Page 28 of 31 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 308

Thread: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

  1. #271
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,157

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    I read about half the posts. So if I am repeating, my apologies. Several issues:

    1) The employer is apparently now limited in how many such non-pork non-alcohol employees they can hire, or have on at any one time. "Sorry Muhammad, but I already have 3 Muslims on staff who won't do pork. But if you got a Lutheran friend who needs work, send them in".

    2) Such employer is now liable to accomodate an employee who does not want to ring up birth control, correct ? Would we have a different response from folks were there a line that said "no birth control products in this line" ?

    3) Going a step further, what of a pharmacy that refuses to stock any birth control products, to include perscription products such as morning after pills ? Clearly a larger step, but the same concept.

    OBTW, there have been many pharmacies that, due to the religious beliefs of the owner, will not sell contraceptives. And there are states, such as Illinois, that have passed laws requiring at least the sale of prescription contraceptives in any licensed pharmacy in the state.

    Yes, this one issue with this one employee in Wegmans is "cute". But it is the tip of a larger iceberg. I prefer a society where the owners do what they do, and you can take your money elsewhere if you want. But we already know that is not the standard allowed, at least where more liberal doctines prevail.
    [emphasis added by bubba]
    please share with us where in the United States of America that you canNOT take your money elsewhere if you want
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #272
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Is he salaried?
    yes....and no.

    he had a set yearly salary, but if he took off time and didn't have the vacation or sick leave to cover it, he would lose that many hours of pay.

  3. #273
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,606

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    yes....and no.

    he had a set yearly salary, but if he took off time and didn't have the vacation or sick leave to cover it, he would lose that many hours of pay.
    Then he didn't work extra hours for no pay.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #274
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    yes....and no.

    he had a set yearly salary, but if he took off time and didn't have the vacation or sick leave to cover it, he would lose that many hours of pay.
    So when he leaves at noon and makes up the hours at other times during the week, is he avoiding losing that many hours of pay?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #275
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What part of the story gave that impression? I can't even tell if she actually said she couldn't work with these items or simply mentioned that she preferred to not to work with them. Many grocery stores have a universal application system as well. She might have been applying for a different position that wouldn't put her in contact with those products, but they were only hiring cashiers.
    This gave me the impression that she had previously handled this,

    "She told her supervisor she was uncomfortable handling those items because of religious reasons. So the store manager who had experience with this type of situation outside of Rochester decided to put up a small sign whenever the girl was at the checkout counter."

    Again I could be wrong, but that's how it came off to me.
    If you want to be something other than a cashier, then get a job somewhere else, not being a cashier.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    But you must be taking issue with them because they don't feel that scanning pork and alcohol products qualifies as the basic requirements of that particular job, whereas you have decided all on your own that it is a basic requirement of that job.

    Obviously the issue isn't what she requested, but your perception of what the basic requirements of that particular job.

    If her employer actually felt that her request would prevent her from fulfilling the basic requirements of the job, they'd either put her in another position at the store where contact with such products was not a basic requirement or they wouldn't have hired her.
    No.
    Those are the basic requirements of the job.
    Otherwise, they wouldn't have needed to erect a special sign, just for her, asking that customers with those items, not come to her line.
    The exemption of those items, is just for her line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    ****, the alcohol thing isn't all that different from what happens with clerks who are under 21 in Illinois. They cannot legally sell alcohol, and they can't even come into contact with the product (not even to place it into a bag for the customer). They must, in all cases, call for someone who is over the age of 21 to perform these tasks for them. What we see here is identical except that the same behaviors are applied to pork products as well.

    So, using the logic you have described, do you believe that anybody under 21 that applies for a job as a cashier in Illinois is doing something morally wrong simply because it doesn't match up with your perception of the basic requirements of that job? If not, please explain why these "basic" job requirements appear to shift based on the person performing the job.
    There's a difference between a retarded state law and a religious preference.
    If the employer still hires these people, that's totally up to them, including the no pork or alcohol girl.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Interesting. Personally, I believe every job as having that kind of potential. Some far worse than others, but every one of them has the potential. Does that mean I am morally wrong for working anywhere?

    Also, are there any jobs that you believe could potentially compromise a belief you have?

    Conversely, are there any jobs you believe have no potential to compromise a belief you have? If so, which ones?
    Potential ≠ near certainty.
    Being a cashier at a grocery store, there is a near certainty you will come into contact with items like pork or alcohol.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #276
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    11-07-12 @ 12:45 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    117

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Hypothetically, let's say the store handles such cases as saying "Well, if you're going to be a selfish prick about it, we don't want your business. Please find a new place to shop at. We'll be fine with our customers who are less selfish." What would you do then?
    I would leave. They would lose a lot of customers because who wants to wait in a crowded line if there is a shorter line? That's not being selfish, btw.

  7. #277
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    religiously neutral =/= not a place to practice one's own religious beliefs.

    To explain: if a person decides to wear a crucifix underneath their clothing, or carry one in their pocket while they work, or even say a silent prayer very 15 minutes, they are not violating the religious neutrality of the workplace.

    People are free to practice their beliefs so long as the employer feels it does not interfere with their capacity to fulfill their work duties.

    Keyword: Employer. Unless you are their employer, your opinion of what those work duties actually are is totally and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Thus, your real issue here is not with this woman at all, but with the fact her employers don't seem to give a **** about your opinion of what her duties are.
    Of course it's all up to the employer.
    With that said, one should assume (unless it's a religious business that allows this beforehand) that their religion should not interfere with their work duty's.

    I'm totally fine with the employer allowing this, what I'm not fine with is someone applying for a job when they know they will come into contact with things that their religion forbids.
    Although it's not exactly clear that Islam forbids the handling of these products.
    I thought it was just the consumption of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    She is capable of serving all customers. Pork and alcohol are not customers. No individual would be denied her service based on any intrinsic characteristic of that person.
    Sure, if all customers choose not to purchase pork or alcohol.
    Which is an entirely arbitrary form of discrimination.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #278
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    This gave me the impression that she had previously handled this,

    "She told her supervisor she was uncomfortable handling those items because of religious reasons. So the store manager who had experience with this type of situation outside of Rochester decided to put up a small sign whenever the girl was at the checkout counter."

    Again I could be wrong, but that's how it came off to me.
    If you want to be something other than a cashier, then get a job somewhere else, not being a cashier.
    See, that quote reminds me of when I was hired by Sears and then placed in the paints department. I had mentioned my color-blindness to them but they decided to put me there anyway. I didn't apply to be in the paint department, that's just where they put me.

    Maybe she was trying to explain why she didn't want to be a cashier when she said what she said, but the manager wanted her to be a cashier so he decided to make the accommodations that he made. It's pretty hard to tell how things went down.






    No.
    Those are the basic requirements of the job.
    Otherwise, they wouldn't have needed to erect a special sign, just for her, asking that customers with those items, not come to her line.
    The exemption of those items, is just for her line.
    False. The fact that she is still performing the job despite not handling those products proves that it's not part of the basic requirements. If she were unable to perform the basic requirements, she wouldn't be doing anything in her line.


    There's a difference between a retarded state law and a religious preference.
    Why? Your stated logic mentioned nothing about whether or not you had to agree with the reason why a person could not fulfill what you have deemed to be "basic requirements", it only spoke of being unable to fulfill those requirements. Therefore do you think that anyone under 21 is doing something wrong by applying for a job where they know they cannot handle what you deem to be th ebasic requirements of the job due to their age?

    If the employer still hires these people, that's totally up to them, including the no pork or alcohol girl.
    Exaclty. So why are you bothered by the no pork or alcohol girl?



    Potential ≠ near certainty.
    True. But until you actually ask a potential employer, there's really no such thing as a near certainty. Only potential.

    Being a cashier at a grocery store, there is a near certainty you will come into contact with items like pork or alcohol.
    Not at Wegman's if you mention your preferences to them.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #279
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    what I'm not fine with is someone applying for a job when they know they will come into contact with things that their religion forbids.
    Why? Would you have the same view if the issue was a food allergy not religion?


    Although it's not exactly clear that Islam forbids the handling of these products.
    I thought it was just the consumption of them.
    It's not something being forced upon them, so who cares if she's accurate in her views or not?




    Sure, if all customers choose not to purchase pork or alcohol.
    Proving that she is capable of serving all customers.

    Which is an entirely arbitrary form of discrimination.
    Actually, it's the exact opposite of arbitrary and it's not really a form discrimination.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #280
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Dix View Post
    I would leave.
    Well since they decided not to serve you, that would make sense.


    They would lose a lot of customers because who wants to wait in a crowded line if there is a shorter line?
    So they lose business over the 10 items or less line?

    That's not being selfish, btw.
    Of course it is.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 28 of 31 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •