Sometimes, unders the same circumstances I would fire a Christian or a Zoroastrian or any other religion. If they are talking my work forum to proselytize to a captive audience they need to go. Do you not agree?
Muslims Denied Prayer Breaks
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Not really.
That time varies with the seasons, and trying to adjust that over a year for something like an assembly line is not that easy. The example/reference provided by the company of an entire line shutting down due to 2 employees is entirely plausible and is very likely an unreasonable/burdensome issue.
Accommodating them with scheduled times is really all they need to do.
This objection has been answered a half dozen times. Its not a factor. All the employees are asking for are scheduled times. Just times within the prescribed 90 minute window when their version of God will listen to them. I agree that's a dumb religious standard, but its still a religious standard and we don't get to ignore it just because its dumb.
If a manager were to use mandatory meetings to try to convert non-believers to his religion, he could most definitely be fired.
Not a captive audience - completely voluntary audience. If they are forced to participate then yes I would agree.
That's not what we we're talking about.
You can't prohibit employees from talking about their faith. Now, if other employees complain about the subject matter, the employer can make reasonable restrictions.
Actually, it is what we're talking about.
It would not be illegal to fire somebody for proselytizing to a captive audience. Especially if you have told them to stop doing so.
Pray in the morning, evening, Saturdays and Sundays when the majority of Americans pray/worship. Blend in/ adjust to our society like other religions have. Problem/conflict solved.
Right, screw individual rights and the constitution. What we really should value is harmony. Those Chinese have gotten to you.
I don't think they should have to accommodate any religion,
I do not agree with your assertion in a previous post that all non muslims should happily go along with an adjustment of break times due to production shut downs in the name of being part of a team, especially if its moved to a really ridiculous time (ie: an hour and a half into a shift) to appease a small minority of people.
I also find it laughable that you think that protections should be expanded to cover my coworker so he doesn't have to work part of a schedule that he knew about prior to accepting the position and he agreed to as a result of accepting employment.
there is no right to keep employment. you are more than welcome to your individual rights but if you exercise your freedom of speech at work, there is a chance that you could get fired depending on the content of your speech.
sure, if some management schmuck singles out muslims and treats them like scum and is generally rude towards them, I would be right their with you saying that its not right. muslims aren't treated better or worse than anybody else in this situation
If those 53 that walked off the job were allowed to come back, especially since there was a post that alluded to the fact that they are employees of a staffing agency, they are probably lucky Ariens didn't call back that agency and ask for 53 new workers. On a side note, I detest staffing/temp companies and companies that use them to provide longterm workers without bringing them aboard to get out of providing benefits and wages that their direct employees have
I didn't say anyone should be happy about it. I argued I thought that was the law. If you don't like the law, convince the faithful to give up their rights and change it.
You are factually wrong. There are employment rights on the books. One of them, among many, is the right to have your religion reasonably accommodated. You may wish there were no rights regarding employment, but that is not the country you live in.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
You will accommodate these "people" yet you would be the first to deny Christian teachers the freedom to have a Bible on their desks...what a hypocritical bastard you are...and so transparent.
Of course being a homosexual do you think they care about you? Just more liberal stupidity...quite honestly I am surprised at you since I have held you in such high intellectual regard...that statement was flat out stupidity.Oh in that case I feel better about defending Islam as I do so often.
You are missing the point. I don't like Islam. I think religion is mock worthy. But in America we have these civil rights laws that protect us all. I like those laws and one of them says employers must reasonably accommodate even mock worthy religions who hate homos. Now because other civil rights protect me, I fight to protect others so that civil rights as a concept remains strong. Get it? Its called playing the long game for truth justice and the American way. Quite honestly I'm surprised at the lot of you for not standing for this most basic defence of freedom on a topic most of you respect more than I.
so, we are at a disagreement of what is considered "reasonably accommodated". You think its reasonable to expect a majority of the employees to alter their break times or the company to shut their line down to accommodate prayers regardless of how early (or late) the prayer and regardless of when those breaks are. I don't.. I would think its reasonable to alter break times up to perhaps a half hour from what was a normally designated break time. I find it unreasonable to say, make a majority of people break an hour earlier than normal because muslims feel that they need to pray at a particular time.
Employer: We have scheduled breaks for 10 minutes 2 hours after the start of a shift, 30 minutes for a meal mid-shift, and another 10 minute break 2 hours before the end of a shift. Otherwise all workers are required to be on the line. Is there any reason you can't comply with this work schedule?
Employee: No, I can't
Employer: Unfortunately we don't have a position open that can accommodate that requirement right now (unless they do).
It's an assembly line, breaks can't be arbitrary, and more than likely, shifts are set to begin/end near sunrise/sunset in a way that would make it unreasonable to expect everyone to take breaks right then. It's an unreasonable accommodation, end of story.
They could always pray silently at their work station, and mentally imagine they're on a mat facing East.
Employee: No, I can't
Employer: Unfortunately we don't have a position open that can accommodate that requirement right now (unless they do).
It's an assembly line, breaks can't be arbitrary, and more than likely, shifts are set to begin/end near sunrise/sunset in a way that would make it unreasonable to expect everyone to take breaks right then. It's an unreasonable accommodation, end of story.
They could always pray silently at their work station, and mentally imagine they're on a mat facing East.
Just trying to keep the field level...if this "religion" that I personally would love to see obliterated wants to pray let them go to a mosque...not on the company dime. They don't owe them a damn thing...
Does the praying stop them from working? If so, then your statement should have read, "So you would fire the Muslims for not working at work time then? Got it"
People keep asserting this, but its not the truth. Its actually a law that companies do have to accommodate many things, religion among them. Never complain about executive orders again if you are willing to just toss civil rights laws under the bus when you don't like the people covered.
Please stop. Muslims wanting to change a production schedule for an entire plant based on their prayer times is as ridiculous as an Amish guy being pissed American Airlines won't hire him to fly a plane pulled by horses.
Honest question: have you ever worked in a factory?
No I have not. Honest question, do you think these Muslims are asking the company to do something that is a logical impossibility?
No sir it isn't their responsibility to provide time to pray...they can allow them time off for religious holidays but when they are on the job they work...
That's not the law. Look it up. You are giving me options about how you might like the world to work, not the reality.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
so, do you have a problem with my assertion in the post you quoted that if those 53 workers that walked off the job were allowed to keep their jobs that they are lucky, or the fact that I responded to naturals comment about constitutional rights about how your constitutional rights to freedom of speech can most certainly get you fired...even if the comments are made on your personal time on a social media platform?
I disagreed, as a point of fact, you statement that employers should not have to accommodate religious practices. They do have to make reasonable accommodations.
In this case the employer has a good argument. I was merely pointing out that the law is not always what you wish it were.
It wasn't the first amendment I was directly referencing when I linked you the EEOC rules but I imagine some legal scholar could explain how they derive from the constitution.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
That depends on whether your restrictions are considered reasonable by EEOC investigators.
Some employees may seek to display religious icons or messages at their work stations. Others may seek to proselytize by engaging in one-on-one discussions regarding religious beliefs, distributing literature, or using a particular religious phrase when greeting others. Still others may seek to engage in prayer at their work stations or to use other areas of the workplace for either individual or group prayer or study. In some of these situations, an employee might request accommodation in advance to permit such religious expression. In other situations, the employer will not learn of the situation or be called upon to consider any action unless it receives complaints about the religious expression from either other employees or customers.
Employers should not try to suppress all religious expression in the workplace. Title VII requires that employers accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief in engaging in religious expression in the workplace to the extent that they can do so without undue hardship on the operation of the business. In determining whether permitting an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, relevant considerations may include the effect such expression has on co-workers, customers, or business operations.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
here is a quote from you from a post in this thread
"Right, screw individual rights and the constitution."
that pretty much covers the whole freedom of speech thing.
so, do you take this big of a stand when somebody gets fired for exercising their rights on social media, off company time?
I don't know, make a thread and I'll evaluate. Do you consider religious freedom tantamount to Twitter?
I think the disagreements I have with others in this thread is based upon our definitions of what is considered reasonable.
I surely won't frame an argument saying that an employer will have to accommodate an employees social media usage on company time to participate in that employees right to free speech. Given your stance on religious rights in the workplace, you may have a different opinion.
if not, why do you set a persons right to religion on a higher pedestal than a persons right to free speech in the workplace?
It's not my personal stance. It's my understanding of how the law works. I've said repeatedly if you don't like it, change it. But don't bitch to me that a bunch of conservative Christians passed a law that now applies to Muslims. I think we should enforce what is on the books. That's just good citizenship. Why don't you join me in standing up for rule of law?
I think that fair. The specifics of this case may make the religious accomidation unreasonable. I assume some authority with better access to all the peticulars will decide that. What we are in a position to debate is the general concept of religious accomidation. I'm personally against the concept, but I recognize it is objectively a rule on the books that should be followed until changed. I know if this was a Christian group, I would have many allies in this thread supporting the religious accomidation.
