Working At Mcdonald's Analysis

Working at McDonald’s

In “Working at McDonald’s” Amitai Etzioni argues that teenagers’ work in the world chain can be seen as very useful for their future professional career as this kind of work is neither creative nor developing employee’s initiative. On the contrary, it develops skills which were necessary in the past while working on the industrial lines. The negative moment here is that the number of investigations on the issue is far from being sufficient, they were conducted in the past and they were relevant to the requirements of the society of that historic period. The positive side of working in McDonald’s was seen in the fact that teenagers were just working and earning money.

Nobody was interested in the influence of this work

on their school attendance and academic progress but the investigation of 1980 stated that dropping out of school led to staying low-skill jobs in the future. One more very important aspect of the issue is the possibility for teenagers to live free of charge in the family and spend the earned money on things which are far from being educational or developing. The only positive moment here is teenagers’ learning teamwork. But parents should realize that not any teenagers’ job is automatically educative.

Wrong Way of Learning Work by Youngsters in America
The article "Working at Macdonald's" by Amitai Etzioni highlights the wrong working ethics that the youngsters are learning from fast-food chains, which provide them part-time jobs to support their studies.

Amitai has supported his thesis with evidence from different studies, arguing that it is not only against the work ethics, but also that they are not learning any creative work. They are merely engaged in a routine under teen supervision for money they are to spend not on education, but mostly on their fashion and hobbies. It is also that this little earning merely makes them independent but mars their future as a professional. Etzioni is of the view that these part-time job providers are not only teaching wrong work ethics, but also taking much of their time and providing them unnecessary money that they throw away to

consumerism.
Etzioni is of the position that working ethics taught at these fast-food outlets are wrong.

His first claim is that the jobs these outlets provide are un-educational. He is of the view that as these youngsters only learn two or three skills, which require only twenty to thirty minutes learning, they do not acquire any skill. In return, to these skills, they destroy much of their future by reserving their times in the part-time jobs. Therefore, he is right when he questions that little attention is paid about the skill as "what its significance is" (Etzioni n.p.). The second claim is that as mostly these outlets hire teens to supervise the teens. Therefore, the teens do not learn anything, as there are no mother or father figures to teach them the skills. Rather, they only learn "blind obedience" and "shared alienation" (n.p.).

The third claim made by Etzioni in his article is that most of the students waste their precious time in doing part-time jobs. Although there is a benefit that those who work part time, get some good jobs, but in return, there are several who are mired in these part-time jobs and do not learn any good skills. They toil for their entire lives but do not progress beyond the same office boy or sales boy. He also refers to a study carried out in this connection, claiming that more than 58% seniors "acknowledged that their jobs interfere" with their live at school and study

routine.
The second argument of Etzioni is that these part-time jobs provide youngsters with easy or better to say unnecessary money. It is because they work and become independent as mostly these youngsters do not give something to their parents, but bear expenses of their college or spend on new fads. Some others set aside this money to purchase something bigger such as "often a car". These objects they purchase do not have any educational value. Hence they only promote "mass merchandising". Therefore, Etzioni is right in claiming that this provides them unnecessary money.
Therefore, to say that Amitazi Etzioni is correct in his proposition is right, because he has not only provided first handed statistics but also quoted studies carried out in this regard. These studies have shown it clearly that several foreign students are now outclassing the native students because the natives have to do part-time jobs. This is a reality that now top American universities are full of foreign students who excel the locals in studies. Besides, his arguments that these part-time jobs teach students nothing provide them extra income that they do not need, and it only teaches them to feed consumerism. Also, it wastes their time. It is because there are several such as cases of our classmates around us. These students toil day and night to afford their college expense and eventually lose their grades because they are working part time. Therefore, Amitai Etzioni is correct that these fast-food outlets are setting wrong precedents.