It must be spring...

[Barry Shnikov]

its a good opportunity for a few more to male something of themselves

...is that something to do with the hormones they put in their beef?

[David Bailey]

It's got nothing to do with how successful McDonalds is. Take that argument a little bit further and the suggestion becomes 'don't criticise or mock companies which make a lot of money' and I don't think anyone would subscribe to that.

Sure - but no-one here's saying that, or even close.

What is obvious, is that anything associated with McDonald's is automatically treated with derision by our very lazy press. So the actual merits or problems of such a scheme get ignored in favour of "McDiplomas, they must be rubbish, ha ha ha".

I think that allowing any industrial/commerical organisation to test and qualify its own staff is nonsense and fraught with opportunity for fraud.

Why?

Surely all companies have a direct vested interest in ensuring their own training is effective - after all, they're paying for it. Of course, such training will primarily be focussed on giving their staff skills which are narrowly-targetted, to aid their own business - but that's different to "nonsense / fraudulent".

I have no problem with McDonalds awarding people a qualification of some indeterminate sort; I have a lot of difficulty with it awarding A levels.

Well, good thing it won't be doing that then - it'll be a vocational qualification, equivalent to a part of an A level.

Perhaps we should allow McDonalds to carry out its own public health and safety cheques and certify its own accounts as well?

OK, you've lost me now. Where does "training its staff" turn into "auditing its procedures"? They're two totally different functions.

[David Bailey]

...is that something to do with the hormones they put in their beef?

Hmmm, I'm now tempted to make a similar "pun", or "play on words", about your use of "cheque". But I won't, coz I'm above that sort of thing

[stewart38]

Perhaps we should allow McDonalds to carry out its own public health and safety cheques

re H&S safety CHECKS

I would bloody well hope so

My old firm would have visted a individual site maybe once every 5/6 years and thats only when an employee loss a finger in the burger etc

Anyone guess what the Employers liability premium for Mc Donalds was cira 2005 uk sites only ? They didnt have an excess

[DavidY]

I think that allowing any industrial/commerical organisation to test and qualify its own staff is nonsense and fraught with opportunity for fraud.

Universities are commercial organisations which award their own qualifications.

Why do people trust University qualifications? Why wouldn't they trust a McDonald's one?

Surely all companies have a direct vested interest in ensuring their own training is effective - after all, they're paying for it. Of course, such training will primarily be focussed on giving their staff skills which are narrowly-targetted, to aid their own business - but that's different to "nonsense / fraudulent".

The skills gained by the staff member will also be documented so that other potential employers can see what they did. The QCA website says "The course will cover everything the 7,000 managers of McDonald’s outlets across the country need to know for the day-to-day running of a McDonald's restaurant; from basic operational requirements to finance, marketing and HR".

So some of it will be specific to McDonald's but, for example, the finance, marketing and HR skills will be skills applicable to other jobs and which other future employers may be interested in.

[Barry Shnikov]

Surely all companies have a direct vested interest in ensuring their own training is effective - after all, they're paying for it. Of course, such training will primarily be focussed on giving their staff skills which are narrowly-targetted, to aid their own business - but that's different to "nonsense / fraudulent".

Er, no. Companies have a vested interest in making money for the shareholders and the employees who manage this scheme will have a vested interest in increasing their own salaries and bonuses. The actual value of the A level will be of almost insignificant interest to them. Alongside, say, McDonald's vested interest in the nutritional value of what they sell...

[Barry Shnikov]

Well, good thing it won't be doing that then - it'll be a vocational qualification, equivalent to a part of an A level.

OK, it won't be an A level, contrary to early reports. I am somewhat mollified. Nevertheless, I still object to a commercial enterprise being able to award any sort of external qualification to their own staff. What the hell is wrong with paying for their staff to attend part-time courses at poly? (Well, of course there are no polys left, but you get my drift.)

OK, you've lost me now. Where does "training its staff" turn into "auditing its procedures"? They're two totally different functions.

We aren't talking about training the staff; we are talking about awarding qualifications
with external significance.

[Barry Shnikov]

Universities are commercial organisations which award their own qualifications.

Oh, please! Pay attention. The problem with McDonalds is that it makes its money from selling food. Universities have only a vested interest in producing high quality graduates. It's that ambivalence which is bound to be there that causes the conflict. McDonald's cannot care about the quality of the courses it offers or the qualifications it is going to award if they ever clash with profitability.

[Barry Shnikov]

Hmmm, I'm now tempted to make a similar "pun", or "play on words", about your use of "cheque".

? Where?

[DavidY]

Universities are commercial organisations which award their own qualifications.

Why do people trust University qualifications? Why wouldn't they trust a McDonald's one?

Oh, please! Pay attention.

Interesting response - I notice you didn't actually answer my question though.

Universities have only a vested interest in producing high quality graduates.

I'm sure Universities will all say they only award their qualifications to high quality students. But you can bet that the McDonald's training department will say exactly the same thing about people they award their qualifications to. But how do you know if they're right (in either case)?

If an unscrupulous University wanted to fraudulently award degrees to students who didn't make the grade, it would almost certainly be in their financial interests to do so.

So you need systems to assure the quality of education and stop this sort of thing from happening.

For Universities, there is the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education to do this in the UK.

For lower level qualifications, in England at least, there's the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (The Scottish system is different.)

The QCA already have quality assurance procedures which apply to conventional awarding bodies (who do offer A levels etc.). They've run a consultation on the best way for qualifications to be accredited through employers and other organisations providing training. More info here, but quality assurance is one of the factors they've taken in to account.

Given the high-profile nature of this particular employer, I imagine the QCA will watch the quality assurance very carefully in this case to ensure that the qualifications meet the standards of more conventional qualifications.

[DavidY]

What the hell is wrong with paying for their staff to attend part-time courses at poly?

Such courses still exist (even if the polys don't) - there's a variety of training which is available to people in employment. This is just another option which is being added.

We aren't talking about training the staff; we are talking about awarding qualifications with external significance.

...which is surely better for the staff who get those qualifications?

[David Bailey]

Er, no. Companies have a vested interest in making money for the shareholders

Well, yeah. And spending hard-earned money on ineffective training is definitely not a good way to do this.

and the employees who manage this scheme will have a vested interest in increasing their own salaries and bonuses. The actual value of the A level will be of almost insignificant interest to them.

One could say exactly the same about our current Government educational institutions, for similar reasons.

In the real world, these qualifications will only be valued if they're credible - employers will only value that qualification if it's proven to be useful. If they're rubbish, they'll get ignored. But I hope these will be credible - more education is a Good Thing. And just because it's something new, is no reason to denigrate it.

It'll either work or it won't - but at least the Government is trying something, rather than running around losing data or invading Iraq or whatever...

Barry, to clarify - are you against the whole concept, or is it just that McDonalds is an easy target?

[David Bailey]

? Where?

Here:

Perhaps we should allow McDonalds to carry out its own public health and safety cheques and certify its own accounts as well?

[stewart38]

Interesting response - I notice you didn't actually answer my question though.

I think when he talking b***** he usually doesn’t

Even if you correct it , you don’t get a thank you

Perhaps we should allow McDonalds to carry out its own public health and safety cheques

[Rocky]

It's got nothing to do with how successful McDonalds is. Take that argument a little bit further and the suggestion becomes 'don't criticise or mock companies which make a lot of money' and I don't think anyone would subscribe to that.

I think that allowing any industrial/commerical organisation to test and qualify its own staff is nonsense and fraught with opportunity for fraud. I have no problem with McDonalds awarding people a qualification of some indeterminate sort; I have a lot of difficulty with it awarding A levels. Given the business ethos of McDonalds makes me more uneasy still.

No, in your case I'm guessing it has everything to do with 'snobbery' as someone mentioned earlier on. I think it's a creative way around the issues of how qualifications link to potential employment. Of course it makes sense to look at successful companies to see how they manage their businesses - that's err... why they are successful... And what has McD's business ethos got to do with demonstarting the abilty to manage a team of people and a retail outlet?? If you can get a qualification using these practices and demonstrate it in the real World, IMO it has more value than an academic based qualification. But then I do live in the real World rather than in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

I think when he talking b***** he usually doesn’t

Even if you correct it , you don’t get a thank you

What is his problem?? When I used to dip in and out of the Forum, I always used to think of Barry as a very charming, bright and witty guy. Now I've had the opportunity to actually participate in some threads with him I realise that I was wrong..

By the way, isn't it a beautiful spring like day to day?

[Dreadful Scathe]

No, in your case I'm guessing it has everything to do with 'snobbery' as someone mentioned earlier on.

I would doubt that very much. Why is it not as he says it is? ; a concern about a company doing their own qualifications. I hadn't thought of it that way, but he does have a point. You could, you know, address the point instead on going off on one at Barrys honesty AGAIN.

What is his problem?? When I used to dip in and out of the Forum, I always used to think of Barry as a very charming, bright and witty guy.

Yeah, you once said that about me until I disagreed with you. Is this just another way of elevating yourself over others? compliment them with a "used to think" line, so you can suggest you are better than them? Thats how it comes across you know.

You're a funny man, and not in a good way.

[David Bailey]

Oi, can you two / three go onto one of the many Outside threads available, and have your kinky debates there? I'm happy to create a "Rocky / Barry / Smurfy arguments" thread there if you think it'll help?

Some of us want to debate actual issues here. Well, sometimes, anyway.

[David Bailey]

And taking my own advice


So on that theme:

I think it's a creative way around the issues of how qualifications link to potential employment. Of course it makes sense to look at successful companies to see how they manage their businesses - that's err... why they are successful...

I think it's potentially a good idea.

There's an interesting article on corporate universities here:
Corporate universities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They definitely seem to be the way business is going.

And what has McD's business ethos got to do with demonstarting the abilty to manage a team of people and a retail outlet?? If you can get a qualification using these practices and demonstrate it in the real World, IMO it has more value than an academic based qualification.

My concern is not so much with the general concept, or with the quality of training - I'm more concerned that the training will be too narrow to provide the essential flexibility that skilled people need. For example, "shift management" qualifications are obviously mainly useful in a shift-based work environment.

Another example - a CTA qualification would obviously be valuable if you're looking for someone to work as a MJ dance teacher. It'd be much less useful if you're looking for someone to work as a ballroom dance teacher. And it'd be almost completely irrelevant if you're looking for someone to work in a non-dance role.

So I've concerns about relevance.

[stewart38]

And
I'm more concerned that the training will be too narrow to provide the essential flexibility that skilled people need. For example, "shift management" qualifications are obviously mainly useful in a shift-based work environment.

Another example - a CTA qualification would obviously be valuable if you're looking for someone to work as a MJ dance teacher. It'd be much less useful if you're looking for someone to work as a nallroom dance teacher. And it'd be almost completely irrelevant if you're looking for someone to work in a non-dance role.

So I've concerns about relevance.

What relevance is a joint economics / georgraphy degree to the real world

For me you could argue 3yrs of English might have been better

If you 'specialise' too early then re-train

We must get away from trying to send everyone to university

[Dreadful Scathe]

Some of us want to debate actual issues here. Well, sometimes, anyway.

Well in my defence..er...no never mind

While I see Barrys point on this - having a company do their own exams/qualifications not being impartial. I think it would make a sham of the whole thing if they didn't try to make it transparent, and how else are they going to make anyone else take the qualifications seriously. So in principle, to get people working in McDonalds, Network Rail (or anywhere else that takes this up) ahead in life, it has a lot of merit.