Electrician faces sack for displaying Christian cross in his van

Donatello

An electrician and former soldier faces the sack for displaying a small palm cross in the window of his company van.

Colin Atkinson, 64, from Wakefield, has been called to a disciplinary hearing at the housing association where he has worked for 15 years.
His bosses at the publicly funded Wakefield and District Housing (WDH) have demanded he remove the eight inch long cross made from woven palm leaves that sits on his dashboard.

The organisation claims the cross may cause offence but says it strongly promotes "inclusive" policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols at work.

It has provided stalls at gay pride events, held "diversity days" for travellers, and has allowed other staff to display photographs of Che Guevera, the revolutionary leader, in their office.

Mr Atkinson, who is a regular worshipper at church, said: “I have worked in the coal mines and served in the Army in Northern Ireland and I have never suffered such stress.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8456637/Electrician-faces-sack-for-displaying-Christian-cross-in-his-van.html

It's political correctness gone mad!

branie

I think we Christians are being picked on unfairly by PC zealots

Soul Winner

If its a company van then what they say goes and he should just get over it or stop working for them. It doesn't matter what else the company decide to do for other groups. If they say no religious symbols are allowed in company vans then that should be the end of the matter. Would he let his company put their company logo on his own car/van? I think not.

partyatmygaff

If a Muslim worker kept a prayer rug or a Qur'an in their work van the company would probably be parading their "tolerance".

Yahew

Soul Winner wrote: »

If its a company van then what they say goes and he should just get over it or stop working for them. It doesn't matter what else the company decide to do for other groups. If they say no religious symbols are allowed in company vans then that should be the end of the matter. Would he let his company put their company logo on his own car/van? I think not.

it does matter what else they do, if they are not consistent then he has a case.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

An electrician and former soldier faces the sack for displaying a small palm cross in the window of his company van.

Colin Atkinson, 64, from Wakefield, has been called to a disciplinary hearing at the housing association where he has worked for 15 years.
His bosses at the publicly funded Wakefield and District Housing (WDH) have demanded he remove the eight inch long cross made from woven palm leaves that sits on his dashboard.

The organisation claims the cross may cause offence but says it strongly promotes "inclusive" policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols at work.

It has provided stalls at gay pride events, held "diversity days" for travellers, and has allowed other staff to display photographs of Che Guevera, the revolutionary leader, in their office.

Mr Atkinson, who is a regular worshipper at church, said: “I have worked in the coal mines and served in the Army in Northern Ireland and I have never suffered such stress.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8456637/Electrician-faces-sack-for-displaying-Christian-cross-in-his-van.html

It's political correctness gone mad!

for the sake of complete reporting..

Wakefield District Housing said: “We do not allow employees to display any personal representations in our vehicles, although they are free to do so upon their person.

Soul Winner

Yahew wrote: »

it does matter what else they do, if they are not consistent then he has a case.

The company are not legally obliged to give anyone privileges based on ethnic or religious grounds. If they freely decide to do this then that is the prerogative. They are not legally bound to give the same privileges across the board. If they decide that they don't like Christians then the Christian has two choices. Obey the rules or tell them to stick their job. If the company change their mind due to the threat of the Christian leaving his job then that’s different. Until that happens they are not legally obliged to give any kind of concession to anyone.

Donatello

There's some intelligent commentary over at CMR:

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/04/greatest-quote-about-europe-since.html

chalkitdown

So long as they don't include Padre Pio stickers. It would be harder to spot the idiot drivers.

caseyann

Cause offence to whom for what

I cant even elaborate any further i am still stunned.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

The company are not legally obliged to give anyone privileges based on ethnic or religious grounds. If they freely decide to do this then that is the prerogative. They are not legally bound to give the same privileges across the board. If they decide that they don't like Christians then the Christian has two choices. Obey the rules or tell them to stick their job. If the company change their mind due to the threat of the Christian leaving his job then that’s different. Until that happens they are not legally obliged to give any kind of concession to anyone.

You can put any slant on this SW, but at the end of the day, its ridiculous that this kind of stuff is going on. Someones got a bee in their bonnet about an employee who has a cross on their dashboard. I mean, you can get officious and say that its their prerogative etc, but this type of thing should, IMO, be resisted. Apathy will not be good for us. I have a disdain for trinketry like carrying crosses and medals etc, but I can't help put smell something a bit more sinister when people start making big deals out of it.

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

You can put any slant on this SW, but at the end of the day, its ridiculous that this kind of stuff is going on. Someones got a bee in their bonnet about an employee who has a cross on their dashboard. I mean, you can get officious and say that its their prerogative etc, but this type of thing should, IMO, be resisted. Apathy will not be good for us. I have a disdain for trinketry like carrying crosses and medals etc, but I can't help put smell something a bit more sinister when people start making big deals out of it.

Its a company, they say what goes when it comes to their property. If the company feel that crosses or whatever in their vans might cause offence then that's their decision no matter how ridiculous it might be to anyone. An employee signs up to do what the company has contracted them to do. Outside of that the company has the final say on what should or should not be allowed on company property, even if it employees think it is wrong.

Why doesn't your man just wear the cross on his person? That is not against the rules. I'd wear it on my head and if they pulled me up on that then I would have a case against them because their charter states that wearing it on your person is OK. If your man wins this case then it sets a bad precedent. It will mean that anyone can display anything on company property and get away with it because the company have had the right to say no to these things taken away from them. If your man cannot work without his cross being on display in his work vehicle then he should leave the job and work for a company who agrees to allow him to display it on their property. Christians should be more concerned about doing their jobs right than getting special privileges because they happen to be Christian.

Donatello

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its a company, they say what goes when it comes to their property. If the company feel that crosses or whatever in their vans might cause offence then that's their decision no matter how ridiculous it might be to anyone. An employee signs up to do what the company has contracted them to do. Outside of that the company has the final say on what should or should not be allowed on company property, even if it employees think it is wrong.

Why doesn't your man just wear the cross on his person? That is not against the rules. I'd wear it on my head and if they pulled me up on that then I would have a case against them because their charter states that wearing it on your person is OK. If your man wins this case then it sets a bad precedent. It will mean that anyone can display anything on company property and get away with it because the company have had the right to say no to these things taken away from them. If your man cannot work without his cross being on display in his work vehicle then he should leave the job and work for a company who agrees to allow him to display it on their property. Christians should be more concerned about doing their jobs right than getting special privileges because they happen to be Christian.

It's hypocritical cos the company has a display in the gay pride thing. Is that not offensive?

It's silly. In reality, your man could put the Crucifix in his van when he gets into it, drives off, and then take it out when he gets out of the van. That would be one way round it.

But you can bet your boots if it was a Muslim fella with something in the van, he'd be left alone.

Keylem

The bloke worked for them for 15 years, and it's probably not the first time he displayed some form of religious item in a works vehicle - why rant about it now???

twinQuins

Donatello wrote: »

It's hypocritical cos the company has a display in the gay pride thing.

If they allowed their employees to have gay pride effects displayed in their vehicles you'd have a point but they don't so... Your point is invalid.

It's silly. In reality, your man could put the Crucifix in his van when he gets into it, drives off, and then take it out when he gets out of the van. That would be one way round it.

Quite but they're the rules - the company clearly (and understandably) doesn't want their name associated with the personal statements of their employees.

But you can bet your boots if it was a Muslim fella with something in the van, he'd be left alone.

In England? People are itching for any reason to take a shot at Muslims and "PC gone maaaaad".

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its a company, they say what goes when it comes to their property. If the company feel that crosses or whatever in their vans might cause offence then that's their decision no matter how ridiculous it might be to anyone. An employee signs up to do what the company has contracted them to do. Outside of that the company has the final say on what should or should not be allowed on company property, even if it employees think it is wrong.

And as I said, this apathy will not be good. I know you are not naive SW, and I'm sure you recognise that there's a change in society afoot. We can believe that Christians should just get on with it like good little boys and girls, or we can recognise something negative and nip it in the bud.

Why doesn't your man just wear the cross on his person?

Does this not exemplify the stupidity of the company position?

If your man wins this case then it sets a bad precedent. It will mean that anyone can display anything on company property and get away with it because the company have had the right to say no to these things taken away from them.

This is the fallacy that atheists love to espouse. That if one thing is valid, then all things are valid. 'What if I'm a satanist wanting to display a recently sacrificed goats head' etc.

If your man cannot work without his cross being on display in his work vehicle then he should leave the job and work for a company who agrees to allow him to display it on their property.

i'm sure the man in question can work just fine without the cross, but is standing up for himself in a matter he believes is ridiculous.

Christians should be more concerned about doing their jobs right than getting special privileges because they happen to be Christian.

'Getting special privileges' etc is simply exaggeration. How often have I seen truck drivers with football colours in their windows, or who bring good luck charms for their dash boards etc. Christians should indeed be concerned about doing their jobs right, and also their spiritual welfare etc. That does not mean we can't also stand up for ourselves in matters we think important. (Again, just to clarify, this whole trinketry thing means nothing to me)

IMO, if we don't resist this subtle 'brushing under the carpet' in the name of 'offence', then we will be the apathetic generation who let Christianity be pushed out of the public eye.

mikemac

Keylem wrote: »

The bloke worked for them for 15 years, and it's probably not the first time he displayed some form of religious item in a works vehicle - why rant about it now???

Employers everywhere are looking for ways to let staff go without paying redundancy.
Any excuse will do

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

And as I said, this apathy will not be good. I know you are not naive SW, and I'm sure you recognise that there's a change in society afoot. We can believe that Christians should just get on with it like good little boys and girls, or we can recognise something negative and nip it in the bud.



Does this not exemplify the stupidity of the company position?



This is the fallacy that atheists love to espouse. That if one thing is valid, then all things are valid. 'What if I'm a satanist wanting to display a recently sacrificed goats head' etc.



i'm sure the man in question can work just fine without the cross, but is standing up for himself in a matter he believes is ridiculous.



'Getting special privileges' etc is simply exaggeration. How often have I seen truck drivers with football colours in their windows, or who bring good luck charms for their dash boards etc. Christians should indeed be concerned about doing their jobs right, and also their spiritual welfare etc. That does not mean we can't also stand up for ourselves in matters we think important. (Again, just to clarify, this whole trinketry thing means nothing to me)

IMO, if we don't resist this subtle 'brushing under the carpet' in the name of 'offence', then we will be the apathetic generation who let Christianity be pushed out of the public eye.

Hi Jimi, I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying but it is misplaced in this scenario. Christians should fight hand and foot to defend their right to be Christian and to practice their religion but when it comes to the work-place that is a different matter. Religion should be left at the door. If you feel that your employer has some sort of anti Christian agenda then don't work for them or else work for them and bear under it, you can't expect employers to bow to your whim unless it affects your normal commitment to a particular church which you make very clear in your interview will not be compromised and you get that in writing before you sign it. If something like this is that important to someone then get it on the table at the interview stage. Make the employer put it in writing that they will allow you to mount a cross in their van or whatever. Then when they decide to renege on that you have them by the short and curlies legally. Failing that your man hasn't got a let to stand on.

But I do get what you're saying. If you feel that there is some sort anti Christian agenda then make your feelings known about it. Tell them you will not tolerate it. But when it comes to their property they have the right to prohibit whatever they like unless you have got it in writing from them to the contrary. This is not the same as a government body entering a church and trying to tell the church what to do and so on. This is about a Christian who has agreed to take a job which entails doing such and such and unless he has it in writing that they have agreed to let him have a cross in his work van then he is going to loose this one. And I think rightly so.

We can talk about the ridiculousness of this all day and I agree it is a bit ridiculous, but if these are the company's rules and policies then that should be the end of it.

MrPudding

Keylem wrote: »

The bloke worked for them for 15 years, and it's probably not the first time he displayed some form of religious item in a works vehicle - why rant about it now???

I don't believe he worked for this particular company for that length of time, he has been in the job for 15 years, but the original company was bought by the current company.

You need to ask a couple of simple questions here. First of all, what is the policy? The policy is simply that the company does not allow the display of religious paraphernalia in its vehicles. The next question is, what religions does this apply to? The answer to that appears to be all religions. The final question is, if the restriction relates to all religions, then how can it be discriminatory to Christians?

As SW points out, a company is free to implement any policies it wants. If it turns out that policy is discriminatory then it will be overturned. Christians cannot complain about discrimination when told not to display crosses when the rule about displays of religion applies to all religions.

MrP

Zombrex

Replace cross with pro-abortion sticker.

Now, anyone in favor of that?

jhegarty

Soul Winner wrote: »

The company are not legally obliged to give anyone privileges based on ethnic or religious grounds. If they freely decide to do this then that is the prerogative. They are not legally bound to give the same privileges across the board. If they decide that they don't like Christians then the Christian has two choices. Obey the rules or tell them to stick their job. If the company change their mind due to the threat of the Christian leaving his job then that’s different. Until that happens they are not legally obliged to give any kind of concession to anyone.

Wouldn't that argument permit "whites only" bathrooms ?

Soul Winner

jhegarty wrote: »

Wouldn't that argument permit "whites only" bathrooms ?

No because whites only bathrooms are illegal.

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't believe he worked for this particular company for that length of time, he has been in the job for 15 years, but the original company was bought by the current company.

You need to ask a couple of simple questions here. First of all, what is the policy? The policy is simply that the company does not allow the display of religious paraphernalia in its vehicles. The next question is, what religions does this apply to? The answer to that appears to be all religions. The final question is, if the restriction relates to all religions, then how can it be discriminatory to Christians?

As SW points out, a company is free to implement any policies it wants. If it turns out that policy is discriminatory then it will be overturned. Christians cannot complain about discrimination when told not to display crosses when the rule about displays of religion applies to all religions.

MrP

Not quite. You are denying the charge of discrimination by placing religion in a special category.

If all religious paraphanalia are forbidden then it would indeed make no sense to claim that CXhristians are being discriminated against as compared with Sikhs or Muslims.

However, if the company concerned permits football club logos or any other non-work related paraphanalia then it can reasonably be argued that they are discriminating against religious workers while allowing the non-religious the right to advertise their outside interests.

Donatello

What if this Christian fella was asked to go and man the gay stand at the gay pride shindig, what then? Would he have to do it?

There was a case recently of firemen who dinny want to hand out leaflets at gay pride.

strobe

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If a Muslim worker kept a prayer rug or a Qur'an in their work van the company would probably be parading their "tolerance".

Donatello wrote: »

But you can bet your boots if it was a Muslim fella with something in the van, he'd be left alone.

Any vague kind of evidence for this lads seeing as in the article you posted Donatello the company say:

"Wakefield District Housing said: “We do not allow employees to display any personal representations in our vehicles, although they are free to do so upon their person."

Do you two know something they and we do not?

partyatmygaff

strobe wrote: »

Any vague kind of evidence for this lads seeing as in the article you posted Donatello the company say:

"Wakefield District Housing said: “We do not allow employees to display any personal representations in our vehicles, although they are free to do so upon their person."

Do you two know something they and we do not?

By my comment I was making a point about British society more than the company itself.

strobe

Donatello wrote: »

There was a case recently of firemen who dinny want to hand out leaflets at gay pride.

Out of curiosity would you have the same sympathy for a pro-choice fireman who refused to hand out fire safety leaflets at a Youth 2000 get together?

strobe

partyatmygaff wrote: »

By my comment I was making a point about British society more than the company itself.

I see... That would have been clearer if you didn't reference the company and their vans then Pamg.

partyatmygaff

strobe wrote: »

I see... That would have been clearer if you didn't reference the company and their vans then Pamg.

I don't recall mentioning the specific company or their specific work vans. I was speaking in general terms. I appreciate it may have appeared that I meant "the company" as being the company mentioned in the article but that was not my intention.

lmaopml

While I think whoever reported him is sincerely petty and mischievous - I would agree that if that is company policy than that is company policy. Was it a huge 'cross'? Hmm

If he's allowed to wear on his 'person' than he should just get himself a decent chain and stick it on that instead - and then go visit the whinger who reported him, smile - and fix their 'electrical' appliances..

strobe

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't recall mentioning the specific company or their specific work vans. I was speaking in general terms. I appreciate it may have appeared that I meant "the company" as being the company mentioned in the article but that was not my intention.

Fair enough.