The Mcdonald's Case
Ezra Levant wrote a piece for Maclean’s magazine analyzing what happened during the case between Beena Datt and McDonald’s hand washing policy. Although there have been remarkable stories that have been released by that particular company, they are also known for being controversial. In the past, Maclean’s has created negative conversation due to offensive magazine covers. Some inappropriate catchphrases that were used to grab people’s attention have been “Is god poison?” and “Lawyers are rats.” In one particular case an article that was released which was titled “The future belongs the Islam” sparked anger from the Canadian Islamic Congress. They filed complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, British Columbia Human rights commission and the Ontario
…show more content…
Although McDonald’s did the best they could have done to fit Beena’s needs they lost the case because a kitchen workers self-respect is more important than any company’s rules to sustain a clean environment. McDonald’s argued that there were no jobs in the restaurant that didn’t have to deal with food and it wouldn’t make sense to keep an employee who couldn’t wash their hands to meet the requirements of their policy. This written piece was able to articulate both sides of the case and was able to make the main point across. Human rights can sometimes work in a person’s favor even if the argument does not seem valid. Levant worded the article to make it sound bias. He described McDonald’s as being “clean freaks” for making their employees wash their hands. Levan also started off the article by saying “most ridiculous case studies discussed in this book originate in that province” which means he thinks British Columbia has numerous ridiculous studies just based off of this one. That being said the evidence that he provides in this article supports the reason why the case ended the way it
Although McDonald’s did the best they could have done to fit Beena’s needs they lost the case because a kitchen workers self-respect is more important than any company’s rules to sustain a clean environment. McDonald’s argued that there were no jobs in the restaurant that didn’t have to deal with food and it wouldn’t make sense to keep an employee who couldn’t wash their hands to meet the requirements of their policy. This written piece was able to articulate both sides of the case and was able to make the main point across. Human rights can sometimes work in a person’s favor even if the argument does not seem valid. Levant worded the article to make it sound bias. He described McDonald’s as being “clean freaks” for making their employees wash their hands. Levan also started off the article by saying “most ridiculous case studies discussed in this book originate in that province” which means he thinks British Columbia has numerous ridiculous studies just based off of this one. That being said the evidence that he provides in this article supports the reason why the case ended the way it