The Entire Case

Why McDonald’s Should Not Be Allowed To Set Foot In Our Community

 

Waste and Litter

The fast-food industry uses huge volumes of needless and wasteful packaging. McDonald’s produces annually around the world over 1 million tons of disposable paper and plastic packaging. This is thrown away after less than 5 minutes use.

McDonald’s do not even recycle any of their customer packaging after use.

There is only so much space for landfills and a limited supply of petroleum for the production of plastic packaging.

Paper products lead to destruction of trees, and natural forests being replaced by environmentally damaging monoculture plantations; dangerous chlorine compounds are often used to bleach the paper.

Plastic-based packaging is non-biodegradable and often consists of polystyrene made using blowing agents which contribute to ozone depletion or the ‘greenhouse effect’.

The production and use by McDonald’s of this disposable packaging causes litter. McDonald’s estimated themselves in the High Court1 that every take-away purchase (approx. 50% of business) averages 7 times of potential litter per person. If a store sells to 3,000 customers a day, this means 10,500 items taken out of the store daily.

A McDonald’s in the community adds significantly to the local litter problem.

 

Whilst McDonald’s may claim to perform ‘litter patrols’, such efforts have negligible effects on the huge quantity of litter that is already being caused by the store. In fact, the High Court found that:

"My conclusion from the evidence which I accept is that McDonald’s restaurant frontages have been kept clear of litter, but that the system of regular patrols to clear up litter rather further afield has often broken down".

Stacey Stump, the manager of McDonald’s, Kings Road, London, has admitted the problems of company litter. He recognised that "there is a lot of McDonald’s litter" and stated that there were "times when the volume of business is so great and generates so much litter that [the store] cannot effectively deal with it in the course of a day". He also said, "I have seen McDonald’s litter in a lot of places, not just around my restaurant".

McDonald’s Local Store Marketing news-sheet for May 1990 admitted "When one considers that McDonald’s each day is serving food and drink to approximately three-quarters of a million people in the UK [ the figure is now at least double that], it does not take a genius to conclude that our packaging will be prevalent on the streets whilst littering continues".

Professor Graham Ashworth, Director-General of the ‘Tidy Britain Group’ (TBG), has stated that the TBG had eventually changed its name from the ‘Keep Britain Tidy group’ after "it had become apparent" in the late 70’s and early 80’s that Britain was no longer tidy. It was, he said "strange to have an organisation talking about keeping a situation that did not exist". He also admitted that "the rise of fast food business" was "certainly a factor" - note: McDonald’s UK was launched in 1974. He said that this was part of a "general increase in packaging" in general and agreed that McDonald’s is in the "top 1 or 2%" of all companies whose products end up as litter.

 

In any event, even if the packaging is properly disposed of, the local Council is forced to deal with the waste disposal environmental problems caused by landfill and incineration of polystyrene and coated paper materials. Legislation, already in place in other European countries, is currently being prepared for the limiting and banning of unnecessary disposable packaging for the above reasons.

 

Employment

No doubt, McDonald’s would claim that their store would provide new jobs. The majority will be non-skilled, part-time jobs (approx. 80% according to company figures) with low wages. Workers at McDonald’s are not paid overtime rates (even when they work very long hours), and they have no guaranteed hours of employment.

Pressure to keep profits high and wage costs low results in understaffing, so staff have to work harder and faster. As a consequence, accidents - particularly slips and burns - are common. The majority of employees are people who have few job options and so are forced to accept this exploitation. Not surprisingly staff turnover at McDonald’s is high, making it virtually impossible to unionise and fight for a better deal, which suits McDonald’s who have always been opposed to unions.

The High Court has found conditions for workers at McDonald’s thus: "hard and sometimes noisy and hectic nature of the work, occasional long, extended shifts including late closes, inadequate and unreliable breaks during busy shifts, instances of autocratic management, lack of third party representation in cases of grievance and occasional requests to go home early without pay for the balance of the shift if business is slack".

It should be noted that company clock cards for just one store - chosen at random as a ‘snapshot’ on company practice nationally - over a mere few weeks period [disclosed in the course of the trial] showed hundreds of unlawful breaches of employment law, each of which merited a prosecution and fine.

Rather than create jobs, McDonald’s stores are a threat to other local food service jobs and businesses, which are all more labour-intensive, due to McDonald’s high pressure, fast turnover of business, low staff/volume of sales ratio. McDonald’s stores nationally average around only 15% crew labour costs as a proportion of sales.

Sid Nicholson (Vice-President of McDonald’s UK) admitted that employees do not have any guaranteed hours of pay at McDonald’s. He agreed that managers have the power, while any crew person is working their scheduled shift, to compulsorily cut or extend the hours being worked.

McDonald's contract of employment, its crew handbook has stated: "On occasions you may be asked to continue working past your normal finishing time. You will be released as soon as the need for your service has passed". Even breaks can be cut. In any event, crew are not paid for meal breaks.

Mr Nicholson also admitted that any McDonald’s workers interested in union membership "would not be allowed to collect subscriptions…put up notices…pass out any leaflets…to organise a meeting for staff to discuss conditions at the store on the premises…or to inform the union about conditions inside the stores" (which would be deemed ‘Gross Misconduct’ and as such a ‘summary sackable offence’).

These all relate to clauses in the ‘Crew Handbook’. In fact, Mr Nicholson agreed, "they would not be allowed to carry out any overt union activity on McDonald’s premises". This is blatant, systematic discrimination against every worker's right to organise at work, to join a Union or to engage in Union activity.

The High Court found as a fact that the company is "strongly antipathetic to any idea of unionisation of crew" in its stores and pays ‘low wages, helping to depress wages in the catering trade’. Hence the existence of McDonald’s low paid jobs drives down the already scandalously low wages of many local workers. Crew wages continue to be pathetically low.

Note: McDonald’s did not appeal any of the High Court's rulings against them, in fact stating, on the eve of the 1999 McLibel Appeal, in writing to Ms Steel and Mr Morris on 5.1.99, that the judge was ‘correct in his conclusions’.

Hence the company has formally accepted the criticisms, quoted from the judgement, in this and the following sections. The ruling stands as a serious indictment of the company’s core business practices.

Do we want local people – who will invariably be teenagers - working under such conditions?

 

Exploiting Children

The High Court has also found that McDonald’s advertising and marketing strategies "exploit children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going into a McDonald’s".

This damning legal finding after voluminous evidence on the subject - including from the most senior McDonald’s marketing chiefs from the US and UK - refers not just to McDonald’s advertising but also to their local marketing strategies to target children and community events, especially their use of ‘Ronald McDonald’ as a salesman, masquerading as a clown.

McDonald’s official and confidential ‘Operations Manual’ was read out during the trial: "Ronald loves McDonald’s and McDonald’s food. And so do children, because they love Ronald. Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to restaurant selection. This means you should do everything you can to appeal to children’s love for Ronald and McDonald’s".

McDonald’s use their local stores as a base for Corporate marketing and outreach into local community events, fetes, schools, competitions and so on, especially where children are involved. The High Court has found this type of marketing strategy to be child exploitation.

The company has admitted "It is our objective to dominate the communications area…because we are competing for a share of the customers mind".

They also admitted that community and charitable activity is "a benefit to the company" and "good business" which gains "free publicity", and that educational promotions in schools "generate better feelings" towards McDonald’s and leads to more "patronage".

 

Promoting and Selling Unhealthy Food – Particularly To Children

These days, education is concerned with encouraging an awareness in young people of the facts of nutrition and a healthy lifestyle – including taking these matters into account in the provision of lunchtime meals to pupils in schools.

Yet McDonald’s admits that it specifically targets young children with its advertising and propaganda, effectively indoctrinating them with misleading ideas as to what is wholesome and normal for children to eat.

The type of food promoted by and supplied by McDonald’s is junk food, high in fat (including saturated fat), salt and sugar, and low in fibre, and their strategy of targeting regular customers to eat such food more often is in breach of recommendations from both national and international organisations - like the World Health Organisation - concerned with promoting a healthy diet.

A diet of this type is linked to a greater risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other diseases.  Their food also contains many chemical additives, some of which may lead to a greater risk of ill-health or hyperactivity in children.

To support any avoidable expansion of trading by McDonald’s would undermine work done over these issues with young people.

The High Court has found: "Various company advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald’s food did not match", i.e. McDonald’s food is not nutritious and they are therefore deceiving the public when they promote it as such. In the Court's judgement, McDonald’s are risking the health of their long-term regular customers.

The Court of Appeal added to these findings against the company made by the trial judge, ruling that it was true that "if one eats enough McDonald’s food one’s diet may well be high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease" adding that this last finding "must have a serious effect on their trading reputation since it goes to the very business in which they are engaged".
 

The Character of The Area

A McDonald’s restaurant building defaces the character and history of an area, which does not need more homogenous, soulless fast food and drink outlets.

It would be better for the area to have other kinds of shops, for example, local family businesses, bakeries and those selling fresh products.

The site would be better used for the benefit of local people, such as a community centre or another needed public facility.

 

Misleading Literature

McDonald’s produces leaflets on subjects such as nutrition, healthy eating, the environment etc., which they distribute at their branches. These leaflets give a highly misleading view of the health and environmental implications of McDonald’s practices, and are an affront to concerned local residents. Indeed the McLibel trial judgement identified certain of these documents as deliberately misleading.

 

Cruelty To Animals

Products sold at McDonald’s are based on the killing – in conditions often akin to torture – of millions of animals. Indeed, the High Court has found as a fact that McDonald’s are "culpably responsible" for cruelty to animals.

Regarding chickens, for example, these cruel practices included: ‘the severe restrictions of movement’ of battery hens crammed into cages all their lives, and hens suffering ‘osteopaenia’; the ‘severe restriction of movement’ for broiler chickens for some of their lives and endemic ‘leg problems’ caused by ‘breeding for weight’; ‘rough handling’ and ‘pre-stun electric shocks suffered by broilers on the way to slaughter’ and ‘a proportion of chickens [used for McDonald’s food] are still fully conscious when they have their throats cut’.

 

Wider Social Responsibility For The Environment

 

McDonald's business promotes and encourages car usage (with approx. 50% of their business being take-away, and with the increasing percentage of drive-thru sites) - despite national policies to reduce reliance on the private car.

Fast food chains and supermarkets encourage the mass consumtpion of cash crops, which promotes the continual growth of massive agribusiness monoculture farms requiring huge chemical usage and wasteful transportation processes.

On an international scale this cash crop economy undermines local self-sufficiency and leads to unfair distribution of food, helping to prolong unnecessary poverty and hunger in many countries.  McDonald's are the world's largest user and promoter of beef, yet cattle methane emissions are a significant contributor to the global warming crisis.

McDonald’s and their suppliers are also dependent on the mass use of refrigeration systems at every stage - yet these also rely on 'greenhouse gas' coolants in their refrigeration systems which contribute to global warning.

 

Not Fit To Be In Our Community

In the light of the High Court’s findings that McDonald’s exploit children, pay low wages, are anti-union, are culpably responsible for cruelty to animals, are risking the health of long-term regular customers, and are deceiving the public when they promote their food as nutritious, they are not fit to be in our community.

The company’s PR relationship with the public includes the use of lies and censorship. McDonald’s have lied to individuals and organisations, and to the public in general in their literature, in correspondence and so on - many of these lies were exposed during the McLibel trial.

At the same time as spending a fortune on unethical and deceptive UK marketing, they have tried to suppress the public’s right to criticise the realities of their business practices – during the McLibel case the company revealed that it had taken legal action against 84 other organisations in the preceding decade.

Many people around the world believe that the message which should be given to the public is to avoid companies like McDonald’s that depend for their profits on the exploitation of people, animals and the environment.

Of course many of the above points apply with just as much force to other companies.  But this is not a reason to let McDoanld's off the hook - it is a spur to campaign with determination against an economic system which values profits and power rather than the needs and views of ordinary people and local communities.

They are not fit to be in our community – we should fight against any applications for new stores and boycott the existing ones.
 

1References to Court testimony and judgements are taken from the High court libel case 'McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris - dubbed the 'McLibel' trial, in which Helen Steel and Dave Morris of London Greenpeace were defending leaflets produced by the group.