In
the McDonald’s essay “Is Not Our Kind of Place” Amitai Etzioni talks about the
negatives of teens having routine fast food job at McDonald’s. In his essay he
talks about how McDonald’s is routine and never changing so the young workers
don’t learn any new skills, leaves little room for creativity, and is un-educational.
Etzioni compares this routine to robots and states that fast food franchises
are breeding grounds for robots working for yesterday’s assembly line. Also
that working odd hours impacts their attendance and school work. Amitai says two
thirds of high school students hold at least a part time job and McDonald’s is
the main choice “easiest to get into” for students. He also talks about how
there is no adult supervision, to cut cost’s they hire other young adults to
supervise. This leaves the student’s thinking they can do what they want when
they want. I am at 50/50 with Etzioni’s statements, I think fast food
franchises can impact students negatively but there are a lot more than just
the job influencing the student’s behavior.
I
think the McDonald’s essay is coming from a person who just had a bad day’s
point of view. At first he talks about how working at McDonald’s is negative
then moves on to fast food franchises are negatively impacting students. Then
he talks up KFC, Hardees, and Baskin-Robin’s which all could be franchised.
Moving on, he talks about a positive study done on students working at McDonald’s.
He moves back and forth between McDonald’s, franchises, and fast food restaurants,
I am not sure where he’s at; actually I am kind of confused! Any WHO, I can
agree that fast food jobs are not the best start but have to argue that they
are a start. I have never worked at McDonald’s but as far as routine goes every
job has a routine. Don’t we all drive to work punch in, and start our job which
is pretty similar to the previous day, eat lunch at about the same time and
punch out at or about the same time every day? I worked at KFC the place he
talked up and that was pretty much a routine job. Half of what I could
understand I can agree with the other half I could not. 50/50 is where I stand.
What might be confusing is that he begins his essay with the "traditional" view of the benefits of working at a fast food restaurant. He starts with those so that he can contrast his own views with them easily. When authors provide the counterarguments (arguments on the opposing side of their view) they are appearing to be "objective." He definitely doesn't agree that fast food restaurants are beneficial. He states that thesis pretty early on and throughout the essay.
ReplyDelete