Muslim employee at Canada airport fights dress code

[moon]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That's simplifying it a bit too much and they have a right to feel offended if they feel it is being pushed on them.

I think people complain way too much and often really over blow how much these types of things are "pushed" on them or the offense that they get from it.

Honestly if this type of thing offends you then I would say that you are way too sensitive about things.
(by you I don't mean Burninator but people in general)

[moon]

Originally Posted by Burninator

BUT it doesn't relate to this issue at all. Because her wearing a longer skirt doesn't imped her ability to do her job. It's not a safety issue, it's a silly dress code rule. And if you think that dress code rules are more important that religious freedoms, I'd say your priorities need readjusting.

I am not sure that so-called "religious freedoms" are necessarily so important that employers should have to change their job requirements to fit in every Tom, Dick and Harry that feels the need to whine about something.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

I agree that it's ridiculous that her employer wouldn't allow her to wear a longer skit. I'm just tired of special expections having to be made for people who choose a particular set of beliefs while these people make no exceptions of their own to get along in society. If your beliefs are the most important thing to you, conform your life according to those beliefs. Don't expect life to conform to you.

Well despite what you and I think, Canadian law says otherwise. And frankly, we advertise it.

[Ransacko]

Originally Posted by moon

The fact that people think that she should not have to conform to the rules and requirements of the job and are using this religious concerns BS make me want to puke.

I can't believe that not only are people supporting her but doing so and thinking that they are actually right.

I just don't get what the big deal in an employer saying this is part of the job if you don't like it don't work here. They aren't saying being white is part of the job or being Christian is part of the job (although I personally think they should be allowed if thats how they want to run their business) they are saying you have to wear a uniform. Seems like a very reasonable request from me and an easy decision for whatever board/court/agency she whines to.

I hate PC as much as the next guy, but what matters here relys very little on the ethics of the matter. What matters is whether or not the employee was knowingly aware of the fact that the dress code was a requirement. If a minimum length was a requirement, then did the company (in this case YVR) have reasonable grounds for terminating her for non-compliance? Did she have a previous history that could warrant termination rather than suspension? Was she aware that non-compliance could lead to termination rather than a warning (is it specified in the employement contract)? Was she given enough time to voice her concerns over the proposed change to the dresscode? All in all if the employer chose to terminate the employee and it was in compliance with 1) the employement contract 2) Union Policy (If there is a union, which I believe there is) and there is reasonable grounds to expect that if due dilligence was taken this was the proper course of action, I have no sympathy for the employee and her termination was warranted.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Its changes to the rules that govern everyone that concerns me. Example: Elections Canada stating that women covering their faces do not have to reveal their identity to vote. Nothing wrong with that I guess?? Next they will want drivers licences similar to the middle east, where its a picture of a covered face with no discernable features. How can you tell that person is who they say they are? I have a huge issue with the exception made for Hutterites, and their driver's licenses. They believe that photographs steal they're soul so they are exempt from having photo id. Why should I have it if they don't, if I drive drunk loose my licence. They will have my picture to identify me if I'm caught driving, how can you determine that someone who has no photo id is who they say they are??

I guess it doesnt exist now does it...

Thats not what they believe. They adhere to this passage in the bible: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

They consider it a sin, not soul theft.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

I know covering their hair is required by their religion. I don't need to know why it's required to comment on it. How would knowing that make any difference of the fact that a Canadian symbol of over a hundred years was compromised to appease a single individual from a foreign country because he decided to move here and wanted a job where part of it was in conflict with his beliefs?

Firt off, how do you know he moved here? Maybe he was a 3rd or 4th generation Canadian.

Secondly, as already pointed out by others, Canadian symbols have changed before and will change again. It's not about apeasing 1 person, it's about that symbol representing what Canada truely is. Like it or not, Canadians are made up of many different religions and races, and having National symbols respect/represent that makes sense to most Canadians.

You're using tradition and patriotism as an excuse to descriminate and fortunately most Canadians disagree with you, so too bad. Welcome to a multicultural and democratic Canada.
You shouldn't move here, and then expect Canada to hold onto old out of date traditions just because it suits your belief system.

[corporatejay]

Why does everyone keep saying "seperation of church and state". That's an american doctrine. Last time I checked the government still collected tax dollars (and subsidized) catholic schools.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think we should end all this by getting the cops to come in a tase this negligibly longer skirt wearing, bag-check lady.

Agreed, but make sure when she's writhing in pain that you apply 400 pounds of pressure to her neck and head. Thats the only way to properly subdue an individual..

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Firt off, how do you know he moved here? Maybe he was a 3rd or 4th generation Canadian.

http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval...ge_id=3&lang=E

In 1983, sixteen-year-old Baltej Singh Dhillon immigrated to Canada bringing with him his Sikh customs and beliefs.

He was accepted into the RCMP in 1990. Apparently the traditions of his old country were more important to him than those of the new country he decided to live in. So he expected the new country to change its traditions so please him so he can hold onto his traditions.

Secondly, as already pointed out by others, Canadian symbols have changed before and will change again. It's not about apeasing 1 person, it's about that symbol representing what Canada truely is. Like it or not, Canadians are made up of many different religions and races, and having National symbols respect/represent that makes sense to most Canadians.

You're using tradition and patriotism as an excuse to descriminate and fortunately most Canadians disagree with you, so too bad. Welcome to a multicultural and democratic Canada.
You shouldn't move here, and then expect Canada to hold onto old out of date traditions just because it suits your belief system.

So Canada can have no real culture of it's own. It's merely is some land where people from around the world are invited to come enjoy the freedoms and rights this country provides them, but hold onto their own out of date traditions because it suits their belief system and expect Canada to conform itself to those traditions and beliefs?

[corporatejay]

So Canada can have no real culture of it's own. It's merely is some land where people from around the world are invited to come enjoy the freedoms and rights this country provides them, but hold onto their own out of date traditions because it suits their belief system and expect Canada to conform itself to those traditions and beliefs?

Actually, yes....that is Canada's culture. Sounds like a great place to live. Can you tell me if this man is less qualified to be a RCMP officer because he doesn't wear the hat?

[moon]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Actually, yes....that is Canada's culture. Sounds like a great place to live. Can you tell me if this man is less qualified to be a RCMP officer because he doesn't wear the hat?

I think you could raise issue with his decision making/intelligence/competence based on the fact that it was so important to him to wear his turban that he was willing to risk his job to do so.

Personally not a person that I would want working for me, especially when that job would have a lot of dealing with the general public.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's not about apeasing 1 person, it's about that symbol representing what Canada truely is. Like it or not, Canadians are made up of many different religions and races, and having National symbols respect/represent that makes sense to most Canadians.

Exactly.

This skirt issue may have been started over one woman's religion, but think of how many other people are passing up jobs as screeners for the exact same reason? And when the solution is so simple (more than one dress length available), why is it so difficult for people to get over?
This is not about anyone forcing their religion down anyone else's throat. She isn't trying to pin a cross or star of david to her lapel. It is about acknowledging that there are different kinds of people with different systems of beliefs. And very subtly allowing different people a comfort level within the SAME uniform.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Why does everyone keep saying "seperation of church and state". That's an american doctrine. Last time I checked the government still collected tax dollars (and subsidized) catholic schools.

Its not really American Doctrine per say, its got a few other names than Separation of Church and State as well.

Canada has an interesting history with Education and church/state issues, in 1867 Catholics were given funding for schools in the constitution act.

Here's a brief history of Education & Church/state in Canada:

Canada's approach to religious education often faces concerns addressing to how to best balance competing concerns, e.g. anti-discrimination laws and religious freedoms, and respect rights to religious education outlined in important Canadian legal documents. Catholic education public funding is mandated by various sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 and reaffirmed by Section Twenty-nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The United Nations Human Rights Commission declared in 1999 that Ontario was in violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by only funding Catholic schools and not other faith-based schools.[21] Newfoundland withdrew Catholic funding in 1996, via legislation that required approval from the Canadian House of Commons. Quebec abolished religious education funded by the state through the Education Act, 1998 which took effect on July 1st of that same year.
In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Trinity Western University vs. British Columbia College of Teachers that the British Columbia College of Teachers was wrong to withhold accreditation of Trinity Western University's teacher education program on the basis that their moral code contained provisions banning certain LGBT activities.[22]
In a highly publicized 2002 case, Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic High School in Oshawa, Ontario, which is publicly funded, lost a court battle to enforce its code of conduct, when they sought to prevent student Marc Hall from bringing a gay date to the school prom.[23]
In 2006, the Province of British Columbia moved to make changes that would require religious schools to teach LGBT-friendly educational material (see related article Peter and Murray Corren); however, the British Columbia government indicated that changes to the public education system were not intended to prevent religious schools from teaching their ethical codes of behaviour.[24] Also in 2006, in Quebec, Christian evangelical schools are now being required to teach both evolution and sex education, a requirement that does not exist in some other provinces.[25]

[4X4]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Actually, yes....that is Canada's culture. Sounds like a great place to live. Can you tell me if this man is less qualified to be a RCMP officer because he doesn't wear the hat?

F'n eh.


Canada is a brand new country (in the grand scheme of things). The beauty of our country is the influences we have from so many "old" countries.

Think of how boring this place would be if there weren't 35 different kinds of restaurants available to eat from. It's not like the architecture is where the beauty of canada lies.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Actually, yes....that is Canada's culture. Sounds like a great place to live. Can you tell me if this man is less qualified to be a RCMP officer because he doesn't wear the hat?

Sounds like a sad place to live to me. No real national symbols - just a mish-mash of symbols borrowed from other countries. No real cultural traditions - instead, a mass of traditions that clash with eachother. No real concept of patriotism - since everybody seems to favor the way of life in their old country more.

If that's Canadas culture, then there really is no such thing as being Canadian. Just being a member of another country who happens to live on a piece of land named Canada with other people from other countries.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by moon

I think you could raise issue with his decision making/intelligence/competence based on the fact that it was so important to him to wear his turban that he was willing to risk his job to do so.

Personally not a person that I would want working for me, especially when that job would have a lot of dealing with the general public.

So because someone has religious conviction you would question their ability to be an RCMP officer? How are the two even remotely related? How is that a sign of poor intelligence or competence? I think you are grasping at straws here.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by 4X4

F'n eh.


Canada is a brand new country (in the grand scheme of things). The beauty of our country is the influences we have from so many "old" countries.

Think of how boring this place would be if there weren't 35 different kinds of restaurants available to eat from. It's not like the architecture is where the beauty of canada lies.

I have no problem with change, but like everyone else in Canada she should have brought up her complaint and go from there.

When she got hired is when she should have brought this to the attention of someone. And then she could have fought for the change while still complying with the dress code, but I guess she only had 5 years to do so

[4X4]

Originally Posted by HOOT

When she got hired is when she should have brought this to the attention of someone. And then she could have fought for the change while still complying with the dress code, but I guess she only had 5 years to do so

Right, then you'd be saying "why'd you take the job?" "Who takes a job and then immediately complains?"

She took the job and adhered to their rules for 5 years. Figuring that after that length of time she's proven herself to be a good employee, she ask for a very minor concession. She even made teh dress and paid for the material herself.

Even all my bitching in this thread that the company should offer a couple of dress lenghts didn't occur to her. She made the damn dress and paid for it. Asked nothing of the company other than to wear it.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Right, then you'd be saying "why'd you take the job?" "Who takes a job and then immediately complains?"

She took the job and adhered to their rules for 5 years. Figuring that after that length of time she's proven herself to be a good employee, she ask for a very minor concession. She even made teh dress and paid for the material herself.

Even all my bitching in this thread that the company should offer a couple of dress lenghts didn't occur to her. She made the damn dress and paid for it. Asked nothing of the company other than to wear it.

I didn't mean the same day she started. Even if she waited 2 years that would have given her THREE YEARS to bring up her argument to someone who could make the change. Don't tell me it takes you 5 years to gain a little respect from your employer to ask for a small change and/or understanding on an issue like this.

I try to make changes to the place I work all the time, sometimes I suceed sometimes I don't. But I still continue to show up for work and comply with the direction I am given. If it was a major confliction that I could not comply, I would quit and find another job. But because she can blame it on religon it makes it okay?

[4X4]

Hoot, I really don't think that there is any valid argument regarding the length of time she waits to do this. It is entirely beside the point.