Page 29 of 31 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 308

Thread: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

  1. #281
    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
    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.
    If that's the case, the manager is stupid and she is not at fault, at all.
    I wouldn't fault her, if that's the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Doing nothing at all, can certainly be the case, if the customers lining up have pork or alcohol.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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?
    Common practice.
    The state law, as dumb as it is, has been in effect for some time.
    Enough that it's not an issue in common practice with most grocery stores.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Exaclty. So why are you bothered by the no pork or alcohol girl?
    If (because we don't know all the details) this person applied for a job, where they would have to ask for special religious exemptions, they shouldn't have done so in the first place.

    Like a female believer of Islam or Christianity, going to work at a strip club as a dancer, then later saying they can disrobe in front of other men.
    That they have to do so under a burka or behind a curtain.

    Now, the employer can allow this, but the women applying for the job is still an idiot for doing so in the first place, knowing the it is common practice for strippers to get naked in front of other men.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    True. But until you actually ask a potential employer, there's really no such thing as a near certainty. Only potential.
    I just think someone should apply for a job, where they can fit best.
    In this case, maybe she should stock some isles or do other types of customer service.
    Avoiding the issue entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Not at Wegman's if you mention your preferences to them.
    Of course, that's their choice.
    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

  2. #282
    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
    Why? Would you have the same view if the issue was a food allergy not religion?
    Because it becomes a potential source of conflict.
    Where the single individual has to ask a majority to appease them.
    In this sense, it's in the best interest of the greater good for the individual to find something that best fits them, not for the employer to do things for them.
    You aren't getting paid to be comfortable within your religion or whatever else the problem is.

    If you have a food allergy, you should avoid situations, as best as possible, where you come into contact with those foods.
    So yes, absolutely, would I hold the same position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It's not something being forced upon them, so who cares if she's accurate in her views or not?
    Maybe the source of conflict can be remediable, through a correction in what she believes, rather than what they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Proving that she is capable of serving all customers.
    The store sells these items, the store is supposed to sell these items because customers want them.
    To me, it seems retarded to put the onus on the customer, to not buy an item, so they can be served by this individual.
    That's not what she gets paid to do. (well she does now)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Actually, it's the exact opposite of arbitrary and it's not really a form discrimination.
    It's arbitrary based on the fact that packaged alcohol and pork are of no danger to her, in a literal sense.
    It just offends her religion.
    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

  3. #283
    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
    Well since they decided not to serve you, that would make sense.




    So they lose business over the 10 items or less line?



    Of course it is.
    That's not being selfish. Impatient, perhaps, but not selfish.
    I don't understand what point you're making re. the 10 items or less line. Sometimes they'll call you over to that line if the other lines are crowded. It's not expected, though, unless you have 10 items or less.

  4. #284
    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
    If that's the case, the manager is stupid and she is not at fault, at all.
    I wouldn't fault her, if that's the case.
    Why would he be stupid for that. Maybe he really thinks she'll be a good employee and doesn't feel that ringing up pork and alcohol counts as a basic job requirement. She migt end up beingthe best employee they've ever had for all we know.

    Doing nothing at all, can certainly be the case, if the customers lining up have pork or alcohol.
    Or if there are no customers at all at any given time.

    Common practice.
    The state law, as dumb as it is, has been in effect for some time.
    Enough that it's not an issue in common practice with most grocery stores.
    Is it not a common practice at Wegman's to treat their employees well? I gathered that it was a common practice there from what people have said.

    If (because we don't know all the details) this person applied for a job, where they would have to ask for special religious exemptions, they shouldn't have done so in the first place.
    Why not?

    Like a female believer of Islam or Christianity, going to work at a strip club as a dancer, then later saying they can disrobe in front of other men.
    That they have to do so under a burka or behind a curtain.
    If the strip club chooses to make such accommodations for them, what's the problem with it? Especially in that industry where they wouldn't make any money from doing that. I'd almost allow them to do it for the ****s and giggles. They work for tips.

    Now, the employer can allow this, but the women applying for the job is still an idiot for doing so in the first place, knowing the it is common practice for strippers to get naked in front of other men.
    Why are they an idiot for doing it? Do you think that peoples shouldn't ask for stuff from their employers simply to see if they can get it?


    I just think someone should apply for a job, where they can fit best.
    What if that's not possible?

    In this case, maybe she should stock some isles or do other types of customer service.
    That's up to the employer, no.

    Avoiding the issue entirely.
    What issue? There's really no issue if both parties agree.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #285
    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
    That's not being selfish. Impatient, perhaps, but not selfish.
    The fact that it's done due to impatience is why it's selfish.

    I don't understand what point you're making re. the 10 items or less line.
    The point is that your claim about them losing customers is not supported by the evidence presented by the existence of 10 items or less lines.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #286
    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
    Why would he be stupid for that. Maybe he really thinks she'll be a good employee and doesn't feel that ringing up pork and alcohol counts as a basic job requirement. She migt end up beingthe best employee they've ever had for all we know.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Or if there are no customers at all at any given time.
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Is it not a common practice at Wegman's to treat their employees well? I gathered that it was a common practice there from what people have said.
    Ehh, that's sort of a straw man.
    My issue isn't with Wegman's, I've never heard of it until this story.

    Making accommodations for religion, when it can conflict with the duty of the job, aka servicing custom regardless of their cart contents.
    Isn't the same as treating employees well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Why not?
    Because it's up to the individual to find a job that best fits their beliefs.
    It's not the employers responsibility.

    I guess it's a difference of beliefs.
    I don't think it's proper, it seems extra needy, in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If the strip club chooses to make such accommodations for them, what's the problem with it? Especially in that industry where they wouldn't make any money from doing that. I'd almost allow them to do it for the ****s and giggles. They work for tips.
    The club can do as it wishes, I still think the applicant/employee is dumb for doing so.
    If it turns out to be a winner for them, great, but I find it unlikely.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Why are they an idiot for doing it? Do you think that peoples shouldn't ask for stuff from their employers simply to see if they can get it?
    No.
    It's annoying.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What if that's not possible?
    Sucks for you.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's up to the employer, no.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What issue? There's really no issue if both parties agree.
    There isn't if both parties agree.
    I just have a different standard, of what I expect out of people.
    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

  7. #287
    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
    Because it becomes a potential source of conflict.
    Where the single individual has to ask a majority to appease them.
    In this sense, it's in the best interest of the greater good for the individual to find something that best fits them, not for the employer to do things for them.
    You aren't getting paid to be comfortable within your religion or whatever else the problem is.
    She didn't ask the majority to appease her, she only asked her employer to do so. She's not asking people to not by pork and alcohol because it offends her sensibilities.

    If you have a food allergy, you should avoid situations, as best as possible, where you come into contact with those foods.
    So you feel that such a person would be an idiot if they asked their employer if such an accommodation could be made for them?


    Maybe the source of conflict can be remediable, through a correction in what she believes, rather than what they did.
    What conflict are you talking about? Both parties happily agreed to the arrangement that exists.

    The store sells these items, the store is supposed to sell these items because customers want them.
    They sell those items because they choose to sell those items. Teh customers buy form that store because they choose to buy form that store. Neither party is entitled to the other's services.


    To me, it seems retarded to put the onus on the customer, to not buy an item, so they can be served by this individual.
    Why is that retarded? It's not like they are entitled to her services. She's not their slave. If they really want her services, then they can choose to receive her services. Why shouldn't they be responsible for their choices?



    That's not what she gets paid to do. (well she does now)

    You don't define what she's paid to do. Why do you keep acting like you do by making claims like this?


    It just offends her religion.
    Meaning it is the exact opposite of arbitrary.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #288
    Sewer Rat
    Risky Thicket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,803

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    This tough from an iPhone but I'll try.

    What I'm ready now page after page are a lot "what ifs": "What if she is the beginning of a Muslim hoarde of checkout people at Wegmans?" "What if people with booze have schlep to another register?" "What if the other employees key her car in the parking lo?" What if doesn't mean jack? Y'all all tight jawed and wanting to argue about things that don't exist!

    Wegmans is a family owned business. It can hire her or not. It can change the job description, it can make accommodations. The facts ARE that they are not discriminating against this woman because of her beliefs. They may very well doing similar things for orthodox Jews. Good for them! I hope they are employing people with disabilities too and providing them with reasonable accommodations and equal opportunity as well. Bless 'em.

    If by doing this they discourage small minded and impatient bastards from shopping there Wegmans must be heaven on earth!

    Wegmans knows what it is doing despite the incredible hysterics by some posting here. And they make money being good guys! Imagine that! But here is the bottom line. Wegmans knows damn well what it is doing.

    We don't know all the facts. We don't know if this store in particular serves a large Muslim population or if she is training to work in a store they will open in a Muslim area. Or maybe Wegmans truly believes that you cannot end hate with hate. Maybe they realize that understanding each other is the candle in the darkness.










    "When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf

    When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that person is crazy. ~Dave Barry



  9. #289
    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
    She didn't ask the majority to appease her, she only asked her employer to do so. She's not asking people to not by pork and alcohol because it offends her sensibilities.
    And by proxy the customers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So you feel that such a person would be an idiot if they asked their employer if such an accommodation could be made for them?
    In the instance of being a cashier of a grocery store, where the incidence of coming into contact with an item, is high, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What conflict are you talking about? Both parties happily agreed to the arrangement that exists.
    Conflict is a disagreement between the duty's of the job and the person's belief.
    Such a conflict existed and was remediated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    They sell those items because they choose to sell those items. Teh customers buy form that store because they choose to buy form that store. Neither party is entitled to the other's services.
    Of course, but the common function of a grocery store is to sell those items and the common behavior of cashiers is to scan those items without issue.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Why is that retarded? It's not like they are entitled to her services. She's not their slave. If they really want her services, then they can choose to receive her services. Why shouldn't they be responsible for their choices?
    It's a customer service oriented business and job.
    Doing whats best for the customer, is the job.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You don't define what she's paid to do. Why do you keep acting like you do by making claims like this?
    Of course I don't.
    But practically every other cashier, can ring up items indiscriminately, common practice defines the duty.

    Besides the fact, that she had to ask to be exempt from scanning some items, which implies that it was part of the duty of her job.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Meaning it is the exact opposite of arbitrary.
    To me, it's arbitrary.
    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

  10. #290
    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 Risky Thicket View Post
    This tough from an iPhone but I'll try.

    What I'm ready now page after page are a lot "what ifs": "What if she is the beginning of a Muslim hoarde of checkout people at Wegmans?" "What if people with booze have schlep to another register?" "What if the other employees key her car in the parking lo?" What if doesn't mean jack? Y'all all tight jawed and wanting to argue about things that don't exist!

    Wegmans is a family owned business. It can hire her or not. It can change the job description, it can make accommodations. The facts ARE that they are not discriminating against this woman because of her beliefs. They may very well doing similar things for orthodox Jews. Good for them! I hope they are employing people with disabilities too and providing them with reasonable accommodations and equal opportunity as well. Bless 'em.

    If by doing this they discourage small minded and impatient bastards from shopping there Wegmans must be heaven on earth!

    Wegmans knows what it is doing despite the incredible hysterics by some posting here. And they make money being good guys! Imagine that! But here is the bottom line. Wegmans knows damn well what it is doing.

    We don't know all the facts. We don't know if this store in particular serves a large Muslim population or if she is training to work in a store they will open in a Muslim area. Or maybe Wegmans truly believes that you cannot end hate with hate. Maybe they realize that understanding each other is the candle in the darkness.
    Listen, I don't care what religion she is.
    That is not the issue.

    The issue is getting a job, then later asking for exemptions to performing the job.
    That's really it.

    Wegman's doesn't give a crap, that's fine.
    I just, personally, think it's dumb.

    You are hired to a job, do it and go home, where you can practice your religion.
    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

Page 29 of 31 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 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
  •