Hertz fires Muslim drivers for praying on company time

[Moonlight Graham]

Plus...why hire anyone you KNOW is going to work less than someone who doesn't go butt-up 5 times a day? The government would have to legislate me to hire them.

very good point

[bud]

Court Says Adventist Postmen Can’t Get Saturday Off

while in canada:

S.C.C. FINDS UNION HAS DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Central Okanagan School Dist. No. 23 v. Renaud (1992), 16 C.H.R.R. D/425 (S.C.C.)

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada restores the decision of the B.C. Council of Human Rights, which found that Larry Renaud was discriminated against by both his employer and his union because of his religious beliefs.

Mr. Renaud, a school custodian, is a Seventh Day Adventist.

---

personally, i think personal time with whoever your god is should be done on your own personal time. not on company time.

[Guest American Woman]

personally, i think personal time with whoever your god is should be done on your own personal time. not on company time.

OMG!!! We agree on something!!

I think religious beliefs should be personal, period. I believe in separation of church and state, of church and school, of church and job, of church and everything.

I think Hertz did the right thing; I actually applaud the company for its stance.

[Guest American Woman]

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

But either they do or they don't. If they do, then it has to be the thing that takes precedence. But it's not.

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.

The fact that "at no time was religious beliefs [the judge's] concern" confirms what I've been saying. I think we're saying the same thing? - That religious beliefs don't trump policy, and that's what the Muslims who didn't agree to punch out for their prayer breaks are fighting.

[guyser]

The fact that "at no time was religious beliefs [the judge's] concern" confirms what I've been saying. I think we're saying the same thing? - That religious beliefs don't trump policy,

Hmm...I am saying that religion would trump the policy.

The policy concerning religious beliefs is...

1) does it cause undue hardship ?

Yes because no one else could fill the role as he is a junior member.

Had he been a senior member in a non unionzed job (no CBA), his religion would have trumped and he would have won.

Is that what we agree on?

Edited October 21, 2011 by guyser

[msj]

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.

Oh, I agree.

The point still remains - if management is found not following the policy consistently then it is possible that the court could rule that the intent of the policy (and suspensions/firings) was discriminatory.

What I'm saying is this - it is possible for the company to lose a case if they are as stupid as Denny's was.

Ok?

Denny's paid out tens of millions of dollars back in the 1990's over racial discrimination.

I can't remember the exact scenario, although I think it was with black customers not getting service like white customers, rather than any employee issue, but you would probably find that scenario as ridiculous as the one I have presented above...

[Guest American Woman]

Hmm...I am saying that religion would trump the policy.

The policy concerning religious beliefs is...

1) does it cause undue hardship ?

Yes because no one else could fill the role as he is a junior member.

Had he been a senior member in a non unionzed job (no CBA), his religion would have trumped and he would have won.

Is that what we agree on?

Noooooooo.... his religion wouldn't have trumped - his senior position would have. I think that's what we agree on.

[cybercoma]

While I agree that Hertz appears to be following a policy that is designed properly and with fair intent

Not to mention intent doesn't matter in cases of disparate impact in the US.

[msj]

Not to mention intent doesn't matter in cases of disparate impact in the US.

That's an excellent point that I did not consider.

My scenario was contemplating disparate treatment.

Not to go too far off topic but for some reason I'm reminded of this cartoon I saw recently.

[msj]

Well, according to this, my "disparate treatment" scenario may not be so far fetched.

"The company unilaterally implemented this policy to clock in and out, and specifically identified prayer breaks in their policy," union spokesperson Tracey Thompson told KOMO. "They have not applied the policy to people who take smoke breaks."

[Guest American Woman]

Well, according to this, my "disparate treatment" scenario may not be so far fetched.

Repeating: Hertz said clocking out is required for all breaks, and it is now enforcing that policy to prevent abuse.

That's "now enforcing that policy" to "all breaks." No disparate treatment to be found there.

[Shakeyhands]

This is just silly.

I smoke and work at a company that has a majority of Muslims employed, like by a long shot. It takes me longer to have a cigarette than it does for them to pray, add on 2 minutes for Wudu and it's about the same. The reality is that during a typical 9 to 5 day, only one prayer (Zuhr) is done. The exception for this time is Fridays of course, then it is definately longer as the men travel to a mosque. Friday prayer takes about a half hour to forty five minutes or sometimes longer because of distance to the Mosque...

Fajr, 'Asr, Maghrib, 'Isha' prayers don't take place during a normal working day with the exception of 'Asr if you work an extended day say till 7-8 pm.

Because of the shortened North American days, there could be some variance of course.

I'll say this about my coworkers, some of the nicest and most respectful people I have ever met, and they all have excellent senses of humour. I wouldn't change a thing about them.

You know, if more people took the time to learn about different people, their beliefs and customs, this world would be a much nicer place.

[Guest American Woman]

What does this have to do with how nice the Muslims are? I don't care how nice the smokers are either. I don't care to pick up the slack for their cigarette breaks. Add smoke breaks to the Muslims who pray and smoke and there's even more slack for others to pick up.

But the company clearly said it's enforcing the break rules because people were taking advantage of it/abusing it. I don't care what the reasons are - it's not fair to the other workers who don't pray, smoke, or take more breaks than they are allowed for any reason.

Furthermore, if only one prayer is done, there's no problem. It can be done on their break(s).

Washington state law allows employees two paid 10-minute breaks during an eight-hour shift.

Workers must be allowed a paid rest break of at least 10 minutes for each 4 hours worked.

If more than 5 hours are worked in a shift: Workers must be allowed at least a 30 minute meal period.

link

They apparently are refusing to clock out when they take prayer breaks.

Hertz, which says the drivers were suspended not for praying but for failing to clock in and out, as required under a collective bargaining agreement [...]

Hertz said it had accommodated the Muslim workers' prayer schedule for 15 years at the Seattle airport location and created a designated space for them to pray.

"Clocking out became necessary when there was widespread abuse of break privileges, and to ensure fairness for all of our 320 Seattle airport employees," Broome said.

"The 34 employees were suspended for failing to agree to clock out for breaks which we believe is the fairest resolution to preserve every employee's and management's legitimate interests."

link

Doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request to me. I feel the same way about smokers, or anyone else who takes more/longer breaks than they are entitled to.

As I said, it has nothing to do with how nice they are or learning about their beliefs and customs. All that's required of them is the same that's required of everyone else - clocking in and out for their breaks.

[Shakeyhands]

What does this have to do with how nice the Muslims are? I don't care how nice the smokers are either. ....

I was simply pointing out that it's not a great amount of time, and adding my take. Read my opinion, agree or not, it doesn't really matter to me.

[Guest American Woman]

I was simply pointing out that it's not a great amount of time, and adding my take. Read my opinion, agree or not, it doesn't really matter to me.

I, in turn, was simply pointing out that it has nothing to do with how nice they are or with ignorance about them and their customs, adding my take, same as you - not because I thought it would matter to you, but because that's what people on a political forum do.

Again, no matter how great the amount of time, someone is left holding the bag. Being a non-smoker, I feel the same way about smokers. The requirement is that Muslims clock in and out for their breaks, same as everyone else. There is nothing unfair or unreasonable about the requirement.

[cybercoma]

Well, according to this, my "disparate treatment" scenario may not be so far fetched.

The problem is simply a matter of wording. They can say, "you may only pray during your breaks." I have no problem with that and I'm pretty sure everyone else here feels the same. However, there's a important and discriminatory difference saying, "you must punch out to pray."

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I side with the employer.

The employer generously gave them more unpaid breaks, more than they are required to by law, so that they can practice their religion.

The employees refused to take the time unpaid.

When I worked retail in High School, some of the other workers used to take "smoke breaks" fairly frequently. I started taking "Smoke Breaks" even though I didn't smoke. They'd say "But you don't smoke!" and I'd say "If you get a smoke break, I get a smoke break even if I don't smoke." They eventually stopped taking breaks because they realised that picking up someone elses slack was a piss off (just as it was for me).

You are not entitled to more paid break time because of your habits, whatever they may be.

Edited October 22, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[cybercoma]

Again, no matter how great the amount of time, someone is left holding the bag. Being a non-smoker, I feel the same way about smokers. The requirement is that Muslims clock in and out for their breaks, same as everyone else. There is nothing unfair or unreasonable about the requirement.

This is such BS. Someone's stuck holding the bag, you're right. They are wages in kind because the person isn't working. However, not a single person, smoker or otherwise, works all-out flat for their entire shift. People take unscheduled breaks all the time by talking to co-workers, grabbing a drink at the water fountain, and by other means. There's an entire field of study devoted to work-resistance and these sorts of micro-thefts. You're right it's wrong, but it's also extremely common. The problem here is that Muslims are being targeted specifically for praying, a legitimate activity defended by human rights codes, while other forms of wages in kind are not targeted because they're not as easily identifiable. Even if they were targeted, they would be exponentially more difficult to enforce than a prayer rule.

[cybercoma]

You are not entitled to more paid break time because of your habits, whatever they may be.

You're right. You're not, but that's not the issue here.

[msj]

Repeating: Hertz said clocking out is required for all breaks, and it is now enforcing that policy to prevent abuse.

That's "now enforcing that policy" to "all breaks." No disparate treatment to be found there.

And the union spokeperson is telling a different story. She has specifically stated "they have not applied the policy to people who take smoke breaks." [Please note the tense being applied in this statement]

If her story is true - i.e. that people are not punching out and, therefore, are getting paid for additional breaks, then I doubt a court would agree with your assessment.

However, please note what I stated: Well, according to this, my "disparate treatment" scenario may not be so far fetched.

Now, let me explain basic English to you: by using the word "may" I am making the claim contingent on if the union spokesperson is correct (as opposed to what the company states) and if a judge can be convinced that the union's story is correct.

We won't know that unless this goes to court and, of course, either side could settle this way before then depending on many factors.

[Guest American Woman]

I side with the employer.

The employer generously gave them more unpaid breaks, more than they are required to by law, so that they can practice their religion.

The employees refused to take the time unpaid.

Actually, they were paid - and they still get paid for the breaks even though they clock in and out. The clocking in and out apparently became necessary because they were taking more than the ten minutes allowed. So the refusal is to clock in and out - even though they'll still get paid.

Edited October 22, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

The problem is simply a matter of wording. They can say, "you may only pray during your breaks." I have no problem with that and I'm pretty sure everyone else here feels the same. However, there's a important and discriminatory difference saying, "you must punch out to pray."

Sure, but we seem to have the company's story and the union's story and I can see either story being right or wrong or something in between.

Despite being an employer (and, not exactly pro-union) it's not like I don't want to believe Hertz.

It's just that there appears to be more to this story that might require lawyers and judges to figure out.

[Guest American Woman]

And the union spokeperson is telling a different story. She has specifically stated "they have not applied the policy to people who take smoke breaks." [Please note the tense being applied in this statement]

And please note that they are NOW applying it to smokers. They hadn't been applying it to Muslims praying on their breaks either, but some were taking more than the ten minutes allowed. The clocking in and out is to document how long they are taking on their breaks - they are still paid for the breaks. And again. The company said it is now applying the same requirement to smokers. To all. Nothing unfair or unreasonable about that.

[msj]

Actually, they were paid - and they still get paid for the breaks even though they clock in and out. The clocking in and out apparently became necessary because they were taking more than the ten minutes allowed. So the refusal is to clock in and out - even though they'll still get paid.

And, allegedly, Hertz allows other people to take smoke breaks without clocking in and out; ie. the smoker may be getting extra paid breaks while the religious don't.

We don't know all of the facts.

Just because you buy the company line hook, line, and sinker does not mean that that is what has really gone on.

The union, gasp!, could be right about the application of this policy and, if they are, and a court can be convinced of this, then Hertz will be known as it's own kind of Denny's.

[cybercoma]

Gray doesn't exist in AMWO's world.