I an employee can't serve all the customers, based on what's in the customers cart, I find it highly unlikely, that they will be the best employee ever.
What
you find unlikely is, of course, irrelevant. You have already decided (arbitrarily, I might add) that she is a bad employee without knowing anything about her. Plus, you obviously have a false belief about what this woman's job duties are because you keep assuming that you can define those job duties, rather than acknowledging that it is Wegman's and Wegman's alone that defines those duties.
Ehh, that's sort of a straw man.
My issue isn't with Wegman's, I've never heard of it until this story.
I think there was a disconnect there. I didn't say that you had an issue with Wegman's there (although I
do think the logic you have provided does clearly indicates that your issue is with Wegman's disagreement with
your assessments of what this woman's job duties are
supposed to be rather than anything else).
I said that, according to all available information, it is Wegman's
common practice to treat their employees a certain way. Thus, your
addition of a "common practice" premise (which counts as a moving the goalposts fallacy, by the way)
still doesn't support your conclusion that this woman is an idiot for asking for these accommodations. Seeing how every person here that
is familiar with Wegman's is
also familiar with their reputation for being very good to their employees proves that it
is comon practice
at wegman's to treat employees well. Thus, sticking firmly with the logic you have provided yourself, asking Wegman's to make such an accommodation would
not make a person an idiot because it is well known that such accommodations have a higher potential for being made at this particular place of employment and thus dramatically lowering the likelihood that a job at wegman's will bring one into contact with the offending products.
It's simply a matter of your analysis being incomplete. You are assuming incorrectly that Wegman's is an
average grocery store as far as employment goes and are thus making comparison to your perception of the average grocery store. We know, however, that Wegmans is an
exceptional grocery store as far as employment goes, so your analysis is not only incomplete, it involves premises which are known to be false.
Premises such as the assumption that this job will be likely to bring one into contact with pork and alcohol. We
know this is false because we can provide a clear and indisputable example of it being false. In fact, that clear and indisputable example is the very center of the debate.
Making accommodations for religion, when it can conflict with the duty of the job, aka servicing custom regardless of their cart contents.
Again, you do not define what the duties of her job are. Wegman's does.
They have decided that this is not in conflict with the duties of her job.
Only
their opinion matters in this regard.
Because it's up to the individual to find a job that best fits their beliefs.
You don't seem to realize that this woman accomplished finding a job that fits her beliefs. You don't have to like it, but your dislike doesn't make it any less true.
It's not the employers responsibility.
Of course, nobody ever said it was the employers
responsibility to do so. Pretending that someone did say this would be a strawman, of course.
The employer simply defines their employees job duties. If they
choose to define these job duties in such a way that it accomodates the perosn's religious beliefs, then they are free to do so. Who are you to arbitrarily decide that she is not living up to her duties?
I guess it's a difference of beliefs.
I don't think it's proper, it seems extra needy, in my opinion.
This s correct. And it shows that, by definition, your objections are arbitrary.
The club can do as it wishes, I still think the applicant/employee is dumb for doing so.
Of course you would, but your conclusions are arrived at arbitrarily so what value do they have to anyone else? :shrug:
I even explained how my decision to
accommodate such a "stripper" if I were in that situation would be arbitrarily based on my sense of humor.
If it turns out to be a winner for them, great, but I find it unlikely.
Who cares what you find likely?
Ah, so you admit your assessment is entirely arbitrary.
Frankly, though, who gives a **** if it's annoying to you? Do you really think that the world should align itself so that ti doesn't annoy you? And why do you even care enough about it to find it annoying? Are you an employer who has faced this unusual circumstance so often that it has caused you discomfort? Are you even an employer?
It seems to me that you are the sole creator of your own annoyance here. It doesn't affect you in any way, yet you've decided to intrude upon the situation in order to get yourself annoyed by it, because without your active participation in being annoyed by it, it wouldn't affect you in any way shape or form. I mean, you admit that you never even heard of Wegman's before you heard this story. Had you never heard the story, you would never have gotten yourself annoyed by this woman's actions. However, this woman has done
nothing to affect you in any way. You've
chosen to be affected, thus you have simply annoyed yourself.
Why should everyone else, have to change their life, because you can't find a niche based on your choices (in this case religion) or because you were born with a food allergy.
Nobody has to change their lives in any way, shape, or form. People go to the store, they pick out their groceries, they go into a line where they can pay for their product, they pay for the product, and they go on their way. Nothing at all has changed.
I challenge you to actually show how something has changed for "everyone". things have changed for precisely two people, and those changes are by choice: the employer and the employee. that is it. Not a single other person is affected by this in any way. Go ahead. Describe how things were for everyone before, and how things are
actually different now because I just described a very true description of events for both before AND after the accommodation was made showing that no changes are present for everyone.
And the employer in
this case decided that she should be a cashier. So what's your problem?
There isn't if both parties agree.
So if you acknowledge there is no issue, why are you getting yourself annoyed over this?
I just have a different standard, of what I expect out of people.
Good for you. Not surprisingly, most people do have different standards for what they expect from other people. And your standard will be relevant when
you are the employer involved. When you
aren't the employer, your standards and expectations don't really mean jack ****, and they are really quite arbitrary.
