What's so hard for you about 'when it's reasonably practical'? If it is, people get the day off if their religion calls for it (not the case for Christmas IMO). If not, they have to work it.
What's so hard for you about 'when it's reasonably practical'? If it is, people get the day off if their religion calls for it (not the case for Christmas IMO). If not, they have to work it.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 33,442
- 7,506
- 136
Your concept of freedom seems to be the freedom to impose it on others. That's not how it works.
Christians don't impose and dictate when breaks occur throughout the day. Religions are not free to impose on others and bend them to their zealotry. People here are free FROM, protected AGAINST, religious zealotry.
Fuck, why not just let everyone take off whenever they want and not hold them accountable? If I follow Pastafarianism can I practice my religion and observe Raman-dahn while at work?
I can remember an employer giving me the choice of working Christmas or loosing my job once.
I simply gave him my notice and found a better job.
I can remember other people who requested sundays off to attend church on other jobs and they were told to show up or loose thier job.
It has never been standard practice ( In the real world, and I've been working for close to 40 years now) to make an employer adjust his needs to fit the employees religious needs.
However many employers will do that freely if they deem it gives them a happier/ more productive workplace.
I suspect I would not be to difficult for Swift to establish that it is not reasonably practical in this case.
If this had been a 100 christians expecting prefferential treatment, I wonder what your position would have been?
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 85
- 91
These people are working on an assembly line (of sorts). If you in your engineering position take a 15 minute break when your are not scheduled to take one... who is affected? If these people on the line take a break it shuts down the whole process. The only way for Tyson to possibly fix it would to have a whole shift of Muslims and a whole shift off on-muslims.
Because you lack the common sense to tell the difference between legitimate religious needs and 'hey the sun is shining'.
Thigns work when people are reasonable on both sides.
You clearly have little ability to participate in that process.
The same, if the Christian religion had the same sort of belief system, which it doesn't. If the Christians followed the Sabbath law more strictly like many Jews, then that's fine.
At that point the employer is required to try to accomodate their needs if reasonably practical.
When your employer told you you had to work Christmas, if he could reasonably accmodate you haivng it off and you felt your religion required you not to work it *which is not a requirement of any Christian sect I know of), then he needed to accomodate you. If he was nt able to reasonably accomodate your need, then he was within his rights to say so. If he was reasonably able to accomodate your religious need but just didn't want to bother, and you let him get away with that, that's your choice, but not the same for others.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
My religion REQUIRES that I only work on week-ends from 8AM-9AM and 5PM-6PM on every other weeks.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
My religion REQUIRES that I only work on week-ends from 8AM-9AM and 5PM-6PM on every other weeks.
which is exactly why this is such a slippery slope.
I could in essence create any requirements In a "religion" that I so deemed necessary.
Personally, even though my faith and church attendance and prayer are very important to me.
I feel to put that off on the people that I work with and my employer is unfair to them.
There are certainly places where I would draw the line. For instance I have had employers who expected me to lie for them.
In such instances, I simply refuse and let the chips fall where they may.
You have to understand though that today, the workforce expects employers to make certain accomodations. If reasonable expectations are not met, employees will go elseware. Ultimately, I feel that it is the employees responsibility to find a job that will meet their needs, and if the needs are not met, they have to decide whether or not it's worth leaving their job. On the other hand, as mentioned, employers need to be aware of their employee's needs and they need to meet reasonable requests/accomodations.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,910
- 238
- 106
If the meat packing plant engages in interstate commerce or has more than 50 employees then they fall under a little different rules than your mom & pop business. I detect a lawsuit. The plant could potentially lose some tax breaks or whatnot as a fallout over this, let alone civil penalties. This whole affair smells like a setup in order to get fired just so they can sue.
spacejamz
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 10,797
- 1,449
- 126
this thread cracks me up...I created a thread a month or so ago about how some Somali Muslims in a TN meat packing plant were able to get the union to replace the Labor Day holiday with a Muslim holiday and the majority of the posters there didn't have a problem with that...not really seeing the difference between that issue and this one (basically, foreign religious group want to change traditional work schedules already in place because of their religious beliefs...am I missing something???)
I don't get why citizens who prefer to bury their heads in the ground and could not care less about the issues like how citizens' religious rights are protected in the workplace spend their time in a political forum and click a thread they're not interested in and post wasting everyone's time about how they don't care about the issue.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
My religion REQUIRES that I only work on week-ends from 8AM-9AM and 5PM-6PM on every other weeks.
Then go find a job that can reasonably accomodate your need, and prove it's a legitimate religious issue and something you are making up for reasons of convenience.
What an utterly bankrupt post showing you not to be able to understand a very simple idea behind the law, and showing how you mock the importance of people's religious views.
spacejamz
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 10,797
- 1,449
- 126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
My religion REQUIRES that I only work on week-ends from 8AM-9AM and 5PM-6PM on every other weeks.
Then go find a job that can reasonably accomodate your need, and prove it's a legitimate religious issue and something you are making up for reasons of convenience.
What an utterly bankrupt post showing you not to be able to understand a very simple idea behind the law, and showing how you mock the importance of people's religious views.
looks like the batteries in someone's sarcasm detector need to be replaced...sheesh...
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
My religion REQUIRES that I only work on week-ends from 8AM-9AM and 5PM-6PM on every other weeks.
Then go find a job that can reasonably accomodate your need, and prove it's a legitimate religious issue and something you are making up for reasons of convenience.
What an utterly bankrupt post showing you not to be able to understand a very simple idea behind the law, and showing how you mock the importance of people's religious views.
looks like the batteries in someone's sarcasm detector need to be replaced...sheesh...
He was obviously being facetious, but behind the facetious, he was making a point. It was his actual point I was attacking.
I'll illustrate with an analogy.
Some makes a serious post that - let me pick any serious topic - we should have universal healthcare.
A poster responds with "oh, wwaaaahhh I vut my finger, I need the government to put the bandade on, and while they're at it, give me a massage and a blowjob too."
Now, when I'd respond criticizing that post for trivializing the issue of healthcare, it's not missing the sarcasm - it's criticizing it.
Make sense now?
It is you who should re-read my post...
I'll give you a hand since I don't want you to hurt yourself thinking. The jobs were not cut - this means they will need to refill the positions with other individuals. Now do some math on what the net result is for the taxpayer.
Get it yet, Cap'n?? So, who is the dumb a$$?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter