Page 4 of 8 [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

10 Feb 2011, 6:46 am

Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Wombat wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The head scarf violated the employer's dress code. End of story.
ruveyn


Ahh... but is it? A Sikh has to wear a turban. An orthodox Jew has to wear a hat and/or a beard. An orthodox Muslim HAS to have an untrimmed beard.

I can see both sides of the story but I can't see any easy answers.


The answer is clear: if you feel you have to wear some sort of clothing which a job won't allow you to wear, either take it off or don't take the job.


That does not however answer the question of why a certain item of clothing, in itself harmless and inoffensive, should be forbidden in this job. After all, its not as if she was trying to work in The magical castle reception wearing a certain Cradle of Filth T-shirt and hot-pants. THAT, I could understand as being something Disney might feel was inappropriate to the situation.


They can set whatever dress code they think is appropriate for the work environment in their own company.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

10 Feb 2011, 6:56 am

Asp-Z wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Wombat wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The head scarf violated the employer's dress code. End of story.
ruveyn


Ahh... but is it? A Sikh has to wear a turban. An orthodox Jew has to wear a hat and/or a beard. An orthodox Muslim HAS to have an untrimmed beard.

I can see both sides of the story but I can't see any easy answers.


The answer is clear: if you feel you have to wear some sort of clothing which a job won't allow you to wear, either take it off or don't take the job.


That does not however answer the question of why a certain item of clothing, in itself harmless and inoffensive, should be forbidden in this job. After all, its not as if she was trying to work in The magical castle reception wearing a certain Cradle of Filth T-shirt and hot-pants. THAT, I could understand as being something Disney might feel was inappropriate to the situation.


They can set whatever dress code they think is appropriate for the work environment in their own company.


Do we really have to go round in circles on this? THAT still doesn't cover WHY any give item of apparel is considered "inappropriate" by the House of Mouse. A common sense one. Why is the headscarf inappropriate, and why is it such an epic issue. Print a mouse on it. Paint it red and give it ears. Its not going to bring the whole institution crashing down in flames. Hell, even crappy animation standards failed to do that, so why is one girl wearing a headscarf such a problem?

"Because they have a dress code" does not explain WHY that dress code excludes a given item.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

10 Feb 2011, 7:09 am

Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Wombat wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The head scarf violated the employer's dress code. End of story.
ruveyn


Ahh... but is it? A Sikh has to wear a turban. An orthodox Jew has to wear a hat and/or a beard. An orthodox Muslim HAS to have an untrimmed beard.

I can see both sides of the story but I can't see any easy answers.


The answer is clear: if you feel you have to wear some sort of clothing which a job won't allow you to wear, either take it off or don't take the job.


That does not however answer the question of why a certain item of clothing, in itself harmless and inoffensive, should be forbidden in this job. After all, its not as if she was trying to work in The magical castle reception wearing a certain Cradle of Filth T-shirt and hot-pants. THAT, I could understand as being something Disney might feel was inappropriate to the situation.


They can set whatever dress code they think is appropriate for the work environment in their own company.


Do we really have to go round in circles on this? THAT still doesn't cover WHY any give item of apparel is considered "inappropriate" by the House of Mouse. A common sense one. Why is the headscarf inappropriate, and why is it such an epic issue. Print a mouse on it. Paint it red and give it ears. Its not going to bring the whole institution crashing down in flames. Hell, even crappy animation standards failed to do that, so why is one girl wearing a headscarf such a problem?

"Because they have a dress code" does not explain WHY that dress code excludes a given item.


If they decided everyone who works there has to wear clown shoes, they could f**king do it. Why? Because it's their company. Whether or not you see the point doesn't matter. It's their company, their rules.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Feb 2011, 7:18 am

Wombat wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The head scarf violated the employer's dress code. End of story.
ruveyn


Ahh... but is it? A Sikh has to wear a turban. An orthodox Jew has to wear a hat and/or a beard. An orthodox Muslim HAS to have an untrimmed beard.

I can see both sides of the story but I can't see any easy answers.


There are two sides of the story. The employer can set any dress code he choses to and the employee or perspective employee can accept this standard or not. No one is forcing anyone.

ruveyn



doeintheheadlights
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 136
Location: Cornwall, UK

10 Feb 2011, 7:30 am

Bethie wrote:
Dilbert wrote:
Tragic thing here is that the men in her old country had forced her, and in fact all women, to wear the headscarfs and the robes and whatnot. (Allah-forbid a woman would be seen in public! What's next???! They will start getting jobs and driving cars? Goodness me, we can't have that!! !) And this girl had escaped that world, came here, and is still stuck in sort of a brainwashed mode of thinking where she's convinced herself that the headscarf is some sort of a heritage to be defended, instead of a bondage it truly is.



This is incredibly ignorant. Could it not be that she wears the headscarf because she wants to? In implying that the ONLY way she would prefer to wear one is cultural brainwashing rather than an intelligent choice, you are guilty of the same sexism you accuse her culture of.


There's a great quote in Reading Lolita in Tehran, something about when the government forced her to remove her headscarf, she wore it but when the government forced her to wear one, she refused. Both suppressed her right to chose what she wanted to do, and therefore both were suppressing her rights as a woman.

I watched a great documentary on women's views about wearing headscarves and veils, and it was very enlightening. It's not about suppression to many Muslim women, it's actually about keeping what is sacred hidden and thus preserved. It's kind of like how some people see women wearing mini skirts or see-through shirts as being degrading because it shows too much.

I think this woman has every right to fight against Disney for this. She has a right to follow her religious views in her workplace.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

10 Feb 2011, 7:44 am

Asp-Z wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Wombat wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The head scarf violated the employer's dress code. End of story.
ruveyn


Ahh... but is it? A Sikh has to wear a turban. An orthodox Jew has to wear a hat and/or a beard. An orthodox Muslim HAS to have an untrimmed beard.

I can see both sides of the story but I can't see any easy answers.


The answer is clear: if you feel you have to wear some sort of clothing which a job won't allow you to wear, either take it off or don't take the job.


That does not however answer the question of why a certain item of clothing, in itself harmless and inoffensive, should be forbidden in this job. After all, its not as if she was trying to work in The magical castle reception wearing a certain Cradle of Filth T-shirt and hot-pants. THAT, I could understand as being something Disney might feel was inappropriate to the situation.


They can set whatever dress code they think is appropriate for the work environment in their own company.


Do we really have to go round in circles on this? THAT still doesn't cover WHY any give item of apparel is considered "inappropriate" by the House of Mouse. A common sense one. Why is the headscarf inappropriate, and why is it such an epic issue. Print a mouse on it. Paint it red and give it ears. Its not going to bring the whole institution crashing down in flames. Hell, even crappy animation standards failed to do that, so why is one girl wearing a headscarf such a problem?

"Because they have a dress code" does not explain WHY that dress code excludes a given item.


If they decided everyone who works there has to wear clown shoes, they could f**king do it. Why? Because it's their company. Whether or not you see the point doesn't matter. It's their company, their rules.


And if wearing Clown Shoes were a religious issue, that would be argued about as well. Just because a company is a private concern does not give it carte blanche to dictate everything without outside consideration. For example, Hooters can't just "get tits out", without contravening regulations, even if it is their company. To go with your clown shoes: they could not force people to wear such if it contravened health and safety regs, or whatever human rights rules America actually bothers to have.

Clearly there is a conflict between a degree of religious tolerance, exclusion and the company right to have a uniform requirement. "Its their company" hardly addresses that, nor does it create sensible debate.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

10 Feb 2011, 7:56 am

Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Wombat wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The head scarf violated the employer's dress code. End of story.
ruveyn


Ahh... but is it? A Sikh has to wear a turban. An orthodox Jew has to wear a hat and/or a beard. An orthodox Muslim HAS to have an untrimmed beard.

I can see both sides of the story but I can't see any easy answers.


The answer is clear: if you feel you have to wear some sort of clothing which a job won't allow you to wear, either take it off or don't take the job.


That does not however answer the question of why a certain item of clothing, in itself harmless and inoffensive, should be forbidden in this job. After all, its not as if she was trying to work in The magical castle reception wearing a certain Cradle of Filth T-shirt and hot-pants. THAT, I could understand as being something Disney might feel was inappropriate to the situation.


They can set whatever dress code they think is appropriate for the work environment in their own company.


Do we really have to go round in circles on this? THAT still doesn't cover WHY any give item of apparel is considered "inappropriate" by the House of Mouse. A common sense one. Why is the headscarf inappropriate, and why is it such an epic issue. Print a mouse on it. Paint it red and give it ears. Its not going to bring the whole institution crashing down in flames. Hell, even crappy animation standards failed to do that, so why is one girl wearing a headscarf such a problem?

"Because they have a dress code" does not explain WHY that dress code excludes a given item.


If they decided everyone who works there has to wear clown shoes, they could f**king do it. Why? Because it's their company. Whether or not you see the point doesn't matter. It's their company, their rules.


And if wearing Clown Shoes were a religious issue, that would be argued about as well. Just because a company is a private concern does not give it carte blanche to dictate everything without outside consideration. For example, Hooters can't just "get tits out", without contravening regulations, even if it is their company. To go with your clown shoes: they could not force people to wear such if it contravened health and safety regs, or whatever human rights rules America actually bothers to have.

Clearly there is a conflict between a degree of religious tolerance, exclusion and the company right to have a uniform requirement. "Its their company" hardly addresses that, nor does it create sensible debate.


In most (if not all) developed countries, people are free to practise whatever religion they want. It's not like their right to religious freedom is being oppressed by a few private companies saying they want wear their headwear in their work environment.

I'm friends with a Sikh who decided he didn't want to wear his turban anymore, so he stopped wearing it. So it's not like these people can't take them off or anything. And if they don't want to, they aren't being forced to - they can just not work at Disney.

Remember, the UK, and the USA, where this is taking place, are not Muslim countries. You can expect to have a right to worship whoever you want, but you can't expect society - private companies included - to bend itself for that purpose.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

10 Feb 2011, 8:24 am

Asp-Z wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Wombat wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The head scarf violated the employer's dress code. End of story.
ruveyn


Ahh... but is it? A Sikh has to wear a turban. An orthodox Jew has to wear a hat and/or a beard. An orthodox Muslim HAS to have an untrimmed beard.

I can see both sides of the story but I can't see any easy answers.


The answer is clear: if you feel you have to wear some sort of clothing which a job won't allow you to wear, either take it off or don't take the job.


That does not however answer the question of why a certain item of clothing, in itself harmless and inoffensive, should be forbidden in this job. After all, its not as if she was trying to work in The magical castle reception wearing a certain Cradle of Filth T-shirt and hot-pants. THAT, I could understand as being something Disney might feel was inappropriate to the situation.


They can set whatever dress code they think is appropriate for the work environment in their own company.


Do we really have to go round in circles on this? THAT still doesn't cover WHY any give item of apparel is considered "inappropriate" by the House of Mouse. A common sense one. Why is the headscarf inappropriate, and why is it such an epic issue. Print a mouse on it. Paint it red and give it ears. Its not going to bring the whole institution crashing down in flames. Hell, even crappy animation standards failed to do that, so why is one girl wearing a headscarf such a problem?

"Because they have a dress code" does not explain WHY that dress code excludes a given item.


If they decided everyone who works there has to wear clown shoes, they could f**king do it. Why? Because it's their company. Whether or not you see the point doesn't matter. It's their company, their rules.


And if wearing Clown Shoes were a religious issue, that would be argued about as well. Just because a company is a private concern does not give it carte blanche to dictate everything without outside consideration. For example, Hooters can't just "get tits out", without contravening regulations, even if it is their company. To go with your clown shoes: they could not force people to wear such if it contravened health and safety regs, or whatever human rights rules America actually bothers to have.

Clearly there is a conflict between a degree of religious tolerance, exclusion and the company right to have a uniform requirement. "Its their company" hardly addresses that, nor does it create sensible debate.


In most (if not all) developed countries, people are free to practise whatever religion they want. It's not like their right to religious freedom is being oppressed by a few private companies saying they want wear their headwear in their work environment.

I'm friends with a Sikh who decided he didn't want to wear his turban anymore, so he stopped wearing it. So it's not like these people can't take them off or anything. And if they don't want to, they aren't being forced to - they can just not work at Disney.

Remember, the UK, and the USA, where this is taking place, are not Muslim countries. You can expect to have a right to worship whoever you want, but you can't expect society - private companies included - to bend itself for that purpose.


Personally I have no problem with a degree of give and take on the subject. A headscarf which poses no health and safety threat or extreme clash with uniform code has no actual effect on the day to day operation of..well anything really, and it is hardly a vast restructuring issue if one or two employees happen to wish to wear a headscarf for religious reasons. (No, I'm not suggesting that anything be allowed.)

My issue here is mostly that such a small adjustment ISN'T a huge deal, and I see no reason why people are so very dead set against it. And the fact that I see no obvious reason why such an item could not be an acceptable part of Disney "uniform". Why must there always be such a huge hue and cry over such minor issues as effectively a type of hat. The collapse of civilisation it is not.

As you say, if a Sikh can be casual about his headgear (and I also know a Sikh lad who decided to "wear his hear down") then why can't Disney and all the frothers calm down as well?


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,391
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Feb 2011, 8:43 am

Zara wrote:
If she didn't understand the dress code when she got the job, then she shouldn't be working there.
If she wanted some sort of exemption for her religious views, that should have been covered during the hiring.


when i was in the army several decades back, during basic training there was this ultra-orthodox religious fella/recruit who would not shave off his beard because his recruiter told him [lied to him] he was exempt from the clean-shaven requirement of active-duty army members, and so when he was ordered by a drill sergeant to shave it off and he refused, he was assaulted, then he ran down the hall and was chased by all the drills and brutally knocked down football-pile-on-style, and they took a razor and dry-scraped the beard off, leaving him with lacerations on his chin and neck. he was then restricted to barracks until the MPs could cart him off to the CCF, but before that could happen he sneaked out and went AWOL. i heard through the grapevine that he was caught and given a bad-conduct discharge.

this all is just inhumane. what is so damned wrong with a beard or a headscarf? stupid rules were made to be broken, NOT people. it's all about the human need to subjugate other humans.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

10 Feb 2011, 10:01 am

auntblabby wrote:
Zara wrote:
If she didn't understand the dress code when she got the job, then she shouldn't be working there.
If she wanted some sort of exemption for her religious views, that should have been covered during the hiring.


when i was in the army several decades back, during basic training there was this ultra-orthodox religious fella/recruit who would not shave off his beard because his recruiter told him [lied to him] he was exempt from the clean-shaven requirement of active-duty army members, and so when he was ordered by a drill sergeant to shave it off and he refused, he was assaulted, then he ran down the hall and was chased by all the drills and brutally knocked down football-pile-on-style, and they took a razor and dry-scraped the beard off, leaving him with lacerations on his chin and neck. he was then restricted to barracks until the MPs could cart him off to the CCF, but before that could happen he sneaked out and went AWOL. i heard through the grapevine that he was caught and given a bad-conduct discharge.

this all is just inhumane. what is so damned wrong with a beard or a headscarf? stupid rules were made to be broken, NOT people. it's all about the human need to subjugate other humans.


Not to mention the fact (again) that Sikhs have managed to be a very successful warrior sect for generations WITH beards. Clearly they don't affect operational capability.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

10 Feb 2011, 12:26 pm

Macbeth wrote:
Personally I have no problem with a degree of give and take on the subject. A headscarf which poses no health and safety threat or extreme clash with uniform code has no actual effect on the day to day operation of..well anything really, and it is hardly a vast restructuring issue if one or two employees happen to wish to wear a headscarf for religious reasons. (No, I'm not suggesting that anything be allowed.)

My issue here is mostly that such a small adjustment ISN'T a huge deal, and I see no reason why people are so very dead set against it. And the fact that I see no obvious reason why such an item could not be an acceptable part of Disney "uniform". Why must there always be such a huge hue and cry over such minor issues as effectively a type of hat. The collapse of civilisation it is not.

As you say, if a Sikh can be casual about his headgear (and I also know a Sikh lad who decided to "wear his hear down") then why can't Disney and all the frothers calm down as well?


I'm with you, I don't think it's too much of a big problem to just wear a headscarf at all. But as I said, it's up to Disney to chose what's acceptable for their own company's uniform, even if you may disagree with their decision.

I am interested, however, in what the outcome of this lawsuit will be.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

10 Feb 2011, 2:39 pm

Macbeth wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Craig28 wrote:
If they wear head scarves and work with machines and it accidentially came loose and got stuck in some machinery, then there would be some serious things being brought up. But anyway, Indian people always wear their turbans properly and if one did come lose, then that only proves to show that it was done on purpose in order to invoke a lawsuit.

Turbans and headscarves would be hazardous to wear during wood and metal work. Especially welding or using a cutting torch where anything put on your head has to be non flammable.


Curious then how Indian society has managed to last so long, through wars and industrialisation and everything else with "unsafe" headgear....


The Sikhs are not a large portion of Indian society. I'm not sure if this was true during their industrialization, I don't even know if they have passed industrialization yet.

EDIT: Also she served as a hostess allowing her head scarves could be argued to have a negative impact on public image, very important for Disney, especially its park. Also has anyone heard of the accommodations Disney offered and she denied?



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Feb 2011, 3:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:
The head scarf violated the employer's dress code. End of story.

ruveyn


I beg to differ. Gone are the days when an employer could simply say, "my way or the highway." At a minimum, the employer must demonstrate that the dress code is a bona fide requirement of the position, and that the dress code cannot accommodate the religious headgear or the beard of the employee.

Disney has, to some extent, protected itself by characterizing its employees as cast members and their uniforms as costumes. But even here, just attaching the label to an employee does not necessarily mean that their function is truly that of a performing artist.


_________________
--James


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

10 Feb 2011, 5:41 pm

ikorack wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Craig28 wrote:
If they wear head scarves and work with machines and it accidentially came loose and got stuck in some machinery, then there would be some serious things being brought up. But anyway, Indian people always wear their turbans properly and if one did come lose, then that only proves to show that it was done on purpose in order to invoke a lawsuit.

Turbans and headscarves would be hazardous to wear during wood and metal work. Especially welding or using a cutting torch where anything put on your head has to be non flammable.


Curious then how Indian society has managed to last so long, through wars and industrialisation and everything else with "unsafe" headgear....


The Sikhs are not a large portion of Indian society. I'm not sure if this was true during their industrialization, I don't even know if they have passed industrialization yet.

EDIT: Also she served as a hostess allowing her head scarves could be argued to have a negative impact on public image, very important for Disney, especially its park. Also has anyone heard of the accommodations Disney offered and she denied?


Far as I can see, Sikhs get on quite well in all manner of tasks whilst en-turbanned.

Wait..'how is a headscarf going to create a negative impact on public image? Its just a kind of hat.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Feb 2011, 5:52 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The head scarf violated the employer's dress code. End of story.

ruveyn


I beg to differ. Gone are the days when an employer could simply say, "my way or the highway." At a minimum, the employer must demonstrate that the dress code is a bona fide requirement of the position, and that the dress code cannot accommodate the religious headgear or the beard of the employee.

Disney has, to some extent, protected itself by characterizing its employees as cast members and their uniforms as costumes. But even here, just attaching the label to an employee does not necessarily mean that their function is truly that of a performing artist.


Quote the law backing up your assertion.

Reference to case law pertaining to what private employers may impose on their workers would be appreciated.

ruveyn



EnglishInvader
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 997
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

10 Feb 2011, 6:27 pm

Where do you draw the line? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a man works on a building site and his new religious belief dictates that he cannot wear a protective hat because to protect oneself against danger is to disregard the will of God i.e. if God means for him to be hit on the head by a brick, he should suffer the blow in full force or burn in Hell for all eternity. If this man gets the sack as a result of following his religion, can he sue for religious discrimination or can his employer legitimately sack him for refusing to comply with health and safety regulations?