photo from HK Feature Magazine Vol. 19 [July, 2025]
Dr Muhammad Hidayat Greenfield, Regional Secretary
Every decent member of the public is shocked, outraged, or disappointed by the abusive treatment of workers with disabilities by McDonald’s Hong Kong.
Ironically, it is the same decent members of the public that McDonald’s Hong Kong is trying to impress by hiring workers with disabilities. This hiring policy is intended to boost the public image of the company and ultimately add to its brand value. Instead, reports of abuse and mistreatment of workers with disabilities cause reputational damage for McDonald’s. The company then responds with efforts to fix this reputational damage without fixing the problem.
We must not forget that this abuse and mistreatment have a significant impact on the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of workers with disabilities. The confidence and self-esteem that paid employment in private industry is meant to encourage is immediately – and maybe irreparably- lost in the face of abuse and mistreatment. (I also believe we all lose a piece of our humanity in the face of this.)
Seen from this perspective, McDonald’s Hong Kong has failed at several levels. It is a failure that cannot be fixed by firing a couple of untrained, inexperienced, underpaid managers and attributing individual blame. Moreover, this multi-level failure occurs while benefiting from government financial support for a program of employment that the Hong Kong public is led to believe helps workers with disabilities.
When a company hires workers with disabilities, it is, of course, providing a great opportunity for them to work, to earn an income, and achieve a degree of financial independence. This is about developing skills, building confidence, and feeling greater self-worth, while spending time working as part of a team. Academics and social workers tell us that this is very beneficial.
However, a company that hires workers with disabilities cannot only focus on how this boosts the image of the company. It cannot simply be a form of corporate social responsibility (CSR) subsidized by the government. The company must recognize its responsibility to ensure that acquiring skills, building confidence, feeling self-worth, and working as part of a team actually happen.
A company cannot tell the public it is hiring workers with disabilities while not making the necessary commitment to ensure this is a good experience for these workers – a secure and safe job free from discrimination and harassment.
At the same time, all of the managers, supervisors, and co-workers must receive the appropriate training. This training is not a policy, poster, or five-minute briefing. It is actual training. When working with workers with Down Syndrome, for example, managers and supervisors require specific training in communication skills, task management, and assessment. This benefits everyone – not just workers with Down Syndrome.
Similarly, the assignment of tasks and job roles is directly related to achieving the goals of hiring workers with disabilities. Assigning workers with Down Syndrome to cleaning toilets and late shifts mopping floors to keep them “out of sight” or to reduce interaction with customers and co-workers is precisely the opposite of these goals. How can anyone gain confidence, build self-esteem and a sense of self-worth, and acquire skills if they are constantly assigned to these “out of sight”, menial tasks?
This suggests that companies like McDonald’s Hong Kong have diversity hiring policies, but no systems in place to ensure workplace diversity through inclusion and respect. Maybe the boost to corporate image and brand value is only needed in hiring, not employment? Certainly, the failure to provide the appropriate training to management and supervisors and thereby ensure a safe and secure environment for workers with disabilities is a fundamental institutional failure.
The skills required of managers and supervisors in communication and task management are, in fact, part of a company’s social commitment and social investment. It ensures that the commitment to diversity is genuine and not a public relations (PR) stunt. To approach such an important social contribution as just another kind of advertising and brand value is not only hypocritical, but dangerous.
photo from HK Feature Magazine Vol. 19 [July, 2025]
