http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=333390
Ok how is it possible to suit an employer because they hire you to handle pork, and it is against your religion?
The fact that pork consent case was even looked at is pure idiocy.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=333390
Ok how is it possible to suit an employer because they hire you to handle pork, and it is against your religion?
The fact that pork consent case was even looked at is pure idiocy.
[/quote]
please read the related thread about suers not doers.
hooray lawyers!
Sounds like the pharmacists who don’t want to give out the morning after pill.
That got about half a day of press around here. The companies almost immediatly caved. Unfortunate. I bet they are missing their illegals right about now.
It was the same group that took jobs as cabbies and were refusing to pick up anyone that had been drinking or was carring alcohol.
This is stupid as fuck, and typical. If you can’t/don’t want to do the job, then find something the fuck else.
Does anyone ever look up the story to see what the facts are? A group of Samilis are working in a poultry plant, so it doesn’t seem to me that it would be unreasonable for them to expect that they would not be asked to handle pork. This is not only unclean to Muslims but also to Jews.
The other part of the story is that they wanted a few minutes to face East and pray to Mecca, a well-know tenant of the Islamic faith. Is it unreasonable to expect that a nation that declares religious tolerance should allow then a few minutes to pray?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Does anyone ever look up the story to see what the facts are? A group of Samilis are working in a poultry plant, so it doesn’t seem to me that it would be unreasonable for them to expect that they would not be asked to handle pork. This is not only unclean to Muslims but also to Jews.
The other part of the story is that they wanted a few minutes to face East and pray to Mecca, a well-know tenant of the Islamic faith. Is it unreasonable to expect that a nation that declares religious tolerance should allow then a few minutes to pray?[/quote]
I’m sure they signed contracts stated that they probably had to handle meat, and not just chicken. If you have a problem with the contract, don’t sign it.
“The Work Connection, an employment agency based in St. Paul that hired workers for Gold’n Plump’s plants in Cold Spring and Arcadia, was accused in the class-action lawsuit of requiring Muslim applicants for work to sign a “pork acknowledgement form,” in which they agreed to handle pork products. It was alleged in the complaint that Somali workers who did not sign the document were not hired.”
Really? That’s the basis for the lawsuit? Fuck off. If everyone else does it, then you have to do it too. It’s hardly unreasonable. I’m Hindu, and if I was asked to handle beef in my line of work and it was IN MY CONTRACT, then I’d damn well do my job.
You note that pork is also unclean to Jews. I don’t see any Jews suing the factory.
As for prayers, it should come out of their lunch/morning/afternoon breaks.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
Does anyone ever look up the story to see what the facts are? A group of Samilis are working in a poultry plant, so it doesn’t seem to me that it would be unreasonable for them to expect that they would not be asked to handle pork. This is not only unclean to Muslims but also to Jews.
The other part of the story is that they wanted a few minutes to face East and pray to Mecca, a well-know tenant of the Islamic faith. Is it unreasonable to expect that a nation that declares religious tolerance should allow then a few minutes to pray?
I’m sure they signed contracts stated that they probably had to handle meat, and not just chicken. If you have a problem with the contract, don’t sign it.
"The Work Connection, an employment agency based in St. Paul that hired workers for Gold’n Plump’s plants in Cold Spring and Arcadia, was accused in the class-action lawsuit of requiring Muslim applicants for work to sign a “pork acknowledgement form,” in which they agreed to handle pork products.
It was alleged in the complaint that Somali workers who did not sign the document were not hired."
Really? That’s the basis for the lawsuit? Fuck off. If everyone else does it, then you have to do it too. It’s hardly unreasonable. I’m Hindu, and if I was asked to handle beef in my line of work and it was IN MY CONTRACT, then I’d damn well do my job.
You note that pork is also unclean to Jews. I don’t see any Jews suing the factory.
As for prayers, it should come out of their lunch/morning/afternoon breaks.[/quote]
I don’t recall hearing any issue with the prayer, although if you are on an essembly line it would be problematic.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
Does anyone ever look up the story to see what the facts are? A group of Samilis are working in a poultry plant, so it doesn’t seem to me that it would be unreasonable for them to expect that they would not be asked to handle pork. This is not only unclean to Muslims but also to Jews.
The other part of the story is that they wanted a few minutes to face East and pray to Mecca, a well-know tenant of the Islamic faith. Is it unreasonable to expect that a nation that declares religious tolerance should allow then a few minutes to pray?
I’m sure they signed contracts stated that they probably had to handle meat, and not just chicken. If you have a problem with the contract, don’t sign it.
"The Work Connection, an employment agency based in St. Paul that hired workers for Gold’n Plump’s plants in Cold Spring and Arcadia, was accused in the class-action lawsuit of requiring Muslim applicants for work to sign a “pork acknowledgement form,” in which they agreed to handle pork products.
It was alleged in the complaint that Somali workers who did not sign the document were not hired."
Really? That’s the basis for the lawsuit? Fuck off. If everyone else does it, then you have to do it too. It’s hardly unreasonable. I’m Hindu, and if I was asked to handle beef in my line of work and it was IN MY CONTRACT, then I’d damn well do my job.
You note that pork is also unclean to Jews. I don’t see any Jews suing the factory.
As for prayers, it should come out of their lunch/morning/afternoon breaks.
I don’t recall hearing any issue with the prayer, although if you are on an essembly line it would be problematic.
[/quote]
The Swift plant in Greeley, Colorado (handles beef and maybe poultry, I believe) recently fired a bunch of Muslim Somalis who were upset re: the prayer during the day issue.
This is for a chicken processing plant. How is is reasonable to expect workers who kill chickens to sign a pledge that they are willing to touch pork? The company involved stresses that they produce wholesome chicken with maximum care for the health of the consumer.
You simply don’t mix pork and chicken in the same processing lines, it opens up all sorts of opportunities for contamination.
The Gold’n Plump company has taken great pains to keep their chicken free of influenza. The swine flu was an avian flu that made the jump to pigs. The influenza of 1918 was also an avian flu that made the jump to both pigs and humans. Why would a company that saw its sales plummet after the avian flu scare to anything that would even raise the possibility of another influenza scare?
So, other than being a cute way to keep out Jews and Muslims, why would you possibly ask workers at a chicken processing plant if they would handle pork?
I suppose hiring one worker who can switch over to helping out with the pork is more attractive.
And now I’m going to get me a BBQ pork sandwich tomorrow.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I suppose hiring one worker who can switch over to helping out with the pork is more attractive.[/quote]
And only hiring people willing to work at the Chicken Ranch would also give the employer more opportunities to switch workers to a more profitable line of work. But what does that have to do with killing chickens?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I suppose hiring one worker who can switch over to helping out with the pork is more attractive.
And only hiring people willing to work at the Chicken Ranch would also give the employer more opportunities to switch workers to a more profitable line of work. But what does that have to do with killing chickens?
[/quote]
I don’t understand the response. From my understanding, workers there may have needed to handle pork. Even if only occasionally. Why hire a chicken handler only, when I can fire him and hire the chicken handler who’ll also handle pork.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I suppose hiring one worker who can switch over to helping out with the pork is more attractive.
And only hiring people willing to work at the Chicken Ranch would also give the employer more opportunities to switch workers to a more profitable line of work. But what does that have to do with killing chickens?
I don’t understand the response. From my understanding, workers there may have needed to handle pork. Even if only occasionally. Why hire a chicken handler only, when I can fire him and hire the chicken handler who’ll also handle pork.[/quote]
From a business standpoint, hiring ONE person to do TWO jobs usually ends up much cheaper. There’s no discrimination here, it’s simply an employer looking to cut costs.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And now I’m going to get me a BBQ pork sandwich tomorrow.[/quote]
MMMMM…ham…sammich…must make…now.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And now I’m going to get me a BBQ pork sandwich tomorrow.
MMMMM…ham…sammich…must make…now.[/quote]
You forgot to grill your hotdog.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
And only hiring people willing to work at the Chicken Ranch would also give the employer more opportunities to switch workers to a more profitable line of work. But what does that have to do with killing chickens?
I don’t understand the response. From my understanding, workers there may have needed to handle pork. Even if only occasionally. Why hire a chicken handler only, when I can fire him and hire the chicken handler who’ll also handle pork.
From a business standpoint, hiring ONE person to do TWO jobs usually ends up much cheaper. There’s no discrimination here, it’s simply an employer looking to cut costs.[/quote]
Clearly, if you don’t want to handle pork, you should not work at a slaughter house for pigs. But this is a slaughter house for chickens. They have hired hundreds of Samalis and now they wanted to introduce a ‘pork handling clause’ in their contract. The point of my ‘Chicken Ranch’ comment is that an employer may want employees to do lots of things to make money, but that doesn’t make it a legitimate request. I simply don’t see why anyone would want to have people switch between a chicken slaughter house and a pig slaughter house, since these would be separate facilities.
This request caused a conflict between the employer and the employees. This conflict, like many other labor disputes, ended in court. Is there any evidence that this employer actually runs a slaughter house for pigs? This would have been a key point in any ruling. The judge sided with the Samilis when he ruled that this was an unreasonable request that interfered with their religious freedom. Someone on the internet decided to spin this, either in an attempt to be ‘pro-business/anti-labor’ or simply to be anti-Muslim.
I am very doubtful that a company that sells high quality chicken is also involved in processing pork. If anyone knows otherwise, I will stand corrected. But at this point, this seems like a tempest in a tea kettle.
Or, you can do whatever the fuck your boss asks you to do if you want to keep your job (unless illegal, which it isn’t). I don’t know about you, but if my boss told me to do something that wasn’t in my job description, I wouldn’t bitch and moan, I would either do it or quit.
[quote]shoo wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And now I’m going to get me a BBQ pork sandwich tomorrow.
MMMMM…ham…sammich…must make…now.
You forgot to grill your hotdog. [/quote]
My hotdog is warm blooded so it’s fine…like an auto grill kind of thing.