Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Mc Donalds got nothing but scorn and derision for removing a website, read why

Posted Dec 26, '13 at 8:09pm

UnleashedUponMankind

UnleashedUponMankind

6,847 posts

Moderator

Link

Let me set a lil quote:

Several excerpts from the posts, which were created from a third-party vendor, warned against the negative effects of fast food, even going so far as labeling a cheeseburger and fries, core items on its menu, as an "unhealthy choice."
 

Posted Dec 27, '13 at 3:03am

MacII

MacII

1,369 posts

Ah, the McDonald's PR machine...

Y'all know of the McLibel case?

 

Posted Dec 27, '13 at 10:30am

thecode11

thecode11

243 posts

Several excerpts from the posts, which were created from a third-party vendor, warned against the negative effects of fast food, even going so far as labeling a cheeseburger and fries, core items on its menu, as an "unhealthy choice."


Ahh McDonalds making people fat since whenever it was made.
 

Posted Dec 27, '13 at 8:07pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,302 posts

Knight

This is different from health-savvy people blogging about fast food being unhealthy. An employee posting public criticism of the company they work for, on a company website could be a breach of job contract, so I see McDonald's side of the coin. I'm not going to tolerate an employee who wants to just give stick to my company; you can hate the job environment you want, just don't take it out on the site I specifically created to help you with your work life.

 

Posted Dec 27, '13 at 8:37pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

This is different from health-savvy people blogging about fast food being unhealthy. An employee posting public criticism of the company they work for, on a company website could be a breach of job contract, so I see McDonald's side of the coin. I'm not going to tolerate an employee who wants to just give stick to my company; you can hate the job environment you want, just don't take it out on the site I specifically created to help you with your work life.


Did you even read the article? Your statement has little to do with the article linked by the OP.

The story the OP linked to was about a third-party vendor hired by McDonald's to work on their employee resource page. This third-party vendor was telling employees that fast food (such as burgers and fries) were an 'unhealthy choice'. So it wasn't an employee going around and bashing McDonald's, it was the company McDonald's hired to update and maintain the employee resources website. Even then! It isn't like it was shocking news.
"Wait...you mean that a greasy burger, fries and soda isn't the best choice of a meal? That's something I never heard before!"
 

Posted Dec 27, '13 at 8:47pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,302 posts

Knight

The story the OP linked to was about a third-party vendor hired by McDonald's to work on their employee resource page. This third-party vendor was telling employees that fast food (such as burgers and fries) were an 'unhealthy choice'. So it wasn't an employee going around and bashing McDonald's, it was the company McDonald's hired to update and maintain the employee resources website. Even then! It isn't like it was shocking news.
"Wait...you mean that a greasy burger, fries and soda isn't the best choice of a meal? That's something I never heard before!"


Uh-huh...... yes it was a misread on the words employee and vendor. Apologies.

However, the gist of the point is still there with a wrong target in mind; it could still be a breach of contract. Clearly, McDonald's did not hire the vendor to bash its own image. So yes, I do think my statement, albeit misread, does have some validity in relation to the article.
 

Posted Dec 27, '13 at 9:23pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

It's a third-party vendor that likely does the same kind of work for several other websites. They were giving out super generic advice found in every employee resources guide ever.. I'm sure that if the rest of the advice could be looked over, it would all be like "Make sure to exercise and call your doctor if you have suicidal thoughts." It's hardly the fault of the third-party vendor that McDonald's didn't look over their previous work and the like.
McDonald's has a shoddy track record when it comes to this sort of thing. It seem like they just hire the most generic one-size-fits-all companies. They just see that other companies have hired someone and notice it worked out pretty well, so the jump in on it. I doubt anyone checks to see what kind of advice is actually given until these sort of things pop up.

 

Posted Dec 27, '13 at 10:59pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,302 posts

Knight

It's hardly the fault of the third-party vendor that McDonald's didn't look over their previous work and the like.


I would think it still is/might be. Just because McDonald's has a poor past record on quality checking its employee services does not alleviate nor justify a vendor's actions. If there was a binding contract somewhere, which I would think there should, then the vendor is still at fault for breaching it. Either that, or McDonald's has shoddy HR/Public Relations departments.
 

Posted Dec 28, '13 at 1:49am

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

If there was a binding contract somewhere, which I would think there should, then the vendor is still at fault for breaching it.

That's a bit of a stretch. It would have to be a really weird business agreement where it had to be stated "Don't talk bad about fast food in general which might be misconstrued as our product. Futhermore, if it was indeed some supposed breach of contract one would think McDonald's would sue, considering that they been shown to be quite litigious when defending their product.

I still stand behind the 'They just don't pay attention/care' argument. There have numerous well-covered cases of McDonald's apparently not performing quality control or simply being a callous and greedy corporation.
 

Posted Dec 28, '13 at 2:40am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,302 posts

Knight

That's a bit of a stretch. It would have to be a really weird business agreement where it had to be stated "Don't talk bad about fast food in general which might be misconstrued as our product. Futhermore, if it was indeed some supposed breach of contract one would think McDonald's would sue, considering that they been shown to be quite litigious when defending their product.


Anti-defamation clauses in business agreements are rather common; we will likely never know the true contract between McDonald's and the vendor, but such clauses do not need to be phrased so specifically. Phrasing it in such a fashion, it would cause the clause to sound absurd, but often, such clauses can be activated if proved to cause financial loss, or a smear on a company's/person's image, not that McDonald's has much of a reputation to begin with.

I would think that they sued in those examples you gave, because often, they were active ad campaigns broadcast for public consumption. In any case, multiple combinations of possibilities could exist; McDonald's could have been haphazard in their selection as pointed out, yet could have added a simple standard clause in their agreement, which would put the fault on both ends. McDonald's could have not sued because they did not want to risk their own image, especially when their own employees are in the loop.

In any case, I would think that a vendors' choice to add in such provocative messages that defame the organization they are contracted by is an odd move on their part. Blame can easily go both ways. Whilst it reinforces the distaste I have for McDonald's, it does not elevate the vendor to the position of victim for me.
 
Reply to Mc Donalds got nothing but scorn and derision for removing a website, read why

You must be logged in to post a reply!