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.
No you're allowing personal objections to adjust the working conditions of an employee, which is what any good employer will do. You don't force the guy with a fear if heights to work up a ladder, his phobia is not rational or logical, neither is religion.
The converse is paving the way to "do your job, shut up, get on with it, don't like it leave".
That's the risk of being short sighted. Much of what is done in business is not required by law, but greases the wheels. If greasing the wheels can be denied under certain circumstances, it will be denied in all circumstances. Am I the only person who see's this?
As a former business owner in the UK, I would make concessions to my staff for one of two primary reasons...
1) I wanted to keep them as employees
2) I didn't want to risk unfair or constructive dismissal proceedings because of personal objections (regardless of what the nature of the objection is)
If you eliminate the risk of point 2, then you by necessity prevent point 1, because as an employer you cannot be seen to be giving preferential treatment to a person, without the risk of someone demanding the same (anti-discrimination), taking the same concession (regardless of their managers agreement) and then if fired filing a legal complaint, that they're getting shafted, because you're not being fair. If you cannot provide evidence that the person in 1 is getting that concession because they're contractually bound to be provided, then you would have a problem.
Therefore to maintain control you would be required to deny all requests for any concessions, or any concession made would become the de facto standard for the business. So for instance employee A comes with a request to have Wednesday off to attend a friends wedding that they had forgotten about. This would require consultation with legal and corporate HQ and the person might get an agreement after the date required to be absent, thus the standard answer is no, and even if post facto it would be yes, for that employee it was still no.
The one exception to this would be to repeal workplace regulations on discrimination, however without those being repealed, then any attempt to legally restrict concessions would by nature lead to all concessions being ended, it's not discriminatory unless a person receives something that someone else does not, if everyone is denied, that's non-discriminatory. If someone can prove a person received something they did not, then they have the potential to file a discrimination case, and even just with a filing it isn't worth the effort to save providing most concessions to any but your "the company cannot succeed without this person" employees (i.e. in a well run company, this means everyone including the CEO/MD) because everyone should be replaceable.
So those are your options...
Deny objections for whatever reason, provide a backstop in law that supports this and either
a) be prepared to hate your working life as it will not make any concessions for any situation you may have in your life or any personal objections you may have.
or...
b) repeal discrimination laws at the same time, so that concessions can still not be legally binding and given to all, but then be prepared to be discriminated against in your workplace.
I have no problem making concessions to employees for exactly the two reasons you've indicated. I'll even add a third, because I'm actually a pretty nice guy.
However the concessions end when I believe they are unreasonable or they hurt my business. I see these as both.
1) As a former business owner here, perhaps you're aware of the anti-immigrant, protectionist climate in the British media? I don't think this situation will have a positive effect on the brand at this moment.
2) Many Muslims have no issue whatsoever with handling these products, as long as they aren't consuming them. This seems unreasonable to me that these few refuse to handle or sell the products. This is contrary to M&S's brand image of upscale retailing (considering the service component).
Again, I would place these individuals elsewhere in the store if at all possible. At no point would I ever expect my customers to be exposed to this inconvenience. Firing these individuals is the last resort.
I believe your ladder example fails here. No, I'd never force that person that is afraid of heights to climb a ladder. At the same time, I would not hire such an individual as a window washer.
Your examples of concessions for personal time, days off, etc are not the same. When it comes to the service personnels' interactions with our customers, I would not make these specific kinds of concessions. Your religion is your own personal choice, and our customers will not be exposed to it.
Having worked in retail, the customer is always right even when they are wrong.
If I want to buy a pork pie, or a bottle of wine, or even a porno mag that is for sale in that shop then I expect to be served, not delayed and handed over to another member of staff, and in the process made to feel uncomfortable at my choices as a customer.
If you don't like working in a shop that sells such items, what the hell are you doing there? It would be like a vegetarian taking a job in a butchers shop then refusing to serve people.
Your examples of concessions for personal time, days off, etc are not the same. When it comes to the service personnels' interactions with our customers, I would not make these specific kinds of concessions. Your religion is your own personal choice, and our customers will not be exposed to it.
Absolutely you would, you would not require a worker to serve their divorcee spouse after an acrimonious divorce. You would not require a worker to serve someone who had committed some criminal offense against them. You would not require a black worker to serve some skinhead with a swastika tattoo on their forehead and "white power" on his neck. What do you think the outcome of any subsequent legal case would be if you as you state require your black worker to serve that skinhead?
All of the above are entirely comparable. Religion is just a set of ethics and restrictions imposed by an organization, therefore either you respect ethics and restrictions in the workplace or you do not. As a business I don't care that Bob's wife just died, if I need him to do his job, any more than I care about Bob not being able to work from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. They are entirely comparable, because they're both ethical decisions, do I require Bob to work during his bereavement? Do I require Bob to work during his Sabbath?
If yes to one and no to another that's inconsistent. Now if I don't require Bob to work during his Sabbath but I require Dave to handle pork (even though Dave is a Rastafarian) then again I'm being inconsistent. I'm conceding to Bob's religious requirements, but not Dave's.
If you have a big enough issue with a person then fire them, that's your choice as an employer. However the issue then is that how can you avoid discrimination legislation for not hiring a person who is of a specific denomination (take your pick). If for instance you hire Muslims (as you can't be discriminatory in hiring practices), but then fire them shortly afterwards or they leave because you do not concede to their religious objections, then you will be prosecuted for being discriminatory in your business practices. That's not even debatable.
If you make any concession to any religion, you must make the same kinds of concessions for all religions. If you need not make concessions for religion, you need not make concessions for any other ethical or moral reason, and personal reasons are entirely optional, but if you made a concession for a personal reason, but not for someone else's moral, ethical, or religious reason, you can bet that the person you refused is going to be talking to an employment lawyer, because people get righteously upset when their requests on moral, ethical, or religious grounds are refused, but they're accepted from someone else on personal grounds. Then you're back to being prosecuted for discrimination, because it appears you're being unfair to that classification of people.
Perhaps it's actually a question of how some extremists from all religions assert themselves. We have had situations here of Muslim cabdrivers refusing fares with people transporting alcohol. On the other had I've seen news stories of fundamentalist Christians who work in pharmacies refusing to sell birth control devices to customers.
Yeah I wonder how many Muslim M&S employees raised a fuss about it. I doubt most Muslims would have a problem even SERVING alcohol for Pete's sake. Those that do are better off working at a halal grocery store.
By your point Owen, all Muslims in Britain are British?! Come on.
All Muslims with UK citizenship are British. If those people have been born and bred in the UK I see no distinction between their attachment to the UK and mine. I certainly do not have any greater authority over what may or may not happen in Britain merely because I have a greater number of ancestors born here.
Quote:
Yes we have many British Muslims, but does that change the point? Not in the slightest! Can a Syrian Christian, or a Christian born in Dubai for example force there western views onto people in those countries? No, so why should we allow ourselves to stand and watch as others use there 'religious right' to refuse sale of British products in a British store?!
If you wish to demean civil society in the UK by adopting Dubai or Syria as its benchmark, then that's your prerogative. In future years when you've had longer to consider this question, I suspect you'll be glad that your countrymen didn't stoop to the same low.
Quote:
I'm an atheist, so can I refuse sale of any religious products from a store because i don't accept the claim there is a 'God'? A) I wouldn't because I'm not a ****, and people can have the beliefs they like. B) It's not for me to decide what others can or cannot purchase solely based on my own views.
Your question betrays that you have mis-understood the crux of this matter. Your mind is dealing with this issue on a level of "us" versus "them", and how "they" are making "our" lives more difficult, so you are asking why "you" cannot make "their" lives more difficult in exchange. Your thought process has been damaged by this way of thinking.
Outside of the petty framework you appear to operate in, your question makes no sense whatever. There are people who genuinely believe that by selling you alcohol they will be committing a moral crime for which they will be answerable to God, and for them that presents a serious moral dilemma. As an atheist you have no equivalent dilemma in selling religious goods, at worst you would be irritated at peoples gullibility for wasting their time believing in fairies. Your question would make sense if you had a genuine moral dilemma, for example if you were a vegetarian and you asked to be excused from handling meat because you believe that meat is murder. I suspect that you already realise that Marks & Spencer would likely accommodate such a genuine request.
All Muslims with UK citizenship are British. If those people have been born and bred in the UK I see no distinction between their attachment to the UK and mine. I certainly do not have any greater authority over what may or may not happen in Britain merely because I have a greater number of ancestors born here.
So everyone in this country has a citizenship?
Quote:
If you wish to demean civil society in the UK by adopting Dubai or Syria as its benchmark, then that's your prerogative. In future years when you've had longer to consider this question, I suspect you'll be glad that your countrymen didn't stoop to the same low.
A simply question, you've not answered, one of my good friends was born in Dubai to British parents, but she would have no say in what happens, and would be lashed (She wasn't, as she isn't stupid) for going against the norm, or the religious law they have in place. I could mention any Muslim state, but chose those two as an example. You're nitpicking Owen.
Quote:
Your question betrays that you have mis-understood the crux of this matter. Your mind is dealing with this issue on a level of "us" versus "them", and how "they" are making "our" lives more difficult, so you are asking why "you" cannot make "their" lives more difficult in exchange. Your thought process has been damaged by this way of thinking.
Is it not making a customers life more difficult but refusing service for her own beliefs? Is it not making the companies life more difficult by having to deal with this issue, but doing this off her own back?
If M&S said she could refuse sale, then surely that's going against the consumers right of purchasing products they desire without judgement. A) She shouldn't get a job in the food and beverage section. B) Was this the first customer she served who presented pork and alcohol in front of her? If not, then where was the issue before?
Then if I cannot make judgement based on false fallacies, neither can they.
Have a good Christmas Owen. I'm looking forward to start the pagan festivities tomorrow.
Matt, I've never said everyone in this country has citizenship. I said that British Muslims have the same rights as you or I. That is all that matters. Remember when you said, "I don't care if you are Jewish and attempt refusing sale of Ham, or Muslim refusing the sale of alcohol and pork, if you arrive in another culture and try to force these views, not through the correct manner, just by saying 'No', then that's unjust." You see Matt, what I'm doing here is removing this little fallacy that you're trying to sneak in, whereby you equate being Muslim with being foreign. I've done a little diagram to assist you:
Quote:
A simply question, you've not answered, one of my good friends was born in Dubai to British parents, but she would have no say in what happens, and would be lashed (She wasn't, as she isn't stupid) for going against the norm, or the religious law they have in place. I could mention any Muslim state, but chose those two as an example. You're nitpicking Owen.
Oh Matt, I have answered your question, you just didn't understand my answer! We'll do a little geography lesson and maybe this will simplify the discussion. Here is a map of the world which I've annotated:
I have shown the parts of the world that are the UK, and the parts of the world which are not the UK. From this map, you will realise that neither Dubai, Syria, or any other Muslim (or non-Muslim) country is the UK. So you see Matt, the laws which apply in those places are of no relevance to the laws in the UK - because they are not the UK. (If you get confused on this point refer again to the map.)
Quote:
Is it not making a customers life more difficult but refusing service for her own beliefs? Is it not making the companies life more difficult by having to deal with this issue, but doing this off her own back?
If M&S said she could refuse sale, then surely that's going against the consumers right of purchasing products they desire without judgement. A) She shouldn't get a job in the food and beverage section. B) Was this the first customer she served who presented pork and alcohol in front of her? If not, then where was the issue before?
Matt, it is not my responsibility or my interest to act as spokesman for Marks & Spencer. If you want to talk in broad terms about the rights of an individual versus the wishes of society then go right ahead; but I am not going to be drawn into an absurd hypothetical discussion about a single incident involving an anonymous lady working on the checkouts in Marks & Spencer's.
Matt, it is not my responsibility or my interest to act as spokesman for Marks & Spencer. If you want to talk in broad terms about the rights of an individual versus the wishes of society then go right ahead; but I am not going to be drawn into an absurd hypothetical discussion about a single incident involving an anonymous lady working on the checkouts in Marks & Spencer's.
Eoin
Owen, That's what this entire thread is about! Look at the title, it's about a Muslim woman refusing to serve a customer for her religious beliefs. That's the discussion, not where they are from, not whether they were born in Britain or in Turkey, or all the other places you spent you lonely Xmas eve highlighting nicely for me on Paint. The thread is about the single incident of an anonymous lady working on the checkouts at Marks and Spencers!
You see, you missed the point entirely! As I have previously mentioned, it's the same scenario of a christian born in a Muslim majority country. If they want to force their views about their religion, they will be punished. Here, it's racist not to accept the religious views of a Muslims born here or anywhere else!
You see, it was you who created the fallacy that you think I believe all Muslims are foreign. My point which I shall state once more for you Owen: You can't refuse sale of any product in Britain (whether you are Muslim/Jewish/Catholic/Christian) because of your religious beliefs!!! Get it, it's not about where they are from, it's about religious beliefs. If you don't want to serve the customers, get another role within the company or job altogether where this won't occur.
Again, happy holidays Owen.
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.
