in college. Personally, I had the opportunity to watch how some students from Temple University were protesting while walking around the Community College of Philadelphia today. 

Also, I could talk to some of them in the City Hall, where they were manifesting their feelings. They told me that their main reasons for protesting were the high cost of education and the minimum income that they can lead them. They just want to advance professionally, but taking many loans to complete their goals can mean to be blocked in the poverty.

 If people are deviant because they protest against the government, which are the people who supposed to protect the society, is their deviance considered to be bad? If that is so, how this deviance influence other people to act?

In the conclusion, many people are becoming deviants when fighting for positive reasons, but the government can try to use the behaviors of protesters as a bad influence for the country by saying that these people are just persuading others in order to create chaos in the country and are just trying to find another reason to disrespecting the laws. Has standing up for yourself when it is clearly seen that somebody is trying to hurt you considered being deviant in a current society? The only way to find out is to go and check out the movement by yourself.

Deviance, it makes the world go 'round

Created by: Nicole VanDerzee

        

Deviance, though frowned upon, is an influential part of society. Without it, we would not be able to determine which aspects of life we deem right or wrong. Deviance stirs the pot and creates excitement in society and shakes the ideas of authority and order. A world where everyone follows every rule would be an incredibly boring place to live, people would not attempt to be different or cause a commotion. Everyday people push social norms and though it may be considered “deviant”, it’s exciting to watch. Without deviance there would not be police, court systems, and several other professions concerning law enforcement. If we really observe closely, we are all deviants. We have all ran red lights, jay walked, disturbed the peace, and many countless other deviant acts. Deviance has become part of our lifestyle; we see how far we can bend social rules before get the repercussions. Haven’t we all beat a stop sign just because there were no cops around, littered because no one was watching, or snuck into a place that was off limits to us? We are so obsessed with being able to get away with wrongful actions that we become deviant for the rush. 

 

People pay more attention to the deviant acts rather than the acts accepted by social norms. Living outside of the circle is a lot more exciting than living by the book. Deviance is what builds our perception of right and wrong, good and bad. I would not enjoy society much without deviance, social norms are boring.

Is Technology pushing us farther away?

Submitted by : David Wagner

Socially Interactive technologies such as text messaging, instant messaging and chatting online through websites such as Facebook are very popular among children and adult's these days. Using these technologies may negatively effect our offline social and friendship networks. Are social networks effecting the way we communicate  and socialize with others for the worse?

In my eyes i think so, because communicating with others over a text message (and or Facebook messages or some other form of instant messaging), there is a peace of humanity that is not there. The whole intimacy of face to face interaction is what is missing. Human's are social creature, we need a good amount of real social interaction in our lives to keep us happy and sane. Technology has brought us together in one aspect, but in the other is further isolating us from one another. When i was a child, if i wanted to talk to my friends i either had 2 choices, i either called up them up over the phone or I saw them in person. At the time, no one had computers or internet ( or cell phones) back then to rapidly send one emotionally devoid block of text one after the other.

ya know, you might be missing the world around you...

Social Networking has given us a chance to communicate with others we never even met before! Like back when Myspace was hitting big back in around 2006, it seemed that everyone had a page, it was insanely popular among teenagers.  I remember the Myspace days, back when i would get a bunch of random friend requests from strangers i never even knew, all because i might've "looked cool" or had a really neat HTML layout on my page that attracted others.  In reality, I did a lot of communicating with people who are complete strangers to me. Though in my mind i felt that i was connecting with all these different people, but in reality that is far from the truth.

I have a semi-embarrassing anecdote about meeting someone on Myspace that really illustrates my point of how online social networking can effect us in negative ways. One day, a girl randomly added me on Myspace who i thought was attractive. We both commented and instant messaged each other for months straight. We decided that we should meet up one day at a mall and hang out. I went up to the mall by myself and she went with her friend. ( this is someone who I've never spoken to on the phone or anything, all of our contact has just been through instant messaging). I approached her at the mall and said hello, and she said hi back. But there was an intense awkwardness surrounding the whole situation. I mean, I've talked to her for months and spent countless hours communicating with her through instant messages, but when i met her, it felt as if i randomly went up to stranger and started talking to her. The whole experience was generally uncomfortable and she kept texting her friends during it( Perhaps most of her social interactions were from behind a computer screen, maybe that could explain her awkwardness?) .  Basically my point is that sure, i was communicating with her, but at the end of the day, it didn't help me really form a good social bond with her in the long run.

In conclusion, technology like text messaging and online social networks are an amazing thing, but I feel that they are best used sparingly. I have a close circle of friends that i see regularly, I communicate with them through texting and social networks, but i also make the effort to see them in person to enforce our social bonds, which is much more important.  The video below pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

"technology can't ever be human"

I Am Whoever You Say I Am!

Submitted By: Alahya Mckelvey

     A deviant is defined as someone who's behavior violates "the standards of  conduct or expectations of a group or society." But who decides what is "deviant"? Better yet who decides who is "deviant"?? Does someone becomes a ''deviant" because that's what society labels them? And once they are labeled a "deviant", do they feel the need to act a certain way because that's how they are already seen? The Labeling Theory helps us to answer some of these questions. The Labeling Theory explains why some people are viewed as deviants and how one comes to accept being labeled as a deviant.

      Lets take the Gothic subculture for instance; Goths are viewed as losers, outcasts, druggies, deadbeats, lost causes etc..  But why do we label them these things? Could it be because they're different from what we deem "normal"? Just because Goths look different from us, we label them deviant. They wear black, listen to heavy metal, have piercings and tattoos so they must be deviants. So what happens after a goth is labeled deviant? Some began to rebel against "normal society." The picture above shows a man wit tattoos and piercings all over his face and the caption states "Deviance: A way to make daddy Mad." The guy in the picture behavior is a clear violation of what's normal in society, and the caption leaves us to believe that he did this to his face to piss his father off. This picture is an example of the Labeling Theory. The man is seen as a "bad seed" so he decided to take that label and run with it.

The above picture discredits some well believed myths about Goths. Because goths look different than us we label them deviant. But just because someone looks different doesn't mean they are different. Some are just are just like us. 

The video above is Eminem "The way I Am". In the song he says "I am whoever you say i am, if i wasn't then why would you say I am?'' Eminem is accepting whatever label people give him. Maybe we shouldn't care what people say or think about us. Maybe we should take what people say about us and run with it. Or maybe we shouldn't label and judge people by how they look. Just because someone looks a certain way, doesn't make them deviant.

Why Be Normal..Be Deviant..

Created By: Mecca Abdullah

The majority of us follow the the rules or social norms in society. So if the majority of people "act correctly" why do some choose to act against the social norm? All behavior is learned; therefore deviance is learned also. How does one become a deviant? One of the main factors of a person acting out is labeling. Calling someone other than there birth given name can give an individual the ammunition to act against the social norms . For example, an adult calling a teenager a juvenile or a judge stating that an individual is a menace to society. After being labeled a negative name, that individual can become isolated which may cause them to act against the social norms that the majority follows.

http://youtu.be/b9zN7qOP21g

This video explains how or why a person can become a bully. One of their many reasons is that they are being abused. As I stated earlier, all behavior is learned, which means if a person witnessing or enduring abuse then they may mirror those actions to other people.

In conclusion, we as people should not avoid the issue of deviance and isolate the "deviant". But confront the problem with individual. Their actions can be a cry for help and what good is the cry if no one is there to hear it?

Riding Shotgun...Literally

Submitted By: Francis Young           

                                                Riding Shotgun...Literally

            Critiquing one’s actions has become a normal part of American society. Everything from parenting to singing to working is analyzed by others. At a young age, we are taught to either learn from criticism or turn the other cheek to it. But, what happens if that person decides to punch you in the face, stab you, or shoot you over the criticism you gave them? This is what happens when people deviate from society and put social normality’s to the side.

            Violence, although not accepted, is not exactly new to American society. Nonetheless, these short tempered outbursts of violence are alarming. Have you ever heard someone say, “Back in my day, two guys would fight, and that would be the end of it?” You probably did. According to the Gallup’s annual crime polls, violent crimes have increased from prior years. Many people are resorting to physical altercations before rational decisions. One prime example of this is “The Philly SEPTA bus shooting.” On June 18^th, 2011 a mother, Penny Chapman, and her son, a toddler, boarded the SEPTA bus in north Philadelphia. After her son started to act up, Penny began to spank him on the bus. A man noticed what was going on and threatened to call child services on the mother. She immediately used her cell phone to call someone about the man who threatened her. As the bus arrived a few stops down, Penny and her son, while getting off the bus, were greeted by her brother Angel Lecourt and a few other people. Accompanying Lecourt were two brothers, Karon and Raheen Patterson. Penny immediately hopped off the bus and pointed out her target. The two brothers, with no regards to the civilians on the bus, began firing in and at the bus.

            Are gun shots being fired on the bus what those passengers expected when they woke up that morning? I hope not! Even the way the news reporters dissected the story showed how astonishing this act was. Most people would just think to flip the guy off or ignore him. She disassociated herself from normal social traits and used the bus as a shooting range. Despicable acts like this aren’t considered acceptable in any society, so heinous crimes like these are signs of social deviation.

Hey Judges..Am I Pretty??

By: Mecca Abdullah


Pretty {prit-ee}

-adjective
1. Pleasing or attractive to the eye

This powerful adjective has a definite role in socialization. Centuries have passed and the concept of being beautiful has always been considered an advantage or plus to a persons character. But why is that? What or who is a pretty person? Why is that a factor in the oppurtunities I get and the decisions I make? We live in a world where looks are associated with a persons career and their self value. From an early age, I was told how beautiful I would grow up to be. As I got older, the media aroud me advertised the appealing.  That's programmed into our brains as an importmant factor. The issue is a persons self image. It's linked to how others feel about us. So if a person doesn't look like a magazines' version of beautiful, then are they not beautiful?

Ads, magazines, and commercials help define whats "beautiful" so we compare that to what we see in real life. If I do not fit Cosmopolitans features of beauty then I must be the oppsite. If we see beauty everywhere then its a desire that we want to capture. So if people don't see you as beautiful then that affects how you look at yourself. How you look at yourself then affects other aspects of your life such as, how well you do your job or how yu act in a public setting.  People make fun of insecurities but it's no laughing matter.

This issue can cause great short and long term damage to a person. We as people need to have our own defintion of beauty and not let the media define it. To view the growing issue among men and women you can visit the depression forums http://www.depressionforums.org/forums/topic/22069-i-feel-so-ugly/

Is McDonald's really the best environment to be apart of?

Submitted by Eddy L.

Almost every American in the United has had a taste of McDonald’s, a place where you can see various kinds of people, race and age eating together. Everywhere you go to eat is exactly the same. The socialization aspect of it is that whether it’s lower or upper class everyone who comes in knows the process of making a order whether it’s picking it up or filling your own drink. McDonald’s is also one of the top multi cultural organizations so no matter what’s your ethnicity you can be apart of their work environment, but is McDonald’s really the best place to work in?

Some of us refuse to believe that the yellow golden arch has a lot of power. Unquestionably McDonald’s is the most influential industry in terms being the largest fast-food restaurant chain in the United States. Not only are they dedicated in service and quality but efficiency as well. McDonald’s always seem to deliver there product trying to give consumers the biggest, fastest, and best product they can get for their money making it an efficient by placing certain people doing certain task, making it specific as possible. Max Weber’s definition of bureaucracy is that it is a large hierarchical organization that is ruled by formal rules and regulations and has a straight forward work tasks. Its three main characteristics are that it has a division of labor, hierarchy of authority, and an impartial and impersonal application of rules and policies. Therefore, the definition of bureaucracy has a relation to McDonalds organization supported by the fact that every restaurant has a hierarchy of authority, each restaurant enforces an impartial and impersonal application of rules and policies, everyone plays a role in this organization from taking orders, making burgers or just making fries to provide faster service. This change in society is well known as McDonaldization.

Besides Mcdonaldization, McDonalds has become one of the most multi cultural organizations in the United States. Not only does it have different cultures making purchases daily but workers are different nationalities from all over the world. It’s common to see a child or an elder from different places speaking different languages making a purchase to eat inside or take out. “Capitalizing the benefits in diversity while minimizing the potential cost” a saying I once read while reading about diversity in our society has a relation to McDonalds.

Overall McDonalds is very standardized multi cultural organization from advertising to real life. People come in to eat, socialize and go and that’s standard all across the world. Age is obviously not a factor for this business anyone can make a purchase regardless of class or ethnicity. Is it really the best environment to work in? in my opinion it is not supported by the fact that it limits our creativity as a society same reason why Marx is saying that working for an organization alienates us from being ourselves, we can not put our own ingredients in burgers when working for McDonalds or any other food chain so it limits our creativity as a society.

McDonald’s Culture Diversity example:

McDonaldization/Are You Recieving The Best Customer Service.. Tyeasha Williams

WELCOME TO McDonald's..HOW MAY I HELP YOU?!?

Have you ever been to McDonald's and felt like the cashier or drive thru person, just took ya order because they had to? Don't take it extremely personal its apart of the job as a cashier. Being a previous employer at McDonald's your told to keep your T-raids down "get the customer in and out!" sometimes the customer and associate relationship is put on hold, because high T-raids can cost you your job. Do I think that's nonsense OF COURSE! I'm not saying have a whole interview with the customer but make them enjoy their experience. For example, MACY'S has a MAGIC experience they provide their customers during the checkout process. I forget exactly what each letter of the MACY'S MAGIC experience means. MACY'S makes you feel like they want you to come back unlike McDonald's where they know you'll be back. I understand and like that McDonald's prefers a quick ordering process because they remain SUPER busy, but if each employee had a different greeting that would be a start !

Who can deny the melt in your mouth salty fries, fresh bun and burger? Despite the fact that your in and out of the line in a minute, you as a customer still walks away satisfied. So what is the problem..you could recieve a better greeting and feel a connection with the person taking your order. Granted the customers who come in during the lunch hour/rush hour are snotty they still deserve great customer service. As a franchise McDonald's should consider a way to make people feel like their not just being served, people should come around and ask just like at any other restaurant "how is everything?" It would definitely be something new but you never know this new could be a good thing.

The video I posted below is a comedy skit, and I'm not saying this is the type of experience you'll receive at McDonald's. I just posted it to make light of bad customer service.

http://youtu.be/lwPdQehYXZA 

McDonaldization disregards health

Submitted By Edwin Rivera

     Its bizarre to see how far some of the world's most popular organizations will go to make achieve higher sucess. Sadly, businesses are not as concerned with the health risks of their customers as they are with their growth in income. Marlboro is a good example. Marlboro is the world's largest selling brand of cigarettes. Cigarettes can lead to many types of cancer, but are still purchased by hundreds of millions of customers.  Approximately 87 percent of all lung cancer cases in the United States are caused by cigarette smoking. These large businesses are selling poisonous products that simply harm consumers.

     McDonald's is the world's largest chain of fast food hamburger restaurants. There are McDonald's everywhere, and even though people know that McDonald's food isn't healthy, they continue to eat it. McDonald's is quick and cheap, so you can't lose right? Wrong! McDonald's, like Marlboro, is a popular business that is more concerned with income than they are the health of their own customers. McDonald's (like other fast food restaurants) can affect many health risks. These foods are fatty, and many of the ingredients are unheard of. McDonald's burgers are super high in salt. (Keep in mind that anything with the right amount of sodium won't rot.)

     A very interesting experiment that has been done multiple times proves that McDonald's burgers and fries do not decompose. Even after two decades of a McDonald's burger being out, it did not decompose. That means that after 20 years, a single burger did not have any mold. These are the same burgers that are served every day to people. A burger that won't rot doesn't sound like the healthiest thing to serve customers. Although McDonald's is familiar with these experiments, they continue to serve the same burgers that have been satisfying millions of people all over the world.
      These burgers contribute to McDonald's success. In such a short amount of time, you can sell many burgers that take only a few minutes to prepare. In McDonald's, quantity = quality. The burgers always taste the same, their only goal is to sell the same products in the shortest amount of time possible. Of course McDonald's isn't concerned with the health risks caused by eating their foods. If customers continue to buy these standardized burgers, they are only contributing to the success of the world's favorite fast food restaurant.

     In the fast food industry, efficiency is the key to a successful franchise. The simpler the food preparation process is, the more sales will be made. The burger making process is so standardized that no matter which McDonald's you go to in the world each burger is EXACTLY the same. The video below is an experiment done with McDonald burgers. Perhaps McDonald's should consider the possible risks these burgers could put costumers in.

 

ROBOTS OR HUMANS??

by Iyanna Crawley

"HELLO WELCOME TO McDONALDS, HOW MAY I TAKE YOUR ORDER".....to some people that just might sound like a friendly greeting at everyone's favorite resturant...OR IS IT?? The correct term to use is "McDonaldization" and it basicly is the process of how all the McDonald locations are run, which envolves stripping away personality/individuality, decision making, skills, and dehumanizes the employees. The reason they turn to this process is because they believe that it will increase the efficiency of the "assembly line" of the workers.

    "ROBOT OR HUMNAN" is a good question to pose when reading and learing about this Mcdonaldization process or way of life. For example when they train their workers to greet the customers, they basicly give them a script of what to say and how to say it, but at the sametime they want you to not be scripted and actually show some personality. Or how they limit the customer interaction by A) asking them direct questiosn like "how may I take your order" or "what size combo do u want", B) having multiple drive throu windows where the only interaction is the exchange of money and food, C) even limits the employee's decision making skills because the machines think and do for them (i.e cash registers, grills, fry cooker etc.)

     To me I understand why they want the employees and atmosphere in the work place to be like that because to some degree it does cause more efficient and faster work being done. From personal experience from working at a Dunkin Donuts, i know what it feels like to be part of an assembly line and I understamd why the managers want the employee to work that way, but it doesn't sound right to have a work place, like McDonald's where they "greet everyone with a smile" but yet you feel as though your talking to a mini-robot.