Am I imposing my religious beliefs on my co-workers?

Great Debates
41

Well now. DavidB, let’s just think about that a second…

When I was a High School Journalist considering a career in Journalism, I heard a speech given by a then-famous writer for the NYTimes who also happened to be an Orthodox Jew (No, I don’t remember his name). He told us about his interview. He walked in the door in a Yarmulke and, before the interviewer (editor?) said anything, he said, “Here is a list of all the days in the next 12 months that I can’t work.” He then handed him a second list and said, “But here is a list of all the legal holidays that I will.”

The first list contained days like Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, Succot, etc, and the second days like the 4[sup]th[/sup] of July, Washington’s Birthday, MLK Day, Memorial Day, etc.

He got the job.

Now, we’ve come a long way (as a liberal, overly litigous, it’s-never-my-fault society) since then, and now we have some kind of law called something like The Workplace Religious Freedom Act.

As I understand it, if my boss wanted to fire me because I was not in the office on Jewish Holidays, and that was the only reason he or she could demonstrate, then I would have a hell of a lawsuit on my hands for religious persecution.

I’m not saying it’s a good thing (in fact, I’m pretty sure I’m in the other camp). But it is (I believe) a law.

Part the Second
RickG:
**

Your profile says you live in CO. You sure?

We’re going through the same thing here in Kansas City. CHeck out this thread.

42

That’s what it says on all the junk mail, so, yeah, I’m pretty sure.:slight_smile:

I think everything got resolved eventually with the existing JCC building (I think mostly by the offended portion of the community deciding not to participate). An announcement was just made last week that land has been acquired for a new JCC campus (which will include, at minimum, the JCC and a new building for our Conservative shul). I think the kashrut status of the new kitchens will not be an issue (it’s doubtful that the Reform synagogue will participate directly at first).

Yep. I started a side debate in that thread by using the word “orthogonal” to describe the kashrut standards of two O communities around here. And you graciously offered to send me a kosher corned beef sandwich (which I never took you up on, but I now belatedly thank you for anyway ;j).

Rick

43

Oh, you’re that RickG. I… er… had you confused with… uhhh…
:o
uhhh…

: pointing :

OH MY LORD! WHATEVER COULD THAT BE?!?!?!?!

:duckingandrunning:

44

Just a minor thing to add:

When I returned from Latvia last year, I bought a box of chocolates for my co-workers. Turns out, the middle of the chocolates contained heavy-duty booze. They all got wasted and I was told never to bring any more goodies into the office.

45

Either you’re embarassed for some reason that I can’t figure out, or I’m some kind of a pariah for making an admittedly odd word choice (or for some other reason of which I am unaware). Which is it? :slight_smile:

I rather enjoyed the reaction to my use of that word, BTW.

Cheers,
Rick

46

**

Neither.

I was trying to make light of the fact that I didn’t remember that I had a conversation with you in the very thread I referred you to.

sigh

See why I’m embarassed now?

47

My turn to say “doh!” I’m not feeling too well today, so my humor detector is highly impaired. Now I’m the embarrassed one.

::Going home and taking a nap::

Rick

48

I didn’t know something could be kosher at certain times of the day but not at other times. . .

Rich

49

I had said:
(They actually gave extra days off to the Jewish workers? Not too bright.)

[quote]

Sdimbert said:

This is the precise reason I italicized the word “extra” above. He was not asking for or getting extra days off. He was exchanging his days off for other days that he normally would have gotten off. I think this is fine and, indeed, the preferred way of doing things when it comes to holidays (just give each employee X number of “personal holidays” and let them choose when to work them).

Presuming you had the vacation days to cover it, yes. If you blew all your days on a 2-week vacation to Jamaica, though, and then wanted those Jewish holidays off in addition, then I’d say you’re screwed.

50

DavidB I am lucky enough to work in one of those positions that allow me to work when I want as long as I get the job done.

When i was a teacher, this was not the case; missing class for any reason was a no-no. But now, if i (or a coworker) need more than our allotted time off for any reason, no one minds as long as the work gets done.

But, even if you don’t work in such a profession, let me try the long way around:

We hired a temp to do about a month’s worth of work. nice guy, showed up on time - happened to be in a wheelchair. Of course, the temp agency never said anything, never told us… that would be against the law.

So, he came to work and loved it. But, when he had to use the bathroom, he had to go out the door, down our delivery ramp, around to the front door, then back in the lobby to get to the accessible bathroom on the first floor. That was good enough when we built the building.

Turns out that that is no longer good enough. Of course, he never complained - he loved the job. But, someone at the temp agency found out that we were “persecuting” him :rolleyes: and we got a letter from some law firm saying we needed to do some remodeling. He called the agency and offered to give up the job!

They said no and we got bids for what could have been almost $10,000 worth of work to make the john big enough for his wheelchair.

We managed to drag our feet a bit and the whole thing blew over - he left before any work was done.

Now, I don’t want to discuss the legality of our actions. Or the morality of them. I just point out the phenomenon.

A little earlier, I posted:

I didn’t say I thought it was a good idea, and I didn’t say that a lawsuit whooped up because I lost my job for taking too many days off for crazy holidays was justifiable.

But, if I worked for you, and I was a kick-ass employee, and I managed to get my work done despite taking 10% more time off than non-Jewish employees, you would be a fool to fire me.

The lawsuit would be a circus and I would, I am sad to say, most probably win.

That’s just the world we live in.

51

If you did your work despite being off more often, yes, I probably would be a fool to fire you. But there are a lot of fools out there in management positions, I’m afrad.

In any event, if you took off 10% more time, I think you’re wrong about who would win the suit. If I treated every employee equally, and you wanted additional time off that nobody else got, and you weren’t willing to be docked for it or somehow make it up, you’d lose. That is not what the religious discrimination lawsuits are all about.

52

Since we’re already WAY off topic…

True Story:

I have an employee who is (at least) 65 years old. Nice person, sweet, gets along with everyone. He/She has had the same job for almost 20 years and I don’t really need him/her anymore.

Why is he/she still with us? Because his/her SO is ex-union and my HR Director has told me that to fire anyone who can be considered “older,” for any reason, is a really, really bad idea. It will leave us open to lawsuit.

“What?” I said. “Don’t be silly. I will simply tell the judge that I didn’t need this person’s help any longer.”

“No dice,” came the HR reply. “That’s just the way we play the game nowadays.”

So, are you right, in theory? Yes. But, in reality, I would get bongo bucks out of you in court.

Sad, isn’t it?

53

Suppose our rights were defined as our authority to make decisions with respect to our property, provided we are peaceful and honest. Then you could fire whomever you please, absent any contractual lien.

54

:traipsing further down the off-topic trail:

Lib,
In such a system, what would prevent you (the employer) from treating your property (me, the employee) unfairly? Say, if you fired me simply because I am a Jew?

55

Sdimbert, in “at will employment” states, you can be foired for no good reason at all…unless you are a protected class. Then you have recourse.

I would like to point out that I can be fiored for being white, for being male, for being straight, for the way I look, because of the shoes I wear, etc. A jew, however, is protected.

IF Lib has his way, it would simply mean that everyone would have the same rights that straight white males have right now.

and they wonder why some people don’t want to hire minorities…

56

Could you document this claim? My impression is that in all these laws motivation is what counts, not belonging to any “protected class”. So if firing based on ethnic background or religion or sexual orientation is prohibited, then it will protect whites, Christians and straights as much as Blacks, Jews and gays.

The only difference is that you are less likely to have an organized group agitating on your behalf if you are not in the “protected” group. But I don’t believe that these laws treats anyone diferently, and appreciate if you could show what evidence you have that contradicts me.

57

In a philosophical sense, Izzy, you are correct. The law will say that you can’t be fired based on your race. It doesn’t list every ethnicity except for “white”.

In reality, you don’t have a prayer in court unless you are in a protected class. I do not have a reliable source (and there may not be one at all) for discrimination claims, but I will venture that white males under forty make up a very small portion. I have handled about 100 discrimination claims and never once was the plaintiff a white male.

To support my asserrtion though, A less qualified black can be hired in place of a white to meet affirmative action goals. A less qualified white can not be hired in place of a black solely based on race.

The real question, as always, is whether or not you feel that hiring or firing based on race is sometimes necesary to set things right.

58

Not to speak for Lib, but to begin with, your premise is flawed. Under a libertarian ethic, no human is the property of another (unless he or she willfully makes him- or herself so). The property to which Lib refers is the business owner’s business.

As to the second part, nothing would prevent him from doing so. That’s what making decisions with respect to one’s property means. The business owner can decide to hire only Christians, or only mulatto lesbian midgets, or only redheads with green eyes. They can neither be forced to hire people with whom they prefer not to associate nor prevented from firing people because they choose not to have them around.

59

You’re a greater man than I, Phil. I have no idea what sort of follow-up response to give a man who thought I meant that he owned his employees. I shudder to think how the follow-up itself might be construed.

60

Offering to work on official holidays in lieu of days off for religious holidays can work in certain job settings, but not all. If your place of employment is open on an official holiday (even with just a skeleton crew) and you can get in to make up work time, fine. But if the place shuts down completely, you’re probably out of luck. A former employer of mine actively discouraged people from working late at night or on weekends because they were fearful of an employee mishap or illness that wouldn’t be noticed until everyone came in for normal working hours (= fearful of a lawsuit for negligence reasons).

That same employer had a policy of granting X number of paid sick days, vacation days, and personal days depending on an employee’s length of service. If you wanted to take a day off for religious observances, you were expected to make use of one of those days. There were a considerable number of observant Jews working in my office, and the proffered solution seemed to satisfy everyone I knew.

I think a key question is: if you wanted to take extra days off for religious observances (beyond any sick/vacation/personal days you had), would you insist on being paid for those extra days off? If so, then I think you would be unreasonably expecting your employer to give you preferential treatment, thus exposing your employer to lawsuits from non-observant employees who didn’t get the same benefits. Under those circumstances, I believe your employer could successfully argue that accommodating everyone’s demand for extra paid days off so that you wouldn’t be the recipient of special treatment would place undue strain on the employer’s ability to conduct business… does that make sense?