Seven Muslim employees are fired at Ariens........

[iammrhawkeyes]

And 14 resign. Problem solved. Interesting that 32 Muslims found time within the company break rules to get all of their praying done.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/0...-workers-in-prayer-dispute.html?intcmp=hplnws

A Wisconsin manufacturer came under fire Wednesday for dismissing seven Muslim employees for violating a company break policy that doesn’t provide extra time for prayer and may face a lawsuit from a civil liberties group.

Ariens Co. terminated workers in a dispute that began in January when it moved to enforce a rule of two 10-minute breaks per work shift. The enforcement led to about a dozen Muslim staffers to walk off the job in protest.

At least 32 of the workers involved in the dispute have abided by the company’s policy. Fourteen others resigned and seven were fired on Tuesday, according to Ariens spokeswoman Ann Stilp.

"We would have liked for more employees to stay, but we respect their decision," Stilp told The Associated Press.

However, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations contends the company only wanted “to weed them out.”

"There is a lot of flexibility to keep these employees if the company is willing to do that," Jaylani Hussein said of the employees, who joined the company last summer through an employment services contractor in Green Bay.

The Brillion company allowed the Muslim employees to leave their work stations a third time to accommodate prayers at first. The company then claimed the prayers disrupted production at the lawn mower and snow blower manufacturer.

CEO Dan Ariens said told WLUK-TV Tuesday that production is returning to normal and said reports of Ariens forcing employees not to pray wasn’t the case. He also said the company has had longstanding religious accommodations for Muslim workers, including a prayer room.

“A lot of our Muslim employees have figured out how to pray within our break times,” he said.

Stilp said the company had taken extra time to overcome language and culture barriers and be flexible with the workers, bringing in interpreters and consulting with the Islamic Society of Milwaukee to help mediate.

 

[TJ8869]

Good. This is how the system should work.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Think I'll trade in my John Deere for an Ariens.

 

[IACub]

Arien Race Issues?

 

[Raglefant]

Dodged a bullet for sure. We were an additional 15 minutes of flexible break time away from the fall of our way of life as we know it. If you let them work an additional 15 at the end of their shift, that's when they plant the bombs in the lawnmowers. I've seen it a hundred times.

 

[ChrisVarick]

I get that everyone supports business vs Muslims but what about a company that pays a low wage and preys upon low skilled foreign workers? Pay a decent wage and bring in some WASPs and you don't have these problems. I bet in the end the company will miss these Muslims if they have to increase wages.

 

[iCRUNCH]

At least they get their 39 virgins now!

 

[theIowaHawk]

Ok, question for y'all:

From the article, "The Brillion company allowed the Muslim employees to leave their work stations a third time to accommodate prayers at first. The company then claimed the prayers disrupted production at the lawn mower and snow blower manufacturer."

If the company can not actually support the "disrupted production" claim, would you change your stance? Or is this simply, "They are the boss, they can do what the want"?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Now we need the main muslim in dc to quit

 

[naturalmwa]

Now we need the main muslim in dc to quit

Don't you think he soon will?

 

[theIowaHawk]

And 14 resign. Problem solved. Interesting that 32 Muslims found time within the company break rules to get all of their praying done.

I'm not sure why it is "interesting" that some Muslim's were able to work. The same is done with Christians (and everyone else) all the time, they have religious expression demands that they then choose to ignore in order to keep their jobs.

That is certainly understandable and a lot of people prefer that, less religiousness and more working. But that isn't really what we want, right? Isn't the point of religious protection laws that people don't have to forego their religious expression in order to continue being employed?

Simply pointing to people who either a) believe differently (i.e. not needing 3 prayers) or b) giving it up as proof that the others shouldn't need it either seems silly.

Will the supporters of KY Kim be lining up behind these workers to protect their religious liberties?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Don't you think he soon will?

no this guy will forever be king of something, maybe the united nations, he will never quit

 

[IACub]

no this guy will forever be king of something, maybe the united nations, he will never quit

Again, this is a ridiculous story completely made up by something taken out of context and twisted. But it's on Infowars, so it must be true, right?

Obama will become a speaker and a writer and make millions of dollars. Maybe he'll teach somewhere. That's it. This whole UN thing is fabricated out of thin air.

 

[Raglefant]

Again, this is a ridiculous story completely made up by something taken out of context and twisted. But it's on Infowars, so it must be true, right?

Obama will become a speaker and a writer and make millions of dollars. Maybe he'll teach somewhere. That's it. This whole UN thing is fabricated out of thin air.

Admirable. If this works, could you talk to my mother-in-law next? She thinks BO is going to have to be forcibly removed from office and is convinced that there will be a national guard invasion of multiple states within the year.

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

I'm not sure why it is "interesting" that some Muslim's were able to work. The same is done with Christians (and everyone else) all the time, 1) they have religious expression demands that they then choose to ignore in order to keep their jobs.

That is certainly understandable and a lot of people prefer that, less religiousness and more working. 2) But that isn't really what we want, right? Isn't the point of religious protection laws that people don't have to forego their religious expression in order to continue being employed?

Simply pointing to people who either a) believe differently (i.e. not needing 3 prayers) or b) giving it up as proof that the others shouldn't need it either seems silly.

Will the supporters of KY Kim be lining up behind these workers to protect their religious liberties?

1) How do you know that's the case here? The company seems to have been very accommodating.

2) I don't think the point of religious protection laws was to penalize the company in terms of production. I think that most employers honor their religious employees' needs and most employees don't put unnecessary religious needs on their employer. It's the fringe on either end that's the problem.

As I stated before, I would never hire someone who had these extreme needs. There is a balance and the Ariens workers demanded too much IMO. KY Kim should have been fired immediately.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I would pay money for him not to speak

 

[joelbc1]

Arien Race Issues?

 

[22*43*51]

21 people leaving a linked manufacturing area can easily stop an entire plant.

Interesting that 11 other Muslims figured out how to talk to their "imaginary sky being" during the normal break structure.

 

[naturalmwa]

21 people leaving a linked manufacturing area can easily stop an entire plant.

Interesting that 11 other Muslims figured out how to talk to their "imaginary sky being" during the normal break structure.

You're evolving quickly.

 

[22*43*51]

You're evolving quickly.

I was hoping the effort was noticed.

 

[theIowaHawk]

1) How do you know that's the case here? The company seems to have been very accommodating.

2) I don't think the point of religious protection laws was to penalize the company in terms of production. I think that most employers honor their religious employees' needs and most employees don't put unnecessary religious needs on their employer. It's the fringe on either end that's the problem.

As I stated before, I would never hire someone who had these extreme needs. There is a balance and the Ariens workers demanded too much IMO. KY Kim should have been fired immediately.

1) Huh? You know it is the case because those who were fired requested it. How is it in question?

2) Of course the point isn't to penalize production, the point was to protect religious liberties, and the standard is usually reasonableness. The old adage is that a muslim who refuses to work with pork can't reasonably demand an exception to working with pork at a pork-production facility. Of course it is the "fringe" that should be the only problem, in reality that isn't true. There are many cases of employers simply ignoring reasonable religious requests for no apparent reason other than they don't want to grant it. That is why I asked my earlier question, what your opinion would be if, in fact, they can't actually show a disruption in production. Would you change your mind then? I hope most people would, that a religious request that doesn't impact production is likely reasonable.

Kim is different, and I probably stepped in it when bringing her up. I've argued extensively on here how her position and demands don't compare to situations like this. My point wasn't about Kim, it was about her supporters, the one's urging for extreme religious-liberty-protecting laws. I believe that they only support those extreme laws when they favor them (Christians mostly), not when it favors others. It was one of my main points in KY Kim threads: They should absolutely NOT want what they are demanding, it will hurt them in the long run.

You don't know that the company is "very accommodating," at least not from the OP. They were accommodating, and then they chose not to, that doesn't make it "very" nor does it determine reasonableness. Which is precisely why I asked about proof of disruption. What if the "disruption" is just that the boss/manager/whatever can't take his smoke break when he wants to. Would that be a disruption?

 

[theIowaHawk]

21 people leaving a linked manufacturing area can easily stop an entire plant.

Interesting that 11 other Muslims figured out how to talk to their "imaginary sky being" during the normal break structure.

Again, why is this interesting? Is it interesting that most American "Christians" don't go to church? Does that prove that church is unnecessary for the rest?

 

[22*43*51]

Again, why is this interesting? Is it interesting that most American "Christians" don't go to church? Does that prove that church is unnecessary for the rest?

Which part? The damaging production flow, or the praying at work part?

I don't care about the praying at work part, so long it is within the employers provided schedule. More power to 'em.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Which part? The damaging production flow, or the praying at work part?

I don't care about the praying at work part, so long it is within the employers provided schedule. More power to 'em.

You appeared to find it interesting that they "figured out" how to talk to their god during normal breaks, implying that all muslims should be able to, or at least that it is "interesting" that they could do so.

As I pointed out, if they are simply foregoing their religion, it doesn't prove what you imply it does, nor is it a "good" thing.

Yeah, of course you are ok with X as long as you don't have to ever hear about or do anything with X, what an enlightened position. I don't think that is what we mean to protect.

What I find difficult about this area of debate is that Christians in America have largely given up their longest-held traditions in order to simply get by. Sure, it makes it easier, but it also makes us think everyone else will/should do so as well.

I mean, hell, take your own example: "as long was within the employers provided schedule." Let's say the employer refuses scheduled breaks altogether, or schedules your shifts only during times of mass/church/whatever. Would that still be ok? Of course not. It is always about reasonableness. Using the OP, but inventing facts for discussion, if there is a third break to allow for this, but they work the same amount of hours (but later) and achieve the same production, why would it be reasonable to refuse? At some point even giving the two breaks caused "disruption", but became the norm.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

I'm not sure why it is "interesting" that some Muslim's were able to work. The same is done with Christians (and everyone else) all the time, they have religious expression demands that they then choose to ignore in order to keep their jobs.

That is certainly understandable and a lot of people prefer that, less religiousness and more working. But that isn't really what we want, right? Isn't the point of religious protection laws that people don't have to forego their religious expression in order to continue being employed?

Simply pointing to people who either a) believe differently (i.e. not needing 3 prayers) or b) giving it up as proof that the others shouldn't need it either seems silly.

Will the supporters of KY Kim be lining up behind these workers to protect their religious liberties?

Are there really people that believe KY Kim should be supported? I mean real, HROT people?

 

[dbq hawk 32]

Using the OP, but inventing facts for discussion, if there is a third break to allow for this, but they work the same amount of hours (but later) and achieve the same production, why would it be reasonable to refuse? .

That isn't how a factory works. That isn't how shifts work. This will be my only response to you.

 

[TJ8869]

Again, why is this interesting? Is it interesting that most American "Christians" don't go to church? Does that prove that church is unnecessary for the rest?

The problem with your point is that you keep insisting the 32 workers who complied with company policy chose to forego their religious rights and skip some of their prayers. I don't think that's the case at all. As we established in a previous thread, Muslim prayer times have a window of about 90 minutes or so. It's not like they have to stop at a specific time or risk eternal damnation. The company has designated a room specifically for their prayers. The workers can pray immediately before their shift, during their first 10-minute break, during their lunch break, during their second 10-minute break, and again at the end of their shift. It sounds like 32 employees figured out a way to fit their prayers into that schedule and 21 did not. Maybe they chose not to comply because they were banking on their lawyer getting them a settlement.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

Again, why is this interesting? Is it interesting that most American "Christians" don't go to church? Does that prove that church is unnecessary for the rest?

It proves that church is there for the weak that enjoy being enslaved by corrupt religious leaders, no matter what your religion. Moving to satisfy religious demands of any kind is like devolving our entire population to that of the weakest links. Is that what you are arguing for here?

My question for you is, WTF would we ever make work exceptions for religions?

 

[naturalmwa]

It proves that church is there for the weak that enjoy being enslaved by corrupt religious leaders, no matter what your religion. Moving to satisfy religious demands of any kind is like devolving our entire population to that of the weakest links. Is that what you are arguing for here?

My question for you is, WTF would we ever make work exceptions for religions?

Now that's a position I might aspire to as well. But it isn't the law of the land today. Thanks to the OP for providing this update.

 

[22*43*51]

I mean, hell, take your own example: "as long was within the employers provided schedule." Let's say the employer refuses scheduled breaks altogether, or schedules your shifts only during times of mass/church/whatever. Would that still be ok?

1) Not scheduling appropriate breaks is against the law.

2) If a companie's schedule conflicted my strongly held religious convictions, I would find a different company to work for. Just like 14 of these Muslims did.

 

[Herky T Hawk]

You can tell the people that have never worked in a factory before. When working on an assembly line in a factory, you work in shifts. There is no "working late". So these people can't be given an extra 15 minutes of break time that they can make up at the end of their shift. Why? Because the those "make up" 15 minutes go over the top of the next shift.

If this is a rare factory that isn't working 24 hour days, then they still can't work late because everyone else on the assembly line will have already left.

I don't think it will be too hard for an assembly line style factory to show that they were making an unreasonable request. Especially when you consider the other requests that they already fulfilled.

As for KY Kim. She couldn't be immediately fired because she was not an employee but rather an elected official. Also, anyone defending all of her actions was an idiot. If she requested to not issue marriage licenses to certain people as it was against her religion, I could see that being granted as long as other people in the office could. However, as the elected official in charge of the office she wouldn't allow any of her employees to issue licenses. That specific action was against the law.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

This feels familiar. Have we been catfished like this recently?

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

1) Huh? You know it is the case because those who were fired requested it. How is it in question?

2) Of course the point isn't to penalize production, the point was to protect religious liberties, and the standard is usually reasonableness. The old adage is that a muslim who refuses to work with pork can't reasonably demand an exception to working with pork at a pork-production facility. Of course it is the "fringe" that should be the only problem, in reality that isn't true. There are many cases of employers simply ignoring reasonable religious requests for no apparent reason other than they don't want to grant it. That is why I asked my earlier question, what your opinion would be if, in fact, they can't actually show a disruption in production. Would you change your mind then? I hope most people would, that a religious request that doesn't impact production is likely reasonable.

Kim is different, and I probably stepped in it when bringing her up. I've argued extensively on here how her position and demands don't compare to situations like this. My point wasn't about Kim, it was about her supporters, the one's urging for extreme religious-liberty-protecting laws. I believe that they only support those extreme laws when they favor them (Christians mostly), not when it favors others. It was one of my main points in KY Kim threads: They should absolutely NOT want what they are demanding, it will hurt them in the long run.

3) You don't know that the company is "very accommodating," at least not from the OP. They were accommodating, and then they chose not to, that doesn't make it "very" nor does it determine reasonableness. Which is precisely why I asked about proof of disruption. What if the "disruption" is just that the boss/manager/whatever can't take his smoke break when he wants to. Would that be a disruption?

1) Huh? Please see TJ's response to this. 32 Muslims stayed on. How do you know that they didn't have their religious needs taken care of. Proof please.

2) I'm fine with them staying on if there wasn't a disruption in production. But there was and here we are. I agree with your take on Kim and the ramifications of extreme religious liberty protecting laws.

3) The company has provided them a prayer room and consults with the Islamic Society of Milwaukee among other things. How much accommodation is necessary?

You must have missed the previous thread on this a while back.

 

[TexMichFan]

Ok, question for y'all:

From the article, "The Brillion company allowed the Muslim employees to leave their work stations a third time to accommodate prayers at first. The company then claimed the prayers disrupted production at the lawn mower and snow blower manufacturer."

If the company can not actually support the "disrupted production" claim, would you change your stance? Or is this simply, "They are the boss, they can do what the want"?

I think they need to prove their argument and from the limited information that is available it looks like they have. Looks like they tried but the interruption to the assembly line was too great.

 

[lucas80]

Ariens made all reasonable attempts to satisfy the religious wishes of their employees. They probably went over what they needed to do. I support them in this case.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I think they need to prove their argument and from the limited information that is available it looks like they have. Looks like they tried but the interruption to the assembly line was too great.

So they "proved" it by saying it?

I'm asking a hypothetical: If there was no actual disruption, would your opinion change?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Ariens made all reasonable attempts to satisfy the religious wishes of their employees. They probably went over what they needed to do. I support them in this case.

You must have more information than in the OP, would you care to link it?

 

[theIowaHawk]

1) Huh? Please see TJ's response to this. 32 Muslims stayed on. How do you know that they didn't have their religious needs taken care of. Proof please.

2) I'm fine with them staying on if there wasn't a disruption in production. But there was and here we are. I agree with your take on Kim and the ramifications of extreme religious liberty protecting laws.

3) The company has provided them a prayer room and consults with the Islamic Society of Milwaukee among other things. How much accommodation is necessary?

You must have missed the previous thread on this a while back.

1) You don't make sense on this, there are not categories of people when considering religion. You can't point to the 32 in order to ignore the 7, that fails on so many levels. See my hypothetical: Because some Christians don't go to church does that mean none do? Of course not.

2) How do we know there was a disruption? Because the person doing the firing says so? But, I digress because you already answered, if there was no disruption you would not approve of their firing.

3) Apparently one more break was needed for prayer. The question isn't slippery slope, we know the request. I don't know if it was reasonable because there doesn't appear to be enough facts.

Lastly, if I missed a thread that explained in more detail, that is on me. I didn't even do a google search, limited my knowledge only to the OP, which is why I asked my question as a hypothetical.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You can tell the people that have never worked in a factory before. When working on an assembly line in a factory, you work in shifts. There is no "working late". So these people can't be given an extra 15 minutes of break time that they can make up at the end of their shift. Why? Because the those "make up" 15 minutes go over the top of the next shift.

If this is a rare factory that isn't working 24 hour days, then they still can't work late because everyone else on the assembly line will have already left.

I don't think it will be too hard for an assembly line style factory to show that they were making an unreasonable request. Especially when you consider the other requests that they already fulfilled.

As for KY Kim. She couldn't be immediately fired because she was not an employee but rather an elected official. Also, anyone defending all of her actions was an idiot. If she requested to not issue marriage licenses to certain people as it was against her religion, I could see that being granted as long as other people in the office could. However, as the elected official in charge of the office she wouldn't allow any of her employees to issue licenses. That specific action was against the law.

Oh, so breaks were always a thing, that never changed in the history of factories? What bullshit. Every business ever has complained and claimed that ANY disruption is a disastrous one, but each additional regulation (OSHA, FLSA, etc.) doesn't seem to have shut them down.

I'm glad so many of you will give businesses such a benefit of the doubt, if only you gave living, breathing people that same benefit our system would be much better off. Instead, in most cases an allegation is sufficient.

Again, you miss my point with KY Kim, it isn't about her, it is about her supporters. They can't realistically support her without support this, and clearly they don't.

 

[theIowaHawk]

1) Not scheduling appropriate breaks is against the law.

2) If a companie's schedule conflicted my strongly held religious convictions, I would find a different company to work for. Just like 14 of these Muslims did.

1) violating someone's religious beliefs is "against the law", the worst argument ever. If we passed a more employee-friendly law would you stop supporting Ariens? Of course not, this was a waste of your post.