Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

Options
1…1213151718…20

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Can you imagine the pant wetting that would go in if Tesco northern Ireland banned its employees from wearing an ash cross on their face on ash Wednesday?


  • Options
    #423
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    later12 wrote: »
    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?
    It's not a head scarf that's offensive, it's what it stands for. Women have fought for a long time for rights and most people accept those rights, but Muslims really don't.


  • Options
    #424
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    smash wrote: »
    Women have fought for a long time for rights and most people accept those rights, but Muslims really don't.

    If your objection is rights based then shouldn't she have the right to wear a Hijab at work as it's not going to interfere with her ability to carry out work related tasks?


  • Options
    #425
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    smash wrote: »
    It's not a head scarf that's offensive, it's what it stands for. Women have fought for a long time for rights and most people accept those rights, but Muslims really don't.

    And her rights to wear a headscarf? Her right to have equal access to employment?


  • Options
    #426
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    asherbassad wrote: »
    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?

    If I apply for and accept a job where the uniform policy is nude, and I later convert to Christianity and decide I can no longer show up wearing nothing but need to cover up, how on earth is it the employer's responsibility to accommodate me?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    If your objection is rights based then shouldn't she have the right to wear a Hijab at work as it's not going to interfere with her ability to carry out work related tasks?
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    And her rights to wear a headscarf? Her right to have equal access to employment?
    She has the right to wear a head scarf. In her time! And she has a right to equal employment. But businesses have rules!


  • Options
    #428
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Grayson wrote: »
    Most laws are based around maximising happiness for many and minimising pain for many. in the case of major religions, some leeway should be given. If only because you can cater to a large amount at once. We already do it on xmas day. Most shops close because there's very few shoppers and they respect the wishes of employees to spend time with their families.

    Same goes for bereavement.

    Honestly, i don't believe there's any hard and fast rule. But so long as the company is attempting to respect the beliefs of a person and the person likewise is reciprocating that respect it should all work out.
    In that way, a headscarf would be allowed because it's a serious personal religious belief. But a colander wouldn't because although the point the guy is trying to make is serious, his belief in the colander isn't.

    But so what? What you're describing is one big grey area where my beliefs are serious and yours aren't.

    I don't believe you're legally obliged to close a business for xmas so that's up to them.

    If a dress code of a company doesn't impinge the law then they should be able to do whatever the hell they like, it's their company.

    If the law protects such thing it's obviously open to abuse when you have to pander to something clearly made up such as religion.


  • Options
    #429
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    And her rights to wear a headscarf? Her right to have equal access to employment?

    You know what, if I cover myself head to toe in tattoos, including face and hands, that will severely affect my access to equal employment. Most customer-facing jobs would be utterly out of reach for me, and it doesn't make the least bit of a difference if I'm finding that prejudiced and discriminating.

    So if I make that decision, I will have to live with the consequences. People will not and should not fall over backwards to accommodate my sense of personal aesthetics, nor should they do so for any other personal choice I make in life.
    I should be free to make any choice I want within the law, but as an adult I should also be aware that some of the choices I make will have a restricting impact on my life.

    I choose to be vegetarian, and it vastly limits my choice in restaurants I can eat out in, and in products I can buy.

    I choose a religion, that religion will inevitably demand I make some restrictions to my life, be it in dress, in my social life or in other aspects.
    One of those restrictions for her was her choice of garment, which she knew in advance would contravene the terms and conditions of a contract which she had signed before.
    It was entirely her choice, and I don't see why her choices should force her employer to change their rules.

    If you worked, say, as a teacher in a church-run school and decided to openly live in a homosexual relationship or even marry your partner, the school would have the right to fire you. How is this case any different?


  • Options
    #430
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    The bottom line is that Dunnes offered her employment and she accepted it under terms and conditions. She tried to change the posts and they said no. Now if she doesn't have any respect for company policy then why should they have any for her personal beliefs? They even tried to come to an arrangement and she point blank refused.


  • Options
    #431
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Shenshen wrote: »
    You know what, if I cover myself head to toe in tattoos, including face and hands, that will severely affect my access to equal employment. Most customer-facing jobs would be utterly out of reach for me, and it doesn't make the least bit of a difference if I'm finding that prejudiced and discriminating.

    So if I make that decision, I will have to live with the consequences. People will not and should not fall over backwards to accommodate my sense of personal aesthetics, nor should they do so for any other personal choice I make in life.
    I should be free to make any choice I want within the law, but as an adult I should also be aware that some of the choices I make will have a restricting impact on my life.

    I choose to be vegetarian, and it vastly limits my choice in restaurants I can eat out in, and in products I can buy.

    I choose a religion, that religion will inevitably demand I make some restrictions to my life, be it in dress, in my social life or in other aspects.
    One of those restrictions for her was her choice of garment, which she knew in advance would contravene the terms and conditions of a contract which she had signed before.
    It was entirely her choice, and I don't see why her choices should force her employer to change their rules.

    Here is an easy guide to the act http://www.equality.ie/Files/Your-Employment-Equality-Rights-Explained-Easy-to-read-version-pdf.pdf

    Which of the nine categories does covering yourself in tattoos fall under?

    Notice that the act talks of Access to Employment. Banning people from wearing a Hijab means that a Muslim does not have a equal access to employment.
    Shenshen wrote: »
    If you worked, say, as a teacher in a church-run school and decided to openly live in a homosexual relationship or even marry your partner, the school would have the right to fire you. How is this case any different?

    Does it? are you sure about that? because if it does then that seriously needs changing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    smash wrote: »
    She has the right to wear a head scarf. In her time! And she has a right to equal employment. But businesses have rules!

    Company rules do not supersede labour and discrimination laws.

    All that employees-being-powerless business changed a few generations ago.


  • Options
    #433
    uberalles
    Registered Users Posts: 836 ✭✭✭uberalles


    Would a hijab with the dunnes logo all over it have been a compromise?


  • Options
    #434
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Here is an easy guide to the act http://www.equality.ie/Files/Your-Employment-Equality-Rights-Explained-Easy-to-read-version-pdf.pdf

    Which of the nine categories does covering yourself in tattoos fall under?

    Notice that the act talks of Access to Employment. Banning people from wearing a Hijab means that a Muslim does not have a equal access to employment.



    Does it? are you sure about that? because if it does then that seriously needs changing.

    Funnily enough, it says so in the very leaflet you were linking to :

    "Under the Acts, certain religious, educational and medical
    institutions can give different treatment on the religion
    ground. Certain employees or job applicants might receive
    favourable treatment if it were necessary to maintain the
    religious ethos of the institution.
    These institutions can also take action against an employee if
    they work against the established standards and traditions."

    It also states :

    "The Religion ground:
    You are entitled to equal treatment at work no matter what your
    religious beliefs are or even if you hold no religious beliefs."

    As nobody working for Dunnes is permitted to wear head covering at work, she was treated equally.


  • Options
    #435
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Company rules do not supersede labour and discrimination laws.

    All that employees-being-powerless business changed a few generations ago.
    The did not break any labour or discrimination law.


  • Options
    #436
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Company rules do not supersede labour and discrimination laws.

    All that employees-being-powerless business changed a few generations ago.

    What laws exactly did Dunnes break?


  • Options
    #437
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    smash wrote: »
    The did not break any labour or discrimination law.

    They didn't win their case either - they settled it financially. It can be inferred that they would have lost it.


  • Options
    #438
    Shankly88
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭Shankly88


    It's a policy end of story. Just like you are not aloud have dyed hair in school or hair below the collar in some workplaces it's not predujice it's policy!!!!. This country has gone pc mad and it's doing my head in. It's a private business!! Not there to cater for peoples religious beliefs it's for profit!! And it pays taxes to this country so I for one am all for banning it.


  • Options
    #439
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Ush1 wrote: »
    What laws exactly did Dunnes break?

    Section 13.2 i.e. the religious accoutrements discrimination act.


  • Options
    #440
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    They didn't win their case either - they settled it financially. It can be inferred that they would have lost it.

    Not the same thing nessacerily as having broken the law. They could have settled for different reasons, bad PR, less hassle, legal costs, etc...


  • Options
    #441
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    They didn't win their case either - they settled it financially. It can be inferred that they would have lost it.

    No, they agreed not to see the case through. This doesn't mean they lost a case. And you can not infer that they would have lost.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    They didn't win their case either - they settled it financially. It can be inferred that they would have lost it.

    It can be inferred that they did the sums and decided it would be well cheaper to pay the lady off rather than paying for lawyers to see this one through the courts.


  • Options
    #443
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Not the same thing nessacerily as having broken the law. They could have settled for different reasons, bad PR, less hassle, legal costs, etc...

    Then they've set a precedent. They will probably change their dress code to allow for a Dunnes approved Hijab.

    Which means that I win the debate and the entire internet and some puppies and kittens.

    I'm out.


  • Options
    #444
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Section 13.2 i.e. the religious accoutrements discrimination act.

    Do you have a link? I can't find anything on it.

    http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/IRELAND/RELIGIOUSDISCRIMINATION-IR.htm

    That page is from 2009.


  • Options
    #445
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Then they've set a precedent. They will probably change their dress code to allow for a Dunnes approved Hijab.

    Which means that I win the debate and the entire internet and some puppies and kittens.

    I'm out.

    No, it means they felt it was more trouble than it was worth and until someone can show the laws Dunnes broke, they done more for her than they should have.


  • Options
    #446
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Do you have a link? I can't find anything on it.

    Yeah I just made that up because I was getting bored. :)

    I'm out. Enjoy.


  • Options
    #447
    Corruptedmorals
    Registered Users Posts: 4,194 ✭✭✭Corruptedmorals


    There is absolutely nothing about headscarves or any headwear in the Dunnes contract or handbook,which forms part of the contract. This means that although she was sacked for not turning up in the end, she had a point originally. Most posts here mention the contract etc. as if it explicitly states no headwear but there's nothing there.


  • Options
    #448
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    They will probably change their dress code to allow for a Dunnes approved Hijab.

    They should change it to say "We will under no circumstances cater for your religious beliefs - keep that shít at home"


  • Options
    #449
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Corruptedmorals wrote: »
    There is absolutely nothing about headscarves or any headwear in the Dunnes contract or handbook,which forms part of the contract. This means that although she was sacked for not turning up in the end, she had a point originally. Most posts here mention the contract etc. as if it explicitly states no headwear but there's nothing there.

    It states you must wear a uniform. And I presume it states what the uniform is. Adding clothing yourself falls into the category of altering a uniform.


  • Options
    #450
    davet82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,753 ✭✭✭davet82


    smash wrote: »
    They should change it to say "We will under no circumstances cater for your religious beliefs - keep that shít at home" .

    i dont think they'll do that either, for instance keep all your religious stuff to yourself but lets promote easter eggs and have a big sale on fish come good friday.

    its bad business


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    davet82 wrote: »
    i dont think they'll do that either, for instance keep all your religious stuff to yourself but lests promote easter eggs and have a big sale on fish come good friday.

    its bad business
    Well I'm sure if Muslims had some holidays which historically had a religious meaning but which are now are just commercial really, Dunnes would cater for whatever tat comes with the holiday. If there were enough Muslims here of course. Don't forget, this is a catholic country at the end of the day.


Advertisement