From the Rocky Mountain News wire:
Several dozen Muslim workers have quit their jobs at a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Grand Island, Neb. because their prayer times weren’t accommodated.
“They kind of issued the company an ultimatum,” said Dan Hoppes, president of Local 22 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
“They went in before the shift started (Monday) and said that they’d go unless they could pray when they needed to,” Hoppes said Tuesday.
Hoppes said 94 workers had quit, but the company put the figure around 70.
Sean McHugh, a spokesman for Swift at its Greeley headquarters, said breaks are governed by a labor contract and all employees are told about them during orientation for all new employees.
Could this be an example of Muslim activists setting up a court challenge they hope will legally expand the scope of Islam in the US?
As far as I know, no other prominent religion routinely practiced in this country involves such a level of workplace concession—there would have to be several breaks for prayer, and it is unclear to me whether the employer is allowed to extend shifts to make up for time lost to religious duty—and, because the company isn’t violating discrimination laws, given that it clearly hires Muslims, the intent of such a suit (which, to be clear, is hypothetical at this point) would necessarily be to normalize Muslim prayer in business.
So if a court challenge can show that the multiple prayer ritual is conclusively tied to the authentic practice of the religion, might not a court conclude that hiring Muslims knowing that they cannot meet the requirements of the job is an end run around equal opportunity / anti-discrimination laws, and so order that Muslims be allowed, at corporate expense, to perform those prayer rituals?
And if so, has not our fidelity to liberalism brought as closer again to sanctioning a form of religious fundamentalism? Or would we merely be protecting Constitutional rights in such an instance?
Paging Dinesh D’Souza…
It could be a fair accomedation. I have no idea how long the prayers are supposed to go. We give smokers a ton of smoke-breaks as it is.
Doubtful. Probably just some muslims trying to get the reasonable accommodation that Title VII entitles them to.
The employer almost certainly could. His only duty is to provide a reasonable accommodation without undue hardship.
No more than a suit to allow an observant Jewish person to wear a Yarmulke on the job would be to normalize Jewish observances in business, or a suit by a Seventh-Day Adventist to get Sundays off would be intended to normalize Seventh-Day Adventism in business.
This isn’t part of the judicial inquiry. Courts try strenuously to avoid ruling on what religious practices are authentic and which are not.
Again, highly doubtful. The inquiry is straightforward – is allowing these people to pray 5 times a day a reasonable accommodation that can be made without undue hardship for the employer, given the circumstances and requirements of the job?
This wouldn’t bother me at all if it weren’t for the fact that companies also are banning “Merry Christmas” and Christmas parties and trees and decorations and stuff. Not all companies, of course, but you know how it goes.
If the Muslims want extra breaks for prayers, I suspect they’ll need to negotiate with the unions over it, because they’re the ones who make the rules. If I were an employer, I’d be OK with the breaks as long as I wasn’t paying for them.
We give smokers a ton of smoke-breaks as it is.
Everywhere I’ve worked regular a 8 hour shift contains two 10 minute breaks and one 20-30 minute meal break. It’s up to the individual how s/he spends the time, no special concessions are made for smokers.
Back to topic, anyone else see the potential for a new welfare class, those who can’t work due to religous reasons?
or a suit by a Seventh-Day Adventist to get Sundays off
Saturdays. They observe Saturday as the Sabbath.
Thanks. Much of what I posited here was pure speculation, but we can proceed directly from this premise, then.
First, I disagree that wearing a yarmulke is the same as taking time off to pray (unless the business is, say, modeling hair gel). Under Title VII, can the argument be made that the accommodation is reasonable, when (as was pointed out up thread), work breaks tend to be two 10 minute breaks in eight hour shift with 20-30 minutes for a meal—with no constraints on how that time is used other than the constraints of logistics)?
That is to say, would being given MORE time off because of your religion compel others to petition for more time off as well, or perhaps even claim Muslim status?
And is not that lost productivity a hardship on businesses that rely on a certain timeliness? Would their competitors be compelled to hire an equal number of Muslims to level the competitive playing field?
I ask these questions in all seriousness, and out of ignorance, which I happily claim here.
But it seems to me that this kind of case, should it be brought, would raise more questions than you seem to be willing to allow, Moops.
And for the record, I posited the potential for Muslim activists setting up a lawsuit because of the sheer number of walkouts, and the fact that the walkout was orchestrated.
And as we know from a certain recent airline incident—along with hundreds of incidents that involve a variety of dedicated identity groups—the practice of poking at the legal system looking to find holes is not unusual for activists hoping to gain advantage from the law.
The “accommodation” is unnecessary, and intended as a political provocation.
“If I miss a prayer in the morning, I pray twice later. Allah is very understanding.”
— The Wind and the Lion
Whether the number’s 94 or 70, I’m having trouble believing there’s that many Muslims in Grand Island, Nebraska. Something sounds fishy. If there really are that many Muslims working at that plant, then why? I’d be interested to know how long the average Muslim has worked at that plant. Interestingly, this is also the one of the Swift plants that was raided for employing illegals.
Sib=nce Jeff asked:
Congress tried to mandate religious accomodation under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Although the EEOC interprets Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as possibly requiring employers time and space to pray unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer, the Supreme Court has set the bar for an “undue hardship” to include lost efficiency in other jobs or higher wages. It’s a significant barrier to Title VII claims.
In response, there have been attempts to require employers to accomodate religious practice like the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, but those bills have not passed, afaik.
Moreover, in this case, the collective bargaining agreement may end up protecting the employer.
But I would have to do some actual research to give a firm opinion on it.
Unionized Muslims. The worst kind.
I would expect a union grievance first. Then we’ll see what happens.
Moops,
I have a little experience employing followers of Islam. It isn’t just the time that the prayer takes, it requires a space that must be maintained and oriented properly. Storage or transport of the appropriate rug or mat will be required too.
The times for prayer are not set in concrete either. All 5? Assume only three will have to be on company time? Night shift differs from Day? How about during Ramazan (Ramadan)?
I managed, obviously. But it blew any attempt to do something continuous into fragments.
Again, we’ll see what can be negotiated/arbitrated/mediated first.
This might be one of those things where they just want the *right* to pray, and doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll catch on. They’re still normal people who want to get their work done and get the hell home. This concession could open the door to the evolution of religious practice that’s not so bowy and scrapey, and that would be a good thing.
I would think not – if you are willing to walk off the job, you are probably a bit more orthodox than someone who would change centuries of custom and prescribed practice.
Yes. The normal breaks aren’t particularly relevant, unless they were used to rebut a possible argument by the employer that all workers must work non-stop. The only issue is whether this particular deviation from the status quo will unduly disrupt the employer’s operations.
I doubt a court would hold that the Muslims are entitled to more paid time off. More likely it would conclude that they were entitled to more breaks, but that those breaks would be unpaid. Unpaid leave is the typical reasonable accommodation for religious practices.
It could be, if the employer could show that 5 breaks a day, even if unpaid, inherently disrupted operations in some significant way.
I really don’t think so. It seems to me a fairly straightforward Title VII religious accommodation question, that is going to turn on how long these breaks have to be, and whether having all these workers stop working 5 times a day will have more than a de minimis impact on the meatpacking business.
Perhaps, but I would think the union more likely orchestrated the walkout, or the employees orchestrated it amongst themselves.
We do? many workplaces are now completely smoke free. No smoking is permitted on property.
This is at a meat packing plant? How long before there’s a row about Halal?
P.S. LMC, that’s a keeper!
Uh, unless they are working 24 hour shifts, can’t they pray on their off time?
If they are working an eight hour shift, that would leave them 16 hours a day to get their 5 prayer sessions in.
I prefer a much more straight forward approach. Here are the terms of employment. If you want to work here this is how it goes. if you don’t I’ll hire the next guy.
I think the Muslims acted appropriately here. They quit a job that conflicted with the religious obligations they were under, of their own free will.
(One counterpoint would be, if their prayer was being interfered with, why take the job to begin with?)
But if they take this to court, then screw ‘em for Fifth Column goons.
The problem is if we don’t accomodate them they will have to kill us. I am so not dying at this job.
First, there’s a union contract involved. The employer couldn’t give any extra breaks to one group of employees because it would violate the contract. To work there, they had to agree to the contract, so the Muslims are the ones demanding a violation of the contract.
Second, odds are this is an assembly line. Having a chunk of your assembly line staff leave at five random times a day seems like a recipe for losing lots of productivity.
Third, there are 16 other hours in the day for them to pray.
Mastiff,
Amen. (Can I say that here?)
I’m a big fan of the “If you don’t like it, leave” doctrine. Liberty is a wonderful thing.
That too.
Thanks, Karl.
That helped.
Common sense is SO not progressive.
That ruling sucks.
If I convert to Rastafari… I can’t smoke ganja at work?
Sucks.
Then if I dig into my Churchillian Native American roots and find that only a worktime peyote ritual will do I’m shit outta luck?
Sucks.
What is all this productivity Bush Hitler fucking work nonsense?
Sucks.
I’m attending work, where’s my money?
Jews…
That is what I am saying- this whole Islam thing is just a fad, it will all blow over eventually. ;p
That was my first thought. To me Swift & Co. means sausage.
Pork sausage.
I wonder what will happen if the courts don’t appease or properly accommodate the muslims’ grievances to their satisfaction? I mean hundreds of thousands went crazy, murdered, vandalized & protested because someone drew cartoons of someone who has been dead for over 1000 years… What’s next, tv networks need to re-arrange or adjust their commercial breaks so the faithful won’t miss their favorite shows? Because let’s face it, Mohammed would never use a DVR. Or maybe require that commercials featuring pork based products, pigs in general or Jews can only be shown after sunset or on specific infidel-only channels, after paying the additional, but customary non-believer tax – just to prevent any possible offence.
How far behind can there be the demand for alcohol & pork free zones mandated at all major sporting events? Though come to think about it, nothing would motivate the politically apathetic center more than removing hot-dogs & beer from NASCAR or baseball & football games then a season’s worth of SOBER 7th inning stretches.
Those who demand they stop and pray at given intervals in the day can simply use a smoking break like many businesses allow cigarette addicts. Or find another job where this is possible. This is yet another attempt to use the legal system to move sharia law into the US.
Seriously, it can’t be that these workers didn’t know their own prayer obligations before they took these job, and that it’s a union shop certainly implies that they were also aware of the negotiated break structure. Wha??
My question: Who fomented this rebellion?
S’alright… though it does not seem to have helped
Moopssome people.tw:indeed36. Heh.
What are you talking about? I don’t see where anything we said contradicted.
Is Spam halal or haram?
This reminds me of a hand made sign hanging on the office wall of a construction trailer on one of the job sites I toiled at while in college.
This isn’t Burger King.
You don’t get it your way.
You either get it my way or you don’t get the sonofabitch at all.
If I could add a little to the conversation, Whirlpool successfully took their Muslim workers to court at the same time (2004-5) that Dell caved to their demands.
(More here)
We posted on both when the 2005 Dell case was regurgitated recently, as if it had just occurred.
As Karl has outlined, while federal employment law does require accomodation of religious belief, the bar for undue burden on the employer is pretty low. There does exist precedent that states that violation of a collective bargaining agreement would be an undue burden in most cases.
I’ve not seen any indication that the union was behind this, instead so far it looks like a continuation of the radicalization of islamic believers in our society.
There is a reason that these kinds of things are becoming issues in America – and it is because a significant fraction of islamic has decided that it is in conflict with the rest of the world and is set upon increased isolation and radicalization of its community.
The transnational multicultural crowd demands all sorts of concessions from Christianity, and usually gets them, sometimes under force of law. It would be nice if that shoe were placed on the Muslim foot as well.
If not, there’s that whole “equal protection” thing over there in Amendment 14. Tell the Islamists to go pound sand. If I catch &^%$ for a Bible in the office, then they should catch ^&*$ for a Koran in the office.
And they should not only accept it, they should expect it.
Most of the Muslims you meet are duds. They’re not going to go off. Accommodating the duds makes it a lot harder for the live ones to win the duds over to their way of thinking. That is a good thing. It’s good for us guys, and it’s good for the duds.
Here is an updated AP article.
So it sounds like it was all very civilized.
But it definitely made me realize that my prosaic little job is a lot better than working at a meatpacking plant.
There is always someone with a worse job than one’s own, happyfeet.
My question: Who fomented this rebellion?
Someone who CAIRS deeply, I’m sure.
Spam is haram, whether you are muslim or not-
In an earlier life I was rationed with Halal meatballs. These were inedible and eventually we had to lie to the troops that they contained pork in order to force their withdrawal.
They were then used to build sangars, which was ok until they were pierced by incoming rounds, after which the smell became offensive.
Tricky thing, religion-
Something smells fishy (or porky, as it were) here. As a commenter has already noted, Swift is notable for being a major producer of processed *pork* products, among other things. Where’s the faux outrage a la the dreaded “hamsteak of hate” or the finicky Minneapolis airport cabbies? I thought it was offensive for them to be anywhere *near* such vile meat. Seems two coffee breaks and a lunch break, which are pretty standard in the workplace, should more than accomodate their religious needs. Smells like someone is looking for special treatment. Again.
Nebraska’s had a fairly sizeable (for NE) influx of East African immigrants for the past several years now. Most of them are Muslim.
So, in islam, prayers either have an expiration date or they don’t. I am really confused by the 5-a-day rule! Is that all allah will listen to per muslim? Can they throw in a couple of extras if they want to? Are those 5-a-days all the same prayer so that you know how much time to allow? Can you do them all in the morning and be covered for the day? That would be really nice for morning-people. If the muslim “prayer schedule” must be adhered to, give or take a grain of desert sand in the hourglass, then muslims must believe their prayers to require renewing every few hours. Allowing 8 hours for sleep, during which time allah is, I suppose, forgiving of the faithful’s long absence from prayer, the average life expectancy of a muslim prayer cycle is about 5 hours and twenty minutes, if one prays upon rising and just before sleeping. If allah allows a little flexibility with the expiration date, i.e., plus or minus three hours, there should be no need for workplace muslim prayer times nor any muslims praying in the aisles on transoceanic flights (it’s the footwashing thing when I’m in the adjoining seat that disgusts me).
Non-muslim Americans had better pray that we are not a nation of sychophants for submission like the formerly western democratic nations of Europe like France, England, Sweden…. Somehow, “We’re here, we’re fierce, and we’re in your face” does not have the same loving determination or existential meaning as when the Christian evangelicals were saying it a few years agol