Days Off?

[andrewducker]

Not sure how I feel about this.  A Christian lost his court case where he claims he was sacked for refusing to work Sundays.  His employers moved to a 7-days shift system and required people to work every day of the week (I assume week on/week off).

On the one hand, if they're discriminating equally against Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. then it's hard to say that they're practising religious discrimination.  And it's not like I actually agree that there's any _rational_ reason for not working on a Sunday.

I suspect I'm feeling the left-over twinge from when working on a Sunday used to be extremely rare.  If, after all, a sect sprang up that forbade working on Wednesdays I wouldn't expect employers to automatically give people the Wednesday off.  And it's not like we're actually a Christian country any more - church attendance is down to 7.5%.

Dammit, it's my Englishness coming to the fore.  Must...suppress....

Comments

[douglasbryant.livejournal.com]

It still shoes a lack of respect and understanding of a persons beliefs.

Although, I don't remember reading in the bible that you go to hell for working on sundays...

And I love churches, they make great night clubs.

[andrewducker]

But why should they show respect of individual A's beliefs? What if he'd announced he wasn't allowed to work Wednesday's any more? Or that he wasn't allowed to wear head-coverings at all, even in the mine area. Should they always give way to religious beliefs?

And this is one of the ten commandments:
"Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks. But Saturday is the Sabbath to God your Lord. Do not do anything that constitutes work."

Which certainly means that God would like you to take it seriously...

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem, I think, is that the more time goes on, the less this is an issue of them disrespecting a person's religious beliefs, and more an issue of workers being considered a tool that can be used without concern for the person as a human being.

Consider the dustbowl migration of the Oakies in the US during the depression era. Thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, moved west to find work in California and the other states not suffering from drought. People could get jobs for 3 cents an hour, picking strawberries, only to find that the employer would lower their wage to 2 cents an hour the next day. The employer could say that anyone that objected 'was a red', a communist sympathizer to be hauled away by the police, because they knew that the hundreds of people looking for a job in the area would take it because it was available.

It is, in my opinion, important for us to respect the value of every indivdual human being. Being forced into a situation where we need to give up all of our time because the corporation would find anything less uncivilized is nothing more than tyranny and enslavement.

[andrewducker]

It is, in my opinion, important for us to respect the value of every indivdual human being.

Even when those values conflict with my own? Should I respect the values of people who believe that black people aren't worth as much as white people?

And allowing people to (for instance) have different working patterns because of their beliefs means that other people have to pick up the slack. Means you're discriminating against people for lacking belief.

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

I didn't say values, I said value. As in, a human being is valuable, not as in we should respect christian values. I'm talking more about the fact that business sees you as a dispensible tool that's fit only to be worked until dropping.

[pisica.livejournal.com]

During the 2000 presidential campaign, everyone was hysterical that Lieberman wouldn't be able to work on Saturday since he was (*gasp*) a Jew, yet no one seems to be worried about what Bush would do if the next terrorist attack came on a Sunday. But that's my own personal issue. :)

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Perhaps there is some sort of class-action that they could take covering all the Abrahamic religions, which all need a set day a week off, even though the day is different for each one. I'm not sympathetic to any of those religions, but it is a tradition that's been going, like, two thousand years, so I say make an effort to accomodate it. Like with Sikh headdress. Live and let live.

Sunday

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

I know I am supposed to refrain from servile work on a Sunday. I guess if my employer could guarantee the work would be non-servile

Then again, Christian country or not, you are supposed to be allowed express your religion. Whether that means wearing a turban or not working on holy days or after sunset on a Friday.

Employers should never come before people, but this shows that they always do, and I think that's at least as worrying as the religious aspect of this ruling.

[adders.livejournal.com]

Well, yes they are practicing descrimination - they're descriminating against the guy for having a religious belief.

They're not discriminating between religions, but between people with religious beliefs and those without.

That said, as a Christian who had strong views about the Sabbath, he probably should have been looking for another job anyway...

[andrewducker]

It does seem unfair to lose your job because of a change in working hours. If they'd already had those working practices when he applied, it would seem pretty reasonable.

And the question of "How much do you have to allow for other people's feelings and beliefs." is one that plagues me on a semi-regular basis.

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

They're not discriminating between religions, but between people with religious beliefs and those without.

This is true, but as I said below, very often in accomdating a particular set of individuals, there's tacit discrimination against another group, who will have their degree of flexibility reduced. While I (mostly) understand this for families, I have a hard time with it for a particular belief.

Another, perhaps more philosophical point is: what makes a belief worthy of accomodation? Does it have to be widely held or codified in a particular text? How old must that text be? Must it be religious in nature and in any case, what defines that?

I think flexibility is good, but the more it's defined at a macro-level, the less flexibility there will be locally. I don't think it's the place of politicians to define what is and is not a belief worthy of accomodation at this level.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

The law does not allow discrimination on grounds of any religion or belief. Failure to allow religious observance is potentially discriminatory, but not if it's justified for business reasons. Looks like the right decision to me.

Business

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

Business reasons can justify eroding any time a person has. There are laws forbidding excess overtime but I'm sure that business reasons would justify mandatory unpaid overtime of 20 hours per day.

People vote, companies dont, the law should have their priorities built that way. Unfortunately since people do not vote sensibly, and nowhere has a real democracy anyway, the law can happily favour Companies over People

Re: Business

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

No, there's no 'business reasons' exemption in EU employment law. You can opt out personally of the 48 hour rule, but you can't opt out of some of the other provisions (notably the 11 hour break).

Re: Business

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

sorry for "can" read "could", I've just re-read that and realised it can have a meaning I didnt intend.

I just meant that employers will do anything they feel they can get away with.

Another scary trend is for people to feel it is ok to "just do what they are told" in work regardless of what it is "because that's their job and they dont make the rules". The abdication of moral responsibility terrifies me

Re: Business

[andrewducker]

I just meant that employers will do anything they feel they can get away with

Which is where things like human right's legislation, unions and having useful skills comes in.

My employers treat most staff well - but that's because they think that doing so makes us work better and is more cost-effective in the long run. People with utterly replaceable skills and no union are obviously not in the same position.

Re: Business

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

Business reasons can justify eroding any time a person has.

They could, but in general, they don't.

There are laws forbidding excess overtime but I'm sure that business reasons would justify mandatory unpaid overtime of 20 hours per day.

Nope. Working hours laws don't allow this justification.

Justification is necessary because any anti-discrimination law has to deal with direct and indirect cases. If an employer says "You can't work here because you are a Christian" that's obviously discriminatory. When an employer says "Everyone who works here has to wear a safety helmet" is he practicing indirect discrimination or being health and safety conscious? That's where the possibility of justification comes in, because sometimes indirect discrimination will be lawful (when it's a necessary and proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim) and sometimes it won't.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Although I'm against that level of employer power. I like the complete lack of religious discrimination. A better response would be full flextime with scheduling preferences based on seniority or performance. However, after hearing all the fundys over hear yammer about all of their nonsense, having a policy that treats Christians, Jews, Pagans, and Buddhists equally in terms of days off is refreshing and positive, albeit by becoming universally oppressive.

[andrewducker]

A better response would be full flextime

Not in most jobs where you need to schedule people on in shifts. I'm in frequent conversation with people around me to do my job. We have some flexitime, but we all have to be in 10-12 and 2:30-3:30, so that we get enough crossover to get the job done...

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

It's a difficult one. On the one hand, the man had worked there for a long period of time and the request isn't a particularly unusual one in a Christian country. At a local level, it seems odd that they couldn't accomodate his request.

On the other hand, religious restrictions can be quite wide-ranging - not to mention open to interpretation - and I would find it extremely unfair if making allowances for these restrictions was codified into law, to the extent that it impacted on others of a different or no religion.

One possible extrapolation would be public holidays. Many of these are Christian, meaning that a Christian can usually be guaranteed Christmas off work, whereas a Jew cannot be guaranteed his religious holidays. Whilst most employers would be understanding, I can't see any way that a 'right' to particular holidays would be workable.

I must admit to a small prejudice on this type of issue. Intellectually, I understand the need to provide flexibility to both the potential workforce and its productivity. Despite this, as a childless athiest, it still grates on me a little when some people milk it for all its worth and display a sense of entitlement to a degree of flexibility I'm not permitted. In many organisations, particularly smaller ones, the young & single or older with grown-up kids are expected to accomodate those with families. This is why I'm very wary of yet more legislation providing new rights to a specific group - most of the time, some other group will lose out.

[tanngrisnir.livejournal.com]

Despite this, as a childless athiest, it still grates on me a little when some people milk it for all its worth and display a sense of entitlement to a degree of flexibility I'm not permitted. In many organisations, particularly smaller ones, the young & single or older with grown-up kids are expected to accomodate those with families.

I do recall one place I worked, in a department which had to operate 24 hours a day, every day of the year. As December approached, a notice went round to get requests for time off over Christmas, stating that "priority would be given to those with children"; I heard one of the senior staff wander off muttering "What about priority for Christians...?"

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

This comment makes the wholly erroneous assumption that Christmas is in any way a Christian religious festival in the UK.

I'm a parent but have always believed that parents should get certain sorts of special treatment (in particular, people whine endlessly about holiday weeks but parents of schoolaged children are, essentially, forced to take holidays in limited, expensive, school holiday times). The quid pro quo is that parents should appreciate the special treatment and help out their childless colleagues in their times of need -- eg when they've drunk a skinful and can't turn up to work, or when they absolutely need to leave early because they're going on a three day break to Paris.

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

This comment makes the wholly erroneous assumption that Christmas is in any way a Christian religious festival in the UK.

'Wholly' erroneous? For some people, Christmas is a predominently a religious period, although these people are reducing in number.

I firmly believe that becoming a parent is a choice like any other. Yes, it is in our interests for employers to make it easier for parents to work, but I don't think 'because I'm a parent' should automatically trump all other reasons for increased flexibility. Sadly, it's something I've seen a fair bit of.

I would hope that an employer would help parents ensure that they can take holiday at convenient times. I would equally hope that an employer would be understanding of the commitments of non-parents (eg. sick relatives, moving house, restrictions on a spouse's holiday periods). I've seen a lot of emphasis on the former and not a great deal on the latter.

[tanngrisnir.livejournal.com]

This comment makes the wholly erroneous assumption that Christmas is in any way a Christian religious festival in the UK.

Well, there are two things, aren't there? There's the Christmas as celebrated by most of the population, which has bugger all to do with Christianity, and there's Christmas as celebrated by some Christians, which is a Christian festival, whether you (or I) like it or not. For some Christians it is a time to celebrate the incarnation of their Messiah, and that should probably be respected.

Me, I celebrate Yule. ;o)

[andrewducker]

I get Christmas eve (half day), Christmas Day (full day) and New Year (1st and 2nd) off.

Other bank holidays are simply added to my holiday days for me to take when I like...

[tanngrisnir.livejournal.com]

His employers moved to a 7-days shift system and required people to work every day of the week (I assume week on/week off).

That's not how I understood it; I thought it was talking about a 7-day shift system such that everyone would get a couple of days off a week, just not necessarily at the weekend. BICBW, of course.

It sounds as though the company needed to operate seven days a week for commercial reasons. From what I recall of recent employment legislation (can't find the links at the moment), companies are supposed to, as far as possible, take account of legitimate religious needs of their employees, but it's not an absolute thing and as far as I recall it's accepted that smaller companies may not have the flexibility to give employees days off they might wish for religious reasons.

[imaget.livejournal.com]

Don't feel bad about your Englishness, it's one of the things I like best about you.

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

Huh, I'd like to see the test case for days off on other grounds. "WEll, I demand May Day off as I am a Communist and on that day I show solidarity". Besides you never hear People of the Book pointing out that Deuteronomy says credit cards are ungodly and so airlines etc should not demand tickets being bought by credit card.

[andrewducker]

Actually... Moslems can't use credit cards...

They can use debit cards - so long as the account doesn't pay interest...