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

Scott in SoCal  <scottenaztlan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

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

I already explained that.  Two possibilities come immediately 
to mind: Her attitude didn't take a nosedive until after she'd
been promoted, or whoever promoted her was as clueless as she
is.


: Fast-food workers are paid commensurately with the skills and 
: responsibilities demanded by their jobs.  No matter how little
: kill 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. :)

Actually, I'm not.  Being paid commensurately with the skills and
responsibilities demanded by one's job doesn't relieve one of the
ethical obligation to do that job well just because the pay is 
low.  


: 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.

That doesn't logically follow.  For all anyone knows, her super-
visor is blissfully unaware of her crankiness with customers 
because she's careful not to display it when he's watching.  Or
as I mentioned (twice) before, it's entirely possible that her 
supervisor is as immature/stupid/generally screwed up as she is. 


> 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.

No.  You missed the part where I said that wasn't necessary, and
explained why.

Back atcha: *You* quote the woman's job description from the 
McDonald's Cor****ate Handbook in its entirety, so that the rest
of us can see that being pleasant with customers isn't mentioned.
(Quoting the relevant section in its entirety solves the problem
of it being impossible to prove a negative, you see.)  Sauce/
goose/gander, eh what?


> 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. 

Nope.  You're the one who brought up the woman's job description
in the McDonalds Cor****ate Handbook and what it does or does not
contain.  What I did was point out the obvious: that it behooves
a company whose success depends on customer goodwill to insist 
that its employees treat customers pleasantly.  Do you deny that
categorically?  If so, why?  And if not, then on what basis are
you arguing?

(You might want to look up the meaning of the phrase "called on
the carpet," by the way.  It doesn't mean what you seem to think
it does.)


: You don't discuss topics in good faith

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

I'm not dodging anything.  You're engaging in a logical fallacy
known as "begging the question" -- taking it as a given that your 
argument is sup****ted by something that hasn't been proved.  The
question being begged is whether, in fact, it's necessary (a) for
the woman's job description in the McDonald's Cor****ate Handbook
to explicitly state that she's required to be polite to customers,
and (b) for me to have access to the McDonald's Cor****ate Handbook
(or whatever its actual title is) in order for what I say about 
the im****tance of being pleasant with customers to be true.


: 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.

Uhh, since you *also* lack access to McDonald's internal policies,
job descriptions, and lists of employee duties and expectations,
doesn't the same apply to you?  

Of course it does.  And since it applies to both of us, it cancels
out algebraically.  And yet after the dust settles, I still have
common sense on my side. You have nothing.  Zero.  Zip.  Zilch. 
Nada.


: 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. :)

Your objective isn't to be convinced of anything, or not.  Your
objective is to argue.



Geoff

--
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women
 easier access to the mainstream." -- Rush Limbaugh