Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

asherbassad

smash wrote: »

Health and pregnancy is different than wanting to essentially change the dress code. Do you think they should accommodate emos and let them wear dog collars and silly make up? I mean they're only a tiny minority and its their way of life...

She didn't want to change the dress code. She just wanted to add the wearing of a head-scarf. She didn't want to do to a school uniform what Britney Spears did in her video. She didn't want to take a standard nurse's uniform and convert it into something you'd see in a porno movie.

They didn't want the hijab but they tried to re-engineer the argument (just like you are trying to do) as if she was altering the uniform. It was their mistake and it backfired.

asherbassad

Shenshen wrote: »

"We people" are realistic enough to express our individual identities outside work.
In work, we do what we get paid for, and wear what our employers require.

Personally, I usually don't wear anything much around the house, but I've got enough respect for my employer's right to demand I don't show up to the office in the nip, my nudism is my personal choice.

So now you mention respect. If your employer demanded that everyone showed up in the nip you'd be ok probably but what about all the others? Should they "respect" the boss's demand to bare it all or should the boss respect their wish to stay covered up?

BrokenArrows

For those of you that think the girl was right.

Would she be right if she wanted to wear a baseball cap?

later12

BrokenArrows wrote: »

For those of you that think the girl was right.

Would she be right if she wanted to wear a baseball cap?

You'd have to weigh up how it affected the firm's operations/ professionalism, and whether not allowing a staff member to wear the cap would lower morale.

In that sense, it's the polar opposite of a hijab since the latter is not associated with slovenliness.
And being of such importance to the employee in question, a sense that the firm is curbing their freedom may promote resentment from employees. That might also arise from the negative PR the firm is getting.

Whoever made this decision should be sacked, especially in light of the predictable negative PR.

asherbassad

Shenshen wrote: »

And Dunnes tried negotiating with her. According to the news sources, there were several meetings over a longer course of time, with management and HR. They kept stressing that they did want her to return to work.

But a renegotiation of contract needs both involved parties' agreement, which in this case couldn't be reached.

If Dunnes do not want their employees to wear head covering, then why should anyone have the right to force them to allow their employees to wear head coverings?

The onus was on Dunnes not to legally paint themselves into a corner which they did when they set out the company rules. Some cock in the legal department didn't think of this one and as a result they got burned. The law and religion make poor bedfellows. The tragic case of Savita underscores that even more than most.

So Dunnes implement a zero headwear rule without thinking of possible exceptions....mistake number 1. They effect this rule and this rule is challenged....not by some upstart who wants to wear some dunce cone hat but by someone on religious grounds. They had the chance here to review their policy and come to a compromise. They didn't....mistake number 2. They could have changed their policy to allow for religious headwear or if they were that adamant to make no exceptions they could have re-assigned her to duties where head-wear is not forbidden (like maybe down in the loading bay or in the warehouses or something) or risk a religious discrimination suit. They chose the latter.....mistake number 3.

They dug their heels in.....and lost.

Madam_X

Sacked for forbidding the wearing of anything extraneous to the uniform that everyone else wears? Bit harsh no, Later?

The negative press is due to some people who don't put much thought into stuff jumping on the "Racist discrimination!!!" bandwagon, which they're so keen to find examples for. If anything, treating a religious item of clothing as simply something not compatible with the uniform, the way a red scarf would be, shows religion ISN'T the factor.

smash

later12 wrote: »

You'd have to weigh up how it affected the firm's operations/ professionalism, and whether not allowing a staff member to wear the cap would lower morale.

What about customer morale? I'm sure you're aware that a lot of people, not only women, find the Muslim women's 'dress code' as offensive.

Madam_X

Nah feck the customer IMO - if they're going to get offended by a religious item of clothing that's their problem.

Rebelkell

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelkell
Whats backward is women wearing headscarf stc. Sure plenty of them want too but how many wear them because they are afraid of their husband/ parent reaction?


Another festering turd of a statement.
How then do you explain single Muslim women who don't live in the same country even as their parents and still wear head-scarves?
Knew a few of them in Trinity.


I explain it in my post where i say "sure plenty of them want too " which i have highlighted for your convience.

asherbassad

TEMPLAR KNIGHT wrote: »

If I refused to cover my tattoos and take out my piercings that conflicts with uniform policy I know this before I get involved with company same goes for this lady I know what's expected so should she no point in creating hassle, pity dunnes were held accountable for something as stupid as this hate the double standards if I walked through a shopping centre with a hood up I would get asked to leave but were a burka your immune over "religious discrimination" its a joke!

You are not required by religion to wear piercings or have tattoos.

Try to keep up.

Chuck Stone

How much of this situation is attributable to an imbalanced of power? Is this simply a case of those with power (the employer) trying to curtail the liberty of those without power (the employee)?

Would it be unreasonable to say that the imbalance of power between employer and employee is especially apparent in an economic downturn because there is greater competition for jobs? I don't think so.

asherbassad

smash wrote: »

What about customer morale? I'm sure you're aware that a lot of people, not only women, find the Muslim women's 'dress code' as offensive.

So what if it causes offense? So fcuking what?
It's not a crime to offend. It IS a crime to persecute.

asherbassad

Rebelkell wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelkell
Whats backward is women wearing headscarf stc. Sure plenty of them want too but how many wear them because they are afraid of their husband/ parent reaction?


Another festering turd of a statement.
How then do you explain single Muslim women who don't live in the same country even as their parents and still wear head-scarves?
Knew a few of them in Trinity.


I explain it in my post where i say "sure plenty of them want too " which i have highlighted for your convience.

Well, tell us then.....how many wear them out of fear? I'm sure you have the answer because I wouldn't have the slightest idea.

jasonmcco

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It doesn't matter what their policy is, if their policy discriminates against people.

Are you referring to muslim policy towards women

cuana

There must be more to this I don't doubt that they could follow through on there uniform policy but its likely they did not deal with this in a correct, professional manner the result meant she took a case for unfair dismissal which resulted in them settling! At some point or other Dunness fcuked up and paid the price for it

jasonmcco

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/irishsun/irishsunnews/4643144/Hijab-or-her-job.html



Should they have settled? Would it bother you if somebody was serving you with a hijab on?

I dont really have a strong opinion on it either way but it interests me what people think

In this day and age why would any individual care what another wears?

Apart from that i can see why a bank could refuse entry to hijab wearer just like they do with people wearing motorbike helmets.

Rebelkell

asherbassad wrote: »

Another festering turd of a statement.
How then do you explain single Muslim women who don't live in the same country even as their parents and still wear head-scarves?
Knew a few of them in Trinity.

Rebelkell wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelkell
Whats backward is women wearing headscarf stc. Sure plenty of them want too but how many wear them because they are afraid of their husband/ parent reaction?


Another festering turd of a statement.
How then do you explain single Muslim women who don't live in the same country even as their parents and still wear head-scarves?
Knew a few of them in Trinity.


I explain it in my post where i say "sure plenty of them want too " which i have highlighted for your convience.

asherbassad wrote: »

Well, tell us then.....how many wear them out of fear? I'm sure you have the answer because I wouldn't have the slightest idea.

Please read my post before commenting on it!
I even used a question mark for heavens sake!!!!!!!

Chuck Stone

smash wrote: »

I'm sure you're aware that a lot of people, not only women, find the Muslim women's 'dress code' as offensive.

I find people's getting offended by Muslim clothes highly offensive.

Rebelkell

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I find people's getting offended by Muslim clothes highly offensive.

Watch a women in a burka following behind her husband in an Irish shopping centre and see if you then think its right.

Ellis Dee

I am about as incorrigible an atheist as anyone can be, but I fail to see what harm it does to anything or anyone if a woman at a supermarket checkout wears a hijab. The only reason that I could think of is Islamophobia, because the hijab does not in any way interfere with how the checkout person does her job.:rolleyes:

Haven't we Irish used up our quota of bigotry and intolerance for at least this year now that a Hindu woman has been allowed to die a painful and unnecessary death in Galway just because our legislation is at least a century behind that of the civilised world and our sky fairy tells us the woman's life doesn't matter as much as that of a foetus, which is doomed anyway?:cool:

The nurse who wheeled me from the ward into the operating theatre in Helsinki last August wore a hijab and it didn't seem to bother anyone. If it's OK in one of the best hospitals in Europe, surely it must be OK in Dunne's Stores and shouldn't offend the customers, half of whom are overweight biddies in crumpled pyjamas anyway.:D

donegal_man

jasonmcco wrote: »

In this day and age why would any individual care what another wears?

Apart from that i can see why a bank could refuse entry to hijab wearer just like they do with people wearing motorbike helmets.

I think you're getting the hijab which is a head covering mixed up with the niqab which is a face covering.
As far as the whole debate goes I guess it's all part of the on going change in how dress codes are perceived, when I started work it was de rigueur for us to wear a shirt buttoned to the neck and a tie with our suit, now I see men my age and older wearing suits with no tie and their shirt untucked and nobody bats an eyelid the same will probably happen with Muslim ladies who wear the hijab.

Boombastic

donegal_man wrote: »

I think you're getting the hijab which is a head covering mixed up with the niqab which is a face covering.
As far as the whole debate goes I guess it's all part of the on going change in how dress codes are perceived, when I started work it was de rigueur for us to wear a shirt buttoned to the neck and a tie with our suit, now I see men my age and older wearing suits with no tie and their shirt untucked and nobody bats an eyelid the same will probably happen with Muslim ladies who wear the hijab.

Would/should Dunnes allow the niqab do you reckon?

Discovering Islam

The verses in the Quran that refer to how women should dress are somewhat vague and thus have been subject to different interpretations. However, in the Hadith (which are collections of Prophet Mohammad's sayings; they are not part of the Quran), there is more evidence to support the view that the hijab is required or at least it is the proper way to dress. The most often quoted narration used by those who view hijab as a required practice is the one in which prophet Mohammad (s.a.a.w.s.) explains to Asma (his wife's sister Aisha who was wearing a relatively transparent outfit while visiting her sister Aisha) that she must cover her body except for her face and hands.

There is a verse in the Quran that says that God doesn't want Muslims to experience hardship (in any matter). Therefore, we can conclude that it may be permissible (God knows best) for Muslim women not to fulfill the full requirements of hijab if they live in circumstances under which wearing such hijab would make their lives very difficult, such as being subject to the possibility of physical harm, discrimination in the job market, inability to attend public schools/universities, etc. This can apply for Muslim women who live in countries where the majority of people are non-muslims as well as in countries where the majority of people are Muslims, but there is some hostility or discrimination against women who wear hijab. However, we should emphasize that even in such circumstances, Muslim women should dress modestly.

Daftendirekt

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I am about as incorrigible an atheist as anyone can be, but I fail to see what harm it does to anything or anyone if a woman at a supermarket checkout wears a hijab. The only reason that I could think of is Islamophobia, because the hijab does not in any way interfere with how the checkout person does her job.:rolleyes:

Haven't we Irish used up our quota of bigotry and intolerance for at least this year now that a Hindu woman has been allowed to die a painful and unnecessary death in Galway just because our legislation is at least a century behind that of the civilised world and our sky fairy tells us the woman's life doesn't matter as much as that of a foetus, which is doomed anyway?:cool:

The hijab does no harm to anyone. Neither do beanie hats or hats or jeans, yet many workplaces ban those as well. Nobody claims bigotry in those cases, however. Arbitrary uniform requirements are a pretty much accepted part of life. They only seem to become a problem when religious garb enters the equation.

If Dunne's had specifically decreed that Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear the hijab, then yes, that might be a problem. If Muslim women are prevented from wearing the hijab because of a blanket ban on headwear, then that's fair enough.

The nurse who wheeled me from the ward into the operating theatre in Helsinki last August wore a hijab and it didn't seem to bother anyone. If it's OK in one of the best hospitals in Europe, surely it must be OK in Dunne's Stores and shouldn't offend the customers, half of whom are overweight biddies in crumpled pyjamas anyway.:D

Who says it's about not offending customers?

Borderfox

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I find people's getting offended by Muslim clothes highly offensive.

Your offense at other people's offense offends me, so there.

Madam_X

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The only reason that I could think of is Islamophobia, because the hijab does not in any way interfere with how the checkout person does her job.:rolleyes:

Haven't we Irish used up our quota of bigotry and intolerance for at least this year now that a Hindu woman has been allowed to die a painful and unnecessary death in Galway just because our legislation is at least a century behind that of the civilised world and our sky fairy tells us the woman's life doesn't matter as much as that of a foetus, which is doomed anyway?:cool:

The nurse who wheeled me from the ward into the operating theatre in Helsinki last August wore a hijab and it didn't seem to bother anyone. If it's OK in one of the best hospitals in Europe, surely it must be OK in Dunne's Stores and shouldn't offend the customers, half of whom are overweight biddies in crumpled pyjamas anyway.:D

What relevance does the above have to Dunnes' uniform policy?

Boombastic

asherbassad wrote: »

You are not required by religion to wear piercings or have tattoos.

Try to keep up.

You are in the Church of Body modification

As members of this Church, we envision living in a society where we are seen as an asset to our community, treated as equal to any non-modified person. We conceive of a time where we may practice our rituals and body modification without prejudice or discrimination. By acting responsibly and with integrity, we wish to observe our sincerely held religious beliefs without restriction.

_Kaiser_

Haven't read the whole thread but my 2c..

Woman applied for the job, accepted it having presumably read the contract and uniform/dress code policy etc and then complains that she wasn't allowed to violate that code AND wins a case????

FFS that's ridiculous! Yet another example of the Irish being so afraid to appear as "racist" that we get taken for a ride again.

What this woman does on her own time is her own business and no issue there, but if she signed the contract she's bound by the terms of it like everyone else in the job.

If I decide to go work in Germany I'll be expected to learn German. If I decided that no, everyone else can just learn and speak English instead, I wouldn't be long finding myself out of a job and back on a plane. Ditto if I go to an Islamic country I don't think me complaining about the calls to prayer because it didn't suit my own beliefs would be tolerated either... and rightly so I might add.

Why should it be different here?

later12

smash wrote: »

What about customer morale? I'm sure you're aware that a lot of people, not only women, find the Muslim women's 'dress code' as offensive.

Ok, so just to be clear, what you are saying "a lot of people" find offensive is an headscarf? Come now.

First off, I find that hard to believe - not least because of the amount of headscarves I see in my local village after Saturday night Mass, invariably without harassment. I have no doubt that this is a universal experience. So this is not an "offensive" dress code in and of itself.

How often have you experienced offence taken by a woman covering her hair in Ireland? And do you not agree that any offence taken by the inability to view a woman's hair and upper neck would say a lot more about the "offended" than the "offender" in such an hypothetical situation?

Boombastic

The reason why religion has no place in any work place regardless of religion or type of workplace if because it fcuks things up and sh1t like this ends up happening


/thread

Chuck Stone

Borderfox wrote: »

Your offense at other people's offense offends me, so there.

I find that very provocative (not in a sexy way, mind).