Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 43
1 avoid the subject. What there is really is a matter of
fair comment, saying that exploited groups in our society
2 or disadvantaged groups in our society, already
disadvantaged, have less job opportunities. For example,
3 women and black people generally have less job
opportunities. Therefore, jobs with worst conditions or
4 lower pay are the ones which predominantly employ a
greater percentage of women and black people.
5
So, in fact, we are saying the opposite from what
6 McDonald's are saying we are saying. They do, of course,
employ a lot of women and black people, and maybe they do
7 have a terrific training programming -- I do not know --
but that is not the point. The point is that low pay is
8 possible because there are people that are willing to work
for low pay. People who are willing to work for low pay
9 are willing only because there are no alternatives. The
people that have the less alternatives are disadvantaged
10 groups, such as women and black people, working class
people in general of course, and young people leaving
11 school.
12 I think I have made the point -- the last box there:
"Everything must go". "What's wrong with McDonald's is
13 also wrong with all the junk-food chains" is a good
summary, really, of the motivation of the leaflet, the
14 motivation of the person that wrote the fact sheet,
because it does summarise the point, and also that it is
15 not really McDonald's that is solely responsible or even
especially responsible.
16
It is an example of a general problem that people have a
17 right to criticise and to focus on. If the leaflet was
criticising Volkswagen or -- I do not know anything about
18 cars -- a big car company for the damage cars do; it does
not mean to say that it is vindictive, or whatever. It
19 just means you focus on one in order to concentrate your
thoughts.
20
The person that wrote this leaflet, as far as we can see,
21 was making general points about something that affects all
the public, about consuming and working in the fastfood
22 industry and animals and all those points. But in order
to concentrate that person's mind, they really focused on
23 McDonald's as the most high profile example. So, really
McDonald's, as I said before, set themselves up through
24 their fantastic advertising budget, the astronomical
advertising budget, and high profile. They cannot really
25 complain when people focus on them in their criticisms of
society.
26
The last page again, Mr. Rampton said it was not really
27 important, except for a couple respects but it is
important in terms of motive. Is the motive destruction
28 of McDonald's just for the sake of it? Is the motive to
stir up controversy? Is the motive to disorganise
29 society, as Mr. Rampton seemed to imply? The motive
really is to put over constructive alternatives about the
30 type of food we eat, how we share our food, how we make
it, how our high streets can look, the environment and
