M&S tells Muslim staff they CAN refuse to serve customers buying alcohol or pork

[-0-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527820/Marks-Spencer-tells-Muslim-staff-CAN-refuse-serve-customers-buying-alcohol-pork.html

Marks & Spencer has told Muslim staff they can refuse to serve shoppers buying alcohol or pork, it has been revealed.
The chain has granted checkout workers in more than 700 stores permission to politely decline to serve customers for religious reasons.
Instead, shoppers are being asked to wait to pay for certain items at a different till.
The policy highlights a divide among the mainstream food retailers over whether religious staff should be excused from certain tasks.
In contrast to M&S, Sainsbury's has told Muslim staff that there is no reason why they cannot handle goods such as alcohol and pork - even if they are not allowed to eat or drink the products.

A spokesman said the retailer's official guidelines - which see everyone treated 'fairly' - were written following consultations with religious groups, according to The Sunday Telegraph.
However, Morrisons - which is based in Bradford, where there is a large Muslim population - said it had a long-standing commitment to 'respecting and working around' workers' wishes not to handle certain products for religious or cultural reasons.

Meanwhile, Asda bosses have chosen not to allow Muslims who object to handling alcohol to serve customers on checkouts.
And Tesco agreed it 'would make no sense' to employ staff on a till who refused to touch specific items - but said it treats each case individually, with no specific policy in place.
Last week, shoppers buying alcoholic drinks for Christmas at a M&S store in central London were asked by a Muslim checkout worker to wait to be served by another member of staff.
One customer - who wishes to remain unnamed - told the newspaper she was 'taken aback' by the worker's request.

'I had one bottle of champagne, and the lady - who was wearing a headscarf - was very apologetic but said she could not serve me,' said the customer.
'She told me to wait until another member of staff was available.'
A M&S spokesman said the policy of tolerance acknowledges the beliefs of other religious workers, including Christians and Jews.
He added that the major retailer strives to promote 'an environment free from discrimination'.
In October this year, two Muslim workers won a discrimination case against Tesco after their bosses kept their prayer room locked.

Abdirisak Aden and Mahamed Hasan, both aged 27, were among a number of devout Muslim employees at the supermarket who had lobbied for a prayer room since 2006.
In 2008, managers agreed to set aside a security office at the distribution depot in Crick, Northamptonshire, as a prayer room for Muslims.
But four years later, bosses set new restrictions on the use of the room which included keeping it locked when it was not in use.
Following an employment tribunal, Tesco was guilty of indirect discrimination - with the men awarded an undisclosed sum for ‘injury to their feelings’.

Do you care? Someone under 18 can't sell you alcohol, they get someone else to do it for them. This is similar, but it's religion and not state law. Discuss.

MagicMarker

I'm too poor to shop there anyway.

hfallada

I wonder will catholic staff in M&S, be allowed to not serve people alcohol(if they are pioneers) or sell them meat on a friday?

Nodin

...the vast majority don't have a problem handling booze, and as long as they don't touch the pork with bare skin, I don't think it's a problem for them either....

SmilingLurker

Ridiculous. If their religion prevents them doing the job, they should not have taken it. If they believe serving pork or wine is immoral they should not be working for a business that does either/both.

I would not work for an organisation which I believed to be immoral e.g. pay day lenders (something I should have in common with all muslims). If morally you have an issue with a company that does something do not work for them.

Stinicker

Nodin wrote: »

...the vast majority don't have a problem handling booze, and as long as they don't touch the pork with bare skin, I don't think it's a problem for them either....

Christian country so Christian rules, if these islamic workers have a problem with alcohol or pork they should go to Saudi Arabia, M&S should be firing them not pandering to their requests. Islamic rituals like these have no place in Europe where our Western way of life prevails, much of which is rooted in Christian traditions even if we are atheist or otherwise.

Manach

If it is a matter of say rights, then Private companies would have a pass on deciding how they allow their staff to interact with their internal work practices. Where it might get interesting is to apply this policy to all types of staff.

AerynSun

hfallada wrote: »

I wonder will catholic staff in M&S, be allowed to not serve people alcohol(if they are pioneers) or sell them meat on a friday?

Say the pioneers thing could go the same way depending how they understood their pioneership, but the issue of touching/handling pork is not quite the same as the Friday abstinence for Catholics.

For Muslims, it is haram (forbidden, sacrilege) to eat pork, full stop. And apart from doing something that is in itself haram, Muslims are also strongly advised to avoid anything that could set them along the path to doing the haram thing. Handling pork could lead to eating pork, therefore handling pork is not advised. A Muslim who handles pork needs to perform wudu afterwards - ritual 'cleansing' prayers that involve washing the face, forearms, head and feet. There are some technicalities about the handling that could be argued: there's a proviso about being willing to do something that is not in itself haram if refusing to do it would incur an unreasonable penalty (like losing your job). So a Muslim person could reasonably agree to handle pork (and perform wudu afterwards) if they were threatened with losing their job if they refused. If they could refuse to handle pork and still keep their job, then they should indeed refuse. This is the reasoning.

By-the-book Catholics abstain from eating meat on a Friday not because eating meat is in itself forbidden, but because abstaining from the luxury/pleasure of eating meat is intended to be a spiritual practice that would support the person in better appreciating the luxuries and pleasures that come to them from God. So eating meat on a Friday is not actually a sin, believe it or not! Eating meat on a Friday is simply rejecting the grace of a particular spiritual practice and sure, if you're only doing the spiritual practice because you HAVE to, then the grace is technically lost to you anyway so the practice is of no spiritual use to you... but good luck making that argument to the majority of Catholics!

tfitzgerald

This is a case of p c. Gone crazy. If they don't want to handle those products the should not have put themselves in that position

diograis

should i be furious about this? couldn't care less, let them pander all they want

AerynSun

tfitzgerald wrote: »

This is a case of p c. Gone crazy. If they don't want to handle those products the should not have put themselves in that position

This kind of argument could soon apply to all Catholic doctors and nurses who have objections to performing abortions. The State could easily argue that performing abortions is a reasonable part of the job, and if staff with 'pc / religious issues' have got objections to doing ALL aspects of the work, then they have no business working in public clinics or hospitals.

Same thing, right?

razzler

A practicing catholic may feel that selling condoms at the checkout to a single person is encouraging immorality, but if they try explaining this to their boss, about why they refused the sale, good luck to them, (suspension on the way). My point being , as tfitzgerald implied, when a person applies for a job they know what that job entails and if they are not prepared to carry out those duties (which they are being PAID to do) then they should not apply for that job. Refusing to carry out certain duties is not fair to their employer or the customer. Also, it will put employers off employing staff from particular ethnic/religious backgrounds.

jhegarty

How about vegetarians/vegans and pork ?

Nodin

Stinicker wrote: »

Christian country so Christian rules, if these islamic workers have a problem with alcohol or pork they should go to Saudi Arabia, M&S should be firing them not pandering to their requests. Islamic rituals like these have no place in Europe where our Western way of life prevails, much of which is rooted in Christian traditions even if we are atheist or otherwise.

I think not.

Why should they go to Saudi Arabia?

goose2005

AerynSun wrote: »

Say the pioneers thing could go the same way depending how they understood their pioneership, but the issue of touching/handling pork is not quite the same as the Friday abstinence for Catholics.

For Muslims, it is haram (forbidden, sacrilege) to eat pork, full stop. And apart from doing something that is in itself haram, Muslims are also strongly advised to avoid anything that could set them along the path to doing the haram thing. Handling pork could lead to eating pork, therefore handling pork is not advised. A Muslim who handles pork needs to perform wudu afterwards - ritual 'cleansing' prayers that involve washing the face, forearms, head and feet. There are some technicalities about the handling that could be argued: there's a proviso about being willing to do something that is not in itself haram if refusing to do it would incur an unreasonable penalty (like losing your job). So a Muslim person could reasonably agree to handle pork (and perform wudu afterwards) if they were threatened with losing their job if they refused. If they could refuse to handle pork and still keep their job, then they should indeed refuse. This is the reasoning.

TBH this just seems to be people making an ostentatious show of religion. Muslims are unlikely to handle actual pork unless they're in the butchers/deli, and I don't think a hyperobservant Muslim would take that job. Otherwise they'll be handling a packet or bag which contains pork/alcohol. They could wear gloves if it's that icky. I mean, are Muslim baggage handlers allowed to lift a suitcase with whisky in it? Can a Muslim bus driver drive a bus carrying alcohol?

Nodin

goose2005 wrote: »

TBH this just seems to be people making an ostentatious show of religion. Muslims are unlikely to handle actual pork unless they're in the butchers/deli, and I don't think a hyperobservant Muslim would take that job. Otherwise they'll be handling a packet or bag which contains pork/alcohol. They could wear gloves if it's that icky. I mean, are Muslim baggage handlers allowed to lift a suitcase with whisky in it? Can a Muslim bus driver drive a bus carrying alcohol?

Apparently yes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88122945&postcount=91

AerynSun

goose2005 wrote: »

TBH this just seems to be people making an ostentatious show of religion.

That could be argued about any religious person of any faith or creed. It could also get turned around and said that people who object to religious people having a say in what they feel comfortable doing/not doing on the grounds of their religious beliefs (and who are we to say what people's genuine inner experiences of faith are about, anyway?), are making an ostentatious show of being so very civilised as to want to make funny little rules that other people have to live by: let them handle the booze/pork, or boot them out of the job. It's a zealous imposition of values on someone else, regardless of whose name is on the masthead.

In a free and fair system, people should be allowed to believe or disbelieve whatever they choose, and be given the freedom to do so, as long as their doing so doesn't infringe on the beliefs of others.

So let the Muslim person refuse to handle pork, no biggie. Nobody's going to have a stroke or a heart attack if a second cashier has to pop across to swipe the item over the scanner. And let the Catholic doctor refuse to perform an abortion, let someone else do it whose conscience has no trouble with it.

And sure, all of the right-thinking agnostics and atheists amongst us are going to carry on about our business regardless of what other people do or don't do on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

Obliq

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm just going to drink until I forget about this.

I think I'll join you, right after this

This does bring me back to a time long, long ago when I was the crappiest waitress in Dublin. A few places I worked were buffet style, winding up at the till. After showing that I could in fact, remember orders long enough to serve them up, and also clear tables, I would be put on the till. Which is where disaster struck. In my blind panic, numbers would magically be transformed to a multiple of their former selves and I hold the record of 22 over-rings in one lunchtime at a particular city restaurant that shall remain nameless.

The point of this story is - I never lasted long after being found to thick with numbers to operate the till (hmm, sorry obliq....we only need you for 10 hrs this week). I never thought this was very fair myself, but hey, I wasn't running the business and I suppose the customers at the end of the line were getting a bit sniffy by the time it was their turn to owe the restaurant a couple of grand for their lunch.

I don't think I'd have been best pleased to fiind myself finally getting to the till with my xmas booze this week after standing there half an hour, only to be told "terribly sorry, it's against my religion". I don't see why religious convictions should be more convincing a case than my phobia of numbers. I can feel a compo claim coming on!

Roger Hassenforder

People should be more concerned about how spaghetti and meatballs are being handled by apostates.

Dave!

They're private companies, so it's up to them how they handle—or don't handle—boom boom!—this matter. Certainly though I would have no interest in pandering to this shoyt though.

I wonder though would there be some anti-discrimination law which would cover this, whereby if they sacked the employee they'd be leaving themselves open to being sued. I'd imagine some employers would be a bit afraid of that.

Kiwi in IE

This decision is very poorly thought out and will most likely lead to discrimination because they will have to always ensure they have enough non Muslim checkout operators. It will potentially lead to candidates not being hired because they are Muslim. It would also mean rosters have to be worked out according to the beliefs of staff. It would not be very practical if eight out of ten checkout operators on a particular day are Muslim, therefore all purchases containing alcohol and pork must go through 2 out of 10 tills.

If M&S are advertising for checkout staff but already have as many Muslim staff as is practical given this restriction, what are they going to do if the best applicants are Muslim? Not hire them because they are Muslim and be prosecuted for discrimination? If the majority of Muslim supermarket workers really don't want to handle pork and alcohol, and M&S is the only supermarket that makes this allowance, they may find they have more Muslim applicants than is practical since this has been announced. Will they completely restrict the sale of pork products and alcohol, to the point that some days they either can't sell it at all, or have queues down the aisles for certain tills while others are empty? Or will they discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, which is illegal?

What happens if a Muslim checkout operator wants to swap shifts with a non Muslim but can't because there are already too many Muslim staff on that day?

They are asking for a world of trouble with this one! Completely stupid!

Turtwig

Seems a silly idea but they're a private business they can do whatever they like as long as it's legal.

mooonpie

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

This decision is very poorly thought out and will most likely lead to discrimination because they will have to always ensure they have enough non Muslim checkout operators. It will potentially lead to candidates not being hired because they are Muslim. It would also mean rosters have to be worked out according to the beliefs of staff. It would not be very practical if eight out of ten checkout operators on a particular day are Muslim, therefore all purchases containing alcohol and pork must go through 2 out of 10 tills.

If M&S are advertising for checkout staff but already have as many Muslim staff as is practical given this restriction, what are they going to do if the best applicants are Muslim? Not hire them because they are Muslim and be prosecuted for discrimination? If the majority of Muslim supermarket workers really don't want to handle pork and alcohol, and M&S is the only supermarket that makes this allowance, they may find they have more Muslim applicants than is practical since this has been announced. Will they completely restrict the sale of pork products and alcohol, to the point that some days they either can't sell it at all, or have queues down the aisles for certain tills while others are empty? Or will they discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, which is illegal?

What happens if a Muslim checkout operator wants to swap shifts with a non Muslim but can't because there are already too many Muslim staff on that day?

They are asking for a world of trouble with this one! Completely stupid!

Swap Muslim/Non-Muslim with Male/Female and ask your local swimming pool or leisure centre how they handle staff hiring and rosters.

That's just dealing with any potential legal aspect, any availability of products is obviously down to the company and how they feel it suits their business needs

shamrock55

Can a customer refuse to be served by a muslim i wonder

AlmightyCushion

shamrock55 wrote: »

Can a customer refuse to be served by a muslim i wonder

A customer can refuse to be served by any one for whatever reason they like. They can just take their goods to another checkout. If they don't want to be served by anyone there they can just leave their goods in the store and leave. The company would be under no obligation to find them an alternative person to serve them.

IvySlayer

Any Pastafarians working in M+S?

Next time some meatballs appear in your checkout, storm off to the managers office

magicbastarder

my ire for this would probably be reserved for the occasion when i'm told i have to queue for a second time in order to buy some groceries.

maybe all it will take is for one customer to make a show of an 'if you're not going to take my money for an item i'm willing to pay for, i'm taking it for free' approach, and this might get a second look.

Cabaal

and next week a christian checkout operator can refuse to sell customer's any meat other then fish on a Friday

CiDeRmAn

I've no problem with this, just means that they get rostered to work elsewhere instore.
To be honest people are underplaying how important this is to people of the Muslim faith.
There really isn't anything comparable in the modern Catholic faith at all.
You only have to go back a couple of decades to find Irish shops who wouldn't serve anything other than fish on a Friday, and there are taboo items that people may refuse to serve, like horse meat.
As said, this isn't the crumbling of a secular Europe into Sharia law, this is a private company being sensitive to certain employees, and they should be applauded for it.

Gordon

Did these employees, before getting the job, not know that part of the work involved handling plastic packaging?

Cabaal

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I've no problem with this, just means that they get rostered to work elsewhere instore.
To be honest people are underplaying how important this is to people of the Muslim faith.
There really isn't anything comparable in the modern Catholic faith at all.
You only have to go back a couple of decades to find Irish shops who wouldn't serve anything other than fish on a Friday, and there are taboo items that people may refuse to serve, like horse meat.
As said, this isn't the crumbling of a secular Europe into Sharia law, this is a private company being sensitive to certain employees, and they should be applauded for it.

Surely that depends on how strict you are about your faith?

Many Muslims have no problem handling pork thats wrapped in jobs, many Christians have no problem handling mixed fabrics.

But if you were strict then regardless of faith you should be treated equally.

so thats means
- No work Sundays for Christians
- No work Fridays for Jews
- Muslims must be allowed time during the day to pray at the times they must pray
- All holy days must be given off work, no exceptions
- Not having to work with gay's or women as you don't find them equal (depends on faith really)

IvySlayer

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I've no problem with this, just means that they get rostered to work elsewhere instore.
To be honest people are underplaying how important this is to people of the Muslim faith.
There really isn't anything comparable in the modern Catholic faith at all.
You only have to go back a couple of decades to find Irish shops who wouldn't serve anything other than fish on a Friday, and there are taboo items that people may refuse to serve, like horse meat.
As said, this isn't the crumbling of a secular Europe into Sharia law, this is a private company being sensitive to certain employees, and they should be applauded for it.

So can I refuse to handle spaghetti and pasta sauce if it is core to my religious beliefs?

peace2804

Cabaal wrote: »

- Not having to work with gay's or women as you don't find them equal (depends on faith really)

Which faith is that?

I don't see any big deal myself, not all Muslims will refuse serving pork/alcohol, at the end of the day it's down to the companies' internal policy, I believe they made this decision because they have a big Muslim workforce.

robindch

Marks and Spencer issued a statement last night:

http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/media/press_releases/mands-statement

Marks and Spencer wrote:

Customer service is our number one priority. We regret that in the highlighted case this was not delivered to our usual standards. We would like to apologise for any resulting confusion and reassure our customers that this was an isolated incident. M&S offers an inclusive, secular environment for employees and customers, working closely with any employee with religious beliefs of any denomination that restrict specific food or drink handling. We aim to manage this so that all employees work in departments that allow them to offer great customer service at all times. Requests are considered on a case by case basis and may lead to an individual working in a department where conflicts wouldn't arise, such as in clothing or bakery in foods. This policy has been successfully implemented over many years and does not compromise our ability to offer the highest level of customer service.

I presume that's the original text, but quite a few variations are floating around the internet. Predictably, the Torygraph is painting it as climbdown.

Frank Lee Midere

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I've no problem with this, just means that they get rostered to work elsewhere instore.
To be honest people are underplaying how important this is to people of the Muslim faith.
There really isn't anything comparable in the modern Catholic faith at all.
You only have to go back a couple of decades to find Irish shops who wouldn't serve anything other than fish on a Friday, and there are taboo items that people may refuse to serve, like horse meat.
As said, this isn't the crumbling of a secular Europe into Sharia law, this is a private company being sensitive to certain employees, and they should be applauded for it.

I doubt if even most Muslims would agree. I've been served alcohol by Muslims - lots of small shops have Muslim owners.

The problem with these laws is it will lead to all kinds of confessional lines in shops. A catholic line. A Jewish line. Muslim line. M&S can do what it wants and so can customers, by shopping elsewhere.

nozzferrahhtoo

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

To be honest people are underplaying how important this is to people of the Muslim faith.

We are not underestimating it I think. We just are not pandering to it, and its importance is irrelevant.

Quite simply: If you are hired to do a job and you then refuse to do that job, you should be fired. Simple as.

dowhatyoulove

Bull-hog.

I live in a middle eastern country and today I went to buy my sausages/bacon for my fry up xmas morning.

When I took it to the till, it was a Muslim serving me. No biggie for that person or any other person who serves in that shop as they are told that it sells pork.

Why can't they do it at M&S at home if they can do it here??

Gordon

I see someone recently applied for a job via their careers website.

Phoebas

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We are not underestimating it I think. We just are not pandering to it, and its importance is irrelevant.

Quite simply: If you are hired to do a job and you then refuse to do that job, you should be fired. Simple as.

Nobody is refusing to do anything so far as I can see. M&S are facilitating them where they can; they're not getting any additional rights.

robindch

^^^ dowhatyoulove, soapboxing is against the forum charter.

AerynSun

Gordon wrote: »

I see someone recently applied for a job via their careers website.

I smell a rat

Surely if being 'touched' by the flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendage is a good thing (as that art work suggests)... then all of those items on the list should be required handling by pastafarians?

Otherwise the pastafarians have read the cooking instructions all wrong?

nozzferrahhtoo

Phoebas wrote: »

Nobody is refusing to do anything so far as I can see. M&S are facilitating them where they can; they're not getting any additional rights.

I am making a general point, not specific to this single case. My point being that if you are hired to do a job, any job, then religion should not be grounds to suddenly fail to do the job you were hired for. No matter how "important" it might be to your faith.

Gordon

AerynSun wrote: »

I smell a rat

Surely if being 'touched' by the flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendage is a good thing (as that art work suggests)... then all of those items on the list should be required handling by pastafarians?

Otherwise the pastafarians have read the cooking instructions all wrong?

I gather that the applicant took direct counsel from Him, so it has been deemed as 'Hamram', unlawful.

kylith

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I've no problem with this, just means that they get rostered to work elsewhere instore.
To be honest people are underplaying how important this is to people of the Muslim faith.

Bollox it is. Imams have stated that if you work in a non-Muslim country, or a non-Muslim part of a Muslim country, there is nothing haram about selling alcohol or pork products. There is no cleansing required because it is not haram. One's wages are not haram if you work in such a shop.

magicbastarder wrote:

maybe all it will take is for one customer to make a show of an 'if you're not going to take my money for an item i'm willing to pay for, i'm taking it for free' approach, and this might get a second look.

More like people walking out leaving everything at the till when if the cashier baulks at their purchases. TBH if I was checking out and the cashier told me that I'd have to queue up again because of my pack of ham I'd tell them to keep the lot.

robindch wrote: »

Marks and Spencer issued a statement last night:

http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/media/press_releases/mands-statement

I presume that's the original text, but quite a few variations are floating around the internet. Predictably, the Torygraph is painting it as climbdown.

So it's less that they can refuse you at the till, more that anyone with a problem handling pork is rostered on in the bakery instead? That certainly would make more sense.

Cabaal

AerynSun wrote: »

I smell a rat

Surely if being 'touched' by the flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendage is a good thing (as that art work suggests)... then all of those items on the list should be required handling by pastafarians?

Otherwise the pastafarians have read the cooking instructions all wrong?

Thats depends on your interpretation of the faith,

Handling pasta related products is fine for some believers, but only in the privacy of their own home.

Others are ok doing so in public

All depends on how strict you are with the faith

AerynSun

Gordon wrote: »

I gather that the applicant took direct counsel from Him, so it has been deemed as 'Hamram', unlawful.

Well I hope somebody is giving that applicant a copy of Jamie Oliver's 10-minute meal recipes for Christpastamas? The instructions in there might illumine the until-now indecipherable counsel received from other sauces.

Gordon

AerynSun wrote: »

Well I hope somebody is giving that applicant a copy of Jamie Oliver's 10-minute meal recipes for Christpastamas? The instructions in there might illumine the until-now indecipherable counsel received from other sauces.

As far as I understand, the list is not exhaustive, but only applies to the applicant's profession, not his/her personal life

AerynSun

Gordon wrote: »

As far as I understand, the list is not exhaustive, but only applies to the applicant's profession, not his/her personal life

Ah, thank you. It is now as clear as consommé.

Right I'm getting hungry. Think it's time to pop over to M&S to load up on supplies for a super-duper pulled pork pasta dish, with a few bottles of the old CH3CH2OH on the side. Yummy!

robindch

kylith wrote: »

So it's less that they can refuse you at the till, more that anyone with a problem handling pork is rostered on in the bakery instead? That certainly would make more sense.

Seems to be the case. Perhaps they were short-staffed on the day it happened. Still, while rostering employees so that they can do whatever work they're happy to do is fine, the employee here could have handled the situation much better (and that's to ignore the stupidity of claiming that ringing up a bottle of bubbly is against her holybook).

Roger Hassenforder

Gordon wrote: »

As far as I understand, the list is not exhaustive, but only applies to the applicant's profession, not his/her personal life

If scales are now hamram, this has serious implications for laboratory staff, or anyone working in metrology services...
Was this a recent edict?

Gordon

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If scales are now hamram, this has serious implications for laboratory staff, or anyone working in metrology services...
Was this a recent edict?

I gather from the applicant that the specific edict that he/she obtained by direct counsel with The Noodlesome One that it is Hamram if:

• The scales are to be used specifically for weighing foodstuffs for personal consumption, providing the foodstuffs are that which are Hamram.
• You work in Marks and Spencers.