Muslim woman awarded £4000 for being refused hairdresser job

[Neutral Gamer]

A Muslim woman has been awarded £4,000 for "injury to feelings" after a hair salon owner refused to employ her because she wears a headscarf.

Bushra Noah accused Sarah Desrosiers, owner of a trendy central London hair salon, of religious discrimination after she failed to offer her a job in May last year.

A panel sitting at the central London employment tribunal dismissed her claim of direct discrimination but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination ...


Full Article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027029/Hairdresser-ordered-pay-4-000-Muslim-woman-refusing-job-wears-headscarf.html)

"injury to feelings" and "indirect discrimination" ?! :confused:
Yes, the world has now finally gone mad. (I now pronounce you cat and dog.) :eek:

[PlaceofDis]

insane and stupid, imo.

she obviously couldn't fit in with the job, thats why she wasn't given it. stupidity and the gratification generation take another step forward.

[kabunaru]

Just how much more crazy can this world get?

[Neutral Gamer]

she obviously couldn't fit in with the job, thats why she wasn't given it.

Agreed. She doesn't look anything like the kind of modern hairstylist you'd expect in a trendy hair salon. In everyone I've been to, the stylists always have the latest and daring cuts some of which you're tempted to ask for. Either way they add to the look and atmosphere of the place.

Who's gonna go to a salon, sit down and ask for a "headscarve please, like that cool, funky looking lady over there's got" ?

Just how much more crazy can this world get?

I'd love to say we've reached the pinnacle of insanity, but I have this horrible feeling we've got a long way to go yet ...

[CorvusCamenarum]

Injury to feelings? WTF?

Does this mean I can sue my brother for calling me a stupidhead when I was 10?

The more I hear about crap like this the more I'm convinced we're reverting to a planet populated by small children.

[themadchemist]

I tend to disagree with you guys...

What if she wasn't pretty enough or wasn't blonde enough or wasn't white enough, and so didn't fit with the "look" of a particular place? Would we be OK with it then?

She's not being hired for the look, she's being hired to perform the service of cutting hair. Her headscarf has nothing to do with that.

[iJohnHenry]

Perhaps she ignored the paradox of her asking for a hair-dressing job?? ;)

[Dagless]

I'm a very capable artist and designer so I'm going to sue everyone who doesn't offer me a job.

[mondesi43]

I tend to disagree with you guys...

What if she wasn't pretty enough or wasn't blonde enough or wasn't white enough, and so didn't fit with the "look" of a particular place? Would we be OK with it then?

She's not being hired for the look, she's being hired to perform the service of cutting hair. Her headscarf has nothing to do with that.

So should someone be able to sue Hooters or Tilted Kilt if they weren't hired because they didn't fit into the shorts? Should somebody be able to sue TGIF's because they don't want to wear flair buttons? People need to quit thinking they are entitled to jobs.

If you read the article the owner said she expects her employees to redo their look to fit the feel of her business. It's called a dress code. As far as I know companies can enforce that. If you are expected to wear a suit to work and you want that job, conform to the rules. She should have been laughed out of court. This just opens a can of worms.

[Lunja]

It boils down to one question: was she qualified for the job? If she was not the best applicant, then she has no right to sue, since her choice of wearing the headscarf was not a factor in the decision not to employ.

But if she was the best applicant, but her headscarf was deciding factor, then she has every right to claim that she has been discriminated against.

The choice to employ should be decided on skills, and ability to do the job.

[Dont Hurt Me]

This is in the UK, what do you expect? Big brother is watching you every moment,every word,every idea. The Majority are suppose to change for a islamic minority???UK is as screwed up as Washington.

[arkitect]

Well I suspect this is just the beginning for her…

Next thing she'll be on telly — "Celebrity" Big Brother…

Then the Autobiography… a Perfume… A new range of women's clothing?

I'm sure she has an agent all ready to go.

Lucky us… :rolleyes:

[CanadaRAM]

No, Lunja has the right of it.

Nobody is to be discriminated against solely because of their religion. It's not about catering to a minority. It's about protecting everyone's right to have freedom of belief.

IF the award was given, it's because the employer was not able to show valid reasons OTHER than religion for the refusal and were judged to have discriminated based on religion.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Shouldnt we discriminate against all religions? Thats the question. Why do we even have this nonsense of religion?

Lets face it we have a bunch of people running around thinking and acting like their favorite book from thousands of years ago.

religion = the business of selling nonsense. Do we need more nonsense?

[anim8or]

my fiancee is a hairdresser and i know the industry quite well as a result....

....salons take the dress code of their employees very seriously, you would assume that most stylists just get up in the morning and slap on the make up and throw on something or anything but trust me its a well thought out plan!

Most of all their hair is part of their 'uniform', its a walking advertisement for the salon and if an employee turns up in the morning for work with horrible hair they have to wash and style it in the salon before any clients get in.

If this woman wears a head scarf then she simply will not set the correct example to customers or even market the salon to the public.

It may be unfair but its the truth, unfortunately thats life!

[Don't panic]

I tend to disagree with you guys...

What if she wasn't pretty enough or wasn't blonde enough or wasn't white enough, and so didn't fit with the "look" of a particular place? Would we be OK with it then?

She's not being hired for the look, she's being hired to perform the service of cutting hair. Her headscarf has nothing to do with that.

this time i disagree with you.
looks are important for some jobs, and this is one of them. the request of not wearing a headscarf is completely reasonable in this context, and in anycase to wear it is a choice that she has made.

[RedTomato]

But I often see bald men working as hairdressers or men with shaved heads / buzz cuts.

Some of the most cool / trendy salons in Camden (the real one in London, down the road from me) have hairdressers with shaved heads.

Thus, lack of hair is no barrier to being a cool / exclusive haircutter. So I see no reason why someone who always wears a headscarf can't be a professional haircutter.

It's about the quality of their work not what they have on the skin that covers their brains.

[remmy]

Baldness can be fashionable, more fashionable than a comb-over.

[Evangelion]

It boils down to one question: was she qualified for the job? If she was not the best applicant, then she has no right to sue, since her choice of wearing the headscarf was not a factor in the decision not to employ.

But if she was the best applicant, but her headscarf was deciding factor, then she has every right to claim that she has been discriminated against.

Discriminated? How, exactly? She wasn't discriminated because of her religion or her race, the reason was the clothes she wore. Hell, if I started wearing ragged jeans and dirty T-shirt to work, and were eventually fired, could I sue because I was "discriminated against"? Hell no!

[.Andy]

Yes, the world has now finally gone mad.
The level of intellect the dailymail.co.uk is aimed at is all the evidence you need the world has gone mad.

[obeygiant]

This might be good news. I could use this case a precedent for all those cinematographer jobs a didn't get. Cool, where's the phone...

[paddy]

The level of intellect the dailymail.co.uk is aimed at is all the evidence you need the world has gone mad.

Rubbish. The Daily Mail is a fabulous intellectual resource. I hate all the left leaning detractors of this fine, factual paper. Are you honestly telling me that asylum seekers aren't hosed down with benefits? Just incase people didn't notice, I was being sarcastic. Unfortunately that filth has seeped into Ireland and India as it happens. The Irish Daily Mail my arse.

[LethalWolfe]

It boils down to one question: was she qualified for the job? If she was not the best applicant, then she has no right to sue, since her choice of wearing the headscarf was not a factor in the decision not to employ.
"Qualified for the job" and "best applicant" aren't the same thing. I can be qualified for a job, but if I don't fit in w/the culture, vibe, attitude, etc., of the company I'm interviewing at I'm not the best applicant.


But if she was the best applicant, but her headscarf was deciding factor, then she has every right to claim that she has been discriminated against.

I have to disagree. And apparently so did the tribunal that rejected the plaintiff's claims of discrimination. If a requirement for the job is a funky hairstyle and you refuse to have a funky hairstyle then you aren't the best applicant for the job. The plaintiff was basically awarded $4k because not getting the job hurt her feelings. If you want to dance in a Vegas show but due to religious convictions you won't go topless you are going to have a hard time landing a gig. If an Orthodox jew applies for a waitress job at Hooters but refuses to wear the uniform because the shorts are just a little bit shorter than four inches below the knee is Hooters run by a bunch of anti-Semites or is said Orthodox jew poor at picking jobs to apply for?



Thus, lack of hair is no barrier to being a cool / exclusive haircutter. So I see no reason why someone who always wears a headscarf can't be a professional haircutter.
AFAIK no one is saying she can't be a professional haircutter because she wears a scarf. Although maybe she isn't very good at cutting hair 'cause, according to the article, she applied for a number jobs but didn't get hired for any of them and eventually moved into the tourism industry. Only then did she come back and file changes against the shop owner.


Lethal

[iJohnHenry]

Baldness can be fashionable, more fashionable than a comb-over.

God yes.

Someone, please, make sure they get the memo.

[mactastic]

If you want to dance in a Vegas show but due to religious convictions you won't go topless you are going to have a hard time landing a gig. If an Orthodox jew applies for a waitress job at Hooters but refuses to wear the uniform because the shorts are just a little bit shorter than four inches below the knee is Hooters run by a bunch of anti-Semites or is said Orthodox jew poor at picking jobs to apply for?
Ah, but if you want to be a pharmacist, but have a hard time dispensing all the required medications for religious reasons, you'll find plenty of people who will tell you that's an acceptable stance -- even going so far as to propose legislation saying that employers may not discriminate against someone who is unwilling to perform their job.

[Wild-Bill]

insane and stupid, imo.

she obviously couldn't fit in with the job, thats why she wasn't given it. stupidity and the gratification generation take another step forward.

Couldn't agree more. Unbelievable. Sounds like she's just trying to cash in on the "incessant discrimination of muslims". Give me a friggin' break.

The way society is headed, in ten years or so from now you may be sued just for LOOKING at someone the wrong way. :rolleyes:

[PlaceofDis]

Couldn't agree more. Unbelievable. Sounds like she's just trying to cash in on the "incessant discrimination of muslims". Give me a friggin' break.

The way society is headed, in ten years or so from now you may be sued just for LOOKING at someone the wrong way. :rolleyes:

blinders for everyone!

[LethalWolfe]

Ah, but if you want to be a pharmacist, but have a hard time dispensing all the required medications for religious reasons, you'll find plenty of people who will tell you that's an acceptable stance -- even going so far as to propose legislation saying that employers may not discriminate against someone who is unwilling to perform their job.
I luvs me some double standards...


Lethal

[themadchemist]

So should someone be able to sue Hooters or Tilted Kilt if they weren't hired because they didn't fit into the shorts?


Yes. Do shorts only come in -1 and 0?


Should somebody be able to sue TGIF's because they don't want to wear flair buttons? People need to quit thinking they are entitled to jobs.


No. This is false equivalence.


If you read the article the owner said she expects her employees to redo their look to fit the feel of her business. It's called a dress code. As far as I know companies can enforce that. If you are expected to wear a suit to work and you want that job, conform to the rules. She should have been laughed out of court. This just opens a can of worms.

And you're telling me that the "feel of her business" is so strict that it unequivocally excludes an article of religious clothing? Give me a break. You can be a little more flexible than that.

[zap2]

I tend to disagree with you guys...

What if she wasn't pretty enough or wasn't blonde enough or wasn't white enough, and so didn't fit with the "look" of a particular place? Would we be OK with it then?
.

I see where you're coming from but "looks" and "race" aren't a choice......the business isn't saying "don't wear that or don't believe that", they are saying don't where that here.

Still its a tricking issues, and I'm having some trouble being unbiased.

[themadchemist]

I see where you're coming from but "looks" and "race" aren't a choice......the business isn't saying "don't wear that or don't believe that", they are saying don't where that here.


While I see your point, I would argue that forcing religious expression to become a "choice" with negative economic consequences is oppressive.

[LethalWolfe]

And you're telling me that the "feel of her business" is so strict that it unequivocally excludes an article of religious clothing? Give me a break. You can be a little more flexible than that.
It's a trendy hair salon where all the stylists are required to sport trendy haircuts. The plaintiff wanted to wear a scarf that completely covered her hair. Kind of a conflict there don't you think? If I interview at a trendy clothing store but I only dress in dark, conservative suits I'm probably not going to get the job.

But all this kinda beside the point anyway as the plaintiff was given money for "hurt feelings" not for discrimination.


Lethal

[themadchemist]

It's a trendy hair salon where all the stylists are required to sport trendy haircuts. The plaintiff wanted to wear a scarf that completely covered her hair. Kind of a conflict there don't you think? If I interview at a trendy clothing store but I only dress in dark, conservative suits I'm probably not going to get the job.

But all this kinda beside the point anyway as the plaintiff was given money for "hurt feelings" not for discrimination.


Lethal

There's a difference between a suit and a religiously-mandated article of clothing. Now, I can understand if the religious dictate comes in direct conflict with the job. For instance, I'm vegetarian; I shouldn't expect to be hired as a taste tester for filet mignon when I refuse to taste the meat...However, "trendy" is a pretty loose term and I don't see how a headscarf and "trendy" are mutually exclusive. I saw some pretty trendy women in Dubai wearing headscarves.

[Neutral Gamer]

Now, I can understand if the religious dictate comes in direct conflict with the job.

That's EXACTLY what it does here. She applied for a job at a HAIR salon. Wearing a headscarf which covers up your hairstyle, the very product you're trying to sell to your customers, is a contradiction.

Hairstyles like clothes and fashion in general is all about maintaining an image. That's why clothes shops catered to the young employ people who have to dress with the latest fashions preferably for sale from the shop they're working in: they're walking mannequins. The same concept can be applied to fashionable hair salons: the employees advertise hairstyles. How on earth can you do that when wearing a headscarf which HIDES your hair?

This has NOTHING to do with religion. But the woman selfishly made it so so she could make some money. Hence devaluing the whole concept of religious discrimination for those who truly are discriminated against.

[themadchemist]

That's EXACTLY what it does here. She applied for a job at a HAIR salon. Wearing a headscarf which covers up your hairstyle, the very product you're trying to sell to your customers, is a contradiction.


There's an old story. There are two barbers in town. One has a terrible, terrible haircut; the other's haircut is excellent. To whom do you go for your haircut? The one with a terrible haircut--his hair was cut by the other guy.

Her job would be to cut hair well, not to have some particular kind of haircut. Using that as a basis for not hiring her is preposterous.


Hairstyles like clothes and fashion in general is all about maintaining an image. That's why clothes shops catered to the young employ people who have to dress with the latest fashions preferably for sale from the shop they're working in: they're walking mannequins. The same concept can be applied to fashionable hair salons: the employees advertise hairstyles. How on earth can you do that when wearing a headscarf which HIDES your hair?


The difference is that a clothing shop sells a product whereas a hair salon sells a service. Wearing the clothes of your shop is inextricably tied to the shop, whereas your hair and your ability to cut hair are only indirectly related.

And where do you draw the line on this sort of thing? As I pointed out before, if this were based on race--say a trendy hair salon has a mostly young, white customer base, and wants to hire young, white hairdressers--we would be unanimous in our disgust. Yet we want to contend that religion (particularly when the harm it costs is, at best, a marginal hit to marketing) is discardable? Demanding that people make choices between economic security and religious expression is troubling.


This has NOTHING to do with religion. But the woman selfishly made it so so she could make some money. Hence devaluing the whole concept of religious discrimination for those who truly are discriminated against.

I'm not particularly interested in her motivations, but rather in actual action at hand. What I'm arguing about is whether being denied this job primarily on the basis of wearing a religious headscarf amounts to discrimination. You think it does not; I think it does. That argument exists entirely separate from whether or not the woman in this case has righteous motivations or whether she herself was denied the job on the basis of her headscarf. We disagree fundamentally, in the theoretical, not on the details of the case at hand.

As for her, it does sound like she abused the system by trying to fit herself into a legitimate scenario. While the picture she painted may not be a reflection of her situation, the picture itself is a valid case for discrimination, in my opinion.

[LethalWolfe]

There's a difference between a suit and a religiously-mandated article of clothing.
Unless the suit is the religious clothing (ex. male Hasidic Jew).

However, "trendy" is a pretty loose term and I don't see how a headscarf and "trendy" are mutually exclusive. I saw some pretty trendy women in Dubai wearing headscarves.
Trendy hair salon. Plaintiff wanted to completely cover her hair.

Speaking of the Dubai, do you think it would be difficult for a white western female to get a customer service job requiring constant personal interaction with local clients if she chose to dress in western styles as opposed adopting local clothing customs?


The difference is that a clothing shop sells a product whereas a hair salon sells a service. Wearing the clothes of your shop is inextricably tied to the shop, whereas your hair and your ability to cut hair are only indirectly related.
Your ability to wear clothes and your ability to sell clothes are as about
as related as your ability to "wear" a hair style is to your ability to cut hair. Also, if the hairdressers at the shop do each others hair then every stylist's haircut is a direct reflection of the quality of service the shop can offer. In either case you are walking billboard and a reflection of the image your employer wants to sell to the clients. Do you think Gold's Gym is going to hire a fat dude to work the front desk? Like I said before, there is a difference between being qualified for the job and being the best applicant for the job.

Yes, there is a debatable line (obviously otherwise we wouldn't be here :p) but I don't think this crosses it. I also don't think it's right that the plaintiff got $4k because she got her feelings hurt.


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

whao... double post.

[edesignuk]

Pisses. Me. Off.

[skunk]

Nice work if you can't get it.

[RedTomato]

Poor Sarah Desrosiers (the owner of the salon) - I used have a friend who owned a similar funky alternative salon, and they're wonderful places to be.

She would have done better to ask for a portfolio, and if the portfolio didn't show skills in funky haircuts in the same style that the salon does, then that would be a valid reason for rejection. Making it clear that the reason for rejection was the religious headscarf was a wrong step.

From the article

In its ruling, the tribunal said it was 'satisfied that Bushra was not treated less favourably than Sarah would have treated any woman who, whether Muslim or not, wears a hair covering at all times when at work'.

Accordingly, the claim of direct discrimination failed.

Yup.

But with regard to the issue of indirect discrimination, they found that Sarah had pursued a 'legitimate aim - that aim being to promote the image of the business'.

However, the burden of proof was on Sarah to prove that her means of achieving that legitimate aim was proportionate.

She was not able to prove her contention that employing someone with a headscarf would have the negative impact on her business's stylistic integrity that she feared.

As Sarah says in the article, she expects her staff to use their hair to show the salon's skills - BUT if a bald headed funky guy with tats and piercings (her salon's that kind of place) showed up with amazing haircutting skills, I'm sure she'd hire that guy in a flash. (or even a bald-headed funky gal.)

Therefore, having no hair visible is not a negative impact on her business.

The original claim was for £34,000, which is clearly far too much, but Sarah did not give a valid reason for rejection, (the religious link didn't help, and, it doesn't say in the article, but maybe Sarah didn't even look at the woman's portfolio) hence the £4000 award.

What's worse is the legal fees. As usual, the lawyers (on both sides) are the only ones who win.

[Sesshi]

Looks like bad legal advice resulting in a procedural win. I'd sue the legal team for damages based on incompetence :p

[szark]

So should someone be able to sue Hooters or Tilted Kilt if they weren't hired because they didn't fit into the shorts?

Well, Hooters was successfully sued for discrimination because they wouldn't hire men as waiters.

(Another stupid decision, IMHO)

[Blue Velvet]

Poor Sarah Desrosiers (the owner of the salon)

She cuts my hair. I saw her about five weeks ago. She'll be OK.

[imac/cheese]

The root of this entire discussion boils down to this:

Is an employee of a company also a spokesperson/advertisement for that company?

You can hire a spokesperson based on the image they portray because their image is the "skill" you are actually hiring the person for. In industries where image is important your employees say a lot about your company. When you are trying to sell a service or a product, putting the people with the right image in the position to interact with the public can make a huge difference in the bottom line.

[imac/cheese]

Well, Hooters was successfully sued for discrimination because they wouldn't hire men as waiters.

(Another stupid decision, IMHO)

The problem with Hooters was that they tried to call the women in short shorts and cleavage showing shirts that delivered food to tables simply waitresses. Being someone who waits tables does not require any specific fitness level or gender. In reality, these positions are more like waitresses/showgirls.

[LethalWolfe]

She cuts my hair. I saw her about five weeks ago. She'll be OK.

Gonna tell her she's all the gossip on a Mac computer, internet forum the next time you see her?

[Blue Velvet]

The root of this entire discussion boils down to this:

Is an employee of a company also a spokesperson/advertisement for that company?


Not quite.

The story, as told by the media, is simplified. There were other important issues specifically relating to the practice of her faith that made her unable to carry out parts of the role and these factors were part of the entire case.

Gonna tell her she's all the gossip on a Mac computer, internet forum the next time you see her?


She kinda knows because she's a Mac user. She wants me to fix her iBook and iTunes synching issues.

[Neutral Gamer]

Right, first things first. I've visited the website for Sarah's salon, Wedge (http://www.wedgehair.co.uk/) and read her interview (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1027300/How-I-driven-brink-ruin-refusing-hire-Muslim-hair-stylist-wouldnt-hair.html) today about the effect on her.

And you know what? It's made me wanna go down and get my hair cut down there to show my support and cos it looks like such a cool place. Check out the Gallery (http://www.wedgehair.co.uk/Pages/Gallery.html) section on the site and tell me with a straight face that Bushra Noah would fit in there! Anyone who thinks this whole situation is ridiculous should do the same. Yes, it's all the way in London but I'm gonna be coming down the day before the MacRumors London Picnic (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=484004), so why not kill two birds with one stone hey? :D

The level of intellect the dailymail.co.uk is aimed at is all the evidence you need the world has gone mad.

In all fairness, the Daily Mail and other tabloids (The Sun etc.) do normally "stretch the truth", ahem, and arrange their words very carefully to create the maximum public response. However that's simply not the case for this article. I've read it over thoroughly, it's completely unbiased reporting (for once) and if you compare you'll see it's very similar to the Times and BBC versions of the story.


Her job would be to cut hair well, not to have some particular kind of haircut. Using that as a basis for not hiring her is preposterous.


As Sarah says in the article, she expects her staff to use their hair to show the salon's skills - BUT if a bald headed funky guy with tats and piercings (her salon's that kind of place) showed up with amazing haircutting skills, I'm sure she'd hire that guy in a flash. (or even a bald-headed funky gal.)

Therefore, having no hair visible is not a negative impact on her business.

I'm afraid you're both missing the point on this. This is NOT your typical barber or high street hairdresser. If you check out the salon site Gallery (http://www.wedgehair.co.uk/Pages/Gallery.html) you can see for yourself the image they're going for with their staff and clientale.

Baldness and shaved heads are cool (David Beckham anyone?). Headscarves are not. Is that religious discrimination? No, it's fashion discrimination and last time I looked that wasn't illegal. Yes, fashion tastes change all the time but at the moment conservative looking Muslim styled headscarves just aren't the "in" thing.

In her interview (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1027300/How-I-driven-brink-ruin-refusing-hire-Muslim-hair-stylist-wouldnt-hair.html), Sarah even said:

'It was not a religious matter. If she'd come in wearing a baseball cap and saying she wouldn't take it off for work, then she wouldn't have got the job either.'

Also don't forget that even places like Disneyland had facial hair requirements for their male cast members, i.e. none allowed. And even now I hear they only allow "neatly trimmed moustaches". Would this be discriminatory to Muslims and Sikhs?


Poor Sarah Desrosiers (the owner of the salon) - I used have a friend who owned a similar funky alternative salon, and they're wonderful places to be.


Yep, they are, that's why I'm going down. See you there mate!



What's worse is the legal fees. As usual, the lawyers (on both sides) are the only ones who win.

I definitely agree with you on that one. But having read her interview (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1027300/How-I-driven-brink-ruin-refusing-hire-Muslim-hair-stylist-wouldnt-hair.html) it appears that she just couldn't afford decent enough legal help:

Because I worked, I wasn't entitled to Legal Aid. I thought: "This is it - my business is over." I was devastated.'

Using her savings of £2,000, Sarah employed a lawyer ... but with his fees at £280 an hour, she knew she couldn't afford to fight a satisfactory legal battle. Her parents - her mother is a nurse, and her father is retired - weren't in a position to help her out financially either.



It's amazing how quickly legal services can eat up your money.

The story, as told by the media, is simplified. There were other important issues specifically relating to the practice of her faith that made her unable to carry out parts of the role and these factors were part of the entire case.

She kinda knows because she's a Mac user. She wants me to fix her iBook and iTunes synching issues.

Wow, you actually know her? What a small world. Can you enlighten us more on what the "issues" were that Bushra had relating to her faith? And she's a Mac user? Even more reason for us all to be supporting her!

And finally:

'I kept thinking: "I've worked hard all my life - how can it be possible that someone can come into my shop, talk to me for ten minutes and then sue me for £34,000? How is that possibly fair?".'

It isn't. It just isn't. She's a hard working, tax paying, small business owner who had the misfortune to run into a money grabbing, failed hair stylist. Now if you excuse me I have a London hair appointment to book and possibly my future wife to meet ... :D

[leekohler]

What load of crap. Between this and the Brigitte Bardot thing, I'm not sure what's worse.

[Blue Velvet]

Wow, you actually know her? What a small world. Can you enlighten us more on what the "issues" were that Bushra had relating to her faith? And she's a Mac user? Even more reason for us all to be supporting her!


I know her to the extent that she's washed, cut and coloured my hair a few times — Wedge is right next door to my old office — and that both times we've talked about this case in some detail. And I said the 'practicing' of her faith, not her faith per se. ;)

There were issues about the claimant not being able to be with a man by herself in a room; the basins are downstairs. Other similar factors came into play. And yes. She has two iBooks, one of which is the salon's music library.

Anyway, her costs will be covered. She's being looked after.

[.Andy]

Baldness and shaved heads are cool (David Beckham anyone?). Headscarves are not.
Thanks Trinny and Suzanna. Got any tips on what clothes are 'in' next season?

Anyway, her costs will be covered. She's being looked after.
Let's not overlook the fact that she's also managed to get worldwide advertising for her salon. Business should boom. And as a double-win she's been hard-done-by-muslims. She'll have people coming from all over;

And you know what? It's made me wanna go down and get my hair cut down there to show my support and cos it looks like such a cool place.

[Beric]

A person should have right to hire anyone THEY want. If I were to wish to run a company and hire only white males 20-25 years old who believe in scientology, it's my right, and no one should be able to deny me that right.

Why is this so hard? Don't we have freedom? Or not?

[.Andy]

Why is this so hard? Don't we have freedom? Or not?
Don't we not have freedom?

[Beric]

Don't we not have freedom?

No we don't have freedom, that was my rhetorical question.

[leekohler]

A person should have right to hire anyone THEY want. If I were to wish to run a company and hire only white males 20-25 years old who believe in scientology, it's my right, and no one should be able to deny me that right.

Why is this so hard? Don't we have freedom? Or not?

Wow- I'll let somebody else handle this one. At least your honest. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

A person should have right to hire anyone THEY want. If I were to wish to run a company and hire only white males 20-25 years old who believe in scientology, it's my right, and no one should be able to deny me that right.

Why is this so hard? Don't we have freedom? Or not?You have no right to shut every black female buddhist over 30 out of their employment prospects just because you are a prejudiced bigot. Why is that so hard?

[Beric]

You have no right to shut every black female buddhist over 30 out of their employment prospects just because you are a prejudiced bigot. Why is that so hard?

Actually I'm suggesting I have the right to hire anyone I please. I don't have the right to insult or hurt anyone I choose not to hire (nor would I want to), but I should have the right to hire anyone I choose. Those who didn't like my policies wouldn't need apply.

[LethalWolfe]

Actually I'm suggesting I have the right to hire anyone I please. I don't have the right to insult or hurt anyone I choose not to hire (nor would I want to), but I should have the right to hire anyone I choose. Those who didn't like my policies wouldn't need apply.
Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html)



Lethal

[skunk]

Actually I'm suggesting I have the right to hire anyone I please. I don't have the right to insult or hurt anyone I choose not to hire (nor would I want to), but I should have the right to hire anyone I choose. Those who didn't like my policies wouldn't need apply.In order to give everyone who is suitably qualified a shot at every suitable employment opportunity, employers are required not to discriminate on the basis of gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, skin colour or race. If you were an unemployed black woman and your only chance of gainful employment in your town was with a company run by someone with your supposed predilections, would you think it was fair?

[leekohler]

Actually I'm suggesting I have the right to hire anyone I please. I don't have the right to insult or hurt anyone I choose not to hire (nor would I want to), but I should have the right to hire anyone I choose. Those who didn't like my policies wouldn't need apply.

No- you don't and shouldn't have that right. If it's not obvious to you why, I don't think anything we can say is going to help.

[Beric]

I'm actually suggesting the federal laws are incorrect. I'm not saying they're not "fair", but I think the right to hire anyone I want is obvious. Again, I'm not the person to discriminate against anyone, but I'm suggesting I should be able to make the decision myself, instead of having laws and regulations. I should be able to pick who I think is the most qualified for the job. I shouldn't have regulations requiring me do do anything other than pick who I believe is qualified. And if they feel they should have been hired, but weren't, they should apply somewhere else. I'm not a discriminating person. But the current laws would actually require me to discriminate against someone more qualified because they're not the right skin color or something similar.

[leekohler]

I'm actually suggesting the federal laws are incorrect. I'm not saying they're not "fair", but I think the right to hire anyone I want is obvious. Again, I'm not the person to discriminate against anyone, but I'm suggesting I should be able to make the decision myself, instead of having laws and regulations. I should be able to pick who I think is the most qualified for the job. I shouldn't have regulations requiring me do do anything other than pick who I believe is qualified. And if they feel they should have been hired, but weren't, they should apply somewhere else. I'm not a discriminating person. But the current laws would actually require me to discriminate against someone more qualified because they're not the right skin color or something similar.

What? As far as I know, there are no quotas in place. Your post makes no sense.

[skunk]

I should be able to pick who I think is the most qualified for the job. I shouldn't have regulations requiring me do do anything other than pick who I believe is qualified. And if they feel they should have been hired, but weren't, they should apply somewhere else. I'm not a discriminating person. But the current laws would actually require me to discriminate against someone more qualified because they're not the right skin color or something similar.You are able to pick whoever is most qualified, but you are not allowed to include skin colour, age, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, which in most cases are totally irrelevant, as qualifications for employment. If you do not believe in the concept of equal opportunities for all, perhaps it is you who should find another place to live or run your business.

[Beric]

You are able to pick whoever is most qualified, but you are not allowed to include skin colour, age, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, which in most cases are totally irrelevant, as qualifications for employment. If you do not believe in the concept of equal opportunities for all, perhaps it is you who should find another place to live or run your business.

That was my point. Those things ARE irrelevant. And yet the current laws require a certain "quota" of different races, and my newspaper is constantly at businesses when they appear not to meet those quotas.

[skunk]

That was my point. Those things ARE irrelevant. And yet the current laws require a certain "quota" of different races, and my newspaper is constantly at businesses when they appear not to meet those quotas.Please post a link to these "quotas".

[leekohler]

That was my point. Those things ARE irrelevant. And yet the current laws require a certain "quota" of different races, and my newspaper is constantly at businesses when they appear not to meet those quotas.

Umm...really? I've been alive for over 41 years now and have never heard of such a thing.

[naftalim]

The court found that she was not discriminated agains. The 4000 is for her "hurt feelings" The owner of the Salon, who seems to have worked really hard to build her business also had to pay legal fees which nearly bankrupted her.

I can see it now, people with Muslim headscarves appplying for any old job and if they don't get it, boom, sue! Then you get 4000 lbs. You do these once a month, and you don't have to work

[LethalWolfe]

I'm actually suggesting the federal laws are incorrect. I'm not saying they're not "fair", but I think the right to hire anyone I want is obvious. Again, I'm not the person to discriminate against anyone, but I'm suggesting I should be able to make the decision myself, instead of having laws and regulations. I should be able to pick who I think is the most qualified for the job. I shouldn't have regulations requiring me do do anything other than pick who I believe is qualified. And if they feel they should have been hired, but weren't, they should apply somewhere else. I'm not a discriminating person. But the current laws would actually require me to discriminate against someone more qualified because they're not the right skin color or something similar.
Unfortunately there are people that do discriminate based on factors like race or gender and that is the reason for the laws. I think your energy would be better spent speaking out against the bigots that are the cause of the problem as opposed to elected officials that are trying to offer a solution (even if it is an imperfect one).


Lethal

[.Andy]

I can see it now, people with Muslim headscarves appplying for any old job and if they don't get it, boom, sue! Then you get 4000 lbs. You do these once a month, and you don't have to work
That's impressive weight gain.

[iJohnHenry]

No we don't have freedom, that was my rhetorical question.

Ah, but yes we do.

We have the freedom to spend our hard-earned shekels wherever we wish.

And that is the only freedom we have these days.

[mactastic]

A person should have right to hire anyone THEY want. If I were to wish to run a company and hire only white males 20-25 years old who believe in scientology, it's my right, and no one should be able to deny me that right.

Why is this so hard? Don't we have freedom? Or not?
Should a person also have the freedom to use as much energy as they see fit to pay for? Don't we have freedom? Or not?

[iJohnHenry]

AH, but now you broach the haves vs. the have-nots.

If you can pay, so be it.

If you can't, well hard work might pay dividends for you.

[Neutral Gamer]

That was my point. Those things ARE irrelevant. And yet the current laws require a certain "quota" of different races, and my newspaper is constantly at businesses when they appear not to meet those quotas.

I think you're talking about POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION, right? I'm with you, it's a ridiculous, oxymoronic concept. Whether it be universities having to accept a certain number of non-private (state) school students or government organisations having a quota of workers from ethnic minorities.

People should be given jobs / places dependent on how suitable they are for the role and how they fit in. Not on some arbitary government imposed targets based quota system. No one wants to ask themselves whether they were given an opportunity because they were used to fill up a specified allotment rather than being right for the position.

I've had ethnic minority and international friends at university who gave up such invites for special internships and courses because they wanted to achieve them on their own merits and prove they earned it fair and square like everyone else. And fair play to them. :)


Let's not overlook the fact that she's also managed to get worldwide advertising for her salon. Business should boom. And as a double-win she's been hard-done-by-muslims. She'll have people coming from all over;

Sheesh. How cynical are you? Yeah, she should be really happy that a tribunal ruled against her over indirect discrimination and she had the worry of a potential £34,000 compensation claim hovering over her head for months forcing her not to conentrate fully on her business. :rolleyes:

Thanks Trinny and Suzanna. Got any tips on what clothes are 'in' next season?

Firstly, I always appreciate saracasm and the activities of mock and jest, so good on you. :) BUT I can call your bluff on this one as I'd love to see a Men's Fashion Thread especially after reading the discussion here. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5295388) Maybe I should set one up, then you can have all the fashion tips you'd ever want, sounds like you could do with some ... ;)

Secondly, it doesn't take a fashionista to see which is the odd one out in the following pics. How can anyone argue with this? Bushra simply doesn't fit in with the style of the business, workers and customers of the salon. End of.

[Gray-Wolf]

Umm...really? I've been alive for over 41 years now and have never heard of such a thin

Quota's have been around the south for years. City governments most to have the mix of race and so forth. Jesse Jackson was behind a lot of it, to the point of boycotting business that didn't comply.

Operation PUSH
Though often overshadowed by its founder, Jesse Jackson, Operation PUSH (People United to Serve Humanity) has been one of the most important social justice organizations in the United States since 1971.

The roots of Operation PUSH stretch back into the headiest years of the civil rights movement. When the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) targeted Chicago in 1965, Jesse Jackson helped formally organize Chicago ministers to promote more employment opportunities for local African Americans. Operation Breadbasket enjoyed early success, and by the end of the 1960s it was the leading civil rights group in Chicago.

In 1971, Jackson broke with SCLC, and Operation Breadbasket became Operation PUSH. Despite precarious finances, Operation PUSH was active. It held rousing weekly meetings at its Hyde Park headquarters to energize its supporters, which included both black and white Chicagoans. It pressured major companies to hire more African Americans and to extend business ties with the black community. And in 1976 it launched PUSH-Excel, a program designed to inspire inner-city teenagers across the country to work hard and to stay out of trouble.

Operation PUSH's fortunes have fluctuated since 1980. Though stalwart PUSH leaders like the Reverend Willie Barrow supervised its activities from its South Side headquarters, Operation PUSH declined during the 1980s with Jackson's pursuit of the presidency. In the mid-1990s, Jackson directed the merger of PUSH with the National Rainbow Coalition, a political organization he had founded a decade earlier, to form the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. This new combination revived the traditional PUSH economic emphasis by launching “The Wall Street Project,” a initiative that encourages leading financial firms and Fortune 500 companies to increase their minority hiring and inner-city investment.

[Blue Velvet]

You do these once a month, and you don't have to work

Not quite that easy. You have to file a claim with an employment tribunal, which has to be accepted, then you have at least a couple of months of legal wrangling before it even gets to tribunal stage. Then you have a few days in court with everything that that entails, and in this case also with the additional media interest. This £4000 will probably not cover the claimant's costs; they thought they could be in for a big win but the tribunal, cautious about setting precedent and with no evidence of direct religious discrimination, tossed that part of the claim out.

So, it's not a matter of doing this lightly.

[Dagless]

That was my point. Those things ARE irrelevant. And yet the current laws require a certain "quota" of different races, and my newspaper is constantly at businesses when they appear not to meet those quotas.

The quota's are wrong in many situations. I've mentioned before but my pops had to interview people for his course, which was about running giant newspaper presses. Multistory ones with ladders, thin steep steps, walkways etc. His college told him he needed a certain quota of disabled people applying so he basically axed a few fully abled people who wanted the job to make room.
Which is daft. These machines don't have wheelchair access and they're extremely dangerous.
Incidentally none of the disabled students got jobs on these machines making it pretty much a waste of time for everyone involved.

Anyway, her costs will be covered. She's being looked after.

This is very good to hear.

[theBB]

Discriminated? How, exactly? She wasn't discriminated because of her religion or her race, the reason was the clothes she wore. Hell, if I started wearing ragged jeans and dirty T-shirt to work, and were eventually fired, could I sue because I was "discriminated against"? Hell no!
Does your religion prescribe you to wear ragged jeans? I doubt it...


AFAIK no one is saying she can't be a professional haircutter because she wears a scarf. Although maybe she isn't very good at cutting hair 'cause, according to the article, she applied for a number jobs but didn't get hired for any of them and eventually moved into the tourism industry. Only then did she come back and file changes against the shop owner.

Ah, so when black people were refused employment by all the racist employers down South in the fifties or sixties, it was not because the racism was rampant, it was because they were not qualified.
Got that, thanks...

To be honest, I am not sure how much employers or governments are supposed to accommodate religion, but trying to act like this does not have anything to do with religion is dishonest.

[.Andy]

Does your religion prescribe you to wear ragged jeans? I doubt it...
Bad religion does.

[theBB]

Bad religion does.
Come on, those jeans are not ragged... :)

[Blue Velvet]

... trying to act like this does not have anything to do with religion is dishonest.

It's interesting on how you can be so sure.

[LethalWolfe]

Ah, so when black people were refused employment by all the racist employers down South in the fifties or sixties, it was not because the racism was rampant, it was because they were not qualified.
Got that, thanks...
Not a parallel situation but thanks for playing anyway.


Lethal

[tjcampbell]

This is as silly as that guy that tried to sue hooters cus they didn't let him work their (as a waitress). It's total BS that this woman won her case.

[Blue Velvet]

It's total BS that this woman won her case.

She did not win her case.

[.Andy]

This is as silly as that guy that tried to sue hooters cus they didn't let him work their (as a waitress). It's total BS that this woman won her case.
This post is pure poetry ;). I love everything about it :).

[theBB]

Not a parallel situation but thanks for playing anyway.
Why not? According to your post, more than one employer's refusal to hire is proof enough that a person is not qualified. I say that can indicate rampant discrimination as well. Of course, she could be under-qualified, but a couple refusals do not prove anything.

Just take a look at all the comments on this board. People keep claiming that customers would not feel comfortable getting a haircut from a person whose hair is not visible. That means employers need to accommodate the prejudices of their customers. Isn't that similar to the exemption restaurants in South asked for when anti-discrimination laws were being discussed? They stated that a lot of eateries would lose customers if they hire black waiters or serve black patrons, so they asked for an exemption for an establishment if the "customers" are racist. Of course, that would make it the one loophole that eats up the whole law, so it was rejected.

[RedTomato]

I've been on both sides of this situation. As someone who has set up a company, I know there's thousands of bum-numbing regs to go through, and I wish there were fewer. As someone who is 'disabled' myself, I see the point of some of these regs. Without them, I'd have never gone to university, or got my present job.

Let me tell you a little story. I have a friend, a deaf friend, who signs, and can't speak very well. His employment prospects aren't good. He got onto a graphic design course, despite being told that he couldn't have a career as a graphic designer. (Because he couldn't interact and discuss briefs with clients).

After the course, he couldn't get a job straight away, cos there's still a lot of discrimination out there. After a couple of years, he managed to get an entry graphic design position with a large organisation, thanks in part to the anti-discrimination laws.

Over the years, he worked his way up, and became their lead graphic designer. By now, the company was a £50 million pound organisation, one of the largest of their type in Europe. ($100m / year budget) They recently had a major branding makeover, which he led - he designed their new logo and corporate identity.

After that, he left, and set up his own design company, and is now heavily involved in the bidding process for the design elements of the 2012 London Olympics.

Not bad for a deaf guy who struggled to get a job interview and almost couldn't get into the design course because of his disability.

my pops had to interview people for his course, which was about running giant newspaper presses. Multistory ones with ladders, thin steep steps, walkways etc. His college told him he needed a certain quota of disabled people applying so he basically axed a few fully abled people who wanted the job to make room.
Which is daft. These machines don't have wheelchair access and they're extremely dangerous.
Incidentally none of the disabled students got jobs on these machines making it pretty much a waste of time for everyone involved.


Disablity doesn't mean wheelchairs. It could be deaf, one armed, invisible disablity, etc etc. Someone could have one of these disablities and still be perfectly capable of running a large press. Also how do you know none of them got a job in the sector? It could be after losing contact with your father's college. Research shows it takes longer for disabled people to find jobs as there are more obstacles to be overcome.

Did all the 'non-disabled' people from the course immediately get jobs on the presses? Every year? If not, then why expect disabled to accomplish the same?

There were issues about the claimant not being able to be with a man by herself in a room; the basins are downstairs. Other similar factors came into play.

Hmm. Sarah was digging herself into a pretty deep hole with this. It's pretty clear that this was tending towards discrimination on religious issues. The laws do state that 'reasonable adjustments' must be made by employers.

Just what that means is completely open to debate :( but if Sarah was completely determined to hire this woman, then she could have put a washbasin upstairs, or assigned hairwashing to a diferent member of staff, or accepted that this lady would only wash women's hair etc etc bla bla.

I am sympathetic to Sarah - she got caught out by not knowing the specific law on discrimination. But the laws do state that if you are in a position to be hiring and firing people, then with that power comes a responsibility to do it properly. The decisions you make on hiring carry the power to completely change the course of people's lives.

I've been through interviews where I felt it was biased against me. I've also sat on hiring panels making the final decision on which applicant to employ, and both ways, it's hell.

[Evangelion]

Does your religion prescribe you to wear ragged jeans? I doubt it...

If my religion mandates that I should do things that are unacceptable to my employer, would my employer still be required to have me as their employee? If my religion said that I shouldn't handle technology, would my employer still pey me for my work as an IT specialist? If my religion told me that I should treat women with contempt, should I still get to keep my job? If my religion told me that I must cover myself with ***** and wear no clothes to work, should I be allowed to keep my job? Should this owner of a trendy hairdresser hire a woman who

a) totally cover her hair with a scarf
b) refuses to be alone in a room with a man
c) wears very conservative clothes

A, B and C might be mandated by her religion, but they also make it impossible for her to do the job she was applying for. If her religion forces her to do things that make it very hard for her to get a job, it's her problem, not the employers problem.

To be honest, I am not sure how much employers or governments are supposed to accommodate religion, but trying to act like this does not have anything to do with religion is dishonest.

What you have inveted here is a perfect money-making scheme. Muslims could look for jobs in slaughterhouses that specialize in pigs, and when they don't get the job because they refuse to handle pork, they could sue because "they are facing religious discrimination"....

[Blue Velvet]

...she could have put a washbasin upstairs, or assigned hairwashing to a diferent member of staff, or accepted that this lady would only wash women's hair etc etc bla bla.

1. No room upstairs.
2. No other member of staff
3. Why employ someone who can't do the whole job? You employ people to do the work that you don't have time or inclination to do. Hairwashing is for juniors.

[Dagless]

Disablity doesn't mean wheelchairs. It could be deaf, one armed, invisible disablity, etc etc. Someone could have one of these disablities and still be perfectly capable of running a large press. Also how do you know none of them got a job in the sector? It could be after losing contact with your father's college. Research shows it takes longer for disabled people to find jobs as there are more obstacles to be overcome.

At my pops college if you're disabled then that's what you're labelled as with a tickbox. There are further details which come into play later but so long as you get that first tick then get put into the situation I mentioned. Last year he interviewed people who were clearly not able to scale these giant press machines and operate them without harming themselves.
To be honest though it's entirely the college at fault and their potentially extreme application of the Race and Disability quotas. One disabled lad even went so far as to call it a farce too (though he wanted to work more in design than printing).

Did all the 'non-disabled' people from the course immediately get jobs on the presses? Every year? If not, then why expect disabled to accomplish the same?

Last year yes, everyone who passed went on to get jobs in what they studied. The college checks on past students (my uni does the same) to see if they have jobs yet, saying yes leads you into a questionnaire on how the course helped, saying no makes them ring back in 6 months so there's no right answer :p

[LethalWolfe]

Why not? According to your post, more than one employer's refusal to hire is proof enough that a person is not qualified.
Jump to conclusions much? According to my post I said maybe she's not good at cutting hair because she failed to get hired by any of the other salons she interviewed at before switching career paths.
I say that can indicate rampant discrimination as well.
You can, but I don't see how you could make it a valid argument w/o knowing about all the other places she applied to. Maybe she applied, and got turned down, by a salon run by a Muslim that catered to Muslim women. We don't know.

Of course, she could be under-qualified, but a couple refusals do not prove anything.
I assume a couple of refusals doesn't prove rampant discrimination as well, right?

Just take a look at all the comments on this board. People keep claiming that customers would not feel comfortable getting a haircut from a person whose hair is not visible. That means employers need to accommodate the prejudices of their customers. Isn't that similar to the exemption restaurants in South asked for when anti-discrimination laws were being discussed? They stated that a lot of eateries would lose customers if they hire black waiters or serve black patrons, so they asked for an exemption for an establishment if the "customers" are racist. Of course, that would make it the one loophole that eats up the whole law, so it was rejected.
But the woman not getting hired by the salon doesn't have to do w/prejudice. For example, a white, Christian women who insisted on covering her head w/a scarf wouldn't have gotten the job either. Also, a muslim woman can choose to stop wearing a head scarf. A black person cannot choose to stop being black. As I, and others, have tried to point out there is a difference between not getting a job simply because of your religious affiliation and not getting a job because some aspect(s) of your religion that you choose to live by keep you from fulling the required duties of the job. Obviously a gray area exists, but there is a difference between, "I didn't hire him because he was a Jew" and, "I didn't hire him because I run a non-kosher butcher shop and he is strictly kosher."


Lethal

[RedTomato]

To be honest though it's entirely the college at fault and their potentially extreme application of the Race and Disability quotas. One disabled lad even went so far as to call it a farce too (though he wanted to work more in design than printing).
Sensible laws are one thing. Sensible laws applied idiotically are another thing.
Last year yes, everyone who passed went on to get jobs in what they studied.
(my bold) So some non-disabled people didn't pass the course? On that basis, should all non-disabled people be excluded from the course too? Of course not. You give people a chance to prove their worth. Like I said, many disabled people are perfectly capable of operating big complex dangerous machines.
hire a woman who

a) totally cover her hair with a scarf
b) refuses to be alone in a room with a man
c) wears very conservative clothes

A, B and C might be mandated by her religion, but they also make it impossible for her to do the job Difficult, yes, but not impossible, which is my point. The deaf bloke I mentioned above, he costs a fortune in interpreters, but he's worth it to the company cos of his skills. What you have inveted here is a perfect money-making scheme. Muslims could look for jobs in slaughterhouses that specialize in pigs, and when they don't get the job because they refuse to handle pork, they could sue because "they are facing religious discrimination"....
If I ran a pig slaughterhouse, and a Muslim applied, I'd say: Show me proof of your training in slaughtering pigs. Show me your certificates. Cut up a pig here and show me your skills. On that basis, I could make a legal decision on whether to hire him or not.

Nothing to do with wearing a headscarf or being Muslim. Just work related skills.

If I wanted someone to model funky clothes as well as cut hair, then I'd put modelling in the work description in the job centre advert, so that the applicant was aware of it up front. Refusing someone on the basis of something that is not in the job description is dangerous ground.

[Neutral Gamer]

If I ran a pig slaughterhouse, and a Muslim applied, I'd say: Cut up a pig here and show me your skills. On that basis, I could make a legal decision on whether to hire him or not.


SCENARIO ONE

If I ran a hair salon, and a Muslim woman applied, I'd say: There's a couple of guys waiting to have their hair cut downstairs, show me what you can do with their hair, I've got paperwork to do so I'll come down in 15 minutes and see how you're getting on.

What's that you're saying? You want me to come with you? You can't work downstairs by yourself? I have to hang around with you all day?

Hmmmm. "Next applicant please ... !"


SCENARIO TWO

If I ran a hair salon, and a Muslim woman applied, I'd say: Right, you can start straight away. First things first, I've got a great deal on this special glossy hair dye, we're offering it half price all week. Now if you could just go and put some on your hair so we can advertise it to our customers and show them how cool it looks ...

What's that you're saying? You can't take your headscarf off? You can't let people see your hair? You do realise this is a HAIR salon, right?

Hmmmm. "Next applicant please ... !"


SCENARIO THREE

If I ran a hair salon, and a Muslim woman applied, I'd say: Now what about lunch? We're pretty busy throughout the day so all the staff have to eat in the salon when they get a spare moment. So don't mind the pork sausage rolls and ham sandwiches laid out. I let some of the girls have a couple alcholic drinks during Friday and Saturday afternoons as we all go out together afterwards anyway and talk about which men we're gonna bed.

What's that you're saying? You can't be in the same room as those people eating non-Halal meat*, those drinking alcohol* and don't like people talking about sex?

Hmmmm. "Next applicant please ...!"


*This isn't made up. One of my Muslim friends said that if we all lived together in a house that I wouldn't be allowed to eat non-Halal meat, drink alcohol in the lounge or bet on football matches on TV. What exactly would I do then?! :D

[RedTomato]

SCENARIO ONE

If I ran a hair salon, and a Muslim woman applied, I'd say: There's a couple of guys waiting to have their hair cut downstairs, show me what you can do with their hair, I've got paperwork to do so I'll come down in 15 minutes and see how you're getting on.

What's that you're saying? You want me to come with you? You can't work downstairs by yourself? I have to hang around with you all day?

Hmmmm. "Next applicant please ... !"
I dunno. I'm not an employment lawyer! You'd probably be able to do this as you seem to be hiring for a small shop and there's fewer rules on small shops. Avoid being mentioning religion, and put in the job description that the applicant is expected to work on their own with a mixed clientèle , and you'd probably be fine.

SCENARIO TWO

If I ran a hair salon, and a Muslim woman applied, I'd say: Right, you can start straight away. First things first, I've got a great deal on this special glossy hair dye, we're offering it half price all week. Now if you could just go and put some on your hair so we can advertise it to our customers and show them how cool it looks ...

What's that you're saying? You can't take your headscarf off? You can't let people see your hair? You do realise this is a HAIR salon, right?

Hmmmm. "Next applicant please ... !"

Fail. Definitely not job related. I'm not muslim, but if my boss told me to put their special gunk on my hair, I'd tell them to piss off. Unless it says in the job description that the job also involves modelling the company's products. Starting to see a theme here?


SCENARIO THREE

If I ran a hair salon, and a Muslim woman applied, I'd say: Now what about lunch? We're pretty busy throughout the day so all the staff have to eat in the salon when they get a spare moment. So don't mind the pork sausage rolls and ham sandwiches laid out. I let some of the girls have a couple alcholic drinks during Friday and Saturday afternoons as we all go out together afterwards anyway and talk about which men we're gonna bed.

What's that you're saying? You can't be in the same room as those people eating non-Halal meat*, those drinking alcohol* and don't like people talking about sex?

Hmmmm. "Next applicant please ...!"


Fail. Non-job related. Providing non-pork sandwiches or letting someone bring their own food is certainly a trival 'reasonable adjustment'. Whether some of your other staff drink or not is irrelevant to the job at hand.

Mentioning sex in a job interview would open you to sexual harassment charges, even if the applicant wasn't a Muslim. Come on, would you really discuss sexual chat in a job interview? (for a job unrelated to sexual issues)

I'm no expert on Muslims, and I don't speak for all different varieties (like Christian groups, there's infinitely many) but the ones I know have no problem with what other people bring for lunch in an open job environment, and also being in the same room as someone having a quick drink isn't a problem. Not going into a pub or bar is the main thing. Lots of Muslims eat at restaurants that serve wine. (Some might refuse, and so would some Christians.)

*This isn't made up. One of my Muslim friends said that if we all lived together in a house that I wouldn't be allowed to eat non-Halal meat, drink alcohol in the lounge or bet on football matches on TV. What exactly would I do then?! :D[/SIZE]

Depends on who's the owner of the house - home rules are different from work rules :rolleyes: Live in your mums house, follow your mum's rules or get out. :cool:

[iJohnHenry]

Dragging the disabled into this thread is a red herring in my opinion. You cannot repeal the law of Reality by legislation.

I know a blind girl (grand-mother actually) that is with a major bank, in an high management position. She was stricken well into her career, just 8 years ago, but she is one hell of a girl, and fought hard to retain her position.

Not unlike that deaf person described above, though not as lucrative. ;)

[themadchemist]

SCENARIO ONE
SCENARIO TWO
SCENARIO THREE


What an incredibly hateful post...

[iJohnHenry]

That might be true, but only in the accuracy, unless you put the shoe on the other foot.

What would happen in Islamabad, or wherever, if some woman from England were to have the audacity to apply for a job cutting hair there???

[iShater]

What an incredibly hateful post...

and ignorant of employment regulations/laws, and even Muslims.

[skunk]

That might be true, but only in the accuracy, unless you put the shoe on the other foot.

What would happen in Islamabad, or wherever, if some woman from England were to have the audacity to apply for a job cutting hair there???If we are going to judge ourselves by comparison with "Islamabad" as a stereotype, perhaps you should bear in mind that there are many British Muslim women who would have no trouble cutting hair in Pakistan.

[iJohnHenry]

Nice dodge, but what of Christian women??

[iShater]

Nice dodge, but what of Christian women??

I am sure they are fully capable of cutting hair as well.

[iJohnHenry]

I am sure they are fully capable of cutting hair as well.

But if they are Gay, they cannot see their client's hair. :p

[skunk]

Nice dodge, but what of Christian women??No dodge, just a reminder that your generalisation was not apropos, and we would probably not be well-advised to judge our employment standards by reference to Pakistan. I expect there are a few Christian haidressers in there anyway, but I fail to see the relevance.

[themadchemist]

That might be true, but only in the accuracy, unless you put the shoe on the other foot.

What would happen in Islamabad, or wherever, if some woman from England were to have the audacity to apply for a job cutting hair there???


And I see this thread is going to be a race to the bottom. If the collective Stockholm Syndrome so successfully established by the British in the rest of South Asia is any standard, she would be welcomed with open arms...:rolleyes:

However, I do hope we won't settle to compare the standard for religious freedom with a relatively secular Muslim country like Pakistan. Really, the British should behave like the Iranians or the Saudis, don't you think? Brutally repressing minorities ought to be an aspiration of every good democracy. Ugh.

[Evangelion]

If I ran a pig slaughterhouse, and a Muslim applied, I'd say: Show me proof of your training in slaughtering pigs. Show me your certificates. Cut up a pig here and show me your skills. On that basis, I could make a legal decision on whether to hire him or not.

And when the muslim appkying for the job says that he can't handle pork, because of his religion, would you hire him? No. And five minutes later you would get sued for "religious discrimination".

Nothing to do with wearing a headscarf or being Muslim. Just work related skills.

And the headscarf was not suitable clothing for the hairdresser. And her other limitations (not being allowed to be in a same room with a man) would have made it impossible for her to do the job.

Difficult, yes, but not impossible, which is my point.

So why exactly should she get a job, as opposed to someone who does not have those limitations?

If I wanted someone to model funky clothes as well as cut hair, then I'd put modelling in the work description in the job centre advert, so that the applicant was aware of it up front. Refusing someone on the basis of something that is not in the job description is dangerous ground.

I can see it now:

"Cashier for supermarket wanted. The applicant must wear clothes all the time, issued by the store. The applicant must not cover his/her body with manure. The applicant must bathe daily. The Applicant must be able to see, hear and speak. the applicant must not have a grotesque parasitic twin hanging from his face...".

And even then someone could sue because "The wanted-ad talked about covering your body with manure! This is not manure, it's guano! I'm going to sue!".

[tjcampbell]

She did not win her case.

Um yeah, they gave her £4000 if that's now winning then I don't know what is.

"they did find that she had been badly upset by the 15-minute interview and awarded Mrs Noah £4,000 damages for "injury to feelings"."

[Blue Velvet]

Um yeah, they gave her £4000 if that's now winning then I don't know what is.

"they did find that she had been badly upset by the 15-minute interview and awarded Mrs Noah £4,000 damages for "injury to feelings"."


The initial charge was dismissed and knowing what I do know about the case, and where the burden of costs will eventually fall, I would say that this is a draw, a stalemate where the tribunal was also cautious of setting precedent.

Note that Sarah DesRosiers is not appealing against this judgement.

[Neutral Gamer]

What an incredibly hateful post...

and ignorant of employment regulations/laws, and even Muslims.

I dunno. I'm not an employment lawyer! ...

themadchemist and iShater please could both of you read the responses I gave to RedTomato's comments below. If you read them you'll hopefully see how you've misinterpreted my points. themadchemist it was NEVER my intention to write a "hateful post" and I am surprised and shocked that you think I have done. The same goes for your accusations, iShater, of me being "ignorant of employment regulations ... and Muslims".

As offence was not my aim, I would at least expect some kind of explanation and reasoning as to how you reached such alarming views regarding my post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5650682&postcount=92). Please, could both of you justify your attacks.

RedTomato was able to reply to me in a jovial and engaging way whereas both of you appear to have "flipped me off" with one sentence posts. In fact, although I normally disagree with what RedTomato and themadchemist have said in this thread, I respect the way they say it, how they provide sound arguments and don't resort to fanboyish behaviour. :)

Which is why I find themadchemist's response so puzzling in this case. :confused:

I heartily believe there was nothing to argue about or get confused over with "SCENARIO ONE" in my original post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5650682&postcount=92) and with that and the above points in mind, let me reply to the rest of RedTomato's quotes:


Fail. Definitely not job related. I'm not muslim, but if my boss told me to put their special gunk on my hair, I'd tell them to piss off. Unless it says in the job description that the job also involves modelling the company's products.


If I told an employee one day that I needed some letters typing because my secretary was busy and they said: "But that's not in my job description! I'm only supposed to write Business Analysis reports and work in Excel. Piss off." I'd tell THEM to "piss off" as well and fire them. I'm your employer, I give you orders, you do what I tell you.

Ditto if I wanted someone them to clear up some food on the floor. Let's say that someone had anonymously dropped it and the cleaners weren't gonna be in until 6pm. If they said: "But cleaning's beneath me and besides I don't want to get my hands or nails dirty. Screw off." No, you "screw off". Goodbye job contract.


Fail. Non-job related. Providing non-pork sandwiches or letting someone bring their own food is certainly a trival 'reasonable adjustment'.


I didn't say I had a problem with Muslims bringing their own food in. The point I was making was if the worker refused to work in a room that had non-Halal meat or alcohol in it and prevented other workers from eating THEIR food. Not all Muslims have this issue, but SOME do and if they did would it be religious discrimination me not giving them the job? If the salon is busy and workers are used to eating their food when they get the chance while still working then why should religion, a LIFESTYLE CHOICE after all, be able to change this. Why should it be able to dictate how effectively and efficiently a business is run and negatively affect other workers?


Mentioning sex in a job interview would open you to sexual harassment charges, even if the applicant wasn't a Muslim. Come on, would you really discuss sexual chat in a job interview? (for a job unrelated to sexual issues)


You seem to have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that I'd warn the applicant that their fellow workers (and me the employer) in their job environment are open to speaking freely about subjects such as sex, gambling and alcohol. If they find they may be offended by this then this job would not be suitable for them.


I'm no expert on Muslims, and I don't speak for all different varieties (like Christian groups, there's infinitely many) but the ones I know have no problem with what other people bring for lunch in an open job environment, and also being in the same room as someone having a quick drink isn't a problem. Not going into a pub or bar is the main thing. Lots of Muslims eat at restaurants that serve wine. (Some might refuse, and so would some Christians.)


I agree. There are MANY people of faith who can live in harmony with those of others faiths / no faiths in the work environment. But I was talking about the hypothetical situation of those potential workers who DO have a problem with it. Most don't hence why there are so many Muslim run Indian restaurants that serve alcohol in this country for example.


Depends on who's the owner of the house - home rules are different from work rules :rolleyes: Live in your mums house, follow your mum's rules or get out. :cool:

Woah, looks like you've met my Mum then - that's not someone you want to argue with ... :D

The house I was talking about was going to be rented by four of us (close friends) with each of us paying EQUAL rent. I thought it was pretty unacceptable that one of my best friends for years wouldn't allow me to drink alcohol, gamble or eat non-Halal meat in the lounge. Hence the house idea fell through.

:cool: Whether anyone's opinions of my post have changed or not after reading this, I stand by what I said and will continue to do so as I believe there was nothing wrong with it and that it was a legitimate and well meaning post. :cool:

[themadchemist]

themadchemist and iShater please could both of you read the responses I gave to RedTomato's comments below. If you read them you'll hopefully see how you've misinterpreted my points. themadchemist it was NEVER my intention to write a "hateful post" and I am surprised and shocked that you think I have done. The same goes for your accusations, iShater, of me being "ignorant of employment regulations ... and Muslims".

As offence was not my aim, I would at least expect some kind of explanation and reasoning as to how you reached such alarming views regarding my post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5650682&postcount=92). Please, could both of you justify your attacks.


I appreciate that you didn't intend offense, but I've gotta say, your post really ticked me off. You had these simplistic scenarios in which you lampooned some aspect of Muslim lifestyle and then claimed it as grounds for firing someone, in a pretty obnoxious way. The tone was as if each scenario was set up for some sort of "Gotcha!" Like, "Here, let me lay out a scenario that might throw a wrench in the hiring of an orthodox Muslim...Gotcha!" And that really troubled me. It felt to me like a pretty narrow-minded and bitter caricature of a culture and it just plain rubbed me the wrong way.


In fact, although I normally disagree with what RedTomato and themadchemist have said in this thread, I respect the way they say it, how they provide sound arguments and don't resort to fanboyish behaviour. :)

Which is why I find themadchemist's response so puzzling in this case. :confused:


Thanks for the kind words. When you've provided arguments and not rested on mere rhetoric and hyperbole, I've replied thoughtfully. I had little other response to your post but to say that it was "hateful." I'm sure that the tone and words of the post don't accurately reflect your actual views, but let me just say that from where I'm standing, they don't come off too well.


I heartily believe there was nothing to argue about or get confused over with "SCENARIO ONE" in my original post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5650682&postcount=92)


It's all about tone, man.


If I told an employee one day that I needed some letters typing because my secretary was busy and they said: "But that's not in my job description! I'm only supposed to write Business Analysis reports and work in Excel. Piss off." I'd tell THEM to "piss off" as well and fire them. I'm your employer, I give you orders, you do what I tell you.

Ditto if I wanted someone them to clear up some food on the floor. Let's say that someone had anonymously dropped it and the cleaners weren't gonna be in until 6pm. If they said: "But cleaning's beneath me and besides I don't want to get my hands or nails dirty. Screw off." No, you "screw off". Goodbye job contract.


And of course, these examples are so far removed from the issues actually at hand that they are entirely irrelevant.


I didn't say I had a problem with Muslims bringing their own food in. The point I was making was if the worker refused to work in a room that had non-Halal meat or alcohol in it and prevented other workers from eating THEIR food. Not all Muslims have this issue, but SOME do and if they did would it be religious discrimination me not giving them the job? If the salon is busy and workers are used to eating their food when they get the chance while still working then why should religion, a LIFESTYLE CHOICE after all, be able to change this. Why should it be able to dictate how effectively and efficiently a business is run and negatively affect other workers?


From where did this lovely example come? That's right, nowhere. It's a total straw man. You created it in order to shoot it down. In so doing, you paint a picture of Muslim workers as being overbearing and perhaps even fundamentalist in their practices...Of course, the lunch and the pork sandwiches and the worker refusing to be in the same room as those eating non-Halaal meat don't actually exist. The only purpose this serves is to create a distorted picture of Muslim workers that can be used to justify unwarranted discrimination.


I'd warn the applicant that their fellow workers (and me the employer) in their job environment are open to speaking freely about subjects such as sex, gambling and alcohol. If they find they may be offended by this then this job would not be suitable for them.


I'm pretty sure that singling out a Muslim woman to provide this "warning" to would constitute discrimination in and of itself. And talking excessively about sex can be grounds for a sexual harassment lawsuit, at least in the United States. And I don't know what kind of outfit you'd run, but I wouldn't let my workers start boozing up on the clock.


I agree. There are MANY people of faith who can live in harmony with those of others faiths / no faiths in the work environment. But I was talking about the hypothetical situation of those potential workers who DO have a problem with it.


The problem is you created twisted hypotheticals to satisfy a somewhat discriminatory premise.


The house I was talking about was going to be rented by four of us (close friends) with each of us paying EQUAL rent. I thought it was pretty unacceptable that one of my best friends for years wouldn't allow me to drink alcohol, gamble or eat non-Halal meat in the lounge. Hence the house idea fell through.


As someone pointed out, a home and a workplace are very, very different. I'm vegetarian; I don't want meat lying all around my apartment, if I can avoid it...But I have no problem whatsoever dealing with the fact that when I go out to eat with friends or share a fridge in the department lounge, I'll be surrounded by dead flesh. Your friend probably wanted a sanctuary where he could feel comfortable with his own customs, since he won't get that anywhere outside his own home. It's probably a good idea you guys didn't live together, because it takes a lot to click as roommates; people usually relax these standards outside of the home.

[iShater]

themadchemist and iShater please could both of you read the responses I gave to RedTomato's comments below. If you read them you'll hopefully see how you've misinterpreted my points. themadchemist it was NEVER my intention to write a "hateful post" and I am surprised and shocked that you think I have done. The same goes for your accusations, iShater, of me being "ignorant of employment regulations ... and Muslims".

As offence was not my aim, I would at least expect some kind of explanation and reasoning as to how you reached such alarming views regarding my post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5650682&postcount=92). Please, could both of you justify your attacks.
I read your original post, and your reply to RedTomato, and again, I will repeat that your post (not you, but I guess it is fair from my comment that it would reflect upon you, sorry!), is ignorant of employment regulations and Muslims.


RedTomato was able to reply to me in a jovial and engaging way whereas both of you appear to have "flipped me off" with one sentence posts. In fact, although I normally disagree with what RedTomato and themadchemist have said in this thread, I respect the way they say it, how they provide sound arguments and don't resort to fanboyish behaviour. :)

Which is why I find themadchemist's response so puzzling in this case. :confused:

Your post was offensive, whether you intended it or not. I still don't see where your sound arguments are. You specifically picked examples that still have nothing to do with cutting hair, performing the actual job itself, and there is a difference between "reasonable accommodation" and purposefully trying to make an environment hostile to a person of a specific faith. And God help your poor customers that are being used for a job interview/test without knowing it.


I heartily believe there was nothing to argue about or get confused over with "SCENARIO ONE" in my original post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5650682&postcount=92)


Lets go through them shall we?


SCENARIO ONE

If I ran a hair salon, and a Muslim woman applied, I'd say: There's a couple of guys waiting to have their hair cut downstairs, show me what you can do with their hair, I've got paperwork to do so I'll come down in 15 minutes and see how you're getting on.

Maybe it is the way you say it, but by selecting that you will only use this test (and the others) only if a Muslim woman applied seems very conveniently selective.


SCENARIO TWO

If I ran a hair salon, and a Muslim woman applied, I'd say: Right, you can start straight away. First things first, I've got a great deal on this special glossy hair dye, we're offering it half price all week. Now if you could just go and put some on your hair so we can advertise it to our customers and show them how cool it looks ...

And you think anybody will accept their boss forcing them to put any kind of chemical, eat any type of food, or anything like that? there is a line between doing a job, and doing harm/change to your physical person. This is not wearing a costume, this is actually putting something in/on your body that is not clothing. You cannot force your employees to do this, and definitely not as part of a job interview.



What's that you're saying? You can't take your headscarf off? You can't let people see your hair? You do realise this is a HAIR salon, right?

Hmmmm. "Next applicant please ... !"

Last time I checked, what you wear on your head doesn't change how MY haircut will look. So if it is a hair salon, means I have to have a full head of hair? never seen bald stylists? skinny cooks? That has nothing to do with a dress code. What if the person applying is a balding woman who wears a hat or a wig? would that disqualify her?



SCENARIO THREE

If I ran a hair salon, and a Muslim woman applied, I'd say: Now what about lunch? We're pretty busy throughout the day so all the staff have to eat in the salon when they get a spare moment. So don't mind the pork sausage rolls and ham sandwiches laid out. I let some of the girls have a couple alcholic drinks during Friday and Saturday afternoons as we all go out together afterwards anyway and talk about which men we're gonna bed.

What's that you're saying? You can't be in the same room as those people eating non-Halal meat*, those drinking alcohol* and don't like people talking about sex?

Hmmmm. "Next applicant please ...!"

Discussing sex in a work place is grounds for sexual harassment, and I would question the business-logic of having food and alcohol all over the salon when you will be using sharp objects near people's faces/heads. You cannot force someone to eat anything, and they have a legal right to take their breaks wherever they want (i.e. can go outside).


*This isn't made up. One of my Muslim friends said that if we all lived together in a house that I wouldn't be allowed to eat non-Halal meat, drink alcohol in the lounge or bet on football matches on TV. What exactly would I do then?! :D
Glad you clarified how your one totally unrelated, totally different scenario story sets the standard for everything to be measured against.





and with that and the above points in mind, let me reply to the rest of RedTomato's quotes:



If I told an employee one day that I needed some letters typing because my secretary was busy and they said: "But that's not in my job description! I'm only supposed to write Business Analysis reports and work in Excel. Piss off." I'd tell THEM to "piss off" as well and fire them. I'm your employer, I give you orders, you do what I tell you.

Ditto if I wanted someone them to clear up some food on the floor. Let's say that someone had anonymously dropped it and the cleaners weren't gonna be in until 6pm. If they said: "But cleaning's beneath me and besides I don't want to get my hands or nails dirty. Screw off." No, you "screw off". Goodbye job contract.

The job description would typically say "any work needed", but you tell an employee to go eat that food off the floor, and they will tell you to @#$% off. You tell an employee that because of their conservative dress code, you no longer want them to work for you, it is discrimination. You tell an employee that they are too dark/light to talk to your big client ... you get the picture.


Not all Muslims have this issue, but SOME do and if they did would it be religious discrimination me not giving them the job? If the salon is busy and workers are used to eating their food when they get the chance while still working then why should religion, a LIFESTYLE CHOICE after all, be able to change this. Why should it be able to dictate how effectively and efficiently a business is run and negatively affect other workers?

By law you have to give them their breaks, but again I am talking about US law, dunno what other countries do. And even non-Muslims will have an issue with you drinking at a work place, so it is not only some Muslims. Unless this is a bar/restaurant, probably everybody will be concerned you are getting wasted during work hours.


You seem to have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that I'd warn the applicant that their fellow workers (and me the employer) in their job environment are open to speaking freely about subjects such as sex, gambling and alcohol. If they find they may be offended by this then this job would not be suitable for them.

This sounds to be more like a scare tactic than a real scenario, and again, depends on your customers and your work environment.



I agree. There are MANY people of faith who can live in harmony with those of others faiths / no faiths in the work environment. But I was talking about the hypothetical situation of those potential workers who DO have a problem with it. Most don't hence why there are so many Muslim run Indian restaurants that serve alcohol in this country for example.

I fail to see how not-serving alcohol in your restaurant means you cannot live in harmony with those of other faiths/no faiths. So if I don't drink, that means I am not living in harmony with others??


The house I was talking about was going to be rented by four of us (close friends) with each of us paying EQUAL rent. I thought it was pretty unacceptable that one of my best friends for years wouldn't allow me to drink alcohol, gamble or eat non-Halal meat in the lounge. Hence the house idea fell through.

Your friend has every right to tell you his conditions for rooming with you, and you have the right to accept or not, simple as that. He is not infringing upon your rights by telling you this up front. This is called living together, good luck when you get married and see the type of compromises you have to do when you choose to live with someone for life.


:cool: Whether anyone's opinions of my post have changed or not after reading this, I stand by what I said and will continue to do so as I believe there was nothing wrong with it and that it was a legitimate and well meaning post. :cool:
Maybe you should read your stuff again, because even if your intention was innocent, your execution was offensive, and even racist.


Edit: I will be at the gym for the next hour, will check back later.

[skunk]

If I told an employee one day that I needed some letters typing because my secretary was busy and they said: "But that's not in my job description! I'm only supposed to write Business Analysis reports and work in Excel. Piss off." I'd tell THEM to "piss off" as well and fire them. I'm your employer, I give you orders, you do what I tell you.

Ditto if I wanted someone them to clear up some food on the floor. Let's say that someone had anonymously dropped it and the cleaners weren't gonna be in until 6pm. If they said: "But cleaning's beneath me and besides I don't want to get my hands or nails dirty. Screw off." No, you "screw off". Goodbye job contract.In both cases, if the job description excluded such additional work, you'd be at fault. When you employ someone, you do not own them.

[Iscariot]

NONSENSE


You do realize that you own the establishment, and not the employees?

[Neutral Gamer]

First things first, themadchemist and iShater, I am currently writing a response to all your points but there's so much to reply to (this is what I was afraid would happen when I started posting in the PRSI forum as there's always so much to say and using too much of my spare time writing it all :rolleyes:) that you'll have to bear with me.

Secondly, thanks for replying and stating your reasons for your original posts. Again, even if I don't agree it's good to hear the actual reasons behind your arguments rather than simply turning into namecalling as on other websites.

Thirdly, one of the points both of you kept mentioning was that I was singling out Muslims when giving my job interview scenarios. This is clearly a matter of confusion. I was actually replying to RedTomato's original post where he himself had said:

If I ran a pig slaughterhouse, and a Muslim applied, I'd say: Show me proof of your training in slaughtering pigs. Show me your certificates. Cut up a pig here and show me your skills. On that basis, I could make a legal decision on whether to hire him or not.

Nothing to do with wearing a headscarf or being Muslim. Just work related skills.


I was simply replying to his post and using his words to form some counter examples. He was the one who mentioned a Muslim applying for a job. Although I used the same words as he did I actually meant it to mean for "any person" applying for a job. But I was replying DIRECTLY to him so I copied his words to expand on his examples. Does that make sense?

If I had replaced the "Muslim" in my scenarios with "any person" (which is what it really should have been) would that go some way to making my original post more acceptable to you two?

In both cases, if the job description excluded such additional work, you'd be at fault. When you employ someone, you do not own them.

So if I'm walking around my office and see a scrumpled up piece of paper on the floor. I tell one of my employees walking past to pick it up and throw it in the bin and they say, "No. That's not in my job description."

Are you seriously, with a straight look on your face, telling me that it's acceptable for the employee to refuse that? Because if it is then work regulations need to be seriously rewritten to take into account common sense and the needs and rights of employers rather than just employees.

Are we really expected to write EVERY single possible task that an employee may be asked to do in their contract. Because that's impossible! :eek:

Could you close the window, it's cold in here.
"Sorry, not in my job contract."

Could you tell me what the date is today.
"Sorry, not in my job contract."

Could you help me pick up one of our elderly customer's shopping bags that he's just dropped.
"Sorry, not in my job contract."

You do realize that you own the establishment, and not the employees?

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you for or against my original post? :)

[skunk]

If I had replaced the "Muslim" in my scenarios with "any person" (which is what it really should have been) would that go some way to making my original post more acceptable to you two?I don't know about "acceptable", but if you were to come up with some less loaded examples it might at least be slightly more convincing.

So if I'm walking around my office and see a scrumpled up piece of paper on the floor. I tell one of my employees walking past to pick it up and throw it in the bin and they say, "No. That's not in my job description."

Are you seriously, with a straight look on your face, telling me that it's acceptable for the employee to refuse that?They would be perfectly entitled to reply "Pick it up yourself", and you would be better employed in doing so than in throwing your weight around.
Because if it is then work regulations need to be seriously rewritten to take into account common sense and the needs and rights of employers rather than just employees.On the contrary, I think you need to think seriously about the whole subject of employment. This is nothing to do with the "rights" of the employer, but all to do with common courtesy and a relationship of equals.

[themadchemist]

I was simply replying to his post and using his words to form some counter examples. He was the one who mentioned a Muslim applying for a job. Although I used the same words as he did I actually meant it to mean for "any person" applying for a job. But I was replying DIRECTLY to him so I copied his words to expand on his examples. Does that make sense?

If I had replaced the "Muslim" in my scenarios with "any person" (which is what it really should have been) would that go some way to making my original post more acceptable to you two?


The problem is that the questions are still framed in a manner that serves to portray an environment that is specifically inhospitable to certain ethnic groups. Whether you ask one person or everyone, the scenarios, which are not all directly job-related, are designed to screen out certain people, by saying, "Your kind, and your values, are not compatible with ours." Why did the sandwiches have to be "pork" sandwiches? Why did the workers have to be drinking alcohol? Why all the talk about sex? Seems like you are starting from cues that you think will offend certain kinds of people, then creating scenarios by which you can justify keeping those people out.


So if I'm walking around my office and see a scrumpled up piece of paper on the floor. I tell one of my employees walking past to pick it up and throw it in the bin and they say, "No. That's not in my job description."


Again, this example is so far detached from the actual issues at hand that it is irrelevant. If the crumpled paper had "God" written on it and an Orthodox Jew who worked in your office did not want to throw it away, not because he was a jerk but because it violated his religious beliefs, the best thing to do would be to ask someone else to throw it away, or to throw it away yourself. Let me turn the question on its head. Would you fire an otherwise competent worker over something like this, just because this task violated his religious beliefs? If you would, then you're really going out of your way to find a reason to fire the person, and that feels like discrimination.

[Neutral Gamer]

They would be perfectly entitled to reply "Pick it up yourself", and you would be better employed in doing so than in throwing your weight around.



If the crumpled paper had "God" written on it and an Orthodox Jew who worked in your office did not want to throw it away, not because he was a jerk but because it violated his religious beliefs, the best thing to do would be to ask someone else to throw it away, or to throw it away yourself.

Let me turn the question on its head. Would you fire an otherwise competent worker over something like this, just because this task violated his religious beliefs? If you would, then you're really going out of your way to find a reason to fire the person, and that feels like discrimination.

The Problem
skunk and themadchemist, have you two actually ever worked for anyone before? Have you been outside in the "real" world in "real" employment for a "real" company?

Because skunk you are completly deluding yourself if you think it's acceptable to respond back to one of your superiors with the phrase, "Pick it up yourself".

You'd be asked, "I beg your pardon" and if you were lucky given the opportunity to apologise. Otherwise, or if you refused to apologise you WOULD be fired. And rightly so, I say. If you're unsuitable for your job thanks to your religion then that's YOUR problem not your employer's.


The Sermon
Religion IS a choice. A lifestyle choice. It's 2008. If someone's still gullible / idiotic / been brainwashed enough to believe that texts written hundreds and hundreds of years ago are really the word of a "God" (e.g. Old Testament, New Testament, Torah, Qu'ran etc.) then that's their problem. Not mine.

Religion should have NO place in work. In fact it should be something practised in private; it's effects shouldn't be forced upon the rest of us. If you find that your religion interferes with the requirements of your job then find work elsewhere. Don't blame employers for the effects of your own foolish beliefs that YOU have chosen.

Furthermore, all Faith schools should be banned on grounds of child abuse. Firstly, brainwashing young, impressionable minds with falsehoods masquerading as facts. Secondly, the under teaching of Science. And thirdly, promoting disintegration from the rest of society.


The End
There you go. I tried to be nice but I've reached the end of my tether. Now you can see how I really feel. Is that hateful enough for you themadchemist? Yes, I'm discriminatory against religions; ALL of them!

Religion is a disease and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.


(As I click "Submit Reply" I open the can of worms. Mods, ban me now ...)

[LethalWolfe]

The Problem
skunk and themadchemist, have you two actually ever worked for anyone before? Have you been outside in the "real" world in "real" employment for a "real" company?

Because skunk you are completly deluding yourself if you think it's acceptable to respond back to one of your superiors with the phrase, "Pick it up yourself".

You'd be asked, "I beg your pardon" and if you were lucky given the opportunity to apologise. Otherwise, or if you refused to apologise you WOULD be fired. And rightly so, I say. If you're unsuitable for your job thanks to your religion then that's YOUR problem not your employer's.

If that is your typical work experience I would have to ask if you've ever worked under someone that isn't an @sshole.


Lethal

[iShater]

blah blah blah


And I was beginning to think I was harsh when I agreed that his posts were hateful. :rolleyes:

[RedTomato]

The Problem
skunk and themadchemist, have you two actually ever worked for anyone before? Have you been outside in the "real" world in "real" employment for a "real" company?

Because skunk you are completly deluding yourself if you think it's acceptable to respond back to one of your superiors with the phrase, "Pick it up yourself".

You'd be asked, "I beg your pardon" and if you were lucky given the opportunity to apologise. Otherwise, or if you refused to apologise you WOULD be fired.

Actually I just told my boss to 'pick it up yourself' today at work. What happened? She laughed and picked it up herself.

Yup she's my boss. But she's not my superior. She's no better than me. I treat her with respect and she does the same to me. She doesn't think of silly tasks to make me look stupid and assert her authority over to me. That's what most civilised jobs are like, where everyone is an adult and equal under the law.

Some companies are certainly hellholes to work in, as in your concept of employed work, but many other are not.

I do get the feeling maybe you're still at school or just out of college, and all you've had are ****** jobs under insecure power freaks, or teachers coming down hard on you for weak reasons which you probably see through. I could be wrong, but you certainly have a strange view of what 'real' managers are like.


Religion is a disease and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

I take it you might be a hardcore atheist. You maybe believe that there's no god. That's your right. However, strangely enough, that's also a belief system :) , aka a religious principle, in the lack of any definitive proof of the non-existience of god.

You might hold it to be a scientific theorem, but it fails the Popperian test in that it is non-falsifiable.

xTomato

[themadchemist]

Religion is a disease and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Well, that's just swell for you. It doesn't have a lick to do with not discriminating against people on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc. And if you think that your dyspeptic attitude towards people's belief systems gives you a free pass, then I hope you've got a good lawyer and a lot of cash when you start interviewing people for jobs.

(By the way: I'm still on about this talking about sex at work thing...When I worked for a major tutoring company, I had to sit through hours of painfully obvious online tutorials on how not to bring up sex in any fashion so as not to incur a lawsuit against myself and said employer.)


I take it you might be a hardcore atheist. You maybe believe that there's no god. That's your right. However, strangely enough, that's also a belief system , aka a religious principle, in the lack of any definitive proof of the non-existience of god.

You might hold it to be a scientific theorem, but it fails the Popperian test in that it is non-falsifiable.


Aaaamen! ;)

[skunk]

The Problem
skunk and themadchemist, have you two actually ever worked for anyone before? Have you been outside in the "real" world in "real" employment for a "real" company?

Because skunk you are completly deluding yourself if you think it's acceptable to respond back to one of your superiors with the phrase, "Pick it up yourself".
You'd be asked, "I beg your pardon" and if you were lucky given the opportunity to apologise. Otherwise, or if you refused to apologise you WOULD be fired. And rightly so, I say. If you're unsuitable for your job thanks to your religion then that's YOUR problem not your employer's.As I said, this is nothing to do with the "rights" of the employer, but all to do with common courtesy and a relationship of equals. If I worked in a firm where the employers treated their employees like that, I'd leave like a shot. Not only have I worked for people occasionally, but I have also employed twenty or so people in my own business, and I like to think my management techniques were slightly more sophisticated than those in your examples.

[bartelby]

So if I'm walking around my office and see a scrumpled up piece of paper on the floor. I tell one of my employees walking past to pick it up and throw it in the bin and they say, "No. That's not in my job description."


WOW, you must be great to work with!!
You should just pick it up yourself.


I tell my managers to do stuff themselves all the time.

[BoyBach]

Concerning the above "paper" nonsense. Whatever happened to leaders doing just that and leading by example?

[bartelby]

Concerning the above "paper" nonsense. Whatever happened to leaders doing just that and leading by example?

Some "leaders" consider themselves too important to pick up paper.

[Sun Baked]

I really hate it when somebody applies for a job, and the business owner gets sued for not hiring them.

A simple, I don't like them or I don't want to work with you should be enough.

Plus, do you really want to work where the people don't like you?

Sort of astonished that people would sue for a lower end of the scale job, though they are just practicing money. Still think they should be hired, and warned by the court that they are coming into an extremely hostile workplace where people won't like them, and will do anything to get them to quit.

---

Though American Chopper did do the extended one where they looked at the apps, turfed a lot, brought people in for an interview, then ask some back for a skills test, then had them work with the people in the shop for a day.

Sort of sucks when and if you'd need to do that type of thing for simple jobs at some point.

Only to find out you cannot hire the one you finally select because they fail to bring in the needed paperwork, have a criminal record/bad credit during the background check, etc.

[themadchemist]

I really hate it when somebody applies for a job, and the business owner gets sued for not hiring them.

A simple, I don't like them or I don't want to work with you should be enough.

Plus, do you really want to work where the people don't like you?

Sort of astonished that people would sue for a lower end of the scale job, though they are just practicing money. Still think they should be hired, and warned by the court that they are coming into an extremely hostile workplace where people won't like them, and will do anything to get them to quit.


So would you have us throw out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? It's crucial that employers who do try to discriminate know that there are consequences. Say what you will about getting to choose with whom you want to work on whatever basis you like, but employment discrimination is just not legal, at least in the United States.

[Sun Baked]

So would you have us throw out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? It's crucial that employers who do try to discriminate know that there are consequences. Say what you will about getting to choose with whom you want to work on whatever basis you like, but employment discrimination is just not legal, at least in the United States.

But you are somebody who is litigious specifically asking the court to place you into a HOSTILE work environment.

Do you want to be working at a place where the owner hates your guts, and makes Pauly Jr. and Sr. look like nice guys?

This isn't a corporation, this is a small business where you will see the owner every day and likely work next to them all day long.

With EEOC, you can be transferred to another department in a larger corporation to get away from *******s.

But in a small business, if they are forced to hire you due to EEOC. You are walking into a really bad situation, that will only get worse.

This isn't minimizing damages as people should be doing to avoid future litigation, this is making something that can easily be avoided without you working there into a multimillion dollar hostile workplace lawsuit.

If you sue because somebody didn't hire you, what'll happen when Paul Sr. calls you a pansy and sends you home crying every single day for the next 6-10 years.

[themadchemist]

But you are somebody who is litigious specifically asking the court to place you into a HOSTILE work environment.

Do you want to be working at a place where the owner hates your guts, and makes Pauly Jr. and Sr. look like nice guys?

This isn't a corporation, this is a small business where you will see the owner every day.

With EEOC, you can be transferred to another department in a larger corporation to get away from *******s.

But in a small business, if they are forced to hire you due to EEOC. You are walking into a really bad situation, that will only get worse.

This isn't minimizing damages as people should be doing to avoid future litigation, this is making something that can easily be avoided without you working there into a multimillion dollar hostile workplace lawsuit.

If you sue because somebody didn't hire you, what'll happen when Paul Sr. calls you a pansy and sends you home crying every single day for the next 6-10 years.

But the same argument could be extended. Why Brown vs. Board of Education? School integration put some brave kids into a very hostile environment. Why didn't they just want to stay in their segregated schools? Why force lunch counters to serve black customers? Obviously, the owners weren't going to be too congenial. If we give racism and xenophobia a pass by saying that minorities are "better off" sticking to places where they are welcome, we are begging to create lots and lots of spaces where minorities are not welcome. The purpose for folks to push to break the strangehold of discrimination is to create real structural change. Most of those lunch counters and schools aren't racist anymore, but it took litigation, fighting, and some hostile environments to make it so. I think it's worth fighting for a country, and indeed a world, where racial discrimination is not a major cultural attribute. And if folks feel that making that point and standing up to racist hiring practices is worth it, more power to them. And as far as getting legal settlements? Why not! Those employers shouldn't be breaking the law in the first place--I'm not crying for them.

[Sun Baked]

I never said anything about racism, I said if somebody doesn't like you, why would you want to work with them at their small business?

[themadchemist]

I never said anything about racism, I said if somebody doesn't like you, why would you want to work with them at their small business?

But you responded within the context of a conversation about discrimination, and one in which I mentioned the EEOC. What in heaven did you think we were talking about?

[Evangelion]

I take it you might be a hardcore atheist. You maybe believe that there's no god. That's your right. However, strangely enough, that's also a belief system :) , aka a religious principle, in the lack of any definitive proof of the non-existience of god.

How exactly do you prove a negative? Prove me that tooth-fairy does not exist. Prove me that Santa Claus does not exist. What exactly is the difference between believing in god and believing in Santa? Since you can't disprove the existence of Santa, then you believe in Santa, right? I mean, that is how it works with god as well. And pixies, fairies, invisible men, shadowpeople, Loch Ness Mosnter, yeti, ghosts etc. etc. Since you can't disprove their existence, then you believe in them all.

It's up to the believer to show evidence that god exists. Asking for non-believers to provide evidence that god does NOT exist, is unreasonable. The believers are the ones who are asking others to believe, they should be the ones who show the evidence supporting their belief.

It's the same thing that happens in courts as well. The default state is disbelief. That is, you are innocent by default. It's up to the prosecutor to prove that you are guilty. It would be VERY difficult to prove your innocense, if you were assumed to be guilty by default.