I was kind of afraid I'd lost that blogging feeling after a dry spell and that maybe all my creative and intellectual juices had been sucked out of me by "Survivor." I am SO happy that Rupert wasn't voted off tonight that I can't sleep. I went in/on (is it "in" or "on"?) a chat room for the first time the other day to tell the WORLD that I want to have 20 Rupert babies and the Andrew is a TOOL. Actually, what I said was, "Andrew is the kind of jerk whose office walls are covered with Motivator posters but can't operate the xerox machine" and someone wrote back to say that I should have said "copier" and I just gave up. Anyway, it was a big day on Survivor and as far as I can tell chat rooms are for chumps.
In between adrenalin shots of pure joy, I was thinking about a story I read in the New York Times this Sunday or last, about the woman whose kids were killed when someone set her apartment on fire while she was at work at her job as night manager at McDonald's, who's now (or last I read) being held on charges of reckless endangerment for leaving her kids alone without a babysitter. The story reported how she was afraid to lose her job, she'd recently been promoted, and made references how the money you earn at these crappy jobs doesn't begin to pay for child care.
Here -- I'll find the story. I'm not going to bother trying to link to it, because the NYT is so pesky about their content -- actually, I don't even like using their website because of the whole registration process which I find strangely insulting and dehumanizing, I mean, it's kind of strange that my reaction is so violent -- I'm the same way at Safeway when they insist on a customer card or address me by first name -- remind me to digress about the politics of customer serice some other time -- I'll quote from the article now:
Daily Choice Turned Deadly: Children Left on Their Own
By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: October 19, 2003
"Recently promoted to assistant manager at the McDonald's, Ms. Brathwaite was required to work a rotating mix of morning, midday and nighttime shifts that made reliable child care nearly impossible to keep on her modest wages. Nor could she leave early, since she was responsible for securing the day's receipts. When desperate calls to the missing sitter and a neighbor went unanswered, her lawyer said, she was afraid of losing the job that supported her children."
(And then it's kind of interesting to me because the article quotes Linda Gordon, a historian, and that makes me feel vaguely relevant, or maybe just smug because I vaguely remember who she is.)
And then the writer tells us about another case, this one in Santa Fe:
"an illegal immigrant, the mother of seven, had gone to work at McDonald's, leaving a 6-year-old daughter in charge of siblings aged 3 and 1. The frightened girl had called 911. But supporters including the sheriff who bailed the mother out of jail saw her as a desperate single mother fearful of deportation who was doing the best she could in poverty."
She also says that " The Child Trends researchers found that higher-income children between 6 and 9 were actually more likely than poor children to be left unsupervised for several hours, even after controlling for the fact that the better-off parents were more likely to have jobs." Which I thought was interesting and counter-intuitive. She gives some examples of rich kids being left alone with cell phones and pizzas.
But anyway, it was the two references to McDonald's that really caught my eye.
Ever since reading the book "Fast Food Nation," I've been aware of how there's been so much attention paid to nutrition, and the unsanitary packing plants, and how crappy fast food is for kids -- speaking of, has anyone seen the ad for the new Kentucky Fried Chicken kid's meal? They call it a "laptop" meal, and it comes with chicken strips, applesauce and, prominently featured, a big Sprite or whatever it is that's passing for 7-Up now -- I think maybe they are thinking that a clear drink is more healthful than a cafeinated drink? Or maybe they're just pushing their clear drink on general principles. I don't know. Anyway, it's pretty gross -- and for me, that parts of that book that I found most profoundly moving and exciting (exciting like in, "I want to burn something down," or write my congressman using *strong* language) had to do with the shitty working conditions for everyone involved at the packing plants and the restaurants, etc.
I have a friend in public relations who was telling me about how his work with companies with reprehensible social records lately has been to directly confront the harm they have done or are accused of doing or are associated with by putting funds towards those causes, rather than pussy-footing around them.
McDonald's has a charitable arm, Ronald McDonald houses, which seems from its publicity to have made its primary mission to provide hotel rooms for people whose kids are in the hospital, which is frankly, I think, kind of a diluted message. I mean, we could all understand taking care of sick kids, or helping the homeless, but hotel rooms for people whose kids are sick ... it's just too random. Plus, does anyone else think it's kind of amazing that McDonald's is asking us to donate to its charity?
I have a couple of ideas.
1) McDonald's should open up a line of day care places. I know this has already been done in essence, but not at the massive scale that McDonald's could. Think of it: If every other McDonald's where converted into a day care facility, our nation's day care needs could almost be met. Many of the folks who work at McDonald's would be great day care workers -- many of them seem to be mothers, or the kinds of folks regularly employed as nannys and daycare workers already. And many of them already have the play areas already built in.
We all know McDonald's has been losing money for awhile (or had been, last I saw) and if it doesn't have a big shake up soon, is doomed to fail. What better thing to do than to really directly confront head on the accusations that it is contributing to the unhealth of our nation's children by *directly* caring for them. This would also allow them to take advantage of all the marketing they've been doing to children.
2) Second, more modest idea: if I had some kind of day-care non-profit, now's the time when I'd run, not walk, to fill out a letter of inquiry for a grant from old Ronald.
OK -- hold the presses. Turns out, the Colonial is more clever than the Clown -- they've already thought of this! Maybe that's why McDonald's had to go for the wierd obscure cause.
Looking around the KFC website, first I found their description of their laptop meal: "When it comes to its kid's meal, KFC emphasizes a complete meal with multiple food options and packaging designed to "edu-tain" and engage kids during mealtimes with interactive puzzles, games and activities. The Kids Laptop Pack, which resembles a laptop computer, features the meal on the inside and innovative kid-focused fun on the outside."
But even more insidiously, I see that a portion of the proceeds goes to their charity, "Colonial's Kids" and what might that charity be devoted to? CHILDCARE! Well, I guess there's no such thing as an original idea. And I guess that's a good thing that they're giving money to the Y.
What kills me is they ask for donations, too. Isn't the whole point that they have made a ton of money, have money to burn, and now it's time to "give back"?
I think my suggestion that McDonald's just convert half its holdings to day care is a good one. But if you're looking for childcare grants, you might want to try KFC. Just don't feed their food to your kids.