Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2028293031 LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 308

Thread: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

  1. #291
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    [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
    I posted it earlier. But you miss my point. I was not saying that a customer can't go elsewhere. I was saying that such should be the remedy. as opposed to government intrusion on the product and service choices of the retailer.

    FYI, certain privately owned drug stores had refused to sell birth control of any sort. Some states passed laws compelling them to sell such items regardless. Illinois for one.

    You can Google that topic, and get all kinds of interesting stuff from the last decade.
    Last edited by Eighty Deuce; 04-03-12 at 07:16 PM.

  2. #292
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Um, actually, she doesn't need to. She asked for a dispensation and she received it. She's not in the wrong here.
    Never said she was in the wrong. But, hey...nevermind what I really said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #293
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    what an ignorant, pathetic, and stupid comparison.

    congrats.
    I think the comparison is perfect.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #294
    Sewer Rat
    Risky Thicket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,809

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    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.
    But HG, perhaps she is doing the job SHE was hired to do. Wegman's doesn't seem to have an issue with her. As far as I know the community by a large doesn't seem to have an issue with her. I'm confused then why it's an issue. Do you shop at that Wegman's? Are you opposed to Wegman's accommodating the work schedule of orthodox Jews?

    There is a very successful Southern fast food chain called Chick-fil-A. I don't know if they have it where you live. They have a good product as fast food goes and they have done very well. Chick-fil-A has never been open on Sundays. The Cathy Family started and owns Chick-fil-A is a Southern Baptist family. They made a decision long ago not to work on Sunday. They don't have just one Muslim woman who doesn't handle pork or alcohol in one store, they close ALL stores every Sunday. Look how much money they are losing by closing on Sundays. By your standards they are dumber than the Wegman's.










    "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



  5. #295
    Sage
    Enola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    07-30-16 @ 02:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,326
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    I didn't know Chick did that. We don't have them here, but I have heard of them.

  6. #296
    Sewer Rat
    Risky Thicket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,809

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Enola View Post
    I didn't know Chick did that. We don't have them here, but I have heard of them.
    Yeah, they always have. It works for them, more power to them. Is it costing them profit? Probably. But, I'd be very surprised if I ever discovered that the Cathy family emphasized profit over everything else. Wegmans and Chick-fil-A are both family owned.










    "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



  7. #297
    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
    And by proxy the customers.
    The employer is asking the customers, not her. They don't have to make the accommodation, they choose to. And the customers don't have to shop there, they choose to.



    In the instance of being a cashier of a grocery store, where the incidence of coming into contact with an item, is high, yes.
    But the incidence is not high for her due to the fact that she asked. To me, idiocy is not even attempting to find out if the situation is a fit and making stupid assumptions that turn out to be wrong. She had no guarantees that she would receive the accommodation, but she might have still been willing to perform the tasks because she needed the job.

    Read it all again. She only said that she was uncomfortable, not unwilling. There's a huge difference there.

    Conflict is a disagreement between the duty's of the job and the person's belief.
    Exactly. No conflict existed outside of your imagination because you are the one disagreeing with the job's duties and her beliefs. Her employer obviously does not disagree with her, as evidenced by their choice to make the accommodation.

    Such a conflict existed and was remediated.
    No, the conflict didn't exist because it was addressed before it ever became a conflict.

    Conflicts only occur when disagreement is present. In this case, there was no disagreement.



    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.
    So? This isn't every grocery store, it is a specific grocery store. You dont;' decide what their function is, nor does the common function decide that. The function of Wegman's is defined by Wegman's alone.



    It's a customer service oriented business and job.
    So?


    Doing whats best for the customer, is the job.
    Again: You don't define the job.




    Of course I don't.
    Yet you just tried to do so above. Again.

    But practically every other cashier, can ring up items indiscriminately, common practice defines the duty.
    False. The employer defines the duties.

    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.
    You are only taking partial information into account, thus your analysis is flawed. The fact that she was exempted proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is not a part of the duty of her job. The employer defines the duties of her job, not you.


    To me, it's arbitrary.
    What it seems to you is irrelevant. The definition of arbitrary is. You can't simply make up a new definition so that you can label something in a way that you deem negative.

    Arbitrary means what it means, and her issues with pork and alcohol are not based on "random choice or personal whim rather than any reason or system". Her beliefs are based entirely on a specifically defined system, making it the exact opposite of arbitrary. The very fact that it is due to a religious belief means it cannot possibly be arbitrary. No real definition of arbitrary exists which allows for it to qualify as arbitrary.

    How you feel about things is totally and completely irrelevant to that fact.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #298
    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
    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?

    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?


    No.
    It's annoying.
    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.


    Correct.
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #299
    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 Risky Thicket View Post
    They have a good product as fast food goes and they have done very well. Chick-fil-A has never been open on Sundays.
    They opened up a few around the Chicagoland area and I can totally see why they do well. It's actually good enough that I think calling it fast food is a bit of a disservice to them. I'd actually be content with real restaurant food that tasted the same as Chick-fil-A. I can't say that about the vast majority of fast food places.

    I'd attribute that to the fact that it is family-owned, btw. They actually take pride in their product.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 04-04-12 at 01:41 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #300
    Sewer Rat
    Risky Thicket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,809

    Re: Sign at Wegmans draws attention

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    They opened up a few around the Chicagoland area and I can totally see why they do well. It's actually good enough that I think calling it fast food is a bit of a disservice to them. I'd actually be content with real restaurant food that tasted the same as Chick-fil-A. I can't say that about the vast majority of fast food places.

    I'd attribute that to the fact that it is family-owned, btw. They actually take pride in their product.
    Anytime I'm in Chicagoland I'm eating White Castle.










    "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



Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2028293031 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
  •