MPSL/St Paul: Muslim workers at Target refuse to handle pork

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by malganis
Heh I might get a job a McDonalds then refuse to serve any food because my morals say it's bad for people... And it offends me.

Way to cause a bit of unnecessary trouble, eh

I feel you are confusing ethics and morals with beliefs founded on faith.

And yes you could get a job just to antagonise, but that would be a telling act about your character would it not?

actually, I think we are talking about work ethics here....I'm expected to do alot of things at work that I don't particularly like...but I do them...

so, let me just ask, why would it be a telling act about a person's character, except of course, umm....there is a religious basis behind it? the lady took a job that she wasn't willing to completely do, she expected to be able to pick and chose what parts she wanted to do!! there's a few people at my shop that think the same thing, heck one will skip work everytime those danged Notre Dame Banners comes along...not that she has anything against Notre Dame, but they place big orders and well, that's hard work!!

if you take a job, and you know what is being expected of you before you take it, well, do the danged job!! don't think you can pass off those parts that you find unappealing to others...not for any reason. you can't live with that, well find another job that you can live with.
or go on welfare.

Originally posted by dawnstar
actually, I think we are talking about work ethics here....I'm expected to do alot of things at work that I don't particularly like...but I do them...

I agree, in the case of the Muslim girl it would be work ethics, if she were shirking her duties without the knowledge of the management, however in malganis' example it would be ethics. Although I would not be disagreeable to disrupting the likes of McDonald's.

so, let me just ask, why would it be a telling act about a person's character, except of course, umm....there is a religious basis behind it? the lady took a job that she wasn't willing to completely do, she expected to be able to pick and chose what parts she wanted to do!!

I think you are jumping a little to restrict the reasons to religion.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for a person's religious practices if it doesn't impose an undue hardship.

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by malganis

Abortion is a woman's choice and there's nothing wrong with it. Buying a packet of bacon is a customers choice and there's nothing wrong with it.
Refusing to serve that customer and telling them to scan it themselves is wrong.

Very well put. That would have been my answer also, thanks

Yes, this would be a good point, had the girl actually refused to serve the customer, but thats not what actually happened she "refused to scan" one item, those being the words of the customer. As for the cashier "telling" as opposed to "asking" the customer to scan the item, those appear to be words that suit your argument as opposed to actually existing in the original story.

The customer said she was "made" to scan and pack the item, as for how the cashier "made" her do this is unclear, it doesn't mention any firearms being involved.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka

Yes, this would be a good point, had the girl actually refused to serve the customer, but thats not what actually happened she "refused to scan" one item, those being the words of the customer.

I Think you are missing my point. When the clerk refused to scan the item it was the very same as refusing to sell him/her the item. Keep in mind a customer cannot remove any item from the store unless it has been scanned and the customer charged for the item.

Originally posted by shots
I Think you are missing my point. When the clerk refused to scan the item it was the very same as refusing to sell him/her the item.

Yes, that appears to be how you see it, but it is not what happened.

When the reporter went to buy his pizza, another staff member swiped the item and going by the original story, this appears to be the norm.

Target released this statement in response: "Providing guests with consistently fast checkouts is a key, fundamental part of our business and our guest service commitment. As always, we continue to explore reasonable solutions that consider the concerns of team members while ensuring that we maintain our ability to provide the highest level of guest service."

Eden Prairie-based Supervalu, the nation's third-largest supermarket chain and the parent company of Cub Foods, moves new employees into jobs that don't interfere with their moral beliefs, said Haley Meyer, a company spokeswoman.

Customer service and faith clash at registers

As I suggested earlier, if the customer has an issue its with "Target".

IMO, the customer who raised this as an issue really needs to ask themselves why its such a big deal to them.

Originally posted by Koka

Yes, that appears to be how you see it, but it is not what happened.

When the reporter went to buy his pizza, another staff member swiped the item and going by the original story, this appears to be the norm.

First the reporter went there after he/she had heard about the first instance so lets get this right OK. She did it twice to two different people.

Why did the other clerk swipe the item? Because the first one refused to that is why, on two occasions no less.

As for the material you posted that relates to a customer commitment and they are talking about providing fast service in that context and that is not the same as refusing to scan an item.

As for it being TARGETS fault you are bonkers it is not their fault, they could not ask her what her religious beliefs were when they hired her nor could they ask her if scanning pork products would be a problem.

Originally posted by shots
First the reporter went there after he/she had heard about the first instance so lets get this right OK. She did it twice to two different people.

I'm not sure I or anyone else is claiming anything different.

Why did the other clerk swipe the item? Because the first one refused to that is why, on two occasions no less.

In fact I believe she does it alot more than that and she is not the only one that does it, this is just the first customer who felt so afronted that they thought it News worthy.

As for the material you posted that relates to a customer commitment and they are talking about providing fast service in that context and that is not the same as refusing to scan an item.

The material I posted was "Target's" response to this specific story, I'm pretty sure they understood the context when making the statement.

I gave a link which lead directly to the original news story which contained the quotes but for some reason that link requires a sign up now, it didn't a couple of hours ago.

As for it being TARGETS fault you are bonkers it is not their fault, they could not ask her what her religious beliefs were when they hired her nor could they ask her if scanning pork products would be a problem.

The buck stops with "Target" they make their own policies, and I like the idea of them taking both the customer and the worker into consideration.

As for what happens in an interview, I would have to guess that they probably ask if the individual has any special requirements or needs they should know about.

If you recall, I did say that I thought the idea of this girl working in this environment was a bit silly, so I do actually agree with you, to a point.

The point of my posts are to highlight that this story solely exists because, IMO, the initial customer has a problem with Muslims, the reporter has a problem with Muslims and you have a problem with Muslims.

Bonkers....., I haven't been called that since I was a kid...thanks..

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka
The buck stops with "Target" they make their own policies, and I like the idea of them taking both the customer and the worker into consideration.

The buck cannot stop with Target. Why is so hard for you and a few others to understand Target or any other store cannot ask an employee or potential employee any thing regarding religion, if they did the employee could holler foul and claim religious discrimination.

Originally posted by shots
The buck cannot stop with Target. Why is so hard for you and a few others to understand Target or any other store cannot ask an employee or potential employee any thing regarding religion, if they did the employee could holler foul and claim religious discrimination.

Which is the reason I said:

As for what happens in an interview, I would have to guess that they probably ask if the individual has any special requirements or needs they should know about.

They do not need to be specific about religion, the same question would cover someone with any health issues or physical disabilities.

If "Target" employ people and have a policy that takes into consideration cultural and religious differences, I cannot see how you can contiune to say that they are not responsible.

Not all Muslims are as orthodox as this particular individual, but I respect her for remaining true to her faith, despite the fact that she is probably unaware that she is handling other goods which may contain pork products. I see very few religions that do not practice hypocrisy, but that is for another thread.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
If this person had refused to sell the pork that would be a totally different matter, but since all they did was ask the customer to scan the pork over the scanner I don't see it as being such a horrible event, however people that have a problem with Muslims to begin with would I guess.

My neighbor is an airline attendant and was asked by a Hassidic Jew if she was having her period before she served him, so should we ban all Hassidic Jews from United States airlines. It doesn't hurt to make accomodations for some people? If the muslim person refused to sell the bacon I'd have a big problem with it, like that Evangalist who refused to sell birth control to a customer of a drug chain, so should we ban all Christian evangalists too from working in Pharmacies? Asking the customer to scan the bacon is trivial.

This would be just as bad as a person refusing to scan halal food that a Muslim has in their grocery trolley and making them scan it themselves.

In the service industry you are being paid to SERVE. If Muslims can't serve the public in an unbiased, non-discriminatory fashion then they should be sacked immediately and the job given to a more sophisticated, public orientated person. With such high unemployment these days and the work place being as competitive as it is, don't be surprised if Muslims will begin to be overlooked for a lot of jobs that appear to be incompatible with their lifestyle.

Originally posted by Flighty
This would be just as bad as a person refusing to scan halal food that a Muslim has in their grocery trolley and making them scan it themselves.

OK please tell me what Religion has such a belief and I'll bite. If not then its a wholly different matter. One is due to a religious belief and the other would be a personal preference. If there was such a religion which there is none that I know of, then I would have some sympathy in the matter.

In the service industry you are being paid to SERVE. If Muslims can't serve the public in an unbiased, non-discriminatory fashion then they should be sacked immediately and the job given to a more sophisticated, public orientated person. With such high unemployment these days and the work place being as competitive as it is, don't be surprised if Muslims will begin to be overlooked for a lot of jobs that appear to be incompatible with their lifestyle.

If the person has it worked out with their co-workers or management that they leave these things till last and they have someone else scan and pack it, or if the customer is agreeable to such a hard task as sliding a 16oz. box over a piece of glass there should be no problem.

Sheesh I would bet the majority of people here that are bitshing about their money's worth in service doubtfully occupy their time fully while at their own jobs for the entire 8hrs, especially if they were on a low paying job such as a cashier LOL

OK please tell me what Religion has such a belief and I'll bite. If not then its a wholly different matter. One is due to a religious belief and the other would be a personal preference. If there was such a religion which there is none that I know of, then I would have some sympathy in the matter.

----------------------------------------------------------------

why....why is preferences based on "religious beliefs" held in higher esteem than preferences that are just there, for any reason?

the employer in this case, in my opinion, should accomodate this person by moving her into the bakery department or some other job that doesn't clash with her preferences so harshly instead of letting his customers get insulted!

but then, he should start asking all future apllicants for his store if they would have a problem selling pork, condoms, dog food, or whatever else is typically sold in his store, and well, if they do, he should promptly tell them that they are not qualified for the position.
it's that plain and simple.
God, to listen to some of yas, it would be okay for someone to take the job as model, but then unless it's a burka that is being modeled, well, someone else should be modeling it for them.....

or the blind person being a bus driver who asks his customers to drive for him, since he can't.

hey, I know, maybe we can have special cash registers open in the store, the no pork, condoms, birth control, and whatever else people find offensive register...

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by malganis
Heh I might get a job a McDonalds then refuse to serve any food because my morals say it's bad for people... And it offends me.

Way to cause a bit of unnecessary trouble, eh

I feel you are confusing ethics and morals with beliefs founded on faith.

And yes you could get a job just to antagonise, but that would be a telling act about your character would it not?

It was actually only a joke about how stupid the situation actually was.

But as Dawnstar and a couple of others have just pointed out, why should religious morals be held higher than personal morals?

For instance; I don't like cigarettes one bit, but i'd never refuse to scan them for someone if it was my job.

But it's ok for a Muslim woman to refuse to scan a pack of bacon?

The only difference is that her morals come from a book and mine come from my own experience.

Originally posted by Koka
If "Target" employ people and have a policy that takes into consideration cultural and religious differences, I cannot see how you can contiune to say that they are not responsible.

I doubt that they have such a policy, and I think it is unreasonable that they should be expected to have one. They would have to accomodate all religions and cultures, which would be next to impossible.

Target is not in business to supply jobs. If they could make a profit without employing a single human being, they would.

Therefore, the buck stops with the employee.

I think I will chime in on this issue.
Now as a manager, who hires and fires, I can tell you that this is a 2 sided issue. As a manager who hires, I take the time to walk prospective employees around the store and point out what they are expected to do, no matter what, to include the restrooms. I do walk the men into the ladies restroom and point out the sanitary napkin waste bin and tell them that they will have to clean that, and the women are walked into the mens room and pointed to the urinal and told it is a part of the job. I do however, believe that the employee was wrong for not telling her employers that due to her religious beliefs she was not allowed to scan pork products. Course that would mean that she would not be allowed to be a cashier then, due to the nature of the job. Employeers are expected to be mindful of an employees religious belief and try to accomidate them but really have no obligation to grant leeway for such.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I doubt that they have such a policy, and I think it is unreasonable that they should be expected to have one. They would have to accomodate all religions and cultures, which would be next to impossible.

Target is not in business to supply jobs. If they could make a profit without employing a single human being, they would.

Therefore, the buck stops with the employee.

Well, I can't change your perspective, only give mine.

Target claim to be an Equal Opps employer and seem to embrace and encourage diversity within their company and stores.

I think I've said as much as I can on this subject and fear I am starting to repeat myself.


[edit on 18-3-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka

They do not need to be specific about religion, the same question would cover someone with any health issues or physical disabilities.

If "Target" employ people and have a policy that takes into consideration cultural and religious differences, I cannot see how you can contiune to say that they are not responsible.

You just do not want to get it do you? When Target or any other company hires an individual they do not ask what your religion or sexual orientation is because it is a no no in today's society. If the employee has special requirements it is up to them to advise the company when they are hired,.

Using your analogy I can see the ruckus erupt when human resources asks a potential new employee what is your religion? Ha more then likely the answer would be it is none of your darn business I am applying for a job in your store not a position of a pastor.

Originally posted by shots
You just do not want to get it do you? When Target or any other company hires an individual they do not ask what your religion or sexual orientation is because it is a no no in today's society. If the employee has special requirements it is up to them to advise the company when they are hired,...

Whats to get?

I said:

As for what happens in an interview, I would have to guess that they probably ask if the individual has any special requirements or needs they should know about.

No reference to religion.

Are you sure its me thats not getting it?

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka
I said:

As for what happens in an interview, I would have to guess that they probably ask if the individual has any special requirements or needs they should know about.

Oh get off it you still refuse to understand they cannot ask any question that pertains to Sex, Religion and several others. Here educate yourself

Illegal Interview Questions
Employers should not ask about any of the following, because to not hire a candidate because of any one of them is discriminatory:

Race
Color
Sex
Religion
National origin
Birthplace
Age
Disability
Marital/family status

Source

There as you can see it is illegal for them to ask those kinds of questions, how hard is that to understand?

Here might as well add this in since you are so stuborn

Now read question 24 here

[edit on 3/18/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by Koka
Well, I can't change your perspective, only give mine.

Target claim to be an Equal Opps employer and seem to embrace and encourage diversity within their company and stores.

I think I've said as much as I can on this subject and fear I am starting to repeat myself.

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to give your perspective. And I hope you understand mine, as well.

Being an EOE means that they agree to follow the laws regarding discrimination, which state that they cannot refuse to hire based upon certain criteria such as race or religion. It does not mandate an accomodation policy.

I think that you would find that many smaller employers have done things to accomodate such beliefs, out of human kindness. But, for an employer the size of Target, it would be next to impossible.

Businesses have the right to hire and fire anyone they want at their sole discretion in most cases. Likewise, Muslims have the right to choose not to handle pork. The two rights (both ethically/religiously and legally) are not mutually exclusive. There are several possible solutions. In all of the those scenarios, businesses continue to run the way they like, and Muslims (and other groups) are never forced to handle pork against their will or without conscious consent. Choice and free will are maintained throughout.

Personally, I believe diversity and rich cultural integration are important in businesses, particularly as the population of the United States in particular becomes more and more diverse. There are ways to accommodate both the needs and rights of businesses, and the religious, ethical, or other needs of employees through compromise, or simple logistics. Ideally, in my opinion, companies can find effective means of making sure the people who get hired for specific tasks are comfortable performing those tasks. There's no reason why an employee should have to feel conflicted, or that customers should have to be inconvenienced because of such confliction, if companies know their employees and don't treat them like herd animals. This may mean that certain jobs aren't filled by certain individuals (through a combination of their own choices and, hopefully, businesses' efforts to make sure they end up in positions that don't conflict with those choices,) but ultimately there are rolls from top to bottom for any person, regardless of gender, religion, ethnicity, or race, somewhere in most companies.

For these reasons, this doesn’t have to end up being the problem it is often portrayed as, in my opinion.