ADVERTISEMENT

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

Here is what you have avoided the ENTIRE TIME and continue to do so:

Ariens, themselves, put in place the extra break. They did, it, they, those with experience (presumably) and decision-making power. They obviously didn't think the world would explode.

Then they, again they, allege that it was disruptive.

I have really done one thing in this thread, asked how it was disruptive (and more importantly, would opinions change if not).

You've made pretty clear you don't give a f*** if it is disruptive, therefore none of that matters. Not once have I screamed bigotry nor anything of the like. You are upset that I even questioned their allegation that was supported by no facts.

How about I say that Christians are disrupting my local brick-laying, can I just say so and fire them? Or would you demand I explain who, why, how the disruption is taking place?

If your post above is correct, you are disqualified as well, so why did you post it?
The fact that Arians put in place the extra break when they hired them in an attempt to accommodate them I view as a positive for the company. I wouldn't go as far as you that they obviously didn't think the world would explode I go the route that they were willing to attempt it and see what the result was.

It doesn't seem logical that they would hire 50 Muslins without trying to accommodate them. It also doesn't seem logical to me that they would just make a decision to end the attempt for any other reason than it didn't work. Shutting down an entire line on the surface seem like a nightmare to me.

They retained the workers who could work within the scheduled breaks so that will also be able to be viewed as they do not discriminate.

I am assuming that a company that big has an internal HR department and making a change that was going to impact so many people was not a spur of the moment thing.
 
Ariens did their part. Here's the EEOC link. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Religious Discrimination
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization or group.

Religious Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Religious Discrimination & Harassment
It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion.

Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person's religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Religious Discrimination and Segregation
Title VII also prohibits workplace or job segregation based on religion (including religious garb and grooming practices), such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference.

Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation
The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies
Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).

When an employee or applicant needs a dress or grooming accommodation for religious reasons, he should notify the employer that he needs such an accommodation for religious reasons. If the employer reasonably needs more information, the employer and the employee should engage in an interactive process to discuss the request. If it would not pose an undue hardship, the employer must grant the accommodation.

Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship
An employer does not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.

Religious Discrimination And Employment Policies/Practices
An employee cannot be forced to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
 
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.
You can't pray while smoking you heartless bast$%d!!
 
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.

Two breaks came about due to Unions fighting for it. Now even non-union companies adhere to it because they want to keep unions out.

A plant the size of the Brillion facility cost tens of thousands of dollars per hour to run. When you take a break, it takes time to get back into full production. So a ten minute break in reality takes 15 minutes or so out of productivity. That is 1.5 hours a week out of a 6 day workweek for one additional break, you do the math. If you shut down the Deere Harvester facility do to non-performance of your contract*for , it will cost you $265,000 a day.
 
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.
You make me wish HROT had an ignore button so I could just hide all your posts, they are just so danged inane.
 
Truth. Plus this isn't about Muslims, it's about people who are trying to get by with taking additional breaks and hiding behind religion to justify it.

Do you have any evidence to support this? Would you change your mind if there were reports that they prayed during that entire break?
 
Two breaks came about due to Unions fighting for it. Now even non-union companies adhere to it because they want to keep unions out.

A plant the size of the Brillion facility cost tens of thousands of dollars per hour to run. When you take a break, it takes time to get back into full production. So a ten minute break in reality takes 15 minutes or so out of productivity. That is 1.5 hours a week out of a 6 day workweek for one additional break, you do the math. If you shut down the Deere Harvester facility do to non-performance of your contract*for , it will cost you $265,000 a day.

I get that, Ariens said the same thing, speaking hypothetically. Except that this took place in the real world, so no need for hypotheticals. If there was a disruption it would be easy to describe.
 
Ariens did their part. Here's the EEOC link. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Religious Discrimination
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization or group.

Religious Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Religious Discrimination & Harassment
It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion.

Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person's religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Religious Discrimination and Segregation
Title VII also prohibits workplace or job segregation based on religion (including religious garb and grooming practices), such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference.

Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation
The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies
Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).

When an employee or applicant needs a dress or grooming accommodation for religious reasons, he should notify the employer that he needs such an accommodation for religious reasons. If the employer reasonably needs more information, the employer and the employee should engage in an interactive process to discuss the request. If it would not pose an undue hardship, the employer must grant the accommodation.

Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship
An employer does not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.

Religious Discrimination And Employment Policies/Practices
An employee cannot be forced to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

This is such a weird thing to post considering it depends entirely on reasonableness, you know, as you posted: "The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. "

The entire question that hasn't changed one time throughout this lengthy thread is whether it was reasonable and whether there was a disruption. They were already behind the 8-ball, so to speak, because they implemented it, and then took it away. This is vastly different than refusing it on the basis of interruption altogether.

This isn't complicated, if an employer could simply SAY that it would cause more than a minimal burden there would never be a violation. The point is that it takes more than that, so I've repeatedly questioned whether there actually was a disruption. Posting summaries of the law that we've been discussing for pages doesn't change that.
 
The fact that Arians put in place the extra break when they hired them in an attempt to accommodate them I view as a positive for the company. I wouldn't go as far as you that they obviously didn't think the world would explode I go the route that they were willing to attempt it and see what the result was.

It doesn't seem logical that they would hire 50 Muslins without trying to accommodate them. It also doesn't seem logical to me that they would just make a decision to end the attempt for any other reason than it didn't work. Shutting down an entire line on the surface seem like a nightmare to me.

They retained the workers who could work within the scheduled breaks so that will also be able to be viewed as they do not discriminate.

I am assuming that a company that big has an internal HR department and making a change that was going to impact so many people was not a spur of the moment thing.

See, these are good thoughts, and as I infer from your post you would want to know what the disruption was, considering they were, in fact, willing to try it.

Just saying, "well that isn't logical" isn't a good legal stance, especially when it should be incredibly easy to detail why they stopped it, not just hypotheticals. They could have used hypotheticals to deny it in the first place.
 
You are hilarious! We cannot question it? LOL. A good little totalitarian you are but I do like you. Hugs. Are you a PD?

Wait, a totalitarian is supportive of religion to the point that you can't question their inherent beliefs? How absurd.

Either you completely misconstrued what I said or you are so hell-bent on protecting employers that you think we (government, employers, etc.) should be interrogating people about their religious views.

Now THAT is frightening.
 
Again, I didn't determine how they must or should pray. The Five Pillars of Islam, as described in the Hadith of Gabriel, specify how they must and should pray. If you're going to claim that your Islamic faith requires you to pray five times a day then you sort of need to stick to the schedule that is well-documented and hasn't changed in well over a thousand years. You don't get to just make up your own customized personal prayer schedule.

Yes, according to you. Do you say the same things to Christians? That they must pray according to one set of rules? Of course not, so why do you demand absolute adherence to those strict rules for muslims?

Christians have, quite literally, made shit up for centuries now and we seem to be ok with that.

I get your point, but YOU are demanding their belief fit what you say it must. As I posted above, once we start questioning people's religious motives then we can question ALL people's religious motives, and that frightens me.
 
You said I didn't understand the impact.

Do the math.

What's your answer.

It's a 7th grade problem.

I did NOT say you didn't understand some theoretical impact. You are claiming I don't work there nor know what happened in the plant, and I am saying (and you are admitting) the exact same truth about you.

You don't know what happened there, you are simply willing to insert YOUR OWN theory to protect them, which is silly.
 
Wait, a totalitarian is supportive of religion to the point that you can't question their inherent beliefs? How absurd.

Either you completely misconstrued what I said or you are so hell-bent on protecting employers that you think we (government, employers, etc.) should be interrogating people about their religious views.

Now THAT is frightening.

LOL. Keep chasing your tail. You've added so much here.
 
Think I'll trade in my John Deere for an Ariens.

John Deere stopped making snowblowers in 2012 because they can't make them at the price consumers are willing to spend. I found Husqvarna, Toro, and Troy Built to be a slightly better value than Ariens. I don't know how any of them can build those two stagers and sell them in the $700 range? They are basically introducing people to the brand, market, and keeping their workforce, and assets busy, at that price.
 
Yes, according to you. Do you say the same things to Christians? That they must pray according to one set of rules? Of course not, so why do you demand absolute adherence to those strict rules for muslims?

Christians have, quite literally, made shit up for centuries now and we seem to be ok with that.

I get your point, but YOU are demanding their belief fit what you say it must. As I posted above, once we start questioning people's religious motives then we can question ALL people's religious motives, and that frightens me.
These guys are invoking Islamic prayer requirements as they demand an extra break. The parameters of Islamic prayer requirements are firmly established and have remained unchanged for something like 1200 years. Can you cite even one example of a business being forced to accommodate the religious needs of a Christian who literally just made shit up?
 
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.

It's not just on infowars. Why do you keep insisting this? Ad hominem should be above everyone on this board. We're better than that.
 
See, these are good thoughts, and as I infer from your post you would want to know what the disruption was, considering they were, in fact, willing to try it.

Just saying, "well that isn't logical" isn't a good legal stance, especially when it should be incredibly easy to detail why they stopped it, not just hypotheticals. They could have used hypotheticals to deny it in the first place.
I am assuming they can provide the documentation. Hard to believe an HR department would sign off on this without it in today's world.
 
Do you have any evidence to support this? Would you change your mind if there were reports that they prayed during that entire break?
It's moot if they pray for all of it or none of it. At the end of the day they want additional breaks above and beyond. They just happen to say it's because of their religion.
 
It's moot if they pray for all of it or none of it. At the end of the day they want additional breaks above and beyond. They just happen to say it's because of their religion.

I'm starting a religion that requires three day weekends. Paid of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
I have been in that Brillion faciity. It is located up near the the Paper Valley of Wisconsin. Lots of high wages up there. Unfortunately, the Lawnmower and Snowblower industries no longer support those kinds of wages. So many of the companies that used to be so common in Wisconsin are no longer there. Briggs and Stratton, Tecumseh and Lawn boy all were there at one time, most have moved south. Wisconsin was the center of small engine manufacturing, Mercury Marine, Evinrude and Harley all hailed from there as well Ariens has been very innovative, and that is what has allowed them to stay in Wisconsin. Hence, the importation of cheap, low cost labor, the local market does not allow it. They are brutal in their need for efficiency in order to keep that plant viable.
 
The fact that Arians put in place the extra break when they hired them in an attempt to accommodate them I view as a positive for the company. I wouldn't go as far as you that they obviously didn't think the world would explode I go the route that they were willing to attempt it and see what the result was.

It doesn't seem logical that they would hire 50 Muslins without trying to accommodate them. It also doesn't seem logical to me that they would just make a decision to end the attempt for any other reason than it didn't work. Shutting down an entire line on the surface seem like a nightmare to me.

They retained the workers who could work within the scheduled breaks so that will also be able to be viewed as they do not discriminate.

I am assuming that a company that big has an internal HR department and making a change that was going to impact so many people was not a spur of the moment thing.
I would say there is an internal inconsistency with this view. We keep hearing how anyone who knows about factory work would easily conclude that a special break would be disastrous. But the experts at this factory came to the opposite conclusion in the beginning. That tells me there is something about this particular factory that makes an extra break reasonable.
 
I would say there is an internal inconsistency with this view. We keep hearing how anyone who knows about factory work would easily conclude that a special break would be disastrous. But the experts at this factory came to the opposite conclusion in the beginning. That tells me there is something about this particular factory that makes an extra break reasonable.

Or, they tried to put their best foot forward and realized the position was untenable.
 
Or, they tried to put their best foot forward and realized the position was untenable.
That would still discount all the "this is how a factory works" arguments being made in this thread. The people that know the factory best thought it was doable. My guess is it is still doable from a purely functional operations point. My guess is there are other reasons the factory is snapping back. Probably that other employees want the same consideration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raglefant
That would still discount all the "this is how a factory works" arguments being made in this thread. The people that know the factory best thought it was doable. My guess is it is still doable from a purely functional operations point. My guess is there are other reasons the factory is snapping back. Probably that other employees want the same consideration.

Maybe HR decided to accomdate these whiners and, of course, HR knows nothing about whether this would disrupt production or not.

Another possibility is their lawyers told them they were legally obligated to at least try to accomodate them - even if it was obvious it was not going to work.

So I don't think it was obvious that someone, other than HR idiots, thought it was doable
 
Last edited:
Maybe HR decided to accomdate these whiners and, course, HR knows nothing about whether this would disrupt production or not.

Another possibility is their lawyers told them they were legally obligated to at least try to accomodate them - even if it was obvious it was not going to work.

So I don't think it was obvious that someone, other than HR idiots, thought it was doable

HR was afraid if they didn't make an attempt they would be called bigots.

They made an attempt and were called bigots anyway.

It's a brave new world we live in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
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.

Do you understand how a production line works? Each person does one job over and over again in a specific order. If everyone isn't on the same schedule the whole thing breaks down. They can't just work an additional 15 minutes at the end of their shift after everyone else has gone home. Its a well oiled machine and each person is a cog. That's like saying that the pistons in your car can just do their job when you get home and park in the garage.
 
Of course it is, unless you believe that there were always breaks and nothing like that has ever changed in a factory.

He is not saying that no one takes breaks. What he is saying is that you can't give some people a break and others not in a factory. You seem unable to understand that. So to accommodate them means shutting down the line during their breaks. And that is overly burdensome on the employer. Why is that so hard to understand. Yes, break requirements have changed. But what has never changed is how a line works - everyone's job depends on everyone else doing their job in a specific order. Why is that so hard to understand?
 
HR was afraid if they didn't make an attempt they would be called bigots.

They made an attempt and were called bigots anyway.

It's a brave new world we live in.
I agree by trying they are probably in worse shape.
 
Some people seem completely unable to comprehend something as simple as how an assembly line works, don't they?

Should we all use our own knowledge and beliefs to determine what factually occurred places we've never been? Does that seem like a good standard?

Judge: "Nope, that isn't how it worked in my home, therefore it couldn't have in his, GUILTY" Seems pretty silly, right? How many times do I need to say: We just want the report of what actually occurred during the disruption, not hypotheticals or analytical guesses.
 
HR was afraid if they didn't make an attempt they would be called bigots.

They made an attempt and were called bigots anyway.

It's a brave new world we live in.

This is probably true, although I haven't seen anyone in here call them bigots. To take something away from someone is MUCH harder than not giving it to them in the first place.
 
That would still discount all the "this is how a factory works" arguments being made in this thread. The people that know the factory best thought it was doable. My guess is it is still doable from a purely functional operations point. My guess is there are other reasons the factory is snapping back. Probably that other employees want the same consideration.
The best and brightest THOUGHT the Earth was flat.
KMart bought Sears.
Fox bought MySpace.
Best Buy bought Napster.
We elected W, twice.
We then elected Obama, twice.
The Raiders drafted Jamarcus Russell.
The Cubs paid Edwin Jackson.

I'm sure all of those people thought they were making the right decision.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT