PDA

View Full Version : Bay Area: Woman fired for Islamic Do Rag



Zendetta
25th February 10, 10:27 AM
A muslim woman claims that she was fired from her job at the Hollister store in San Mateo for refusing to take off her Islamic head scarf.

The woman, who asked to be identified only with her first name, Hani, said her manager fired her Monday for not following the company's dress code, called the "look policy." She says her Hajib, or Islamic head scarf, was not permitted by the dress code.

"I was really surprised, especially in the Bay Area, where everyone is so receptive and kind, that someone would discriminate against a religious group," she said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35573939

For starters, if she was working for Hollister then she is, without a doubt, a Immoral Westernized Whore. Her "Nice Muslim Girl" defense sure isn't fooling me!

But seriously folks, whaddya think? We don't know for sure what management thought, but I seriously doubt they fired her for "being Muslim".

Consider: If I was a rastafarian with long dredloks working for a company with a conservative dress code, its not unreasonable for them to ask me to cut the loks on my lunchbreak - if I was fired it would be for the hair, not the religion. I don't think that's "cool", but I believe that a private company has the right to set these kinds of policies.

Then again, I'm of the belief that Hooters should have the right to discriminate against ugly, flat-chested women.

To be honest, this seems to me to be a mild-but-telling example of what many people in the modern west criticize muslims for: wanting special exceptions made for them, then claiming religious discrimination when those special exceptions are not granted.

Whaddya think?

WarPhalange
25th February 10, 10:32 AM
I thought it was Hijab, not Hajib?

Zendetta
25th February 10, 10:38 AM
I think you are right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajib

Unless she was wearing a government official on her head, in which case she should have definitely been fired.

Kiko
25th February 10, 12:53 PM
Most places will make you read/sign stuff clearly stating the dress code. If it's not about uniform, then it may be something about length of hair or facial hair and certainly whether visible tattoos or piercings are allowed. I know I'm only allowed one piercing per ear and none on the face and no tattoos visible.

She's free to express herself, but not free to work somewhere if the two clash. Hell, what's next? She wants to work at Victoria's Secret? Good luck, Honey!

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 01:06 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35573939

But seriously folks, whaddya think? We don't know for sure what management thought, but I seriously doubt they fired her for "being Muslim".

Are you seriously saying with a straight face that she would have been fired if she was some old eastern european lady wearing a scarf.

Also, I didn't catch her nationality, but the south asian population is exploding in the hollister area.

Zendetta
25th February 10, 01:53 PM
Are you seriously saying with a straight face that she would have been fired if she was some old eastern european lady wearing a scarf.

Also, I didn't catch her nationality, but the south asian population is exploding in the hollister area.

Hollister, CA has lots of asians. "Hollister" the clothing brand sells clothes for young hot chicks (but as a crusty old geezer you aren't expected to know that). This store is in San Mateo.

You imaginary Helga person would have been discriminated against via age-ism and sexism.

But if she got hired I doubt she would have claimed a cultural, let alone religious, exemption from the rules of the company that she wants to pay her wage. She'd either take it off or work elsewhere.

This chick wasn't fired for wearing the do rag, she was fired for refusing to not wear it.

Are you saying (with a straight-or-gay face) that she was discriminated against for her religion, and not for violating the company's almost certainly ridiculous "Look Policy"?

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 01:59 PM
Are you saying (with a straight-or-gay face) that she was discriminated against for her religion, and not for violating the company's almost certainly ridiculous "Look Policy"?
I am saying with a (thursday=necrophiliac) face that I absolutely guarantee you that the company had no written policy forbidding head coverings. I'm quite sure that their dress code was intentionally fuzzy and said something like 'workplace appropriate.' and the only reason the head covering bothered anyone was the islamic connotation.

Also, the law is quite clear. We're not talking about a safety or id issue. The company is going to lose.

Now you tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't be on the opposite side if this was about her wearing a darwin fish pendant.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
25th February 10, 02:14 PM
Hollister is run by the same company as Abercrombie, and they're actually the same clothes. The difference is that Abercrombie has sexually charged advertisements and store displays while Hollister is wholesomely WASP-mom friendly. Both companies actually have a pretty strict look policy; aside from wearing their clothes and scents on the job they also require you to wear your hair a certain way and look vaguely like the homos you see in their ads.

Terrorist head scarves do not jive with Surfer-guidoism.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 02:18 PM
Hollister is run by the same company as Abercrombie, and they're actually the same clothes. The difference is that Abercrombie has sexually charged advertisements and store displays while Hollister is wholesomely WASP-mom friendly. Both companies actually have a pretty strict look policy; aside from wearing their clothes and scents on the job they also require you to wear your hair a certain way and look vaguely like the homos you see in their ads.

Terrorist head scarves do not jive with Surfer-guidoism.
I actually looked up their look policy. It's actually very short and fuzzy. You don't have to wear their clothes. You are supposed to look classically californian. The girl was sticking to the company color palette with her scarves, and her immediate supervisors had no issue with the scarf.

Remember, the law says that the company needs to make a reasonable accomodation. Just like they can't not hire a black girl for not looking like a surfer. The company is wrong, and will lose.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
25th February 10, 02:24 PM
That's not what I've heard from my sources on the inside, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's regional variations or perhaps an employee conspiracy to convince people to stop buying their clothes.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 02:29 PM
That's not what I've heard from my sources on the inside, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's regional variations or perhaps an employee conspiracy to convince people to stop buying their clothes.

See, this is why these kinds of discussions are fun. I just learned that california labor law requires employers to provide the uniforms if they require a specific brand.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
25th February 10, 02:32 PM
I know a lot of employers who regularly commit misdeamers for withholding paychecks cause they asses too broke to pay.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 02:34 PM
http://www.hollisterco.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10251_10201_594745_-1_12747_12552

Is there a reason I shouldn't just declare victory?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
25th February 10, 02:41 PM
lol they're selling hipster bandanas now? abercrombie recently introduced skinny jeans and cardigans, i think.

Zendetta
25th February 10, 03:02 PM
Is there a reason I shouldn't just declare victory?

Just one: she wasn't (as far as I can tell) fired for wearing the mohamedan headdress.

She was fired for refusing to not wear it. There is a world of difference in that subtle distinction.

In the hypothetical case of the darwin fish: it makes a religious/political statement and plenty of places have policies that forbid that.

I'd think it would be unfair to fire someone for having worn it, but completely within their rights to say "put it inside your shirt or leave it at home before our easily-offended clientele bitch about it".

Just so you are clear, I think Hollister Co is being very douchey, but I think they (should) have that right. She wasn't fired for her faith, she was fired because of the way she insisted on dressing at work.

Fearless Ukemi
25th February 10, 03:09 PM
Just one: she wasn't (as far as I can tell) fired for wearing the mohamedan headdress.

She was fired for refusing to not wear it. There is a world of difference in that subtle distinction.

In the hypothetical case of the darwin fish: it makes a religious/political statement and plenty of places have policies that forbid that.

I'd think it would be unfair to fire someone for having worn it, but completely within their rights to say "put it inside your shirt or leave it at home before our easily-offended clientele bitch about it".

Just so you are clear, I think Hollister Co is being very douchey, but I think they (should) have that right. She wasn't fired for her faith, she was fired because of the way she insisted on dressing at work.

Wow, dude. You have mastered the art of double talk. You may have a bright career in politics or PR.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 03:29 PM
Just one: she wasn't (as far as I can tell) fired for wearing the mohamedan headdress.

She was fired for refusing to not wear it. There is a world of difference in that subtle distinction.

In the hypothetical case of the darwin fish: it makes a religious/political statement and plenty of places have policies that forbid that.

I'd think it would be unfair to fire someone for having worn it, but completely within their rights to say "put it inside your shirt or leave it at home before our easily-offended clientele bitch about it".

Just so you are clear, I think Hollister Co is being very douchey, but I think they (should) have that right. She wasn't fired for her faith, she was fired because of the way she insisted on dressing at work.
She was fired because the way she dressed made her religion obvious to some douchebag from the corporate office who was also worried that other bigots might not shop at his store. That is not legal. Our laws require that when peoples religious beliefs conflict with reqirements of a business, that the business make a reasonable attempt to bridge the gap. In this case, she and her immediate supervisors had already worked out an accomodation that everybody was happy with till douchebag came along and insisted on 'no compromise the teh terrorists'. Not only has he already lost, but it turns out that the claimed business need (for his employees to showcase the style of clothes they sell) doesn't even pass the giggle test since his store actually sells scarves.

Zendetta
25th February 10, 03:57 PM
Wow, dude. You have mastered the art of double talk. You may have a bright career in politics or PR.

Is that right? Well, I thank you for your vote.

So you think she was fired for being teh mooslim or what?

socratic
25th February 10, 04:27 PM
Zen, what is the difference between being fired for what you are wearing and being fired for not wearing anything different?

What is the difference between being fired for wearing a Muslim headscarf and being fired for not taking off a Muslim headscarf?

She got fired because she looked all Muslim-y and people still seem to have a problem with that. It's bad PR to have an obvious Muslim in your staff when your clientèle are morons.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 04:35 PM
http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp

This is the law. It's fairly reasonable, if tricky in spots, and lets everybody play nice together.

Cullion
25th February 10, 04:43 PM
Employees cannot be required to participate—or refrain from participating—in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

This is a strange thing to want to enforce if you want to protect people's freedom of association. Imagine trying to apply this when the employer is a religious organisation?

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 04:51 PM
This is a strange thing to want to enforce if you want to protect people's freedom of association. Imagine trying to apply this when the employer is a religious organisation?

Hmm, y' know, that's probably why not for profit charitable religious organizations are specifically exempted.

C'mon dude, put some work into it.

Cullion
25th February 10, 04:54 PM
Hmm, y' know, that's probably why not for profit charitable religious organizations are specifically exempted.

C'mon dude, put some work into it.

Come on, it's been a long day. Do you know the sparkle and shazaam that's required to make a really convincing argument that Fred Phelps should be allowed to force people to pray at gunpoint in his burger franchise?

It takes a certain something, and I really need 14 hours of sleep and a glass or two of good red wine before attempting this.

Work with me.

What about some guy who's running a family owned store and says he only wants to employ devout christians? Should he be banned from doing so? Should he then be prosecuted if it turns out they were lying, of just don't go to church often enough for his liking ?

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 05:03 PM
What about some guy who's running a family owned store and says he only wants to employ devout christians? Should he be banned from doing so? Should he then be prosecuted if it turns out they were lying, of just don't go to church often enough for his liking ?
Well, the law says that he can do it as long as he has less than 15 employees. I think that we can quibble all day about where the cutoff should be for that kind of exception, but I suspect that most of us would agree that there should be one.

If you want the tricky bits, they actually mentioned one of the nastiest in the article I linked to. What do you do when Freddie Phelps is the employee and says 'I ain't servin no fags.' He probably has that right as long as the employer can very easily (the threshhold is extremely low) get someone else to deal with them. But how would you like to be the gay employer in that case being forced to cater to him.

Cullion
25th February 10, 05:08 PM
I wouldn't. All my trite little solutions to this would stem from a simplistic libertarian mantra:-

'private property=private domain=maximum freedom of association assumed even if it hurts somebody else's feelings'.

So ChristCorp can employ only Christians if they want, and LiberalBayArea corp can fire Phelps if they want. If were the judge, my answer in both cases would be 'they told you what they were about before you signed the contract, why are you wasting the public's time now dipshit?'.

The smaller-scale cases are obviously easier for me to defend on a rheotorical and emotive level.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 05:20 PM
The smaller-scale cases are obviously easier for me to defend on a rheotorical and emotive level.

Exactly. These laws were meant to combat massive, pervasive discrimination that substantially reduced freedom for discriminated minorities. It's one thing when little suzie muslim can't work at one store in the mall run by a shithead, but when every store in the mall has the same policy because muslim bashing is a national passtime, then the libertarian case breaks down the same way that the mom and pop christian shop points out the problems with the existing law.

True story, I worked for mom and pop christian shop in San Francisco. His solution to the requirement that he provide domestic partner benefits to his gay employees was just to open them up to anyone living at the same address. Nice guy, he's working as a missionary in Africa now.

Cullion
25th February 10, 05:56 PM
I'm not sure if it does. In your gedankenexperiment, why aren't muslims starting their own stores, and why did they come to America in the first place if they knew that everybody hated Islam?

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 06:04 PM
I'm not sure if it does. In your gedankenexperiment, why aren't muslims starting their own stores, and why did they come to America in the first place if they knew that everybody hated Islam?

1) what's to force the distributors to sell to them in your libertarian utopia. Or the manufacturers to sell to the distributors. There is a pretty rigid ceiling to the scale of operation 1-2% of the population can achieve purely on it's own against a hostile majority.

2) Well, since the stores behavior is absolutely illegal, they probably figured groovy. A place where we can live our lives in peace without dealing with that shit.

Cullion
25th February 10, 06:12 PM
1) what's to force the distributors to sell to them in your libertarian utopia. Or the manufacturers to sell to the distributors.

Nothing at all. Why should there be? Don't muslims run businesses now ?

It's almost like you think American social attitudes should be re-engineered with the force of law to make everybody be nice, and secular.



There is a pretty rigid ceiling to the scale of operation 1-2% of the population can achieve purely on it's own against a hostile majority.

Ultimately, that's not your problem. They still came. Does their arrival really require the loss of true freedom of association amongst americans ? Have you considered that there's absolutely nothing immoral with the idea that if somebody wants to become a citizen of a country they should honestly consider whether they agree with it's prevailing cultural attitudes first ?

I'm sure you have.



2) Well, since the stores behavior is absolutely illegal, they probably figured groovy. A place where we can live our lives in peace without dealing with that shit.

Current legality is irrelevant in this debate. At this point our law books are full of unjust laws. Right and wrong are what matter. You cannot defend a law that I've asserted is unjust by saying 'it's the law!', you can only argue whether or not it's actually unjust or not.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 06:30 PM
Nothing at all. Why should there be? Don't muslims run businesses now ?

It's almost like you think American social attitudes should be re-engineered with the force of law to make everybody be nice, and secular.


This law predates the arrival of any significant number of muslims in the US by a fair bit. They had nothing to do with it's creation. And I find the reasons that the laws had to be passed pretty fucking compelling (that whole pesky slavery thing, y'know) Because of that, modern american social attitudes did have to be re engineered by the force of law. And the fact that so many muslims are successfull in business here and that an incident like this is such an outlier are a testament to the effectiveness of those laws.

Yay crushing boot of the state!

Yiktin Voxbane
25th February 10, 06:35 PM
What if I were to own a shop for the distribution of *adult* items, then advertised for an Ultra-christian Lesbian woman and required them to work, tits-out ?

Cullion
25th February 10, 06:47 PM
This law predates the arrival of any significant number of muslims in the US by a fair bit.

That's not the point.



They had nothing to do with it's creation.

Neither is that.



And I find the reasons that the laws had to be passed pretty fucking compelling (that whole pesky slavery thing, y'know)

Muslims are enslaved in America??!!!??? Call the UN!!!???!!



Because of that, modern american social attitudes did have to be re engineered by the force of law.

That's a silly answer. Give a real reason why.



And the fact that so many muslims are successfull in business here and that an incident like this is such an outlier are a testament to the effectiveness of those laws.

Yay crushing boot of the state!

You're getting too out of touch with reality now. Try again.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 06:59 PM
That's not the point.



Neither is that.



Muslims are enslaved in America??!!!??? Call the UN!!!???!!



That's a silly answer. Give a real reason why.



You're getting too out of touch with reality now. Try again.

I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or I am just not communicating well. The civil rights act of 1964 was written in response to the situation of blacks in the US South at the time. To me, that situation is de facto proof of the total failure of the libertarian ideal to cope with reality.

EuropIan
25th February 10, 07:00 PM
yay! Entrepreneurial religious enclaves Yay!

Cullion
25th February 10, 07:08 PM
I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or I am just not communicating well. The civil rights act of 1964 was written in response to the situation of blacks in the US South at the time. To me, that situation is de facto proof of the total failure of the libertarian ideal to cope with reality.

Yes, slavery is totally the faulty of Libertarianism.

Except as your country has become more 'liberal', black people have actually suffered more. I will always trust Thomas Sowell on this issue, because he confirms my prejudices. What do you plan to do about that?

Marrt
25th February 10, 07:47 PM
I actually looked up their look policy. It's actually very short and fuzzy. You don't have to wear their clothes. You are supposed to look classically californian. The girl was sticking to the company color palette with her scarves, and her immediate supervisors had no issue with the scarf.

Remember, the law says that the company needs to make a reasonable accomodation. Just like they can't not hire a black girl for not looking like a surfer. The company is wrong, and will lose.

Do you have a link to this? I couldn't find their policy, only pieces of it and they weren't that fuzzy (e.g. women's earrings no bigger than a dime, men cannot wear earrings, no other piercings allowed etc).

And the comment re the girl sticking to the company color palette etc - was that a different article? I couldn't find that either.

Cullion
25th February 10, 07:56 PM
HoG, does the company policy include that local managers are entitled to decide if their employees are dressed inappropriately, and why morally (not legally) speaking do you think it would be wrong for an employee who disagrees with this to be expected to go look for another job?

Cullion
25th February 10, 07:56 PM
yay! Entrepreneurial religious enclaves Yay!

I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about. It wouldn't affect you.

Zendetta
25th February 10, 08:51 PM
The civil rights act of 1964 was written in response to the situation of blacks in the US South at the time. To me, that situation is de facto proof of the total failure of the libertarian ideal to cope with reality.

[appeal to authority]Zora Neal Hurston, Black Woman, disagrees with you.[/appeal to authority]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zora_Neale_Hurston


How much satisfaction can I get from a court order for somebody to associate with me who does not wish me near them?

In my mind, the fact that today's schools are still seriously, voluntarily segregated and plagued by a monstrous achievement gap is de facto proof that the liberal big government ideal can't cope with reality either.

When Abercrombie and Fitch released a line of clothing bearing mottos offensive to Asian people, there wasn't a need for a court order or federal law - a bunch of people simply made it clear that they wouldn't buy their shit anymore and the company dropped it like a hot potato.

Back to this case: I think its pretty damn cheesy that the company hired our Heroine while she had the hijab on, but its also obvious to me that she could have taken it off if she wanted to keep the job.

And HOG, I'm sure a man of your experience knows full well that the term "reasonable accommodations" is a weasel lawyer's wet dream.

EuropIan
25th February 10, 08:57 PM
I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about. It wouldn't affect you.
Thank the universe there's no atheist headdress.

However...there are douchy t-shirts.

Marrt
25th February 10, 09:23 PM
[appeal to authority]Zora Neal Hurston, Black Woman, disagrees with you.[/appeal to authority]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zora_Neale_Hurston



In my mind, the fact that today's schools are still seriously, voluntarily segregated and plagued by a monstrous achievement gap is de facto proof that the liberal big government ideal can't cope with reality either.

When Abercrombie and Fitch released a line of clothing bearing mottos offensive to Asian people, there wasn't a need for a court order or federal law - a bunch of people simply made it clear that they wouldn't buy their shit anymore and the company dropped it like a hot potato.

Back to this case: I think its pretty damn cheesy that the company hired our Heroine while she had the hijab on, but its also obvious to me that she could have taken it off if she wanted to keep the job.

And HOG, I'm sure a man of your experience knows full well that the term "reasonable accommodations" is a weasel lawyer's wet dream.

More interesting is they're saying she worked in the stock room and had no customer contact... that's what's going to be difficult to argue on.

EuropIan
25th February 10, 09:29 PM
where does it say that?

If that's the case, it's pretty retarded.

Marrt
25th February 10, 09:37 PM
Different article, bottom of this one -
http://www.examiner.com/x-23301-Detroit-Human-Capital-Examiner~y2010m2d25-Hollister-fires-Muslim-for-wearing-Hijab


Other factors
Of interest in the claim is that Khan works in the stockroom and has no direct contact with customers. She says that supervisors had no problems with the hajib when they hired her 5 months prior to the firing, as long as the hajib was in Hollister,s trademark navy, gray, and white colors. Khan submitted to that request.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 09:42 PM
HoG, does the company policy include that local managers are entitled to decide if their employees are dressed inappropriately, and why morally (not legally) speaking do you think it would be wrong for an employee who disagrees with this to be expected to go look for another job?

Yet again, the issue is not when one store somewhere has a wierd policy. If that was the only concern, then it would be reasonable to expect the person to move along to find another job. But the concern, and the whole reason we have the law, is because large powerful majorities often discriminate en mass against ethnic or religious minorities, and we have a particularly virulent history of that kind of shit in this country. Meaning that the other jobs are also all going to have signs up telling muslims not to let the sun set on them here.

EuropIan
25th February 10, 09:45 PM
No matter the policy, it's pretty hard to defeat "soft racism", e.g. Where you accept applications but refuse to hire from a particular demographic.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 10, 09:47 PM
[appeal to authority]Zora Neal Hurston, Black Woman, disagrees with you.[/appeal to authority]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zora_Neale_Hurston



In my mind, the fact that today's schools are still seriously, voluntarily segregated and plagued by a monstrous achievement gap is de facto proof that the liberal big government ideal can't cope with reality either.


Let's see, you have a woman who died in 1960 being an authority on a law passed 4 years later, and a ridiculous fucking case of historical revisionism where apparently no white suburban protesters stopped school busing dead in it's tracks in the late 70's. Not buying.

Oh by the way, I make no claims that big government solutions can solve all problems. I accept and revel in the notion that solutions should, you know, fit the problem. It's my honorable opposition who believes that free markets are magic pixie dust.

Cullion
26th February 10, 04:34 AM
Let's see, you have a woman who died in 1960 being an authority on a law passed 4 years later, and a ridiculous fucking case of historical revisionism where apparently no white suburban protesters stopped school busing dead in it's tracks in the late 70's. Not buying.

Oh by the way, I make no claims that big government solutions can solve all problems. I accept and revel in the notion that solutions should, you know, fit the problem. It's my honorable opposition who believes that free markets are magic pixie dust.

You mischaracterise my opinion, good sir. I'm pointing out that your very definition of a problem is one that by it's very nature diminishes people's freedom of association.

I say let McWhiteJesus corp only be composed of Hillbillies managed by Fox News talking heads. Then they're all in one place, nobody took their freedom away and the good people of the Bay Area can refuse to buy their product in one glorious rainbow display of aging liberal consumer activism.

It would be righteous.

HappyOldGuy
26th February 10, 12:49 PM
You mischaracterise my opinion, good sir. I'm pointing out that your very definition of a problem is one that by it's very nature diminishes people's freedom of association.

I say let McWhiteJesus corp only be composed of Hillbillies managed by Fox News talking heads. Then they're all in one place, nobody took their freedom away and the good people of the Bay Area can refuse to buy their product in one glorious rainbow display of aging liberal consumer activism.

It would be righteous.

Honestly, sometimes I think y'all are too civilized to understand us. We're not like you. We look like you, and sound sorta like you, but we're the descendants of the aggressive detritus that europe swept from itself for a couple of hundred years. That's why you don't understand that every white american family has a special set of white linens under their bed stashed away for the day when the last piece of the civil rights laws are swept away in the name of liberty and fairness.

Oh what a glorious day that will be!

AAAhmed46
27th February 10, 03:01 AM
Im actually with Zen. How can she be a hijabi but still work at a store that promotes western fashion? Too contridictory, she is being a bit hypocritical trying to pull this off.

Then again she could be one of those hijabis that wears tight pants and shows cleavage but covers her head. Nothing wrong with a woman dressing like that, but shows a lack of thought over religious practice.

A muslim man with a long beard tries to work on the riggs? They KNOW they cannot have facial hair.

So why do they even bother still trying to get the job?

I think there should be a compromise. But sometimes...it just cannot happen.

Ajamil
27th February 10, 10:32 AM
It makes me want to work at a meat processing plant, and then complain there aren't enough veggie meals in the cafeteria, cuz ahimsa.

Kiko
2nd March 10, 12:07 PM
I seem to recall at least one case of Muslim folk (don't recall if it was man or woman) working as cashier in a supermarket. They refused to ring up customers who purchased pork products. I don't recall what the outcome was. I'd assume the meat was wrapped and they didn't have to eat it or directly touch it. *shrug*

Yiktin, I don't think you'd get too many replies on that one.... but if you do, lemme know!

Lights Out
2nd March 10, 06:40 PM
Tehre's a Burger King at the mall I work at. sometimes I eat there if I have to work extra hours. A couple of muslim girls work there, wearing noithing on their heads but the customary BK cap. But as soon as they walk out of their workplace in their own clothes, they are wearing the scarf on their heads. I guess it is mandatory for BK employees to wear that waful cap. And probaly scarves are not allowed, probably because they break uniformity.

Oh, and also I generally order a double cheese bacon.

What I'm trying to get at with this is: if you don't want to comply with your workplace policies, then do not work there. And if you can't get a job to your liking 'cuz crisis, well, maybe you should consider making certain concessions. I'm not working on retail because I like it, I have a Major, you know.

That being said, I do not agree with Cullion's libertarian idealistic views on this subject. I beleive workers have the right to associate too, and negotiate better conditions from the company they work for.

We're not in the XIX century anymore, the "tis is mah biznizz, git out if you don't liek it!" is kinda retarded.

Kiko
11th March 10, 09:50 AM
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/epic-fail-equal-oppoortunity-fail.jpg

Ajamil
11th March 10, 01:51 PM
Complete fail. How could you leave the other apostrophe off like that?

Cullion
13th March 10, 01:28 PM
That being said, I do not agree with Cullion's libertarian idealistic views on this subject. I beleive workers have the right to associate too, and negotiate better conditions from the company they work for.

The key word is negotiate. In a negotiation, both parties have the right to say no to the other side's requests. If people don't like it, they get a job elsewhere.



We're not in the XIX century anymore, the "tis is mah biznizz, git out if you don't liek it!" is kinda retarded.

No it's not.

bob
13th March 10, 04:40 PM
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/epic-fail-equal-oppoortunity-fail.jpg

Is that just a coy way of saying 'no meth heads'?