Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

LeeHoffmann

No, but we are discussing jobs and particular items of clothing and I am explaining as a strip club is the most obvious place where a bra wouldn't be worn. Same thing. The answer is that I wouldn't ask for a job, agree not to wear one, then take them to court for not letting me wear one.

If you lived in a country in which the cultural norms dictated that you not wear a bra or uniform at work, would you find that discriminatory or would you see it as choosing a particular item of clothing over a job?

Comparing not wearing a bra while working in a strip club to not wearing a hijab while working in Dunnes is ridiculous. Not wearing a bra is an essential and intrinsic part of the work a stripper does. Not wearing a hijab is not an essential and intrinsic part of the work a checkout person does. You couldn´t be a stripper without taking your bra off. You could work out a checkout while wearing a hijab. It´s just the dicriminatory contract that´s the problem

Shenshen

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Is this what happened? - i.e. did she go without the hijab and then just decide to wear it one day?

Regardless of the ins and outs of this particular case, I´m against banning the wearing of hijabs. IMO it amounts to discrimination and stems from prejudice

According to all the news reports provided in this thread so far, she started work for Dunnes in 2007.
She subsequently converted to Islam, and in 2010 asked to wear the hijab to work.
So she wore the regular uniform for 3 years prior to the disagreement.

I don't believe in forcing companies to comply with every request put to them by their employees. It should be left to the company to decide which policies they want to implement.

I'm against banning hijabs as well, but that's not what happened. The lady in question was perfectly entitled to wear whatever she chose in her free time.

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

their actions would suggest otherwise.

What, weighing up the costs of a legal battle with potentially negative publicity against paying her off?

I can guarantee you she only got a fraction of what it would have cost Dunnes to see this one through.

Fratton Fred

bluewolf wrote: »

That's my understanding from the quotes thus far. I can be corrected.


Nobody is banning the wearing of hijabs. Sensationalism isn't going to get us anywhere.
In one private company, there is a strict uniform code which has been enforced. That's all there is to it.

Would we agree that wearing one would be a compromise? Sure, it sounds like a good one. Should they as a private company be forced to make exceptions to their dress code for people who like wearing headscarves? No. That's discrimination against everyone else.

No, it is only discrimination against everyone else if you don't let them wear a headscarf as well.

There is also the question over how strictly they do enforce the dress code. Have they let people wear a Hijab in other stores as well? I would be amazed if this is the first Muslim woman they have employed who wants to wear one.

Drumpot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why does Saudi Arabia get rolled out everytime these discussions come up? wtf has Saudi Arabia got to do with anything. This is Ireland.

Yes, this is Ireland and in Ireland most women dont wear clothing to cover their faces. In Saudi Arabia, foreign women have to abide by their religious belief and cover up their faces.

My point is that if you move to a differant country you have to compromise and accept that certain aspects of your beliefs/ethics/morals will have to adopt a more practical approach to fit in with your new environment.

Tolerance doesnt just work one way and its a very easy stance to take by stating that its discrimination against one section of society , if its not shared by the majority.

Minority groups are not automatically discriminated against if as a society we choose to interpret the rights of everybody in the same manner (in this case, certain acceptable practises in work) . .

I dont have a problem with somebody wearing clothing over their face while working in Dunnes. But I respect the Right of Dunnes to have a common uniform policy for all employees. I also respect the right of a muslim woman to not work their if they feel it prevents them from practising their religious beliefs. I also respect the views of some people who might find a woman hiding her face with clothing because of their religious belief, as offencive and demeaning . .

coffee_cake

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

If you lived in a country in which the cultural norms dictated that you not wear a bra or uniform at work, would you find that discriminatory or would you see it as choosing a particular item of clothing over a job?

She lives in ireland where the cultural norm is not wearing a hijab, but she is allowed to wear one anyway on her own time. How is that discriminating? Of course it's choosing an item over a job.

If I suddenly moved to a country where not wearing a bra was the norm but I was fine with wearing one, I'd keep wearing one (kinda painful not to). And if I couldn't find a job, I'd move on again.

It´s just the dicriminatory contract that´s the problem

No, it's her waking up one day and suddenly deciding she wants to wear a headscarf that's the problem. With her, not her job.

Kenny Logins

Get job. Convert to Pastafarianism. Refuse to go to work without my colander. Sue employer for unfair dismissal.

WIN.

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

What, weighing up the costs of a legal battle with potentially negative publicity against paying her off?

I can guarantee you she only got a fraction of what it would have cost Dunnes to see this one through.

Possibly. If that were the case why did they even go to court in the first place?

I am amazed personally that it got this far, they are on very dodgy territory and I would guarantee that their dress policy has now been amended, or at least an instruction has gone out to store managers not to be so stupid in future.

LeeHoffmann

Nobody is banning the wearing of hijabs. Sensationalism isn't going to get us anywhere.
In one private company, there is a strict uniform code which has been enforced. That's all there is to it.

I´m not being sensationalist. People think it´s perfectly fine to ban the wearing of hijabs at work. Potentially it isn´t just one private company. People cited the uniform as the main reason why it shouldn´t be allowed. I gave a list of jobs on the previous page which require wearing a uniform - thus she couldn´t in good conscience do any of those jobs. Another poster thinks teacher shouldn´t be allowed to wear a hijab either. Which is better - allowing somebody to wear a head scarf or indirectly preventing people from obtaining work in a large number of fields because of prejudice?

Should they as a private company be forced to make exceptions to their dress code for people who like wearing headscarves? No. That's discrimination against everyone else.

I think they should be prevented from writing discrimination into their contracts. You´re being deliberately disingenuous here I think bluewolf - "people who like to wear headscarves" - it´s not a fashion choice for them, it´s an essential piece of everyday clothing like socks or underwear.
It isn´t discrimination against everyone else - they could wear a headscarf too

LeeHoffmann

And if I couldn't find a job, I'd move on again.

OK well I guess that´s the point that will keep us from agreeing. You see it that people should completely integrate - I think we should expand our culture to take account of difference.

Madam_X

Could someone explain to me how it's discrimination to prohibit a worker from wearing something that is not part of the company's official uniform, religious clothing or not? I'm genuinely wondering what I'm missing here.

I personally wouldnt care as a customer/fellow employee if she wore one but I just can't see how it's discrimination.

coffee_cake

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I´m not being sensationalist. People think it´s perfectly fine to ban the wearing of hijabs at work.

I think it's fine to uphold a contract regarding dress policy you already signed, yes.
I think it would be great if companies could reach a compromise.
Does that mean she should sue them because she decided to start wearing one and they wouldn't break the uniform policy for her? No.

Potentially it isn´t just one private company. People cited the uniform as the main reason why it shouldn´t be allowed.

It's not a "main reason" it "shouldn't" be allowed. It is the reason that is isn't allowed in one employer's place of work.
I couldn't care less if they did or did not allow it. The fact is that they decided they haven't, and so she can go work for them knowing this, or not. Same as a vegetarian can go work for a butcher, or not.

Which is better - allowing somebody to wear a head scarf or indirectly preventing people from obtaining work in a large number of fields because of prejudice?

More sensationalism. A blanket dress code applies to everyone. Zero prejudice.

I think they should be prevented from writing discrimination into their contracts. You´re being deliberately disingenuous here I think bluewolf - "people who like to wear headscarves" - it´s not a fashion choice for them, it´s an essential piece of everyday clothing like socks or underwear.

No, Lee, it isn't. I will stress this as often as I need to. She was perfectly fine until she decided one day she absolutely had to wear one, with all the conviction of new converts. Islamic scholars have announced themselves that it is not essential. She does not even come from a country where it is a cultural norm (not that that would allow it, but would explain your insistence on talking about underwear).
She made the choice of her own free will that she wanted to start wearing one. And that's fine. I don't care if she does. But she was already under contract which she willingly signed saying she wouldn't, a compromise could not be reached, so she left.

--Kaiser--

Shenshen wrote: »

According to all the news reports provided in this thread so far, she started work for Dunnes in 2007.
She subsequently converted to Islam, and in 2010 asked to wear the hijab to work.
So she wore the regular uniform for 3 years prior to the disagreement.

Oh FFS. I can't believe anyone is defending this woman

coffee_cake

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

OK well I guess that´s the point that will keep us from agreeing. You see it that people should completely integrate - I think we should expand our culture to take account of difference.

I have no idea what integration you are talking about.
She can wear her hijab all day long on her own time if she wants.
Our culture already has no problem with this.
One dress code in a private employer is not "our culture".

martomcg

"As far as she was concerned, being a devout Muslim, you must wear a hijab. It's an obligation," said Mr Horan.
"Her view was I'm ready to work. I want to work, but because of my religion I have to wear a hijab."
In October 2010 Ms Tavoraite met with Bill Farrell, store manager at the Ballincollig store, and the human resources manager.
She explained her religion involved covering her head with a hat or scarf while in public.
Mr Farrell told Ms Tavoraite that her religion was her own business and her business only.

She did a good job of becoming a "devout" Muslim in the short time between converting and being let go.

The Arabic word literally means curtain or cover (noun). Most Islamic legal systems define this type of modest dressing as covering everything except the face and hands in public.

She's not in public, she's at work on a private premises.

anncoates

In two minds really.

It's hard to sift through the competing anti-religious/pro-religious agendas in these threads.

Also tough to see whether the issue from Dunnes here is that it concerns a minority faith with a bad public perception in this country.

I'd be inclined to let her wear it.

I think the uniform analogy is a bit unsatisfactory as the head gear is obviously part of her faith and it's not really the same as saying I'm going to wear a t-shirt or beanie hat into work today.

Personally, I wouldn't give a fuck if somebody I worked with wore one and wouldn't make trite comparisons with them wearing a Hijab and me not being allowed to wear a beanie hat or whatever. I'd respect their right to do it even if I think it's a load of codswallop and as long as it was kept as a strictly personal matter, as in it didn't interfere with their job duties. I work with a lad that wears a turban and we have a formal dress code in my workplace. It wouldn't even occur to me to think twice about his head wear.

I'm an atheist and totally agree with secularism but I'm pretty sanguine with people expressing their faith if it's just a relatively trivial personal matter like clothing.

That said, Dunnes are not state body so as a private company they are entitled to enforce a dress code. Personally If I owned a company, I'd let something like that slide for employee harmony but it's their call, I guess.

Fratton Fred

Drumpot wrote: »

Yes, this is Ireland and in Ireland most women dont wear clothing to cover their faces. In Saudi Arabia, foreign women have to abide by their religious belief and cover up their faces.

My point is that if you move to a differant country you have to compromise and accept that certain aspects of your beliefs/ethics/morals will have to adopt a more practical approach to fit in with your new environment.

Tolerance doesnt just work one way and its a very easy stance to take by stating that its discrimination against one section of society , if its not shared by the majority.

Minority groups are not automatically discriminated against if as a society we choose to interpret the rights of everybody in the same manner (in this case, certain acceptable practises in work) . .

I dont have a problem with somebody wearing clothing over their face while working in Dunnes. But I respect the Right of Dunnes to have a common uniform policy for all employees.

so if an Irish woman converted to Islam it would be fine because she hasn't moved country?

There is nothing wrong with a common uniform policy, but, as I have asked earlier, a lot of companies have had to change their uniform policies to allow women to wear trousers to work because it was considered discriminatory. How is this any different?

You can't just decide that "It's our country and if you don't like it, **** off" because that puts us alongside countries like Saudi Arabia and personally that's not somewhere I particularly want to live.

Drumpot

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I think they should be prevented from writing discrimination into their contracts. You´re being deliberately disingenuous here I think bluewolf - "people who like to wear headscarves" - it´s not a fashion choice for them, it´s an essential piece of everyday clothing like socks or underwear.
It isn´t discrimination against everyone else - they could wear a headscarf too

If I am a devout , hardcore catholic and I work in a sweetshop that decides to expand and to start selling condoms, can I sue for my position becoming untenable ?

Private companies should be allowed to make reasonable decisions with regards to uniforms and fair practises. I understand this can be an objective debate, but I dont believe that the religous choices ANYBODY makes should be forced on private companies no more then do I believe state and religion should mix.

It is discriminating to pick out one religion because it holds a certain belief, specifically if this belief goes against a regular practis (uniform). By not catering to any religion it is by definition not discriminating in any way . .

Wearing a head scarf is not the same as wearing a cross that is hidden under clothing.

The most important thing is that people have choices. If Catholics choose to follow their religion by the letter of the law they would not be able to do specific jobs (work in an abortion clinic, work in shops or for companies that sell condoms - Dunnes!) . . So where exactly do we draw the line ?

Bodhran

If this girl had continued working in Dunnes she'd have run into a lot more problem than just wearing a headscarf.

A Code of Practice for Muslims in the West

Work & Investment
General Rules
240. A Muslim is allowed to serve meat of an animal that was not slaughtered according to Islamic laws to those who consider it lawful like Christians, Jews, and others. Similarly, it is permissible for him to work in preparing and cooking that meat. The money that he receives in return for that work can be legitimized by the rule of tanãzul (withdrawing your exclusive right from that meat).
241. It is not permissible for a Muslim to sell pork to those who believe it is lawful for them among the Christians and others. Based on obligatory precaution, one should not even serve that meat to them.
242. A Muslim is not allowed to serve intoxicating drinks to anyone at all... He is not [even] allowed to wash the dishes or give them to others, if that washing and giving is part of the drinking of intoxicants.
243. It is not allowed for him to take the wages for this work [selling or serving intoxicating drinks], as it is unlawful. As for the “extreme need” justification used by some people for this kind of work, it is an unacceptable justification.
249. It is not permissible for a Muslim to buy products of the countries that are in a state of war with Islam and Muslims, for example, Israel.

Drumpot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if an Irish woman converted to Islam it would be fine because she hasn't moved country?

There is nothing wrong with a common uniform policy, but, as I have asked earlier, a lot of companies have had to change their uniform policies to allow women to wear trousers to work because it was considered discriminatory. How is this any different?

You can't just decide that "It's our country and if you don't like it, **** off" because that puts us alongside countries like Saudi Arabia and personally that's not somewhere I particularly want to live.

This is not about telling anybody to F**k off, why do you keep saying it ?

My comparison with Saudi Arabia was to show that when foreign people goto this country they abide by its rules because thats what the locals want. There is no push in Saudi arabia (which is not the only muslim country) to show tolerance to foreign women, so when people have a go at Irish People because we dont think that we should have to conform to specific religious customs or we are zenophobic, intolerant people, I find it completely ignorant and self righteous hypocrisy.

LeeHoffmann

No, Lee, it isn't. I will stress this as often as I need to.

For some of them, it is an essential piece of clothing. Denying that is silly.

More sensationalism.

:rolleyes: It is indirectly preventing people from obtaining work in those fields. And the main point again is that there is no good reason to object to a scarf!

As I said in my previous post, I don´t think we can reach agreement here so I see no point in continuing.

coffee_cake

anncoates wrote: »

In two minds really.

It's hard to sift through the competing anti-religious/pro-religious agendas in these threads.

Also tough to see whether the issue from Dunnes here is that it concerns a minority faith with a bad public perception in this country.

I'd be inclined to let her wear it.

I think the uniform analogy is a bit unsatisfactory as the head gear is obviously part of her faith and it's not really the same as saying I'm going to wear a t-shirt or beanie hat into work today.

Personally, I wouldn't give a fuck if somebody I worked with wore one and wouldn't make trite comparisons with them wearing a Hijab and me not being allowed to wear a beanie hat or whatever. I'd respect their right to do it even if I think it's a load of codswallop and it was kept as a strictly personal matter, as in, it didn't interfere with their job duties. I work with a lad that wears a turban and we have a formal dress code in my workplace. I wouldn't occur to me to even question his head wear.

I'm an atheist and totally agree with secularism but I'm pretty sanguine with people expressing their faith if it's just a relatively trivial personal matter like clothing.

I'd like to state again that this has nothing to do with having any kind of anti religion agenda on my behalf. I have absolutely no problem with people wearing them and as I said before, I think allowing her would have been a good compromise.

But this woman happily worked there for a few years then suddenly decided to convert and furthermore decided that a hijab was essential, which is not an integral part of her faith at all; it's purely a cultural norm and a choice.
From the point of view of a dress code and whether an employer is entitled not to do anything, the hat and the hijab are the same thing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coffee_cake

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

And the main point again is that there is no good reason to object to a scarf!

But there is no good reason to give it special treatment, either. And that is the issue.

LeeHoffmann

But there is no good reason to give it special treatment, either.

I don´t see that as special treatment. Everybody should be allowed to wear it.

Again, I see no point in continuing now as it´s clear to me we´re only going to go round and round without reaching agreement.

Shenshen

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

For some of them, it is an essential piece of clothing. Denying that is silly.

:rolleyes: It is indirectly preventing people from obtaining work in those fields. And the main point again is that there is no good reason to object to a scarf!

As I said in my previous post, I don´t think we can reach agreement here so I see no point in continuing.

You keep going on about "good reason".

Dunnes as a company decided on the uniform. They own and run the company, and they pay their staff's wages. It's up to them to decide what they want their staff to do and wear, within the limits of the law.
That's a good enough reason. Why should anyone be allowed to dictate to a company how they should run their business?

Fratton Fred

Drumpot wrote: »

If I am a devout , hardcore catholic and I work in a sweetshop that decides to expand and to start selling condoms, can I sue for my position becoming untenable ?

Private companies should be allowed to make reasonable decisions with regards to uniforms and fair practises. I understand this can be an objective debate, but I dont believe that the religous choices ANYBODY makes should be forced on private companies no more then do I believe state and religion should mix.

It is discriminating to pick out one religion because it holds a certain belief, specifically if this belief goes against a regular practis (uniform). By not catering to any religion it is by definition not discriminating in any way . .

Wearing a head scarf is not the same as wearing a cross that is hidden under clothing.

The most important thing is that people have choices. If Catholics choose to follow their religion by the letter of the law they would not be able to do specific jobs (work in an abortion clinic, work in shops or for companies that sell condoms - Dunnes!) . . So where exactly do we draw the line ?

If you were a devout catholic and your shop insisted you sold condoms then yes, you might have grounds for complaint. At the very least, they should try to accommodate your beliefs.

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

You keep going on about "good reason".

Dunnes as a company decided on the uniform. They own and run the company, and they pay their staff's wages. It's up to them to decide what they want their staff to do and wear, within the limits of the law.
That's a good enough reason. Why should anyone be allowed to dictate to a company how they should run their business?

Yes. Is their policy discriminatory though? I believe there is a good argument that it is, or at lest this stores interpretation of it is.

Korvanica

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with a common uniform policy, but, as I have asked earlier, a lot of companies have had to change their uniform policies to allow women to wear trousers to work because it was considered discriminatory. How is this any different?

Wearing trousers isn't rubbing religion / beliefs in my face.
Women account for 1/2 the workforce.

If we start changing uniform policies for every bat**** crazy religion out there there would be no uniforms. It would be a circus.

Imagine staff wearing Hijabs / Dastars / Colanders / T-Shirts that say "Fcuk Dunnes" (new religion I invented just there) / Abayas / Burqas / Egals....

You wouldn't know who is working in the shop at all !

Disclaimer: I say batsh!t crazy religion because I think ALL religion is batsh!t crazy and does not deserve to be anywhere near education or a court of law in any way shape or form.Religion has caused this country enough damage and we don't need it wasting more time in the schools/courts than it already has

davet82

Korvanica wrote: »

Disclaimer: I say batsh!t crazy religion because I think ALL religion is batsh!t crazy and does not deserve to be anywhere near education or a court of law in any way shape or form.Religion has caused this country enough damage and we don't need it wasting more time in the schools/courts than it already has

that disclaimer just made your post viod imo