Businessmen at McDonald's don't like the definitions that the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary give to certain words
The word 'mcjob' apparently appeared in the 1980s in American slang, but it became truly popular in the following decade, after the publication of Douglas Coupland's sensational novel 'Generaton X'. There, the author stated that 'mcjob' (in the Russian translation by V. Yartsev as 'makrabstvo') is 'a low-paid, low-prestige, unpromising job in the service sector'. It is worth noting that Coupland turned out to be not only a good writer, but also a very competent lexicographer: professional linguists found it possible to transfer this definition to academic dictionaries almost unchanged.
At McDonald's, however, they believe that the word 'makrabota' (or, if you prefer, 'makrabstvo') 'insults talented, dedicated, hardworking people who serve customers every day'. That is exactly how David Fairhurst, one of McDonald's top managers in Northern Europe, described the employees of his corporation. Therefore, the dictionary definition is 'outdated and irrelevant to reality'. The corporation clearly intends to launch a major campaign to revise the English language.
This is not the first attack by the largest fast-food chain on philologists. McDonald's attempted something similar in 2003, only then the target of corporate PR was another authoritative English dictionary - the famous academic Merriam-Webster, which defined 'mcjob' in an equally unenthusiastic manner. McDonald's CEO Jim Cantalupo then stated that this is 'an inaccurate definition of working in a restaurant'.
McDonald's, however, itself gave English-speaking audiences a reason to create the word 'mcjob'. The corporation's immoderate passion for forming its own gastronomic terms with the prefix Mc (also known as 'corporate style') led to the fact that a new word-formation model has almost formed in the English language. It would be strange if people did not use this rich advertising idea for active word creation. Now, there are probably many more people for whom the prefix Mc is associated with fast food, and only scientists remember that it used to form traditional Scottish surnames.
True, judging by the official statements of the corporation's representatives, its leaders clearly have no idea what dictionary compilers do. In the words of Cantalupo and Fairhurst, one can clearly see some resentment that lexicographers supposedly do not take into account, as they say in the business world, the tireless care of the company's management for its staff. Nevertheless, the English language (and any other, for that matter) absolutely does not care what awards and prizes McDonald's has received for its HR policies or what chances a savvy restaurant cleaner has of making a dizzying career in this catering chain. The dictionary is just 'a mirror of the language', scientists simply record reality. And if there is a word 'mcjob' in the language, if people use it in everyday speech with a certain meaning, then it must be recorded and entered on dictionary pages.
But if McDonald's really intends to change the modern English language, then all the power of corporate PR should be directed not against the compilers of the Oxford dictionary, but at making the word 'mcjob' change its meaning in the minds of millions of English speakers. However, it is not impossible that the corporation's pressure could have a certain effect: if the dictionary publishers get tired of arguing with wealthy food companies, they might, for example, put a note 'offensive' next to the controversial word. But that probably won't stop people from using the word 'mcjob' in relation to any monotonous and low-paid work.