Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These are companies that buckled to demands being made:
Subway
Oxford University Press
Lowe's
Hertz
Swift
Tyson
Wegmen's
Dell
I'm sorry I don't have time to research whether these lawsuits have been resolved yet.
Disney
Star Transportation
Costco
Hertz (this is a second lawsuit)
ExpressJet Airlines
Economic Trucking Company
I am not including lawsuits that may be more valid against these companies:
McDonald's
Swift Aviation Group
Abercrombie & Fitch
There are more - but lack of time prevents me from looking them up.
I'm sure there are plenty, but Wegmans (no apostrophe) isn't one of them.
There was a case about 6 years ago at one of the local Wegmans, in which a Muslim employee (cashier) suddenly decided she wasn't going to accept offending meat products or beer in "her" line. Wegmans tried to accommodate her by placing a sign on her station, directing customers (who'd already waited in line) elsewhere. After a number of rattled customers, customers who dug through full carts and deposited "offending" items at the checkout counter, customers who just left their carts and walked out (with their money), and a couple of scathing letters to the editor, management removed her from the front line position. When she refused reassignment, she was fired.
These are companies that buckled to demands being made:
Subway
Oxford University Press
Lowe's
Hertz
Swift
Tyson
Wegmen's
Dell
I'm sorry I don't have time to research whether these lawsuits have been resolved yet.
Disney
Star Transportation
Costco
Hertz (this is a second lawsuit)
ExpressJet Airlines
Economic Trucking Company
I am not including lawsuits that may be more valid against these companies:
McDonald's
Swift Aviation Group
Abercrombie & Fitch
There are more - but lack of time prevents me from looking them up.
What exactly is this list supposed to prove?
There was an internet rumor that Oxford banned mention of pork in their publications to avoid offending Jews and Muslims and Subway banned pork for the same reason. Both were proven to be false. All you need to do is go to your local Subway and order a ham sandwich or open a copy of Emil's Little Pig to know these two aren't true.
Lowes pulled their advertising during a Muslim-themed reality show (which was a pretty good show as far as reality shows go, by the way, and sought only to show a Muslim family that was pretty much like any other family in the US) to avoid offending non-Muslims. They buckled to the non-Muslims.
Hertz was contractually obligated to offer 2 paid breaks to all employees, and broke their contractual obligation to all employees by asking them to clock out because they thought the Muslims employees were taking more than the allotted ten minutes. They didn't buckle to a religious argument - they were told they had to work within the contract they already had agreed to.This was a case of management choosing an illegal option for dealing with the common problem of employees stretching their breaks.
Tyson temporarily swapped a paid day off on Labor Day for a paid day off on an Eid for a single plant at which most of the employees were Muslim. Eventually, they reinstated Labor Day as a paid holiday and gave the employees a floating holiday, which they could use for the Eid if they so chose. This seems like normal contractual negotiations to me, and the two parties eventually came up with a solution that apparently worked for everyone.
In the case of Dell, they accommodated employees who wanted to use a break to pray for years, then suddenly told them they no longer could. The employees resigned, and Dell reinstated the old policy to accommodate them, because they did not want to lose the employees. Again, this seems like a clear case of employees and management working to find a solution that works for everyone. That's what employees and management do - negotiate working conditions that are mutually beneficial. Again, this should be an issue of breaks (which all employees get) more than what the employees were using the breaks to do.
As for the case in question, it seems to me that workers have the right to organize and ask for an accommodations they choose. The employer also has the right to say no (as long as they are not legally obligated to provide the accommodation) and has the right to terminate employment if the employees don't perform their duties. This isn't a Islam-specific issue, but a labor dispute that happens to involve religion.
I'm sure there are plenty, but Wegmans (no apostrophe) isn't one of them.
There was a case about 6 years ago at one of the local Wegmans, in which a Muslim employee (cashier) suddenly decided she wasn't going to accept offending meat products or beer in "her" line. Wegmans tried to accommodate her by placing a sign on her station, directing customers (who'd already waited in line) elsewhere. After a number of rattled customers, customers who dug through full carts and deposited "offending" items at the checkout counter, customers who just left their carts and walked out (with their money), and a couple of scathing letters to the editor, management removed her from the front line position. When she refused reassignment, she was fired.
I couldn't find anything stating she was fired, but that's neither her nor there. Someone in the company buckled by allowing a cashier to refuse to check out customers buying pork or alcohol. That was the point.
I couldn't find anything stating she was fired, but that's neither her nor there. Someone in the company buckled by allowing a cashier to refuse to check out customers buying pork or alcohol. That was the point.
But isn't it up to employers and employees to negotiate things like this, within the context of the law?
I'm not saying that were I her manager I would have agreed to the solution they apparently tried temporarily. I may have suggested we try something similar to the process stores routinely use when customers bring alcohol into a checkout lane with an underage cashier. But as I am not her manager, it really isn't any of my business, and when the solution they chose to try led to decreased sales, it seems they changed it. I don't understand the outrage.
There was an internet rumor that Oxford banned mention of pork in their publications to avoid offending Jews and Muslims and Subway banned pork for the same reason. Both were proven to be false. All you need to do is go to your local Subway and order a ham sandwich or open a copy of Emil's Little Pig to know these two aren't true.
Lowes pulled their advertising during a Muslim-themed reality show (which was a pretty good show as far as reality shows go, by the way, and sought only to show a Muslim family that was pretty much like any other family in the US) to avoid offending non-Muslims. They buckled to the non-Muslims.
Hertz was contractually obligated to offer 2 paid breaks to all employees, and broke their contractual obligation to all employees by asking them to clock out because they thought the Muslims employees were taking more than the allotted ten minutes. They didn't buckle to a religious argument - they were told they had to work within the contract they already had agreed to.This was a case of management choosing an illegal option for dealing with the common problem of employees stretching their breaks.
Tyson temporarily swapped a paid day off on Labor Day for a paid day off on an Eid for a single plant at which most of the employees were Muslim. Eventually, they reinstated Labor Day as a paid holiday and gave the employees a floating holiday, which they could use for the Eid if they so chose. This seems like normal contractual negotiations to me, and the two parties eventually came up with a solution that apparently worked for everyone.
In the case of Dell, they accommodated employees who wanted to use a break to pray for years, then suddenly told them they no longer could. The employees resigned, and Dell reinstated the old policy to accommodate them, because they did not want to lose the employees. Again, this seems like a clear case of employees and management working to find a solution that works for everyone. That's what employees and management do - negotiate working conditions that are mutually beneficial. Again, this should be an issue of breaks (which all employees get) more than what the employees were using the breaks to do.
As for the case in question, it seems to me that workers have the right to organize and ask for an accommodations they choose. The employer also has the right to say no (as long as they are not legally obligated to provide the accommodation) and has the right to terminate employment if the employees don't perform their duties. This isn't a Islam-specific issue, but a labor dispute that happens to involve religion.
Hertz changed their policy when they noticed employees were not returning from breaks on time, so they stated employees needed to clock in and out for breaks. This impacted more than just Muslims. Those who refused to clock out, were canned. They would still get their breaks, but they were being asked to clock in and out, and if you aren't violating the time provided, why is that a big deal?
The issue at Dell was the prayer at sunset which must be said within a 20 - 30 minute timeframe. That was creating a problem. Whirlpool won a lawsuit filed by a Muslim employee who stated he needed to take a break for sunset prayers.
An employer must do what it can to accommodate employees religious practices unless it creates a hardship. Cargill did what it could to accommodate Muslim employees but they objected to not being able to pray in large groups.
But isn't it up to employers and employees to negotiate things like this, within the context of the law?
I'm not saying that were I her manager I would have agreed to the solution they apparently tried temporarily. I may have suggested we try something similar to the process stores routinely use when customers bring alcohol into a checkout lane with an underage cashier. But as I am not her manager, it really isn't any of my business, and when the solution they chose to try led to decreased sales, it seems they changed it. I don't understand the outrage.
It seems to me things are being negotiated for some groups and not others. Did Walgreen's negotiate with the technician who said her religion prohibited her from dispensing the morning after pill? No, they canned her. And I'm okay with terminating an employee who cannot do the job for whatever reason. I thought the clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to gay couples should have been fired the first time she refused.
I'm not okay with demands being met for one group, and then when met, more demands being made. It's a business. You don't like the rules - go find another job. Don't take a trucking job and then refuse to transport pork and alcohol. Don't take a flight attendant job and refuse to serve alcohol. Find a job better suited to what you're allowed to do.
And I find it particularly offensive that when prayer time is granted, then they get upset because everyone is being asked to clock in and out - or they're not being allowed to leave and pray in large groups. Companies don't exist to grant your every wish and make you happy.
It seems to me things are being negotiated for some groups and not others. Did Walgreen's negotiate with the technician who said her religion prohibited her from dispensing the morning after pill? No, they canned her. And I'm okay with terminating an employee who cannot do the job for whatever reason. I thought the clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to gay couples should have been fired the first time she refused.
I'm not okay with demands being met for one group, and then when met, more demands being made. It's a business. You don't like the rules - go find another job. Don't take a trucking job and then refuse to transport pork and alcohol. Don't take a flight attendant job and refuse to serve alcohol. Find a job better suited to what you're allowed to do.
And I find it particularly offensive that when prayer time is granted, then they get upset because everyone is being asked to clock in and out - or they're not being allowed to leave and pray in large groups. Companies don't exist to grant your every wish and make you happy.
I agree with you to an extent, but on the other hand, we leave it up to individuals or unions to negotiate many, many benefits. Flexible schedules, for example, often get negotiated by individuals on a per-case basis. Salaries, too. So when, for example, a woman's salary is lower than her male counterparts, she is often told that it is lower because she didn't negotiate better. When one employee is able to negotiate working from home or having a flexible schedule to pick up kids and a different employee is not (for whatever reason), that is again chalked up to an individuals negotiation skills. I guess I'm struggling to see how this is fundamentally different.
And although I have heard that some non-Indian Hindus eat beef (but I haven't met any of them, and I've actually asked that question of a good number of Indian Hindus who all denied it ever happened), a lot of those who don't will burn those who do, or who sell beef to Hindus.
You seemed to have some trouble reading what I wrote.
I meant, a lot of Indian Hindus eat beef.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
