In this article, Julie Carr Smyth reports about a handful of McDonald's employees that received handbills in their paychecks suggesting they vote for Republican candidates. "If the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels," the insert said. "If others are elected we will not." Because this act violates Ohio election laws, this incident has been the source of much discussion. Many have said that the insert was clearly meant to intimidate the voters at the risk of their jobs, raises, and benefits and it is illegal to influence the opinions of voters, especially with the voting date only 4 days away. Canton franchisee Paul Siegfried has publicly apologized and said that it was not his intention to offend anyone. This mistake on the part of Siegfried is a good example of a violation of a social regulation. He crossed the line that separates what is acceptable when it comes to voting and freedom of choice.
-Victoire Iradukunda
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39918181/ns/politics/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading this article was really interesting! Its surprising that Siegrfried didnt think about his words having an influence on voters especially since he talks about a sensitive subject. This was a really good example of a violation of social regulation.
ReplyDeleteThe statement inserted on the handbills is definitely a form of intimidation and therefore I would classify it as a form of voter intimidation and thus voter fraud. I also agree that this is a violation of social regulation. It is fine to promote about a party/candidate but definitely not appropriate to do so when intimidation is involved because this can greatly impact on voters' decisions.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of drawing the line between promoting your party and candidates and going too far, intimidation in the in the workplace certainly crosses it. Campaigns should be informative and neither party should intimidate and threaten jobs. This article is a very good example of social regulation and how it can be overlooked in certain cases.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that Mcdonalds crossed the line. No employee should feel any pressure when voting due to their questioned job security. Mcdonalds is where they work, they should not be being badgered politically by their employers. I think Mcdonalds should be apprehended for this. The employees should feel politically safe in their workplace and not have to worry about their voting decision with worry of losing their job. Its not right.
ReplyDelete