quote:I'm not even so sure that eating pork in the presence of a Muslim or observant Jew is really all that rude. Is it rude to drink coffee or beer in the presence of a devout LDS member? Is it rude to eat chocolate (or whatever) in the presence of a Catholic observing Lent? Is it rude to eat at all in the presence of a Muslim observing Ramadan?
Yes, in certain circumstances and definitely on private property belonging to someone who is observant. For example, if I invited someone over to my house and they insisted on eating a ham sandwich they had brought, that would be rude. If I was visiting a Mormon, I would leave my coffee in the car. If I was visiting a Muslim during daylight hours during Ramadan, I wouldn't bring a Snickers, etc.
Actually, since my best friend is Catholic (lapsed now, but observant once), I did refrain from eating candy in front of her when she gave it up for lent.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between having religious convictions and forcing them on your employees. For example; that little store I worked at a couple years ago? It was bought out by Indians. And not the Native American kind. All were practicing Hindus. Well, y'all know how they feel about beef. But, Ricky never said we couldn't eat or partake of anything. Hell, he even took us to Outback for Christmas. There are a lot of products that have pork in them BBQ? Salads from fast food places. Bacon Cheesburgers. Jello and puddings. Potted meat. Vienna sausages, .... so is this guy gonna check EVERYones lunch?
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is he forcing his religious beliefs on the employees? That's a phrase that's overused. Could I then say that by eating her pork in their building, she's forcing HER religious beliefs on her boss, or lack thereof?
There's a world of difference between asking someone to respect your beliefs, and requiring that they live them. Not eating pork on the premises does no harm to the woman in question, but it does to the employers.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely agree that in someone's home it would be unspeakably rude to eat or drink something that is against their religious or philosophical beliefs. But in a work place, I don't think it's that cut and dried. That seems awfully close to shoving religion down someone's throat - far more than trying to ban abortion for instance.
If the woman was flaunting the fact that there was bacon in her sandwich - waving it under her boss' nose, of course that would be rude, but there was nothing in the article that indicated that. If she was merely sitting at her desk or in the break room quietly eating a sandwich while she read a book or visited with co-workers, how could that be contrued as rude? Who has to know what's in her sandwich, unless they ask? And as was asked before, where does it end? Do they search everyone's lunch box as they come into work each day?
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here, while I agree that it's very iffy, I agree with the boss, and here's why.
If I found pork to be an unclean meat, (actually I do, but not to that degree. I won't eat it, however) it would be within my rights to try to keep that meat from getting on my lunch. If he were merely another employee, the best he could do is eat somewhere else, or try to keep his hands and work table as sanitary as possible. As the boss, he can keep it out of his building altogether. Does this decision affect someone else? Yes, but not to a very important extent. She's not going to die if she doesn't eat it, in fact, she'd probably benefit from a turkey sandwich.
Now, he has no right to go looking through her stuff to see if she has pork, but if he knows she was eating it, it has to be because he saw it.
posted
PIST, how is a pork product from someoen elses lunch gonna get into YOUR lunch, unless you STEAL said pork containing lunch?
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't have to get into the lunch itself. It only has to be all over everything in the breakroom, especially the table, and on anything the woman touches. I'm assuming she's not that careful; if she cared that much she wouldn't have had the pork in the first place. So she eats the pork, gets a bit on her hands and the table, and it is spread to other people that way. It's a bit of a stretch, but if something utterly disgusted you, you would want that place to be sanitary from it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also note that this 'policy' isn't written. Its verbal. Note also his stance on the issue....
quote:The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam.
"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said.
"Yes." Kweli replied.
"And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said.
" Yes," Kweli replied.
"(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked.
"We do, we can," Kweli said.
"But you've dismissed one of your employees for eating pork in the lunch room," Holfeld said.
posted
All I'm arguing is that an employer has a right to declare that something can't be eaten on premises, as long as he's allowing for the basic nutritional requirements of the employees. If they don't like it, they can work elsewhere.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah you are stretching it a bit. Thats almost as bad as boys hollerin about Girl Cooties....
Also, by THAT analagy, then you are exposed to pork every single day. Every time you go to a grocery store you're getting PORK all over you. Its in the other meat produccts you buy, if you buy deli department foods its contaminated by pork... You go to most any resteraunt and you're getting pork all over you and IN your food. Neither you, I or this guy lives in a vacuum.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, it's not my reasoning. I don't have to worry about what he does at the grocery store to keep pork away from his food. He can do whatever he wants and stretch to whatever lengths to stay pork-free and it's not my problem. That's the point. If he doesn't want pork in his workplace he can say so. If he wants people to take showers at work before beginning, and wear company uniforms while they're there, he can say so. I don't care.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if people would be reacting so negatively if the business owner were a vegetarian who became ill at the sight/smell of meat and had requested that all employees refrain from bringing meat for lunch?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, if it makes you feel better... I'd be much more annoyed if my employer insisted I keep vegetarian on premises.
I haven't decided on a "side" for this issue, though. As long as they were up front about it, I guess it's a reasonable request.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in this case I feel the company is wrong because their policy was not written.
More generally, companies should be allowed to have a no-pork policy if they put it in writing. Of course, I am a hard-core libertarian who believes companies should also be allowed to discriminate against religion, race, gender, and sexual preference in their hiring practices, as well as in their promotion policies as long as they have written policies.
Edit: As for rudeness, I feel it is rude for someone to request you to alter your dietary habits in a workplace. If someone asks me to stop eating meat at work, I would laugh at them. On their own property is different; I do not complain if friends smoke in their house or car while I am with them, but they are not allowed to do it in mine. Seems the same for food, clothing, jewelry, or whatever.
The company should have the right to fire the woman for whatever reason it wants. If they want to fire her for being a XX person, fine. If they want to fire her bacause of XXXX, fine.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring the mechanical aspects such as notice, warnings, etc., I think I side with the owner. But rivka's point about the vegan is a good one, because it takes the prinicple right to the edge. Not bringing pork into the lunch room seems like a much smaller sacrifice than not being allowed to bring any animal products at all.
I know more about Jewish dietary laws than Muslim (thanks to rivka), so I'll use them in the following:
If a small business had a kitchen for employees to prepare lunch, and a kosher-observant person worked there, I think most people wouldn't expect the business owner to install a second stove for kosher food preparation and to maintain separate sets of dishes. The observant person would be expected to fend for themselves, with the employer providing reasonable accomodations as needed (a separate cupboard to store personal dishes, for example). And I would expect most observant people working in a secular workplace are used to dealing with these issues.
Now flip it around, as in Mrs.M's examples. What if everyone is observant except one person? Should that one person be told not to use the stove or the dishes in a way that makes them unusable in kosher food preparation? I think most people would say that is acceptable.
But that would mean that the one non-Jewish person has inferior luncheon facilities. Is that fair?
It's exactly as fair as the one Jewish person having inferior luncheon facilities in the previous example. I think part of the problem is that the majority religion in this country is well-accomodated in most respects, and this has created a sense of entitlement that this will always be so.
I don't know the Muslim teaching on pork, but I certainly see it as reasonable that an unclean food could contaminate by it's mere presence. If that's the case, then preserving the cafeteria for the majority of employees requires banning pork from that cafeteria.
Dagonee Edit: As a general rule, the larger the company, the more accomodations for different groups it should make. If the company were large enough to support two cafeterias, one pork-free, that would be the best solution.
quote: If a small business had a kitchen for employees to prepare lunch, and a kosher-observant person worked there, I think most people wouldn't expect the business owner to install a second stove for kosher food preparation and to maintain separate sets of dishes. The observant person would be expected to fend for themselves, with the employer providing reasonable accomodations as needed (a separate cupboard to store personal dishes, for example). And I would expect most observant people working in a secular workplace are used to dealing with these issues.
Now flip it around, as in Mrs.M's examples. What if everyone is observant except one person? Should that one person be told not to use the stove or the dishes in a way that makes them unusable in kosher food preparation? I think most people would say that is acceptable.
The most acceptable answer would be for everyone to make their own food at home. That way, everyone gets what they want. In any case, your example doesn't apply here because no one at the business was being asked to make unclean food and violate their religious principles.
quote: I don't know the Muslim teaching on pork, but I certainly see it as reasonable that an unclean food could contaminate by it's mere presence. If that's the case, then preserving the cafeteria for the majority of employees requires banning pork from that cafeteria.
If this is so, and simply being around pork was something of a 'sin', then Muslims would not be able to exist in the non-Muslim world. I haven't ever heard of this and it doesn't make sense for someone to be unclean simply by being around someone who is commiting the sin, but it would be interesting to get elaboration on this.
In any case,once again, we see the wisdom of secular-based power. If the owner of this business was a-religious, then all the religions of the business would be respected. People would find a way to work together. Because the power resides in one religion that can force its will on non-believers, we have hurt feelings. If the Muslims in that building had to be around someone eating pork at lunch time in order to have employment, I'm pretty sure they would find a way to accomadate.
The only reason the firing is valid is because of the principal of private property. The ideal is that the owner of the business can hire and fire at will. If people want to adhere to this principal, I can understand that as a basis for the firing. Trying to say that those who follow a religion have more rights than those who don't and that the a-religious must make room for the religious rather than the other way around, or just simply finding some kind of common ground, doesn't make sense to me and seems to me to be unreasonable.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The most acceptable answer would be for everyone to make their own food at home. That way, everyone gets what they want.
So an employer can’t provide facilities that meet the majority of its employees dietary needs unless it meets all of them? Or are you saying that it’s the normal people without religious dietary restrictions that should get a kitchen to use, even if they’re in the majority.
quote:In any case, your example doesn't apply here because no one at the business was being asked to make unclean food and violate their religious principles.
The example applies perfectly, assuming a Muslim can’t eat in a kitchen used to prepare pork or where pork is served. I don’t know this is the case, but eating a ham sandwich in those conditions is making someone else choose between their religious principles and eating in the employer’s facility.
quote:If this is so, and simply being around pork was something of a 'sin', then Muslims would not be able to exist in the non-Muslim world. I haven't ever heard of this and it doesn't make sense for someone to be unclean simply by being around someone who is commiting the sin, but it would be interesting to get elaboration on this.
Not true. As we’ve seen in other discussions here, kitchen appliances can be considered unsuitable for preparation of kosher food if non-kosher food is prepared on them. It’s a small step to extend that to refrigerators becoming unsuitable for storage of religiously acceptable food if non-acceptable food is stored there.
quote: In any case,once again, we see the wisdom of secular-based power. If the owner of this business was a-religious, then all the religions of the business would be respected. People would find a way to work together. Because the power resides in one religion that can force its will on non-believers, we have hurt feelings. If the Muslims in that building had to be around someone eating pork at lunch time in order to have employment, I'm pretty sure they would find a way to accomadate.
So they should accommodate the others, but the others shouldn’t make changes to accommodate them?
quote:The only reason the firing is valid is because of the principal of private property. The ideal is that the owner of the business can hire and fire at will. If people want to adhere to this principal, I can understand that as a basis for the firing. Trying to say that those who follow a religion have more rights than those who don't and that the a-religious must make room for the religious rather than the other way around, or just simply finding some kind of common ground, doesn't make sense to me and seems to me to be unreasonable.
Well, the private property thing is the undercurrent for my reasoning, too. But it’s specious to say this policy gives the Muslims more rights than non-Muslims. We already make laws respecting people’s sensibilities (hostile work environment, for one). Are those sensibilities to be extended more rights than religious sensibilities?
posted
How would this be different from a religious owner insisting that that his employees "refrain from acting gay." Gays can work there, but they must "act properly."
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What? Unless ya work in a bordello, spending ones workhours in liplock, or tryin' to get into liplock, ain't gonna please the boss irrespective of sexual preference.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's kind of what I mean - I would assume any actual homosexual activity would be covered by the "no sex in the workplace" rules that most companies have. Although I have been out of the job market for a year, now...
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to be dogmatic, but I don't understand how this has gotten so complicated to where folks don't know where they stand. Either there was a written policy with proof that she acknowledged it or there wasn't. Even the prior counseling session about the pizza should have been documented. The employer failed to take these precautions. They are wrong to terminate her for failing to observe their religious beliefs. That's all.
I've been wondering how this thread could still be active, and had to check out of sheer morbid curiosity.
People eat feces all the time- cheese is feces from scum. How gross is that?
Though I didn't know about the microwave popcorn. I imagine it's due to the smell.
P.S. On a side note, are bugs Halal? We were watching Hidalgo last night. I know that gambling is against the teachings of Islam to begin with, but we all have our thresholds of hypocrisy.
quote: If I was visiting a Mormon, I would leave my coffee in the car.
Growing up, we always had a coffee maker in the house and coffee in the freezer for when my grandmother visited. I don't mind, and I don't think most Mormons do if you eat or drink whatever you want to in their presense. I mean, getting drunk and disrupting a wedding might be a problem, and you can't count on getting served, but as long as no one's spiking my drink, whatever other people do is fine.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka -- are you saying that you can only be fired for things that are specifically written down with verification that you agree to them?
Dude -- I need to go back to that Alladin's Castle where I worked as a 'teen and demand my job back...
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pooka -- are you saying that you can only be fired for things that are specifically written down with verification that you agree to them?
Not pooka, but that would be a yes.
Ever tried to fire someone and then had to go to the unemployment hearing to prove they were in fact, fired for cause? You can't prove it, unless you have a written document that says they understood the rules and would abide by them. Then, every rule breaking/warning or whatever must ALSO be documented in writing with the employee's signature. Usually you have to have at least two warnings on file before it's acceptable to fire them.
You don't have that - you can forget about winning the case. Heck, sometimes you don't win them even if you have all that. The law protects the employed much more so than the employer.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:The most acceptable answer would be for everyone to make their own food at home. That way, everyone gets what they want.
So an employer can’t provide facilities that meet the majority of its employees dietary needs unless it meets all of them? Or are you saying that it’s the normal people without religious dietary restrictions that should get a kitchen to use, even if they’re in the majority.
The easy answer is that it's not the employer's responsibility to provide food for their employees. That way, the employer avoids the whole question of what kind of facilities an employer should or shouldn't have to provide for their employees. However, just as an employer of a particular religious bent doesn't have to accomadate the food choices of others if it goes against his (religious) values, I say that, therefore, in the interest of fairness, NO employer must accomadate the food choices of others at all.
quote: quote:In any case, your example doesn't apply here because no one at the business was being asked to make unclean food and violate their religious principles.
The example applies perfectly, assuming a Muslim can’t eat in a kitchen used to prepare pork or where pork is served. I don’t know this is the case, but eating a ham sandwich in those conditions is making someone else choose between their religious principles and eating in the employer’s facility.
I already mentioned that it's important for our understanding of this particular situation to understand whether or not just being around someone eating pork is prohibited. Your examples solely relied on the business having to make the food, which in this case it was not asked to do (as far as I know). This is why I say your example doesn't apply.
quote: quote:If this is so, and simply being around pork was something of a 'sin', then Muslims would not be able to exist in the non-Muslim world. I haven't ever heard of this and it doesn't make sense for someone to be unclean simply by being around someone who is commiting the sin, but it would be interesting to get elaboration on this.
Not true. As we’ve seen in other discussions here, kitchen appliances can be considered unsuitable for preparation of kosher food if non-kosher food is prepared on them. It’s a small step to extend that to refrigerators becoming unsuitable for storage of religiously acceptable food if non-acceptable food is stored there.
Perhaps. We still need elaboration on the particular Muslim dietary practices. In any case, as far as we know, the woman was fired for eating her ham sandwich around the other employees.
quote: quote: In any case,once again, we see the wisdom of secular-based power. If the owner of this business was a-religious, then all the religions of the business would be respected. People would find a way to work together. Because the power resides in one religion that can force its will on non-believers, we have hurt feelings. If the Muslims in that building had to be around someone eating pork at lunch time in order to have employment, I'm pretty sure they would find a way to accomadate.
So they should accommodate the others, but the others shouldn’t make changes to accommodate them?
No. Ideally,and practically, everyone would find a middle ground. If I'm around someone from another culture, I don't expect them to follow my beliefs. They shouldn't expect me to follow theirs. If someone chooses to follow a religious standard that, for instance, forces them to adhere to strict dietary/social codes, then it is *their* problem, just as any codes I follow are mine. Thus, the Muslim owners shouldn't have asked their employee not to eat pork, just as a secular owner wouldn't server pork or shellfish to Muslims.
'Yeah, but Muslims GOTTA enforce certain standards on others because they're commanded by Allah.'
I don't believe this is, ultimately, an absolute. Because it's not an absolue, it is up for interpretation. Religion is not an out to do whatever you want to do to other people. Just as we condemn those religious cults who force their followers to do bad things, we recognize that their is choice in religion over whether or not to engage in a behavior or follow a creed. After all, if there wasn't, how could we condemn Jonestown and Heaven's Gate? How could we condemn 9/11?
quote: quote:The only reason the firing is valid is because of the principal of private property. The ideal is that the owner of the business can hire and fire at will. If people want to adhere to this principal, I can understand that as a basis for the firing. Trying to say that those who follow a religion have more rights than those who don't and that the a-religious must make room for the religious rather than the other way around, or just simply finding some kind of common ground, doesn't make sense to me and seems to me to be unreasonable.
Well, the private property thing is the undercurrent for my reasoning, too. But it’s specious to say this policy gives the Muslims more rights than non-Muslims. We already make laws respecting people’s sensibilities (hostile work environment, for one). Are those sensibilities to be extended more rights than religious sensibilities?
Dagonee
If a secular employer were to fire someone for eating a ham sandwich, we would consider them very shallow, at the least, and probably silly. After all, how is the person eating the ham sandwich harming the employer? They aren't unless the employer chooses to create that issue in his head. I think people are lending weight to the employer's religious choice solely because it is a religious choice. Circular logic. Religious ideology is no more excuse for silly choices than individual foible. The whole example at the beginning of this thread of 'what if someone were eating a crap sandwich' is silly. If these Muslims lived in an isolated society where they never knew of anyone eating ham, it might be valid, but they don't live in an isolated society. They live in a heterogeneous society where lots of people eat ham. It can't be new to them. So, at worst, the offense to the employer should be one of'Interesting. They're sinners. Too bad they're not Muslims. Oh, well.'
I am not saying that the woman shouldn't have shown more respect for the other employees beliefs. I don't know why she would want to work there, anyway, if eating pork was that important to her. However, my view is that as long as she didn't slap people upside the head with slabs of pork, I pretty much side with her because, ethically, the other employees should have ignored her because she wasn't a part of their culture.
quote:our examples solely relied on the business having to make the food, which in this case it was not asked to do (as far as I know).
None of my examples relied on this. They relied on corporate luncheon facilities - a stove, a microwave to reheat pizza, a fridge to put lunch, etc.
Companies ban popcorn and fish in microwaves, both for the smell. The popcorn ban, at least, is considered silly; it's even been lampooned in Dilbert.
No one is asking for special privileges for a religion. They're asking that private employers be allowed to make dining rules for their private facilities and require employees to follow them. And they're asking that those rules not disallowed simply because they have a religious rationale, rather than a smell rationale.
Dagonee Edit: And it's exactly in the silly examples where rights are tested. It does nothing to say employers have a right if that right can't be exercised in situations where a majority feel it shouldn't be, because in that case we wouldn't need a "right" at all.
posted
OK, your replies make a lot more sense now that I realize you were basing them on the company providing food. I knew there was a disconnect somewhere.
posted
I'm a little confused. The contract I signed said I could quit or be fired at any time with or without cause. I thought it was pretty standard in Florida. If she signed something like that, does it matter why she was fired if the company reserved the right to fire her for any reason or no reason at all?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It matters - employement laws overrides a lot of contract terms, which are put in anyway. I have no idea what Florida law says on this subject in particular, but in any state the employment contract for a W-2 employee is subject to a lot of laws.
posted
As I understand, you can be fired in Florida for any reason except race, religion, age, or gender. The woman in question went beyond just eating pork in the workplace. She was rude about it.
She ate pizza the first time and was warned. The company agreed that nothing to that effect had ever been put in writing, so they did so. These are from the Orlando Sentinel.
quote:Three days later, the company sent a memo to all employees explaining that the policy existed "so as not to violate the morality or spirituality of our Muslim client and to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere in our joint eating area for our diverse staff."
The paper this morning actually had a picture of the memo, but it doesn't seem to be on-line. Granted, she didn't sign it, but if she didn't like it, she was free to go work somewhere else.
The second time was not just eating a ham sandwich. She actually cooked the bacon in the microwave.
quote:But Kujaatele Kweli, CEO of Rising Star, said Morales was fired for insubordination, not for eating bacon. He said she cooked bacon in the office lunchroom's microwave
That's not just rude, that's malicious.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: the ones around here that I am aware of generally provide a small area (and given SoCal weather, sometimes that place is outdoors) for non-Jewish employees to eat their lunches.
While it seems like a reasonable way to handle it, isn't that segregation?
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legally the woman has absolutely zero recourse unless she can prove that they fired her because they discriminated against her due to her religion. A private company has the right to fire anyone for any reason except for discrimination. If it were a government position then the firing would have to be justified. And being rude is always a justification in either scenario.
posted
Thanks for the info, Dag. I had no idea firing someone could be so complicated.
I have to say though, I'm not sure I agree with everyone that she was necessarily being rude. I've had plenty of days where I was running a bit late so I grabbed whatever was in the fridge. She may not have thought of it until she got to work, and it was a bit late then.
Of course, it could be passive agressiveness in action. I'm just saying it seems a bit rude of us to assume we know what she meant by it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing to remember is that a small business can't look at it's employment decisions only through the lense of "Will this action hold up in court."
It also matters how far into a court proceeding a complaint would survive. If the complaint survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, there will be discovery, which is the costliest part of litigation. And the most potentially damaging.
So even if a firing is perfectly legal, the business still needs to take a hard look at whether a suit is likely, and head it off.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
