marks and spencer

[cajar]

Agreed, EFL.

Discodancer, I will agree there is no more useful ground to be covered in the discussion between you and I, thanks for your contribution and I hope the years bring some clarity to your debating tactics.

 

[JBR]

Agreed, EFL.

Discodancer, I will agree there is no more useful ground to be covered in the discussion between you and I, thanks for your contribution and I hope the years bring some clarity to your debating tactics.

(They won't!)

 

[DiscoDancer]

(They won't!)

Told ya' and without anymore input from me.

But while I'm here:

I am all in favour of equality of opportunities, but there should be reasonable limitations.

There are reasonable limitations. For instance if you want an interpreter you can advertise in the language of your choice, if you want someone for a women's underwear section you can insist on the gender of the candidate, if you want someone who lives locally you can advertise locally only, etc, etc.
But there are legal requirements, in some instances for employers to make it possible for others to carry out the work, for instance disabled access, special work rotas, adapted workplaces, etc.

M&S already had these "adaptions" in place but they were not properly carried out in this instance. Is that the fault of the employee or the employer for failing to operate/observe NOP (Normal Operating Practices/Procedures)?

To respond to the other comment viz: accountants, et al, able to swim, if they were required to work within the pool environment, unsupervised by any lifeguard, then the employer would be required to observe a NOP that would ensure the safety of thier employees. If that meant requiring the accountant to be able to swim, or wear a life-preserver, then that would be the NOP.

 

[jockscott]

But there are legal requirements, in some instances for employers to make it possible for others to carry out the work, for instance disabled access, special work rotas, adapted workplaces, etc.

M&S already had these "adaptions" in place but they were not properly carried out in this instance. Is that the fault of the employee or the employer for failing to operate/observe NOP (Normal Operating Practices/Procedures)?

Hmmmm, so just how long , has this employee worked for M&S on the checkout? Seems to me this person hasn't just started working there, otherwise at the end of their probationary period, M&S will happily wave them goodbye. (or would this be grounds for claiming discrimination??)
Did this employee bring it up at the interview stage that his/her religious convictions wouldn't allow them to handle certain items? (I very much doubt that)
Could be a case where he/she has looked up and saw the size of the queue and decided to use their religion as an excuse to be moved elsewhere.

 

[DiscoDancer]

Hmmmm, so just how long , has this employee worked for M&S on the checkout? Seems to me this person hasn't just started working there, otherwise at the end of their probationary period, M&S will happily wave them goodbye. (or would this be grounds for claiming discrimination??)
Did this employee bring it up at the interview stage that his/her religious convictions wouldn't allow them to handle certain items? (I very much doubt that)
Could be a case where he/she has looked up and saw the size of the queue and decided to use their religion as an excuse to be moved elsewhere.

Assumptions based on pure unadulterated cognitive biases!

 

[jockscott]

Not assumptions Joe.. Questions which need answers, apart from the last statement (which could never be proved) I ask again,
How long has this employee worked for M&S?

Did this employee mention that their religious convictions would preclude them from handling certain items, when interviewed for the position?

If this employee is a new employee, then they must be on a probationary period,,, if M&S decide to dismiss them at the end of this probationary period, would this be grounds for claiming discrimination??
No assumptions there.

 

[DiscoDancer]

Not assumptions Joe.. ...

Suppose I go slowly so that you can keep up.

.../ Seems to me this person hasn't just started working there, /
...../ (I very much doubt that) /.....
............/Could be a case where he/she has looked up and saw the size of the queue and decided to use their religion as an excuse to be moved elsewhere.

No assumptions there.

What would you call them?

The employee in question worked at that particular store long enough for M&S to be aware of her beliefs and to make arrangements for them, obviously.
Am I going slow enough for you?

Questions which need answers, ...... I ask again,
How long has this employee worked for M&S?

I'll repeat myself just in case you didn't understand me the first time:
Long enough for M&S to be aware of her beliefs and arrange a NOP to allow for them.

Did this employee mention that their religious convictions would preclude them from handling certain items, when interviewed for the position?

Quite obviously it's been discussed and arrangements made within the NOP. Did you not understand that in the news article?

If this employee is a new employee, then they must be on a probationary period,,, if M&S decide to dismiss them at the end of this probationary period, would this be grounds for claiming discrimination??

Big IF they are a new employee.
Even if they are a new employee and they were fired at the end of the probationary period without any previous discussion about their suitability, it would be unfair dismissal. Absolutely nowt to do with ethnicity or religion.
When you have an employee on a probationary period you need to discuss their shortcomings with them during that probationary period, else how will they know where to make changes to their work.

Have you so little experience with industrial ethics that you make such basic mistakes?

At least cajar was able to string some kind of argument together and keep me amused.

 

[jockscott]

Even if they are a new employee and they were fired at the end of the probationary period without any previous discussion about their suitability, it would be unfair dismissal. Absolutely nowt to do with ethnicity or religion.
When you have an employee on a probationary period you need to discuss their shortcomings with them during that probationary period, else how will they know where to make changes to their work.

Have you so little experience with industrial ethics that you make such basic mistakes?:

You obviously haven't started employment for a bloody long time Joe. Although technically, probationary periods have no legal standing under employment law, they are used by many employers to assess the ongoing suitability of new employees. As long as the employer follows the correct disciplinary procedure there's no reason for not dismissing an unsuitable employee, within the probationary period (of course, giving them the correct notice too) Unless that employee has committed an act of gross misconduct (even then certain procedures are/should be in place)

PS, nowhere in the original article does it mention whether the employee was asked about religious convictions at the interview stage, so quite why you quoted me, then asked about this in reference to the article,, I just don't know.

 

[DiscoDancer]

As long as the employer follows the correct disciplinary procedure there's no reason for not dismissing an unsuitable employee, within the probationary period (of course, giving them the correct notice too)

Do you even read responses before replying? Or do you just fail to understand the reponse?

I said:

Even if they are a new employee and they were fired at the end of the probationary period without any previous discussion about their suitability, it would be unfair dismissal. Absolutely nowt to do with ethnicity or religion.
When you have an employee on a probationary period you need to discuss their shortcomings with them during that probationary period, else how will they know where to make changes to their work.

Discussing their shortcomings is part of the correct disciplinary procedure

 

[JBR]

Hmmmm, so just how long , has this employee worked for M&S on the checkout? Seems to me this person hasn't just started working there, otherwise at the end of their probationary period, M&S will happily wave them goodbye. (or would this be grounds for claiming discrimination??)
Did this employee bring it up at the interview stage that his/her religious convictions wouldn't allow them to handle certain items? (I very much doubt that)
Could be a case where he/she has looked up and saw the size of the queue and decided to use their religion as an excuse to be moved elsewhere.

Assumptions based on pure unadulterated cognitive biases!

Joe's off on his semantics again, just to argue the toss for argument's sake. So this is where I get off the roundabout.

It doesn't matter how Jock phrased his post, he put forward some questions that are worthy of answers.

I'll make the ASSUMPTION that this employee probably did kick up a stink for all the wrong reasons and used 'religion' as an excuse knowing full well that so many people are too afraid of the likely accusations of 'racism' to do anything other than give in to her demands.

 

[Dextraneous]

Without ploughing through the thread (sorry ), if the employee can demonstrate precisely where it is stated in the relevant religious book/artifact that her decision is valid, and this is backed up by several religious "professionals", then this would surely mean that all other employees of this "belief structure" should be forced to adhere to the ruling of the hierarchal religious class.

 

[jockscott]

Without ploughing through the thread (sorry ), if the employee can demonstrate precisely where it is stated in the relevant religious book/artifact that her decision is valid, and this is backed up by several religious "professionals", then this would surely mean that all other employees of this "belief structure" should be forced to adhere to the ruling of the hierarchal religious class.

Which is exactly where any excuse based on religion will fail. If I turned round to my employers and said, "I don't want to work with so and so, because they are Catholic and I'm Protestant, my employer would either laugh at me (and tell me to grow up) or,, find some reason to dismiss me.
As JBR points out, it seems far too easy for some ethnic minorities, to use their religion as an excuse for not doing what they were employed to do. High time employment law and the equalities act were examined again. There's even been cases in the past where people of a certain minority , have applied for jobs and when they haven't got the job, have claimed it was a racially motivated decision. One such person has been stopped from making claims in the future, because he, claimed thousands in compensation, where employers didn't want the matter to go to court, for fear, not of losing the case, but the fear of even being branded racist.

 

[Dextraneous]

Without ploughing through the thread (sorry ), if the employee can demonstrate precisely where it is stated in the relevant religious book/artifact that her decision is valid, and this is backed up by several religious "professionals", then this would surely mean that all other employees of this "belief structure" should be forced to adhere to the ruling of the hierarchal religious class.

Which is exactly where any excuse based on religion will fail. If I turned round to my employers and said, "I don't want to work with so and so, because they are Catholic and I'm Protestant, my employer would either laugh at me (and tell me to grow up) or,, find some reason to dismiss me.
As JBR points out, it seems far too easy for some ethnic minorities, to use their religion as an excuse for not doing what they were employed to do. High time employment law and the equalities act were examined again.

This was pretty much my next point. In education, we are legally entitled to state the requirements within a person spec - thus we can say "No NQT's" or the like. If this is acceptable employment law, then surely it would be legally acceptable to state within a person spec the need to handle porcine goods and thus disclude any "religious" order which mandates against their doing so.

After all, as a lapsed and extremely sceptical catholic, I'd not really be surprised if I was never going to be considered for the post of chief rabbi.

 

[jockscott]

Ahh, but Dex, you should have applied for the Chief Rabbi's position. When you were turned down (on religious grounds) you could have claimed compo. It's all wrong I tells ya,,, it's all wrong.

 

[Dextraneous]

But jock, surely my lack of foresight is explained by my excess in 4skin