Hertz fires Muslim drivers for praying on company time

[Guest American Woman]

Employees that aren't religious are not working flat-out for their entire shifts either. You're kidding yourself if you think they do. What you people are advocating here is discriminating against someone because their religious obligations require them to pray for a few minutes a couple times during a shift. Whether you like it or not, you can't not hire someone because they need to pray and you can't fire them because their religion requires them to pray.

You don't have to pay them for their breaks, either. If they want to pray, clock out. Simple as that.

It's like telling a Sikh they have to cut their beard for no other reason than you find it unsightly, telling a Jew they can't wear their yamulka, or denying a Catholic Sundays for observance. You're not allowed to do it. And the reason is simple, you have people that are not religious not working for just as much time for any myriad reasons.

It's not like that at all. Not even remotely. As for other people not working for just as much time for a myriad of reasons, if that's the case, I suspect they would be fired.

Also, they only pray 5 times a day. If they were working a 9-5 job it wouldn't interfere with the day at all because they would pray sunrise (before work), noon (lunch hour), afternoon (after work), sunset, and evening (just before bed). So, I'm guessing at best, they maybe have to pray 3 times during their shifts. One of which could probably occur during a lunch break. Moreover, they only take anywhere from 5-15 minutes. I would be really surprised if the handful of non-Muslim drivers didn't take a few 5-15 minute breathers here and there throughout the day... paid.

What would really surprise you - ie: what your are guessing - and what's really happening are two different things. I doubt if the company would keep employees who are doing as you suggest while firing other employees for praying. I know of no reputable company that knowingly allows people to take breaks - just because they feel like it - above and beyond what they are allowed to take.

[guyser]

Untrue. If you are a Jew or Muslim working at BillyBobs BBQ Bonanaza you are exp[ected to serve those pork ribs cheerfully or they will find soembody who does.

Same with working on your Sabbath, if it is a normal part of the work week and you are assigned- you work or buh-bye.

Uh...no not right at all.

[Guest American Woman]

Not working while being paid to work? Sounds like acceptable grounds for dismissal. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just hope some stupid pc court doesn't decide to meddle.

Sounds as if the courts will be involved:

The union has filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. The union also is filing religious discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

link

[msj]

Sounds as if the courts will be involved:

The union has filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. The union also is filing religious discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

link

Well, although I clearly side with the employer on this issue, however I can see how they could lose this case.

If they have allowed other employees to take extra paid breaks for other reasons (smoke break, for example) while not allowing the employees who happen to bow towards Mecca the same, then I think the employees have a case.

As usual, it's important for the employer to make a policy and follow it consistently.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, although I clearly side with the employer on this issue, however I can see how they could lose this case.

If they have allowed other employees to take extra paid breaks for other reasons (smoke break, for example) while not allowing the employees who happen to bow towards Mecca the same, then I think the employees have a case.

As usual, it's important for the employer to make a policy and follow it consistently.

Who says they aren't? And who says those who bow towards Mecca don't also smoke? - if your scenario is even relevant.

Some of the Muslims have agreed to clock out and have returned to work. Others seem to think they should be paid for observing their religion.

The company, I think it should be noted, even set up a prayer room to accommodate the Muslim employees.

[guyser]

Proof?

Jewish teachers taking time off for Yom Kippur.

Seventh day adventist refusing to work on Saturday.

[cybercoma]

Jewish teachers taking time off for Yom Kippur.

Seventh day adventist refusing to work on Saturday.

Meanwhile Christian teachers get three weeks off for Christmas and many states still have reduced Sunday hours for Christian observances.

Anyone else wanting their faith recognized is exploiting the system though.

[Guest American Woman]

Jewish teachers taking time off for Yom Kippur.

Seventh day adventist refusing to work on Saturday.

Court Says Adventist Postmen Can’t Get Saturday Off

As for taking time off during Yom Kippur, I would wager it's time they have coming.

Edited October 21, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

Who says they aren't? And who says those who bow towards Mecca don't also smoke? - if your scenario is even relevant.

Methinks you need to reread what I wrote and pay particular attention to the word "if."

As in: If the company has been inconsistent....

Some of the Muslims have agreed to clock out and have returned to work. Others seem to think they should be paid for observing their religion.

The company, I think it should be noted, even set up a prayer room to accommodate the Muslim employees.

Yes, but I think it will still come down to consistency.

Once again: IF the company was/is allowing people to take paid smoke breaks in excess of the 2 ten minute breaks then the company is likely not going to win this one.

[msj]

Jewish teachers taking time off for Yom Kippur.

Seventh day adventist refusing to work on Saturday.

Oh, so you think these people are exploiting us reasonable Canadians?

And, are they not also Canadians so does this not make it Canadians exploiting reasonable Canadians.

[Guest American Woman]

Methinks you need to reread what I wrote and pay particular attention to the word "if."

Methinks you should take your own advice.

Yes, but I think it will still come down to consistency.

Once again: IF the company was/is allowing people to take paid smoke breaks in excess of the 2 ten minute breaks then the company is likely not going to win this one.

....on Sept. 30, Hertz posted a new policy that states all rest and meal periods must be punched, including all religious observation, according to the union. "The company unilaterally implemented this policy to clock in and out, and specifically identified prayer breaks in their policy. They have not applied the policy to people who take smoke breaks," Thompson said. The union says that as of Sept. 30, that policy had changed to require punching out for all breaks, including religious ones.

link

[guyser]

Court Says Adventist Postmen Can’t Get Saturday Off

As for taking time off during Yom Kippur, I would wager it's time they have coming.

No, they wanted to be paid for it and won.

In the case you cite though,No surprise, he lost on the undue hardship section.

He did not lose because he wanted time off nor because he took it anyway. Same applies here.

"ruled that giving Harrell Saturdays off would create an “undue hardship”

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/04/court-says-adventist-postmen-cant-get-saturday-off.php#ixzz1bSGz26i5

[fellowtraveller]

I want to know why they're not given breaks spread out evenly throughout the day where they can pray, if that's what they choose to do.

Well, for one thing they are shuttle drivers. Their work schedules are defined by what their customers- Hertz passengers- need, and not what their personal schedule requires. This is not uncommon in service industries, now is it?

And I will point out again that this Star article is not the whole story, there is more to it.

The employer provides the same break times to all, and requires that all staff clock out now. The reason they do this is that some employees are taking more and unscheduled breaks, and guess who they are.

And yes, employers do have the right to somewhat control what their staff do on paid breaks, but Hertz has no objection to people praying. All they want is that ALL staff clock in and out. Some have been complying all along. It is not an unreasonable request.

[msj]

Methinks you should take your own advice.

I know what "if" means....

....on Sept. 30, Hertz posted a new policy that states all rest and meal periods must be punched, including all religious observation, according to the union. "The company unilaterally implemented this policy to clock in and out, and specifically identified prayer breaks in their policy. They have not applied the policy to people who take smoke breaks," Thompson said. The union says that as of Sept. 30, that policy had changed to require punching out for all breaks, including religious ones.

link

Yes, and if someone comes forward after September 30 and is able to convince a judge that he/she took a smoke break and got paid for it despite this being his/her 3rd break, and the company continues to employ that person, well, I suspect the judge will rule accordingly.

[Guest American Woman]

No, they wanted to be paid for it and won.

What? Who wanted to be paid for it and won?

In the case you cite though,No surprise, he lost on the undue hardship section.

He lost; religious beliefs didn't overrule the policies.

He did not lose because he wanted time off nor because he took it anyway. Same applies here.

"ruled that giving Harrell Saturdays off would create an “undue hardship”

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/04/court-says-adventist-postmen-cant-get-saturday-off.php#ixzz1bSGz26i5

Yeah, he lost. He didn't get the day off because of his religious beliefs. I'm missing the point you're trying to make ................

[guyser]

Oh, so you think these people are exploiting us reasonable Canadians?

No, just showing reasonable accommodation

And, are they not also Canadians so does this not make it Canadians exploiting reasonable Canadians.

Same as above.

Edited October 21, 2011 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

I know what "if" means....

Then I guess that makes two of us, eh?

Yes, and if someone comes forward after September 30 and is able to convince a judge that he/she took a smoke break and got paid for it despite this being his/her 3rd break, and the company continues to employ that person, well, I suspect the judge will rule accordingly.

And I suspect if someone comes forward after September 30 and claims to have taken a paid break that's not allowed, to the court, much less, the company WON'T continue to employ that person. How stupid do you think the company is?

Edited October 21, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

Then I guess that makes two of us, eh?

And I suspect if someone comes forward after September 30 and claims to have taken a paid break that's not allowed, to the court, much less, the company WON'T continue to employ that person. How stupid do you think the company is?

Sure, I would assume that to be the case.

But my point all along has been that if the company does not follow the policy consistently (and that does happen) then they could find themselves on the losing end because of this.

Please note the definition of "could."

[Guest American Woman]

Sure, I would assume that to be the case.

But my point all along has been that if the company does not follow the policy consistently (and that does happen) then they could find themselves on the losing end because of this.

Please note the definition of "could."

And please note that your inclusion of "if" and "could" doesn't make your possible scenarios any less ridiculous.

[msj]

Same as above.

I was asking Bob for proof of exploitation of reasonable accommodation rather than proof that reasonable accommodation exists so I'm not sure what road we are taking....

[guyser]

What? Who wanted to be paid for it and won?

The teachers wanted to be paid, the school said no, take the days but we aint paying. The schools lost.

He lost; religious beliefs didn't overrule the policies.

He lost the appeal I agree, but he lost because they could not accomodate his request and the union bargaining rights would have been compromised.

Yeah, he lost. He didn't get the day off because of his religious beliefs. I'm missing the point you're trying to make ................

He did not lose because of his religious beliefs at all.

Edited October 21, 2011 by guyser

[msj]

And please note that your inclusion of "if" and "could" doesn't make your possible scenarios any less ridiculous.

How is it ridiculous?

Employers have been found imposing inconsistent policies before and surly will again.

Sometimes the policies are implemented inconsistently due to incompetence and other times by design (i.e. the policy is put in place specifically against these employees).

While I agree that Hertz appears to be following a policy that is designed properly and with fair intent this does not mean that it is not possible for a manager to be applying it inconsistently for all kinds of reasons.

Note that I am in way arguing that Hertz is a Denny's.

Edited October 21, 2011 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

The teachers wanted to be paid, the school said no, take the days but we aint paying. The schools lost.

I'm afraid you lost me. I don't know what teachers you're referring to. Did I miss a link somewhere along the way?

He lost the appeal I agree, but he lost because they could not accomodate his request and the union bargaining rights would have been compromised.

Right. So religious beliefs don't trump policy.

He did not lose because of his religious beliefs at all.

My point is that he didn't win because of his religious beliefs; his religious beliefs did not take precedence over policy - which generally is made for the good of the company/other employees. It's an example of religious beliefs not trumping the position of the other workers.

[Guest American Woman]

While I agree that Hertz appears to be following a policy that is designed properly and with fair intent this does not mean that it is not possible for a manager to be applying it inconsistently for all kinds of reasons.

Then most likely the manager would be fired. That would be the "not stupid" thing for the company to do. If the policy of the company is consistent, I doubt a court would find that one manager, who would be fired upon the company learning of his/her not following company policy, would be representative of the company - and rule against the company because of it. After all, it wouldn't be representative of the company policy, it would simply be representative of the poor performance of one employee.

Note that I am in way arguing that Hertz is a Denny's.

Ok?

Edited October 21, 2011 by American Woman

[guyser]

Right. So religious beliefs don't trump policy.

Except they do in many cases. When they cannont accomodate, or bargaining contracts stipulate they cant then yes.

It's an example of religious beliefs not trumping the position of the other workers.

It can be .

Had this guy been a senior carrier, they would have accomodated him.

Absent of the bargaining, they would have had to, save for undue hardship.

The judge opined 2 reasons, undue and the union contract. At no time was religious beliefs his concern.