Ariens Co. fires seven Muslim employees over unscheduled prayer breaks

[SwimExpert]

The difference is their actions are having a direct impact on production

Difference? Difference to what? There is no "The difference here" statement you can possibly make that is anything more than jibberish. What I said was the law. The law does not have exceptions just because you want it to. Like it or not, that is the law.

that evidently has gotten worse as time went on

Evident how? There is no evidence of that here. You are assuming it to be true. A court of law will not make that assumption.

Thanks for demonstrating my point, though. Through your statement you acknowledge that upon a claimant's prima facie showing of discrimination we've discussed thus far, it would become necessary for evidence to be produced to show that any implied productivity problems had "gotten worse" as you say.

I do love me some irony.

and the company cannot reasonably accommodate without screwing up production

If that were true, then how will the company explain the fact that it did provide the accommodation previously?

which is the goal of said company, i.e. Make shit. Accommodation does not include reducing the companies ability to perform their work profitably and economically.

In fact, it does include that. The very definition of providing accommodation means that the company expends kind of resource. It might be investing in equipment or products that assist employees. It might me that minor losses in productivity.

For example: I am a Front Office manager at a hotel. My staff generally have to be able to stand on their feet all day long. But, if one of my staff members becomes pregnant I need to be able to provide her with reasonable accommodations. That might mean that I have to order some kind of stool or an appropriately tall chair so that she can sit at her terminal without having to be on her feet all day. In addition, I may have to accept the fact that I can't expect her to do much in the way of secondary miscellenous tasks that my staff are normally expected to do (like organizing and stocking supply shipments which often consist of heavy boxes, or assisting in responding to amenities requests, helping guests with luggage, etc). All these limitations result in lost productivity, possibly costing additional labor costs, or reducing revenues if service delays lead to guest complaints.

You seem to be taking the illogical and unjustifiable position that reasonable accommodation is limited to circumstances that end up requiring no accommodation at all, and that the moment a circumstances requires some degree of accommodation, it ceases to be a reasonable accommodation.

Plus they still get two 10 minute breaks and a meal break, considering the spread of the prayers, that should be enough for them. It may require them to eat quicker, or skip a smoke break, but its up to them to make the decision between their religion and their other activities.

That is irrelevant. The issue is not whether they are given any breaks at all. The issue is that a policy change created a conflict between their ability to engage in sincere religious practices and maintain their employment at the same time.

You continue to ignore that this is not a general circumstance, and that if this were to result in unemployment proceedings or a lawsuit the problem here would be that accommodation was previously provided.

 

[SwimExpert]

Dude, I'm 40 years old, and I've worked in operating wastewater plants and construction sites for 18 years or so. So take your "when you grow up and enter the real world" bullshit and cram it up your ass

Well that's even worse. Before I thought it was innocent ignorance due to youth and inexperience. However, it seems that instead it has more to do with mediocrity.

Considering the company did this out in the open, and is continuing to do so and not backing down, most of your reasons evaporate into thin air.

Nonsense. Just because a decision is publicized does indicate that the actor has exercised sound judgement, nor does it imply that the decision was made without malice aforethought. In reality, all the reasons I listed make it more likely than not that an actor would make little to no attempt to avoid public acknowledgement of the decision in question.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is their actions are having a direct impact on production

Difference? Difference to what? There is no "The difference here" statement you can possibly make that is anything more than jibberish. What I said was the law. The law does not have exceptions just because you want it to. Like it or not, that is the law.

that evidently has gotten worse as time went on

Evident how? There is no evidence of that here. You are assuming it to be true. A court of law will not make that assumption.

Thanks for demonstrating my point, though. Through your statement you acknowledge that upon a claimant's prima facie showing of discrimination we've discussed thus far, it would become necessary for evidence to be produced to show that any implied productivity problems had "gotten worse" as you say.

I do love me some irony.

and the company cannot reasonably accommodate without screwing up production

If that were true, then how will the company explain the fact that it did provide the accommodation previously?

which is the goal of said company, i.e. Make shit. Accommodation does not include reducing the companies ability to perform their work profitably and economically.

In fact, it does include that. The very definition of providing accommodation means that the company expends kind of resource. It might be investing in equipment or products that assist employees. It might me that minor losses in productivity.

For example: I am a Front Office manager at a hotel. My staff generally have to be able to stand on their feet all day long. But, if one of my staff members becomes pregnant I need to be able to provide her with reasonable accommodations. That might mean that I have to order some kind of stool or an appropriately tall chair so that she can sit at her terminal without having to be on her feet all day. In addition, I may have to accept the fact that I can't expect her to do much in the way of secondary miscellenous tasks that my staff are normally expected to do (like organizing and stocking supply shipments which often consist of heavy boxes, or assisting in responding to amenities requests, helping guests with luggage, etc). All these limitations result in lost productivity, possibly costing additional labor costs, or reducing revenues if service delays lead to guest complaints.

You seem to be taking the illogical and unjustifiable position that reasonable accommodation is limited to circumstances that end up requiring no accommodation at all, and that the moment a circumstances requires some degree of accommodation, it ceases to be a reasonable accommodation.

Plus they still get two 10 minute breaks and a meal break, considering the spread of the prayers, that should be enough for them. It may require them to eat quicker, or skip a smoke break, but its up to them to make the decision between their religion and their other activities.

That is irrelevant. The issue is not whether they are given any breaks at all. The issue is that a policy change created a conflict between their ability to engage in sincere religious practices and maintain their employment at the same time.

You continue to ignore that this is not a general circumstance, and that if this were to result in unemployment proceedings or a lawsuit the problem here would be that accommodation was previously provided.

The law in Wisconsin makes exceptions for things that affect productivity to the detriment of the company. This isn't like a Sikh wearing a turban instead of approved headwear, or a saleswoman at Old Navy wearing a head scarf. this is direct impact to the bottom line of the company. These people want to maintain their compensation while negatively impacting the companies bottom line.

The issue came about due to an increase in the # of Muslims working in this place, and the increased impact on production. It's also not like the company said "no praying, ever". It just said "pray when you have your normal breaks".

 

[martybegan]

Dude, I'm 40 years old, and I've worked in operating wastewater plants and construction sites for 18 years or so. So take your "when you grow up and enter the real world" bullshit and cram it up your ass

Well that's even worse. Before I thought it was innocent ignorance due to youth and inexperience. However, it seems that instead it has more to do with mediocrity.

Considering the company did this out in the open, and is continuing to do so and not backing down, most of your reasons evaporate into thin air.

Nonsense. Just because a decision is publicized does indicate that the actor has exercised sound judgement, nor does it imply that the decision was made without malice aforethought. In reality, all the reasons I listed make it more likely than not that an actor would make little to no attempt to avoid public acknowledgement of the decision in question.

I've worked in industry, have you? Or is your experience limited to some cube farm office or hippy dippy commune type thing?

 

[SwimExpert]

I've worked in industry, have you? Or is your experience limited to some cube farm office or hippy dippy commune type thing?

Butthurt that you couldn't leave the line and take a break whenever you wanted, is that it?

 

[martybegan]

I've worked in industry, have you? Or is your experience limited to some cube farm office or hippy dippy commune type thing?

Butthurt that you couldn't leave the line and take a break whenever you wanted, is that it?

My jobs never required me to be on a production line, I was in research first, then design, then management. But if I had a 3 hour batch test going on to determine the rate of denitrification with regards to various carbon sources, the test would be impacted if I decided to take a 20 minute prayer break when a sample was due.

You job on a production line is to keep it moving. Stopping a line so 55 employees can break for 20 minutes for a prayer is beyond accommodation.

 

[GHook93]

Interesting how RW'ers tend to react so differently to accommodations for Christians vs accommodations for Muslims.

Bullshit smokey. Always back to a business not wanting to serve at a gay wedding! That is forcing a company to do something. And this is forcing Muslims to conform to a policy!

In fact the company should enforce a no pray policy. It has no place in the workplace!

 

[SwimExpert]

Bullshit smokey. Always back to a business not wanting to serve at a gay wedding! That is forcing a company to do something.

In fact, many so called conservatives here seem to be of the opinion that Christian individuals have a right to refuse to perform job duties that "conflict" with their religious beliefs. Like, for example, an individual pharmacist who doesn't want to dispense morning after pills. Or a County Clerk who wants to block her office from providing marriage licenses because she doesn't believe in same sex marriage.

In fact the company should enforce a no pray policy. It has no place in the workplace!

Look who's trying to force a company to do something....

 

[SwimExpert]

My jobs never required me to be on a production line, I was in research first, then design, then management.

Oh, so you don't actually know shit about production. I work in the hotel industry, specifically in operations. That doesn't mean that I know jack shit about the real estate side of the industry.

 

[martybegan]

My jobs never required me to be on a production line, I was in research first, then design, then management.

Oh, so you don't actually know shit about production. I work in the hotel industry, specifically in operations. That doesn't mean that I know jack shit about the real estate side of the industry.

I've supervised wastewater plants, and I've visited tons of production facilities for shop testing of equipment, mixers, pumps (big ones), control panels, etc. Industrial production is industrial production, and plants are plants.