A diligent boss wants to confirm that an employee is actually a certain faith before giving them the day off. The answer she receives sounds crazy enough that she questions it in her own not so politically correct way.
It doesn’t. But for a person who claims to not want to talk about religion (or only talk about it on their terms), it sends mixed messages.
Again, it was done on a social networking site while at work. The boss, who could have figured that seeing the message was posted on Facebook could have thought it was okay to talk about it. It was only after SecondJudith said that they dance around with the Torah that the boss reacted surprised. Tell me what your reaction would have been if someone told you they were an atheist and danced around the room with a religious book would be? I’d at least raise an eyebrow. Again mixed messages.
Answer this: If the boss had made a comment on Facebook would she have been out of line? I mean other than you probably shouldn’t insult your friends unless you have that sort of relationship where you can.
Talking about your goofy religion with a person you know thinks it is a goofy religion (and rightly so, in this case. Dancing around the room with the torah, indeed) is also a jerk move.
It’s like poking bears with a stick. You just can’t help yourself. Like when I post in these sorts of threads. “You dance around the room holding the torah and you don’t even believe in god?!” "W…T…F! “Why the hell would you do that?” That would be my initial reaction, too. I think the boss what rather subdued in her reaction when she said, “Are you joking?”.
I’ve never had a boss question my strength of religious belief. I believe that’s not legal here in the States. What curious bosses you’ve had. I’d consider the question a little prying coming from a boss, and if I was mocked for the consistency of my religious beliefs from a superior, I would feel at the very least extraordinarily uncomfortable. Her boss was ignorant, and rather than educate oneself she mocked what she did not understand.
What’s mixed about answering a question? Where does it indicate that a person wants to be mocked?
I’d assume they were Jewish or belonged to another group where cultural mores and religious mores intersect. I’d be about as shocked as I’d be about an atheist celebrating Christmas.
Okay, maybe I’d be about as shocked as I’d be about a pagan putting up a manger scene. But my Wiccan mother does that because she had it every year as a little girl and it reminds her of her childhood. People do wacky things. It’s part of their charm.
Well, I definitely never friend my bosses on Facebook until I no longer work with them. My old manager is on my friends list now, but as well as we got along when we worked together I’d have probably been committing career suicide.
I’d consider a reaction of “Really? That’s SOOOO weird!” to be a little bit… I don’t know, juvenile? But not horrific or cause in my mind for more than a :rolleyes:.
:dubious: I tend to answer questions my friends ask me with the assumption that they want to know the answers, not that they want to mock my hobbies/religion/culture.
My initial reaction might also be surprised. But I wouldn’t say “What? Are you crazy, dancing with books?” I’d say “I’ve never heard of that! I don’t mean to be rude, but being an agnostic Jew, does dancing with holy writ make you feel uncomfortable or is it more a cultural thing?”
If I was told by a Hindu woman that this weekend she was going to be dancing around with an egg on a spoon because it was part of a holy weekend, I’d also ask about the particular religious and cultural significance. If I was told by a Muslim man that in his mosque, the first person wearing a purple shirt walking in the door would be wrapped in pink gauze and made to dance the hula, I’d ask questions about where the tradition came from in a spirit of interest, not mockery. I might chuckle, but I tend to make a token attempt in my daily life not to offend people.
But having my boss – the person who determines hiring and firing and who manages which project and who to promote and who to give raises to – mock me publicly and use me as an example of “why XYZ is rubbish”? I would shrug off that level of rudeness coming from a peer or a stranger or the guy at the hot dog stand, but I would be troubled if my boss treated me that way. Like it or not, religion is what’s called a protected category. If a reasonable person (reasonable as designated by law, which may not be everyone’s flavor of reasonable) would feel that they were being treated differently because of their religion or lack thereof, the boss’s actions would be legally actionable and must be taken seriously by Human Resources.
Clearly if your boss has a thing about religion (or anything else for that matter) then it makes no sense for you to keep talking about the subject that sets her off. I had a boss who was a staunch Conservative supporter. I agreed with him on many issues and I kept my mouth shut about those where we didn’t agree. Not that I think there would be much issue if I did disagree with him, but I had no reason or anything to gain, by arguing with him. So, if the work environment is fine other than that one issue, stop talking about that issue.
On the other hand if you must continue to talk about the crazy things that make you happy the don’t be so sensitive when people laugh, or poke you in the ribs, over it. Do you have your S&M gear delivered to the office? Probably not, but you think your religious books are fine. You’d expect someone to give you a good ribbing for your S&M stuff, but somehow your religious peculiarities are fine.
As far as I understand things, it’s not the OP who wants to keep talking about it – it’s the atheist boss who keeps bringing it up. And it’s not appropriate discussion matter in the workplace.
Of course. But you agree, do you not, that the mere mention of religion is not necessarily the equivalent of discrimination/harassment?
I brought up politics as another topic that might be similarly uncomfortable to discuss at work. Another example is sexual orientation, which is not a protected class under the US constitution.
It seems to me that there are several different “layers” involved in this interchange:
Legal - what can or can’t the boss do, what ought the employee expect, and what opportunities for redress exist through the courts.
Employment - what constraints/recourse exist under employer’s policies and generally accepted workplace conduct.
Cultural - what might specific actors expect given their age, gender, religion, nationality, etc.
Human - how ought civil individuals interact.
(I made up those categories. Other names might be more appropriate, and there may be more layers.)
When discussing such things, I think it might be useful to ensure that we are discussing the same thing. For example, I would not be at all surprised if the boss’ actions as described did not necessarily violate any law. However, I cannot imagine the employer approving, and no one ought to have to be treated like that in their workplace.
I absolutely agree that it’s possible to have a discussion about religion, in the workplace, that doesn’t violate harassment statutes. As I read the OP, though, that kind of civil discourse didn’t happen.
And sexual orientation is a protected class. My workplace gives the list as: “race, color, creed, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or disability (among others)”
See, this illustrates the difficulty of having such discussions.
I am a lawyer, and tend to use the term “protected class” quite narrowly, to refer to categories specifically protected under the US constitution and anti-discriminaton laws. I am unaware of any federal law providing such protection for sexual orientation. In fact, my understanding is that sexual orientation is not considered to be a protected or suspect class under US law. That is not to say, however, that certain states or other jurisdictions may not provide such protection.
Your employer’s internal policy is irrelevant to the state of US law. As an example, The civil rights act of 64 specifically prohibits employers from practices including:
*fail[ure] or refus[al] to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, . . .
[or]
to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, . . .*
because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Initial discussion about taking a day off. The boss asked why. The OP brought up her religion. All the OP had to say was a religious reason and leave it at that.
At lunch a colleague asked about why the OP was eating bacon. The OP could have said personal reasons, religious reasons, or none of your business, but she started explaining why her religion allowed her to eat bacon.
The OP posted about her religion on facebook, a non-work related place that her boss has been given access by the OP. The boss asks what a term meant and when the OP explained it to her the boss was shocked and reacted.
In all the examples the OP initiated, or allowed the topic to continue, about religion even though she has says she doesn’t want to talk about religion at work. Actually, the OP is quite happy to talk about religion at work, she just doesn’t like it that someone is expressing differing views about her religion.
It’s not just different views- the boss was making derisive comments about her religion to her AND her co-workers. Totally not cool.
One can ask questions, one can express differing views, one can even debate religion in the workplace without being derisive- but the boss seems to have derision as her default setting regarding religious issues.
I would say: “You are such a nice lady, and I bet you are as happy as I am that we live in a country where men and women of all faiths, and none, have given their lives so we can be free to believe or not. I respect your non-belief and I hope you will respect my right to believe as I see fit. I wouldn’t dream of telling you that your non belief is foolish and I hope you can see my beliefs are helping me to a happier and better life, just as your non-beliefs are helping you!”
How so? Her boss isn’t asking for a religious day off while stating that she doesn’t believe in god, she isn’t the one dancing around a room with a religious book, and she isn’t the one eating pork and claiming to be Jewish.
I’m sure her boss does foolish things, but it doesn’t seem she does them because of her non-belief…er, other than maybe take a chance on SJ suing her due to stupid laws, of course.
Her boss isn’t allowed legally to ridicule her “foolish” beliefs. That’s pretty much all there is to it.
She needs to ask why she needs a day off. Actually, no she doesn’t. It’s none of her business. At my company bosses are explicity told not to ask why. If someone calls in and says they’re sick, the bosses are told NOT to call them later and ask how they’re doing.
If she replies and explains her religious reason, it’s not she who is “brining up religion”. But even if she is, the boss isn’t allowed to ridicule her for it. No matter how ridiculous you or anyone else thinks it is. That’s really all there is to it. Legally, the boss has no leg upon which to stand.
It was inappropriate for her boss to ask why in the first place. Since she did, I find it frankly ridiculous that the OP should have to tap-dance with regards to the answer just to avoid being ridiculed. The default setting for civil human beings should be respect, not ridicule, even if they disagree. Really, it’s not the OP’s responsibility to make her boss not ridicule her, it’s her boss’s. If her boss asks the question, she needs to moderate her own behavior to respond appropriately even if she gets an answer she doesn’t like.
I mean, come on. Most adults outgrew the need to make fun of others once they got out of junior high.
I note that what was actually posted in the OP was that Judith didn’t have time to give a response of any kind to the question, before Boss butted in with her declaration that Judith’s religion was “fake.” Also, regardless of how Boss feels about it, putting words in Judith’s mouth, or telling Judith what she thinks or how she feels, is beyond rude. No one can know what Judith thinks unless she herself tells them.
Again, if Boss can’t moderate her own behavior to respond appropriately to the answer, she shouldn’t be asking the question. Her reaction to these answers has been unflaggingly consistent, so it’s not like it comes as a surprise to Boss and she couldn’t possibly have predicted that an honest answer to a question about religion would press her “Must Make Fun of Religion” button. Given that she does apparently have a compulsive need to make fun of whatever answer she gets, I’m not getting the impression she’s asking because she’s genuinely interested in learning the answer. In which case, she should STFU, because bullying and ridicule are inappropriate in any context. If she can’t play well with others, she should avoid situations where such a thing would be put to the test.
I find it rather curious that some posters seem to perceive no difference between
(a) expressing an opinion that something is ridiculous and
(b) ridiculing someone.
These are two separate and distinct behaviours.
The first is, or should be, acceptable under more or less any conditions, and may even be legally and morally essential (as per the example I gave earlier). It doesn’t have to be done in an obnoxious way. It can be done in a way that is respectful, sensitive and constructive. Examples available on request.
The second is generally unacceptable, at work or anywhere else, and is the kind of unpleasant and damaging behaviour that says a lot about the inadequacies of the person doing it.
I think it might help this discussion if we avoid confusing the two.
I’d like to add a thought experiment to the discussion. Suppose, instead of ridiculing SecondJudith’s religion, her boss had been ridiculing her taste in clothing. For example, suppose SecondJudith liked to wear bright colors, and that her boss denigrated her for this both in private and in public. Would this be acceptable? It would break no law (this type of clothing preference is not legally protected), but would it be right?
Assuming that bright-colored clothing had no effect on SecondJudith’s job performance, my feeling is that her clothing choice would be none of her boss’ business. If I were above them in the chain of command, I would tell the boss to cut it the (^*$@ out. A key part of a manager’s job is to get the best performance possible out of one’s employees, and damaging morale by ridiculing employees for personal choices that are not related to their jobs interferes with this in a big way.
