Re: Rude Ca****er at McDonald's Today

On Wed, 28 May 2008 08:13:35 -0500, geoffm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Geoff  Miller)
wrote:

>
>
>Scott in SoCal  <scottenaztlan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>> Expecting a droid with almost zero training and not much
>> more income to be chipper 100% of the time is most definitely
>> unreasonable. 
>
>Except that McDonald's employees don't have "almost no training."
>Especially when they're ****ft supervisors.  How do I know that?
>Half a dozen or more of my friends worked there when I was in
>high school and college, and we talked about it quite a bit.

Then how do you explain this woman being able to hold such an
im****tant customer service position?

>Fast-food workers are paid commensurately with the skills and 
>responsibilities demanded by their jobs.  No matter how little
>skill a job demands, the expectation of their employers and the
>public at large is that an employee will do his job properly.

Careful - you're making my point for me. :)

>It's a job, with duties and expectations for the discharge 
>thereof.  Grasping this and coming to terms with it is known
>as "being an adult."  And if this broad is a ****ft supervisor,
>she's ostensibly an adult.

What you seem unable to grasp and come to terms with is the fact that
her actual job requirements are not what you want them to be, as
evidence by the fact that she remains employed.

>> You have still failed to establish the McDonald's cor****ate
>> policy that requires a ****ft Supervisor to behave in the way
>> "Just Visiting" demands.
>
>Oh, come the **** on!

Oh, did I miss the post where you quoted from the McDonald's Cor****ate
Handbook? Or perhaps the woman's job description? If so, kindly post
the Message-ID and I'll go back and read the post.

>This is a great example of what I mean when I say you argue
>just to argue.

You made a claim, and I called you onto the carpet and asked you to
back it up. You and I both know that the burden of proof is yours. 

>You don't discuss topics in good faith

You're the one dodging questions here, not me.

>Obviously I, as a member of the public, don't have access to
>McDonald's internal policies, job descriptions, and lists of
>employee duties and expectations.  

So you admit that your claim has no basis in objective fact. At least
we've made SOME progress.

>Then again, I don't need to. 

Well, you do if you want me (and any other skeptics who might be
reading this thread) to believe your claim. :)