Secrets of the City

If these are the pants the women are being asked to wear, they may have a point.

If those are the pants, I may have a point.

Heyoooooo!

I heard that these were the pants!

Then let them eat pants!

I could tell you about pants.

I read this and thought, “Refusing to wear the pants? Hmm. Must not have pleats.”

They may find some friends in the Bush administration, which doesn’t mind pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control.

BTW, where did things end up at Target with Muslim employees refusing to ring up pork products?

By the way, 483 comments at the Strib are just a test of endurance.

It’s a question as old as America, max. To what degree should an employer modify its rules for employee’s beliefs, language, culture, etc, and how much should the workers be expected to “blend in” to the American meltingpot.

Some historical perspective:

Many of the victims of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire were Jews, working on the Sabbath.

This article looks at the issue from the Christian perspective.

Finally, from the Buddhists, The Worker’s Prayer:

Show me the suffering of the most miserable, so I may know my peoples plight.
Free me to pray for others, for you are present in every person.
Help me to take responsibility for my own life, so that I can be free at last.
Grant me courage to serve others, for in service there is true life.
Give me honesty and patience, so that I can work with other workers.
Bring forth song and celebration, so that the Spirit will be alive among us.
Let the Spirit flourish and grow, so that we will never tire of the struggle.
Let us remember those who have died for justice, for they have given us life.
Help us love even those who hate us, so we can change the world

Hey, don’t blame me for the Traingle Shirtwaist fire.

don’t fucking roll on Saturday! Shomer Shabbos!!

Wow, some of the comments on strib are brutally racist and stupid. That being said, if these women continue their current course, they should lose their jobs and be forced to pay for what this time and litigation costs. Ridiculous, and they even took it federal. I’m getting fed up with this type of shit.

By the way, 483 comments at the Strib are just a test of endurance.
Amen, to that.

I seem to recall a case a few years ago where Muslim women claimed that not being able to wear veils in a drivers license picture was an infringement on their rights.

I think the Supreme Court concluded that since having a D.L. is not a right then rights cannot be infringed.

Is it a right to work?

Wow, some of the comments on strib are brutally racist and stupid.

Just imagine what some of the bottom feeders are saying over at the Anti-Strib and similar sites.

this will be handedly dismissed. It is likely a safety issue anyways. And how is it discrimination when everyone else is required to wear the same uniforms? This is wrong on so many levels.

I’m waiting to hear from the one person who thinks this lawsuit is justified.

While working isn’t a right, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion and religious practices. Per the article:
The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 says employers must accommodate workers’ religious beliefs, so long as the requests are “reasonable” and do not create “undue hardship” for the company. But the definition of what’s reasonable and what constitutes hardship can vary dramatically from one case to the next.

It seems to me there is a middle ground here. Maybe long, but not flowing, skirts and long sleeve shirts? Both sides seem to be stubborn here.

Wow, some of the comments on strib are brutally racist and stupid

I still don’t think the Strib commenters can hold a hate candle to the pioneerpress commenters.

Just imagine what some of the bottom feeders are saying over at the Anti-Strib and similar sites
I checked the Anti-Strib and no article yet, but I’m sure they’re happy that ‘Darth Bob’ is thinking of them.

I could see this lawsuit going either way. For reals.

@KC – I’m willing to bet the company will say it’s a safety issue and thusly not “reasonable”

They love me there. They claim whenever I post a comment there, a kitten dies.

Ditto on the pioneerpress. The Strib coimmentors are positively enlightened by comparison.

The article states that the women don’t even work near machinery, that they are in the packing area. And why can’t a moderate skirt be just as safe as pants? It is a reasonable request.

And why can’t a moderate skirt be just as safe as pants? It is a reasonable request.

Well, that’s what the lawyers will have to determine.

As for me, being A) Not a lawyer and B)Totally unreasonable, I imagine all sorts of ridiculous and fictitious courtroom battles over pants vs. skirts.

They will get my skirts when they take them from my cold, dead, shapely legs.

I wonder if famed Twin Cities newsman Ethan Coolman is covering this. He has covered tortilla controversies before.

Perhaps the women could cover themselves with the tortillas they make, as modeled here by the lovely Christina.

No, no, no, Bob.

Just playing with you, max. You have to admit, having a photo of a woman wrapped in a giant tortilla at your fingertips sometimes comes in handy.

I just pray Chuck doesn’t retaliate with the photo of me he took on Friday.

I know you’re playing. BUT MY DELETE FINGER GETS ITCHY.

You got the fastest delete finger in the Midwest, max. Okay, second-fastest.

I know you’re playing. BUT MY DELETE FINGER GETS ITCHY.

That’s what everyone gets when they mess around with teucer’s mom.

Kevin FTW!

@JACC

I seem to remember that lawsuit too, but I know for a fact (because I deal with the documents at work) that Muslim women can wear their veils not only on drivers’ licenses, but also on other federally issued immigration documents such as Employee Authorization Cards and Permanent Resident Cards.

Do you mean hijab or do you mean niqab when you write veil? Cause the niqab should be banned in banks it is so concealing.

Do you mean hijab or do you mean niqab when you write veil?

I actually can’t recall the specifics of the case and don’t have time to do a search so I can’t specify.

hijab? Wasn’t that the name of this guy?

The article states that the women don’t even work near machinery, that they are in the packing area. And why can’t a moderate skirt be just as safe as pants? It is a reasonable request.

it could be seen as a sanitary issue also–less exposed skin may be desireable in a food factory…?

Regardless, these women are looking for special treatment because their relgion dictates it.

This lawsuit should be thrown out, and the women made to pay for wasting everyone’s time.
It’s time to start adjusting to the new world they live in–everyone else does it.

It’s time to start adjusting to the new world they live in–everyone else does it.

Evan, would it be hilarious to drop you off in the middle of sub-Sahara Africa right now. As the plane takes off, we would shout “It’s time to start adjusting to the new world you life in!”Heh.

“Special Treatment” = “not my ox getting gored”

I get your point, and to a degree, I agree. However, I don’t believe these thorny questions of religious freedoms, workers responsibilities and the changing culture of Minnesota represent “a waste of everyone’s time.”

Their skirts cover them from waist to feet. No need to worry about more exposed skin there.

And, yes, they are looking for special treatment, as the law allows. The question is if what they are asking is a reasonable accomodation or not.

bob, as utterly poor of an analogy as that was, i certainly wouldn’t start demanding little statues of jesus or greasy american cheesburgers.
.
I know you get my point, and this is not a question of religious freedom. They have all the relgious freedom they want, after they go home from their employment with a private company.

Again:
The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 says employers must accommodate workers’ religious beliefs, so long as the requests are “reasonable” and do not create “undue hardship” for the company. But the definition of what’s reasonable and what constitutes hardship can vary dramatically from one case to the next.

They just want the law enforced.

I am torn, as I respect their right to practice their religion and respect their right to their culture. But the Koran dictates modesty not specific garments. The garments chosen are a cultural rather than a religious obligation. Look around Southwest Asia and you will see great diversity in garment choices from cosmopolitan Turkey and Lebanon to backwards ass purdah in Pakistan/Afghanistan.

In our society trousers are perfectly modest garb. The jerk in me says whatever… glad I’m not them. It must suck to come from a failed state tribal culture with only a veneer of modernity, and then be thrust into this weird maelstrom of individual culture, poverty, foreign language and hostile native population. Not fun by anyone’s yardstick. At least these ladies aren’t like that crazy Belgian lady…

sure, but there are plenty of Christian sects that also believe that women should never wear pants, but I don’t think that is directly in the Bible either. Does it make is less of a part of their religion? I don’t think so.

Do you consider Americans “hostile” toward Muslims?

and then be thrust into this weird maelstrom

Doesn’t “thrust” imply that they are here at least somewhat against their will?

Rat, if they’re refugees, they have to go where the visas are offered, so it’s possible.

Do you consider Americans “hostile” toward Muslims?

Dunno…do you consider Americans of a single mind-set?

one could argue that applying a dress code to only some of your employees could cause hardship, from a management perspective. At that could open up another discrimination suit, this time filed by non-muslims.

Yes it is less a part of their religion. If you asked them what they believed the garments would be lesser. I would wager if you forced someone to renounce aspects of their belief the garments would be renounced before the belief in God or prayer five times daily. Core doctrine/beliefs such as the four pillars of Islam are vastly different and more easily accomadated than the cultural trappings that people attach to it.

I am of course repulsed by the idea of veils, purdah and other such garbage, so perhaps my disgust makes my understanding of the issue at hand less than balanced.

evan, the dress code would be that they have two options for bottoms in their uniforms: pants or reasonable skirt. That would apply the same dresscode to everyone.

Dunno…do you consider Americans of a single mind-set?

No. But when Lunch said “hostile native population” I was wondering if he might.

Doesn’t “thrust” imply that they are here at least somewhat against their will?
Stay and suffer or possibly die or become a refugee seems like less of a decision than a reflex.

Do you consider Americans “hostile” toward Muslims?
Not in actuality as much in perception.

It’s time to start adjusting to the new world they live in–everyone else does it.

It would seem that they’re heading in the right direction by suing their employers.

assimilation to our culture is the answer, and it will happen. 20 years from now, their grand-daughters will all be wearing micro-miniskirts.

LOL,.
very true, alie.

kc, where did you get that information?
Perhaps skirts are against policy already?

It would seem that they’re heading in the right direction by suing their employers.
Well we have no unions anymore, so what do you suggest people do when they have a grievance?

evan, have you read the article?

They have a dress code. It makes them wear pants. Wearing pants is against their religion, so they won’t do it. The company won’t let them wear skirts.

I think (and they do too I assume) that there could be too options for bottoms of the uniform, a skirt and a pant. The company and workers could collaborate to find a skirt that is appropriate for both groups.

somebody needs to invent part skirt, part pants. call them skants. like the spork of the clothing world.

KC, i read the article. What i am saying, is:
why are skirts already not an accepted alternative to pants? Most places I have worked allowed either skirts or pants, but I have never worked in a factory.
Perhaps it is a sanitary or safety reason?

The company and workers could collaborate to find a skirt that is appropriate for both groups.

You know, maybe they walk through areas with machinery and all skirts are dangerous. Would you suggest the company then build them a special tunnel?

I think one important point is, we don’t have all the facts.

The article implies that it is a safety issue. It also implies that the company is being an assholes since the women are not around machinery, so there is no safety threat. And the sanitary reasons are nill since their body would be fully covered.

I’m going home now.

The article implies that it is a safety issue.
I only saw it referred to as a company dress code.

It also implies that the company is being an assholes since the women are not around machinery, so there is no safety threat.
perhaps JACC is right, maybe they have to walk through the machinery area several times a day.

And the sanitary reasons are nill since their body would be fully covered.
In a skirt?

Jacc is right, we just don’t have the facts yet.

Just quickly, based on a quick skim of the Strib’s comments.

I’m amused by the number of people bitching about how immigrant Muslims aren’t willing to adapt to “our ways.” The tenor of some of these comments would lead one to believe that tight pants are a great American tradition and an inviolable part of the American way. But as I was saying only last Tight Pants Day, the US is as much founded on tolerance and freedom of expression in religious matters as it is on Spandex. Possibly even more so.

I’ve got news for those commenters: wearing tight pants isn’t enshrined in the Constitution. Trying to get into someone else’s might be covered under “the pursuit of happiness” though.

The article implies that the Strib is looking for a ginormous number of page hits.

I like to celebrate Tight Pants day by saluting camel toes and handing out samples of Gold Bond.

I’ve got news for those commenters: wearing tight pants isn’t enshrined in the Constitution.

That’s why tight pants ends up in Civil Court. Like many things.

kc: Their skirts cover them from waist to feet. No need to worry about more exposed skin there.

and:...the sanitary reasons are nill since their body would be fully covered.

Not necessarily, depending on the outfit.

At least with respect to the upper part of the garment: If they have loose, flowing sleeves, or hems, that could create sanitary issues. When I work in the cell culture bio-safety cabinet, I have to wear a lab coat with cuffed sleeves because if a loose sleeve touches something inside the hood, it can compromise sterility of the cultures. Cuffed sleeves also prevent dander from falling onto sanitized surfaces.

A similar concern could arise in this case. Even if they’re in packaging, a loose, flowing sleeve could touch finished product.

Myself working in an environment requiring different PTE, I think that the workers are probably going to have to bend a little bit more than the employer. That’s not to say the workers’ complaints are totally unfounded though. I’m sure that there’s plenty of room for the employer to bend as well.

PTE shoud be PPE (Personal Protective Equipment).

Well I hope it works out for them. I’m sure these women suffer a lot of anxiety over not being able to wear the proper muslim dress at work as they return home each night to be beaten by their husbands.

That’s why tight pants ends up in Civil Court.

And on my bedroom floor by morning. Zing!

Heh heh. Pants.

Wow – I just did a quick read on the comments – now at 546 – pretty hateful. Are people bitter because of our sucky economy? Or has the hate always been there and is just apparent with this crazy Internets?

I understand that there may be health/safety concerns, but did the company even try to see if there was a simple solution to their request?

Maybe I’m not understanding because my employer lets me wear my jammies to work. Nothing like Jammie Friday to make a girl happy.

And just to be a total stickler – it’s ginormous page VIEWS, not hits. VIEWS. /rant

The article states that they were wearing coats over their long sleeves and scarfs, but they were taken away from them and the dress code enforced. So, yes, it was acknowledged that sleeves need to be contained also.

Well we have no unions anymore, so what do you suggest people do when they have a grievance?

Find a different job.

I’m amused by the number of people bitching about how immigrant Muslims aren’t willing to adapt to “our ways.”

“Our ways” probably means that when you accept a job you accept the conditions that go with that job. One of the advantages of living in a free society is the right to say “I quit.”

If you don’t like whoever is elected this next election cycle, are you going to find another country?

I can’t quit you mazasa.

Ely is another country.

I did not read the article…yeah, I know, (hangs head in shame).
However, did the ladies not know that the place they were putting their application in had dress codes/uniforms? Then, were they not informed at their indoctrination day that dress codes/uniforms were the only form of clothes allowed? I understand that employment can be hard to come by sometimes, but oddly enough there is, for the most part a job that might meet their needs somewhere else.

Like the Conch Republic in Florida

We seceded where others failed

2oldfarts- there were not uniforms when they were hired, it is a new thing.

oh ok, thank you, like I said I did not read the article.

However, did the ladies not know that the place they were putting their application in had dress codes/uniforms? Then, were they not informed at their indoctrination day that dress codes/uniforms were the only form of clothes allowed? I understand that employment can be hard to come by sometimes, but oddly enough there is, for the most part a job that might meet their needs somewhere else.

Doesn’t matter, they are still entitled to reasonable accommodation.

Because of my own work experience, I probably lean a little more towards the employer, but kc is making a pretty good case for the employee’s.

I once had a job at a company that was bought by Computer Associates, which is located in Islandia, NY. They told me that in order to keep my job, a highly-paid management job, I would have to move to NY. Guess what I told them? Go on, guess.

Did you let air out of their tires?

C’mon, Max. Practice what you preach.

What’s that?

Don’t insult me. You made it personal.

It gets personal all the time, rat, especially in a joking way. Perhaps you have missed the many conversations about Oliver’s mother.

Insults I have little tolerance for.

I blame Bugle Boy.

Ok maybe I’m ignorant about whatever is going on here. Carry on. I’m sure it’s useful

Carry on. I’m sure it’s useful

Unlike Teucer’s mother.

alie FTW!

At list teucer’s mom is used to being ganged up on.

At list teucer’s mom is used to being ganged up on.

Well, you, Max, and wtfmn would know.

I can’t believe I missed all this Teucer’s mom action. Damn it.

That’s what she said!

Ow, self-inflicted burns are the worst.

Teucer- that’s impossible. Your mom never misses any action…

One of these days, Oliver’s mom is going to find this thread, and she will cry and moan.

Just like she’s doing in my bedroom right now.

How does she even fit on the circle bed?

She doesn’t. I lie on the bed and she is lowered onto me with a system of pulleys and counterweights.

Show a little respect. Teucer’s mom could be a big help with this topic. After all, she wrote the book on refusing the wear pants.

Re: The Topic
If this wasn’t a policy when they started, they never signed papers agreeing to the new policy, and the company refuses compromise; then perhaps a lawsuit is their only recourse. Aside from finding another job in a tough economy.

After all, it is possible the company is intentionally showing religious intolerance or trying to test the law. Stranger things have happened.

(just ask yo momma)