Muslim employee at Canada airport fights dress code

[Swarly]

I really need to form my own religion, then i can do whatever i feel like. No working on mondays, can only wear jogging pants and a t-shirt, and of course i must consume minimum 2 malted beverages over the course of lunch.

Start bending over backwards employers.

[Red]

Originally Posted by redforever

This person is a screener, not security who deals with dangerous individuals. I mean, we are really grasping at straws now aren't we.

Suppose someone wore the slacks that are an issued uniform, suppose it was a man, and suppose he wore those slacks way below his waist, and they are now loose on the ground or floor. That person will trip much quicker than a woman who wears a skirt that is 2" below her knees.

You gonna go around now too to make sure every employee has their shoelaces tied? Heavens forbid if they had to try and run in that condition. My God, I never realized how the public can get compromised so quickly. Yeah, public safety really is an issue here. And I tell you, pretty soon we won't recognize Canada anymore. I mean, just think, some women will be wearing skirts that are 2" below their knees, unheard of in our society.

I think you just proved that it should be up to the company to chose what people wear. You can't have individuals trying to change the uniforms according to their liking, beliefs or whatever else because it may impede their jobs.


Of course, this should not apply to any minority

[Devils'Advocate]

Your examples are all stupid. Those are all things that impact your ability to do the job assigned to you. Right from the stripper right on through to 'not wearing pants' (odd trend around here).

This woman obviously wishes to do the job she is trained for and is in no way impeded from doing her job by wearing a long skirt. That people would actually make any kind of deal out of this makes me want to puke.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

That people would actually make any kind of deal out of this makes me want to puke.

Totally

That people don't agree that having dress sizes is making me puke. Who cares why a woman wants a longer skirt. Maybe she has vericose veins on her legs and just wants to cover them up.

A lot of drama queens in this thread.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

It is religious, she feels the pants show her profile and that is unacceptable in her religious opinion.

You're confusing religion with culture. The pants do show her profile, which makes it a fact. Hence the logic. What is the reason given by her employer? It's against policy. Compelling...

Sure, it's opinion on whether that's acceptable or not, but the point I'm making is that it's not a religious issue. That's being bandied about a little too casually here.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Your examples are all stupid. Those are all things that impact your ability to do the job assigned to you. Right from the stripper right on through to 'not wearing pants' (odd trend around here).

This woman obviously wishes to do the job she is trained for and is in no way impeded from doing her job by wearing a long skirt. That people would actually make any kind of deal out of this makes me want to puke.

Hate to point it out, but she started it.

[return to the red]

it's a uniform...what the hell is having the point of a uniform if people are going to wear what they feel they should wear anyhow

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Red

I think you just proved that it should be up to the company to chose what people wear. You can't have individuals trying to change the uniforms according to their liking, beliefs or whatever else because it may impede their jobs.


Of course, this should not apply to any minority

What are you talking about? I was saying someone could wear the issued uniform and it could be worn in such a fashion that it would be way more dangerous than another wearing an issued uniform that was slightly modified?

[Red]

Originally Posted by redforever

What are you talking about? I was saying someone could wear the issued uniform and it could be worn in such a fashion that it would be way more dangerous than another wearing an issued uniform that was slightly modified?

That's why the policy tells how things are to be worn. You talk like someone who is yet to get a job and read a standard company dress code policy.

[sclitheroe]

From the story, she can clearly articulate her reasons for wanting the longer skirt, she is doing her best to accomodate her employer's dress code (she made the thing herself, same fabric, colour, etc. it's not like she is demanding her employer provide something that suits her), and there is no give in the system at all.

I think people who are intolerant of an individual's personal needs, and intolerant of their decision to make use of the legal and governmental framework established in Canada to address them, should move elsewhere.

Stupid rednecks.

-Scott

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Your examples are all stupid. Those are all things that impact your ability to do the job assigned to you. Right from the stripper right on through to 'not wearing pants' (odd trend around here).

This woman obviously wishes to do the job she is trained for and is in no way impeded from doing her job by wearing a long skirt. That people would actually make any kind of deal out of this makes me want to puke.

If it is such a small issue why in the f*** is it before the human rights commission.

[transplant99]

What's next? Muslim woman gets a job at Hooters and then complains that the uniforms are not in line with her religion ( and yes it IS a religious issue as the whole "it profiles a womans body" is what the religion is against) therefore allowing her to wear somethig different than the entire rest of the workers doing the same job?

This stuff has gone so far past logic it's mind-boggling.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

From the story, she can clearly articulate her reasons for wanting the longer skirt, she is doing her best to accomodate her employer's dress code (she made the thing herself, same fabric, colour, etc. it's not like she is demanding her employer provide something that suits her), and there is no give in the system at all.

I think people who are intolerant of an individual's personal needs, and intolerant of their decision to make use of the legal and governmental framework established in Canada to address them, should move elsewhere.

Stupid rednecks.

-Scott

If her ways are so damn good why come to Canada? I am all for immigrants to make better lives in Canada and to practice there beliefs freely......without forcing them on others. And people can say all they want about "it is not forcing it on others....she just wants to wear a longer dress".....give it up.....when the the majority are required to accomidate the minority, it is forced on Canadians.

You can label me a red neck all you want but I practice what I preach. I would never go into someone elses home and tell them to chage the way they do things.

[FireFly]

As a female I can understand the desire for a longer skirt, less fitting pant, whatever. As an employee, I know that if I have to break company dress code, I'd better have a pretty good reason for it or I'd better not take the job.

Two things here: she didn't have an issue with the pants for 5 years. She went into the job knowing that there was a dress code which she abided by for years.

The other thing is that companies have to accomodate a person's religion. Where this gets sticky though, and why I think the company will win, is because they do and were abiding by her religion by allowing her to wear the pants, which she didn't have a problem with. Obviously, the pants fit with her religious code or this would have been an issue 5 years ago.

All that said, it's a damn skirt. The company should just get over it. She paid for the skirt to be made from her own pocket. It's not like she put the company out by having one specially made, she did it herself.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Swarly

I really need to form my own religion, then i can do whatever i feel like. No working on mondays, can only wear jogging pants and a t-shirt, and of course i must consume minimum 2 malted beverages over the course of lunch.

Start bending over backwards employers.

Wasn't that long ago that people didn't work Sundays. If a Christian was scheduled to work Sundays, why can't they say, "hey....it is against my religion to work Sundays.....I can't work it and you have to pay me for it because you scheduled me to work it".

[redforever]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If it is such a small issue why in the f*** is it before the human rights commission.

Plain and simply because the employer made it a big issue.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

From the story, she can clearly articulate her reasons for wanting the longer skirt, she is doing her best to accomodate her employer's dress code (she made the thing herself, same fabric, colour, etc. it's not like she is demanding her employer provide something that suits her), and there is no give in the system at all.

I think people who are intolerant of an individual's personal needs, and intolerant of their decision to make use of the legal and governmental framework established in Canada to address them, should move elsewhere.

Stupid rednecks.

-Scott

wow nice way to destroy your whole rant..

The bigger issue here, that is already pointed out is where do you draw the line, sure it doesnt seem like a big deal, until she made it a big deal by claiming it somehow voilates her human rights..You give her what she wants, than you are going to have to give everyone else what they wants..The company needs to stick to their policies for much bigger reasons.. the woman who took BC Hydro to the human rights commission because she thought their testing procedures to work as a lineman where discriminating against woman....the sikhs who took the Surrey Schools board to the human rights commisssion because they couldnt wear their kirpans to school..or the soccer official who disqualified a player for wearing a head garment...we cant possibly tailor things for every special interest group that comes along...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by redforever

Plain and simply because the employer made it a big issue.

They both made it a big issue

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If it is such a small issue why in the f*** is it before the human rights commission.

It is a big issue. The point is that is didn't have to be, and shouldn't have been.

There was really no basis to tell her she couldn't wear the longer skirt aside from a strict adherence to the company dress code. If there was some reason it was a safety concern or a hazard, then I think most people would agree the skirt should be not allowed. But as far as I can tell, the only reason to disallow it was to stick to the rules just for the sake of sticking to the rules.

In my opinion, the dangers posed from such rigid and inflexible thinking are a greater threat to society than making small, compassionate exceptions to the rules.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by FireFly

As a female I can understand the desire for a longer skirt, less fitting pant, whatever. As an employee, I know that if I have to break company dress code, I'd better have a pretty good reason for it or I'd better not take the job.

Two things here: she didn't have an issue with the pants for 5 years. She went into the job knowing that there was a dress code which she abided by for years.

The other thing is that companies have to accomodate a person's religion. Where this gets sticky though, and why I think the company will win, is because they do and were abiding by her religion by allowing her to wear the pants, which she didn't have a problem with. Obviously, the pants fit with her religious code or this would have been an issue 5 years ago.

All that said, it's a damn skirt. The company should just get over it. She paid for the skirt to be made from her own pocket. It's not like she put the company out by having one specially made, she did it herself.

Apparently she did have an issue but chose the slacks over the skirt because the skirt was more of an issue.

To me it sounds like she found a compromise, asked her supervisor if it was a suitable compromise, he agreed, 7 months after the fact, she was suspended without pay.

I suspect this is an inside thing, some employee ratting on another employee, telling upper management about some problem employee. I mean who in the public would even notice a skirt is 2" longer and even if they did, who would complain about it?