Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. The OED is an historical dictionary, which means that it captures every meaning that an English word has ever had.

Hence, if ‘McJob’ was, at any point in time, ever understood by a large number of English speakers to mean a demeaning, unstimulating job with no development opportunities, then the OED can’t delist it without completely destroying their reputation. For the moment, the OED definition is correct, however much McDonalds may protest.

Hence, McDonalds has no chance of having this entry revised. The fact that ‘McJob’ may be offensive to McDonalds, or some other people is irrelevant. Dictionaries, by their nature, must contain derogatory and offensive words.

If McDonalds are successful, through marketing, to change the common meaning of ‘McJob’ to mean an interesting, dynamic job with a future, then the OED will add a second entry, and note the period of time to which the previous entry applied.

thus, though the dictionary may accurately assess the word’s meaning in contemporary usage, it obfuscates the word’s true origins. neither the dictionary folks nor the corporation itself seem to grasp the meaning management aspect of this issue. perhaps a better strategy for mcdonalds would be to shift the meanings associated with its product (and, by extension, its career offerings)? the current strategy only reinforces an image of mcdonalds as a corporate giant acting against the public.

starbucks has, to some extent, avoided having its positions identified as “mcjobs” by offering the kind of perks (e.g., health insurance, stock options) not normally associated with part-time, unskilled labor. more importantly, though, the meanings so carefully selected and grafted to starbucks’ product are not those of mcdonalds.

incidentally, laurie anderson spent a year working at mcdonalds not too long ago. i heard a brief interview with her regarding the experience on “studio 360,” but i can’t recall her final analysis.

McJobs exist. They are terrible. I’ve had more than my share of them in my lifetime. People take them if they are young, have no experience, no education or other prospects. They now do not pay enough for you to live on, much less support a family. Sometimes they are dressed up in fancy titles like “partners” or “associates” but in reality there’s very little power doled out to the individuals hired.

The term is a largely accurate description of what working at a McDonald’s is like: low-job-security, high turnover, low-advancement-prospects, no-health-benefits, often dirty and dangerous; in similar companies, most notably Wal-Mart, many documented instances employees are asked to work overtime for no extra pay, sometimes being locked into their stores overnight.

With the squeezing of the middle class and the disappearance of the North American manufacturing sector, this landscape is what greets many high school and even college graduates today.

As always, Coupland was presciently describing a then-emerging socio-economic trend and the subclass of people who inhabit that part of the pie chart…

May I suggest Barbara Ehrenreich’s excellent book Nickeled and Dimed for a slice of documentary truth to back up the term “mcjob?” (she also makes an appearance in the new “dramatic documentary musical”, The American Ruling Class — which looks interesting)