• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sign at Wegmans draws attention

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.
 
Tucker Case said:
What's a semi-new employee?
Click to expand...

relatively new.

but my question is this: will she only not handle ham or pork, or will she also not handle a can of soup or chocolates that may have some ham or alcohol in it?

there are many things that contain pork. is she gonna read every label to make sure there is no pork inside??

will she not handle mouthwash? (has alcohol)
 
Thunder said:
relatively new.

but my question is this: will she only not handle ham or pork, or will she also not handle a can of soup or chocolates that may have some ham or alcohol in it?

there are many things that contain pork. is she gonna read every label to make sure there is no pork inside??

will she not handle mouthwash? (has alcohol)
Click to expand...

Agreed. And you and I do not agree much.

Where is the line that she can now claim ? As she becomes more aware of these ingredients ? And what of the customer ?

And what of other Wegman's. Their manager preference's ? So Wegman's makes some policy to cover this, but it is still fraught with legal issues. What products ? What of accomodating other religions ? Number of employees by religion ?

Letting people vote with their dollars is fine. Except government doesn't always like that solution.
 
What if the other lines are full? Sorry, but I want to check out as fast as possible, not stand around all day waiting. I wonder how the store will handle customers who go through her line with the "banned" items.
 
Dix said:
What if the other lines are full? Sorry, but I want to check out as fast as possible, not stand around all day waiting. I wonder how the store will handle customers who go through her line with the "banned" items.
Click to expand...

exactly!!!!!!!

5 lines with 12 customers each with a full cart, one line with one person on it with a bag of rice

why should I not be able to use the shorter line?????????????

this is bad business.
 
Thunder said:
exactly!!!!!!!

5 lines with 12 customers each with a full cart, one line with one person on it with a bag of rice

why should I not be able to use the shorter line?????????????

this is bad business.
Click to expand...

Are you ever going to answer my question? What do you think an employer should do about an orthodox Jewish employee who requests Saturdays off? Should they establish a no-orthodox-Jews employment policy to avoid the problem?
 
AdamT said:
Are you ever going to answer my question? What do you think an employer should do about an orthodox Jewish employee who requests Saturdays off? Should they establish a no-orthodox-Jews employment policy to avoid the problem?
Click to expand...

give him saturday off instead of Sunday.

or if they're closed on Sundays, let him take off Saturday..and make up the hours the rest of the week.

my Uncle is an Orthodox Jew, who would leave his city job every Friday at noon.

to compensate for this, he stayed an hour late M-Th.

problem solved.
 
Thunder said:
give him saturday off instead of Sunday.

or if they're closed on Sundays, let him take off Saturday..and make up the hours the rest of the week.

my Uncle is an Orthodox Jew, who would leave his city job every Friday at noon.

to compensate for this, he stayed an hour late M-Th.

problem solved.
Click to expand...

And the "problem" was "solved" at Wegman's, but your panties are still in a bunch over it.
 
Thunder said:
relatively new.
Click to expand...

Relative to what? Either someone is a new employee, or they are not a new employee, no?

but my question is this: will she only not handle ham or pork, or will she also not handle a can of soup or chocolates that may have some ham or alcohol in it?

there are many things that contain pork. is she gonna read every label to make sure there is no pork inside??

will she not handle mouthwash? (has alcohol)
Click to expand...

Why would I know? Even more importantly, who cares?
 
Dix said:
What if the other lines are full? Sorry, but I want to check out as fast as possible, not stand around all day waiting. I wonder how the store will handle customers who go through her line with the "banned" items.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Thunder said:
give him saturday off instead of Sunday.

or if they're closed on Sundays, let him take off Saturday..and make up the hours the rest of the week.

my Uncle is an Orthodox Jew, who would leave his city job every Friday at noon.

to compensate for this, he stayed an hour late M-Th.

problem solved.
Click to expand...

What if it was an orthodox Jew who didn't want to handle unclean pork products?
 
I can see it now. Three lines open, staffed by a devout Catholic, A devout Muslim, and a Brahmin Hindu, as Wegman's can no longer refuse hiring based on religious preferences, and its impact on the job.

One line "No Birth Control". Next line "No alcohol or pork". Last line "No meat at all".

Looks like you need three carts, or you need to make three trips in and out of the store just to buy all that you want ;)

Wegman's must now comply to all religious requests made by its employees with regard to the customers they cannot serve.
 
Thunder said:
give him saturday off instead of Sunday.

or if they're closed on Sundays, let him take off Saturday..and make up the hours the rest of the week.

my Uncle is an Orthodox Jew, who would leave his city job every Friday at noon.

to compensate for this, he stayed an hour late M-Th.

problem solved.
Click to expand...

Why should the employer have to shuffle his schedule -- make special arrangements -- to cater to an Orthodox Jew's religious beliefs? Shouldn't the employer just say, "look, you work like everyone else or you work somewhere else?"
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I can see it now. Three lines open, staffed by a devout Catholic, A devout Muslim, and a Brahmin Hindu, as Wegman's can no longer refuse hiring based on religious preferences, and its impact on the job.

One line "No Birth Control". Next line "No alcohol or pork". Last line "No meat at all".

Looks like you need three carts, or you need to make three trips in and out of the store just to buy all that you want ;)

Wegman's must now comply to all religious requests made by its employees with regard to the customers they cannot serve.
Click to expand...

Crazy, right? Next thing you know they'll be hiring the handicapped.
 
AdamT said:
Crazy, right? Next thing you know they'll be hiring the handicapped.
Click to expand...

While we have seen some businesses hire the clearly handicapped for certain types of work, we have also seen lawsuits where a handicapped was not hired because the employer felt the handicap was too limiting, and the potential employee sued. Not sure of all the ways the courts have ruled, but I believe it is the heart of the issue with Wegmans. At some point they will find themselves caught up with government where they have opened this door. My preference would be that it should all be up to the customers to decide if they want to spend money here or there, or not.

If a store ends up with lagging service because of all their employee accommodations, then folks buying elsewhere should be the only penalty. And if a business does not want to mess with the special religious needs of its employees, it shouldn't have to. But we know government won't let it be.
 
Tucker Case said:
Why must they now do that?
Click to expand...

Litigation. Or perhaps you can explain how Wegman's can refuse a request by a Catholic employee to not ring up birth control, such that they may fire that employee if such request is not honored, and the employee makes it an issue ? Or claims mental suffering ? Do you think Wegman's has the legal standing now to discriminate between such religion-based requests ? Explain. Thanks.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Litigation. Or perhaps you can explain how Wegman's can refuse a request by a Catholic employee to not ring up birth control, such that they may fire that employee if such request is not honored, and the employee makes it an issue ? Or claims mental suffering ? Do you think Wegman's has the legal standing now to discriminate between such religion-based requests ? Explain. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Wegman's can just end this policy if they don't want to extend it to other individuals. Pretty simple, really. Or they can show that a specific request they don't want to accommodate doesn't fall into the category of "reasonable accommodation".

Granted, I can't see why they would fulfill this request while denying other requests of an identical nature. I bet they'd even make the same accommodation for an employee who has a shellfish allergy and prefers to not handle products containing shellfish.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Why should the employer have to shuffle his schedule -- make special arrangements -- to cater to an Orthodox Jew's religious beliefs? Shouldn't the employer just say, "look, you work like everyone else or you work somewhere else?"
Click to expand...

no need to shuffle anything. he simply worked an hour late with no compensation, while others did overtime with him.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...
[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
 
Thunder said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then he didn't work extra hours for no pay.
 
Thunder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Tucker Case said:
****, 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.
Click to expand...

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.

Tucker Case said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom