Swift fires up to 150 Muslim workers following Ramadan dispute

Source: Denver Rocky Mountain News

GREELEY — At least 130 Muslim workers at the north Greeley JBS Swift & Co. plant were fired Wednesday afternoon, apparently over a dispute involving breaks during Ramadan.

About 15 Greeley police officers were called to the scene by a Swift security guard as part of the termination. A security guard told police one terminated Swift worker had tried to hit him.

No arrests were made. The worker was escorted off the premises and police remained on the scene for peace-keeping purposes.

A union spokesman says the union will file grievances against the Greeley meatpacking company.

At issue is a request by Muslim workers to be able to take their lunch breaks at sunset to end their fast during Ramadan.



Read more: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/10/swift-company-fires-100-workers/

...but...

"#

September 10, 2008

6:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

ColdShot writes:

You work when you are scheduled to work, or find another job. I think it was the right move!"

Hey Cold shot, you douche-bag, so quit taking Christmas and Easter off.

If Christmas and Easter aren't scheduled days, then of course the employees are going to take them off.

They were fired for walking off the job and violating the terms of their contract. There may indeed be a lawsuit, but it will be over labor laws, not religion. If the employees walked off the job without a formal strike vote, the termination may have been perfectly legal. If they walked out under the auspices of a contract strike, their actions should be protected by the NLRB, and they'll probably get their jobs back.

I have to abide by the Ramadan laws that govern the whole country.

It doesn't matter what my religion is... I cannot take food,water, anything in my mouth my entire work time. And yes, that really sucks... call it FORCED dehydration. And yes, it is close to 110F every day this time of year. Not only would I be fired if I eat or drink, I could also be arrested and proscecuted. I must adapt my work life to the dominant culture I live in.

I think Muslims need to have a heads-up when they live in America: the WORKPLACE and the $$$ are the two religions that trump everything else.

While I hope someone would be sympathetic to someone fasting and arrange their break accordingly, I don't believe they are legally (or morally) obligated to do so.

that guarantees Freedom of Religion. It doesn't specify anything about which religion, because the FF made SURE that it didn't.

If you don't like the UAE rules, I'd recommend leaving. We've got better rules here.

Or do you REALLY think that the WORKPLACE and the $$$ trump The Constitution? Perhaps you're confused about what party you are in.

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If you can't remember or understand the first amendment, perhaps you need to take a bit of time and read the whole document.

NO, your dissatisfaction with UAE rules sure doesn't trump the Constitution either.

:spank:

Of course they can...

This would certainly seem to fall into that region, and I doubt that allowing Muslim workers to eat their evening meal at sundown after a full day of fasting would be consider anything other than reasonable accommodation.

You are frustrated at your working situation and taking out your frustration on unknown to you Muslims who (odds are) probably aren't UAE citizens (not that that matters), may or may not be Arabs (and if that matters, perhaps you need to examine your prejudices), AND may very well be American citizens. What would you consider reasonable accommodation for Christians, Jews, Buddhists? If your answer is different than what it would be for Muslims (and your particular fury at them based simply on their being members of a religion associated with the UAE argues that) then you seriously need to examine your own prejudices.

Here is a link that may be helpful re: Reasonable accommodation http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp

I don't think it unreasonable at all for a company to grant some dispensation. However, even that is a slippery slope. That's just one VERY SMALL part of Ramadan...

-Should employers grant less hours because people stay up all night saying prayers? How would that affect plant safety for example?

-I have to even question safety in the LONG fasting situations that will be coming as Ramadan shifts into the Summertime.

Reasonable accommodation should be a two way street amongst religions. I just wanted to point out that there is a big part of the world that would completely ignores your needs in favor of the majority view.


In that, this company is not different from much of the rest of the world.

....this is a false argument on the part of Muslims. While the Supreme Court has said that 'reasonable accommodations' must be afforded religious groups, praying 5 times a day is not a strict Muslim rule. Many fatwas have stated it is permissible to do all the prayers at one time. It is 'desirable' to pray 5 separate times, but not necessary. So therefore to try to sue based upon religious discrimination doesn't fly here.

So nothing you said makes any sense as you apparently didn't read the post and are going by an image in your mind of Muslims. They asked for a meal break at sundown since they'd been fasting all day. And as they were full-time workers with a meal break some time during the (what I have to assume is an evening) shift, moving it a few hours is what we're talking about. What "doesn't fly here" is your delusionary argument.

a break in the work day. If these guys are working second shift, guess what?
no problem.
If these guys are working third shift,guess what?
no problem.

These guys want to split shift ? They should talk to the union rep., see if the union can fix it for them.
These meat packers should go to the local imam and get a fatwa granting them permission to assimilate with american labor laws.
problem solved
jmo

Not private corporations.

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution aplly to all citizens, and based on your reasoning private corporations could use slave labor, because the Constitution only "applies to the government".

In fact the Supreme Court has ruled the Bill of rights ONLY apply to the FEDERAL Government unless the right is applied to the State Government via the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause or Equal Protection of the Law Clause. For example the Bill of Rights preserves the Trial by Jury, and the Federal Courts has long ruled that includes the right to a Jury of 12 citizens, but the same court has refused to extend that to the states. i.e. the States must have juries but the states could have as little as six members in a Jury instead of the Traditional 12.

Thus the Bill of Rights do NOT apply to Corporations, through Statutory law does (Such as the Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that extended protection of that Act to cover religious beliefs). Thus the comment is correct, the Bill of Right and the Constitution does NOT prohibit a Corporation from discriminating against religion beliefs (Or even Race, Sex, disability, age, Political membership or Union membership). Now Congress has passed laws (Such as the 1964 CiviL Rights Act and the 1934 Wagner Act) that do protect these groups, but independent of those laws, Corporations, like people in general, have the right to do as they please.

One Note, the 13th Amendment made Slavery Illegal, but only slavery do to birth NOT do to a Criminal Sentence, thus slavery is illegal under the Constitution, but that is all.

I am wrong that the Constitution applies directly in this case. However the EEOC's guidelines apply. Here's the most recent version per religion, discrimination and accommodation in the workplace which does apply to private companies.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html

I suppose I went off too fast partly because a substantial part of this thread just reeks of bias and bigotry. It is important for us as supposedly enlightened people to remember that anti-discrimination laws are not just to protect people we like.

They can't refuse to hire someone because he or she is a Muslim, they can't fire someone for being a Muslim; but they are perfectly within their rights to specify attendance requirements as long as those requirements don't conflict with state or federal law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Do you understand the difference between Swift & Co. and the Congress of the United States?

I have to work Sunday mornings at my job. Nobody asked if I'd rather go to church, they just schedule me. That's why I get paid.

and a christian. Should I delay my lunch period to accommodate the muslim workers or force the plant to shut down two times for lunch breaks?

Is it reasonable that the company so disadvantage itself simply to accommodate your religious desires?

(PS, per the law, you don't get to claim that as the majority religion in this country that you are entitled more than anyone else, or that the company shuts down on Christmas anyway because most of the company is Christian (that's an accommodation))

Christmas is a federal holiday. Work place lunch hours aren't.

Try again.

I wouldn't mind. I delay my own lunch for reasons much more trivial than that two or three times a week-- simply to help accommodate my co-workers.

But them again, I don't mind when I go to lunch, as it's not a big deal to me if I eat my salad at 11:00am or 3:00pm-- although I'm sure it's a deal-breaker for a lot of people.

Private industry is not required to accomodate anyone's religious practices.Nor have they ever been.

of demanding special treatment on the disassembly line to walk off the job bc alla demands it ?

Hey,
tell it to PETA to firebomb the slaughterhouse so nobody has to worry about murdering animals for a living ;)

:sarcasm:

I'm sorry that you aren't given a right to not practice the dominant religion in the workplace. I like to think we are better than that here, at least some of the time. The courts have already ruled that businesses need to make reasonable accomodations so we'll have to see how this shakes out.

Who do you work for there?

we all followed as it occurred.

He works for an educational institution, and I've seen ads for ESL jobs in the Middle East that stipulate that employees have to be willing to follow local customs.

And "local customs" isn't what he is talking about.

My point was:

I have to make accommodations to my life and lifestyle to match the laws, country, and culture that I am living in. Why do I do that? To avoid potential problems and conflict.

I would argue that by coming to the US to work (or become citizens) that the Muslim workers would also keep the notion of accommodation to larger culture in mind. Please note, I don't mean English-only, or converting to Sarah Palin's church.

-America values work and business (perhaps too much). They should have realized their company would react like this.

-Oh yeah, and living in a different culture you must EXPECT that there will be misunderstanding and prejudice on occasion. It doesn't make it right, but that's part of living in a culture not your own.

the culture of my country as not inclusive of minority religions.

know someone who has. I have a male friend who works in Saudi Arabia, he must follow many local customs as well.
Whether you disagree or not, doesn't change the facts.

he/she lives in.
There are rules banning all religions in S A except the "one true" religion of course. Those folks at the meat plant want the rest of the US to accept their values,

and
submit to their demands of imposing their religion on the unbelievers.

screw em
let em eat pork.

jmo

and apply to everyone across the board. For example the only restaurants you would find open during the day are in the large hotels. These would operate almost like a speakeasy with curtains to block out what you are doing.

In the Emirate of Sharjah, where my job is, even that much is not allowed. Even Children who are eating and drinking in public (let's say a park) could face fines or arrest.

Please keep in mind a couple of things. The UAE does not have a majority population. Citizens only comprise around 15%. While Muslims are a majority, they are not a huge majority, with Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, and Buddhists making over 40% of the population.

I think tolerance should work both ways in this world. Unfortunately, it does seem that this is so. Right now, non-Muslims in most private companies must work 8hrs each day while their Muslim neighbors work 6. Other religions would not automatically get their religious holidays off.

So that you and the bosses are on a more level playing field. You should also look into getting laws passed that force your employer to make reasonable accommodations. Consider also working for fair and free elections that will install elected officials to run the government who are more sympathetic to the needs of all citizens, not just the wealthy ones.

Sounds like a pretty tall order, but millions of men and women in the country fought, bled and even died in the streets here in the United States to create a system that is more responsive to them. Labor Day isn't just the first Monday in September, you know.

Even speaking of starting one would land an instant deportation to someone.

But people, including immigrants and native-born, hung together in the late 19th and early 20th century and made it happen. A lot of them got beaten and even killed for their trouble, but more stepped up to fight for their rights. If it's important to you, you'll fight for it. If it's not, then you'll make whiny posts on a message board to people who aren't in any position to help you.

I liked the, I think it was called the, "Gulf hotel". in Abu Dhabi? They had a nice filipino couple that played and sang in the bar. Mind you that was also 11 years ago.

Raebrek!!!

Alcohol is banned.

They even had package stores but only non muslim's were allowed.

Raebrek!!!

Swift Bacon and such....seems like a slippery slope all around....

I haven't been able to get most links to this story to work, but Swift processes a lot of meat other than pork, and they have accommodated Muslims they hire in the past by not putting them on pork processing lines.

If we start accommodating every religion into the workplace, what would it be?

The ones who would profess a certain religion would have more privileges, like not doing the messy jobs because religion won't permit contact with blood or certain animals, discriminating against the other employees.

and had them give him the solstices off :)

"If we start accommodating every religion into the workplace, what would it be?"

Accommodating.

My office has an (app.) equal number of traditional Catholics, those of the Hebrew faith (half Orthodox, half not), and mainstream Christians. No one religion asks for or demands additional privileges above or beyond any other religion.

Holiday schedules can get hairy-- but that's part of the fun of multiculturalism. :)

If this worked then I would have to disagree with you, otherwise I'm inclined to agree with you.

Not enough info to form an opinion.

How many employees total? How do they schedule their lunch breaks usually--shut down the line? stagger them? have shifts overlap in some way? extra workers around to fill in?

What was the time line for the request and response? Was it originally for a small number, which then increased? Or was the request last minute? Could the employees have staggered their "lunch" breaks after sundown? How close to "sundown" was it? Was it just their usual lunch period shifted later in the day, or was it an amalgam of their breaks and lunch?

Did the person making the decision try to reach a reasonable accommodation, whatever "reasonable" is taken to mean? Were the Muslims open to some sort of compromise to make it more workable, or was their demand somehow non-negotiable?

Would it have necessitated having employees work too many hours straight, thus violating labor laws? I know most states I've worked in the laws are written so that after so much time you have to be given a break, and neither you nor the employer can rewrite the law on the fly.


Some of the idea of "reasonable accommodation" I'm familiar with. I worked in a small restaurant that had to be open 7 days a week from 10 am to 8 pm, where 3 of the 7 kitchen staff were Sabbath-keepers from one church, all of whom would turn into pumpkins at Friday sundown until Saturday sundown, and on various other days during the year (plus an 8-day church retreat). It just wasn't manageable without a lot of stress, and she was relieved when one of them quit. I've also been told by a Muslim that I had to take a final exam on Saturday, or fail (the dean told him otherwise).

I hope more info is forthcoming.

If those desiring changes are a small enough minority, and if the requested changes cause ripple effects through multiple lines, then the request is not reasonable, religious or otherwise. On the other hand, if those wanting change are a vast majority of the work force, the change will have only small impacts and could be easily accommodated.

Muslim cabbies who risk losing their taxi licenses if they refuse to carry passengers with alcohol from the airport won't get any help from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission adopted an ordinance in March 2007 that suspends a driver's taxi license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The penalty for a second refusal is a two-year license suspension. Cabbies have a right to appeal a suspension, with the penalty stayed until an administrative hearing officer issues a decision.

Nine men who own or operate taxis at the airport had appealed a district judge's refusal to issue a temporary injunction blocking the commission from imposing the penalties. The men said their religious beliefs prohibit them from carrying alcohol.

The Appeals Court ruling Tuesday upholds the lower court's decision. Both courts said that the respondents failed to show that they would suffer irreparable harm if a temporary injunction was not granted. Both courts also noted the appeal process that allows cabbies to keep working while their case is pending.

http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/28053724.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

if they're drunk, if they just creep them out, if the call involves heading into a rough neighborhood at night or a dimly lit industrial park at night...

Sometimes you just have to make the decision that one fare isn't worth risking your safety. Driving a cab is a very dangerous job. People get shot over maybe a few hundred bucks all the time. A lady my dad knows got robbed, beaten and raped, and a guy he knows was shot dead- he'd just started his shift, so he probably only had enough on him for a tank of gas and to make change.

for people with service dogs.

Catch them at that, and you can pull their license. People carrying alcoholic beverages are not a protected class- the disabled are.

Cabbies should be allowed some discretion with who they give rides to, but these cabbies were refusing service to anyone carrying alcohol.

Most of a cab driver's business (at least on the night shift, which is where the money is) involves alcohol. They take people to bars, they take people from a dead bar to one they hope is hopping, they take people home from the bar. Anyhow, if this is a problem in the city, surely there are other people who are willing to drive those fares around, and quickly they'll wind up with most of the business.

People carrying alcohol are not a protected class. You can refuse them service whenever you like. In this case, the interests of a protected class (muslims) were pitted against those of a non-protected class (taxi patrons carrying alcohol) so the interests of the protected class should have prevailed. I'd lay money this gets overturned by the courts if they fight it.

it would be acceptable for pharmacists (based on their religious beliefs), to refuse to fill prescription's or sell any items intended for the purpose of birth control.

So I take it this plant doesn't process pork or hire non muslims .

Imaginary religious beliefs deserve no respect.

They want special treatment because of their fictional beliefs, then fire their asses. Same with Christians that want special treatment.

"Imaginary religious beliefs deserve no respect."

Same with philosophies and politics too-- fuck 'em all as they no more exist outside of our minds than does religion.

To give Muslims a hard time. Most companies allow Jewish people their holidays without a lot of fuss.

They'd kill for more people with your pov




People like Jerry Springer better convert or pay the protection fee.

Luckily,
this could never grow legs in the US.

I

If you have an assembly line system it only works if all the people leave and come back at the same time, you can't shut it down waiting for half your crew to come back from lunch. If the entire crew were muslim or if it were work that could be done individually, not as a group effort then I don't see a problem. But otherwise you need everyone on the same schedule.

Religious freedom doesn't mean you can use your religion to force everyone to accommodate you.

For instance, my religion dictates that I not work, ever, and I am still entitled to a paycheck every month. Am I constitutionally guaranteed to have my beliefs satisfied at everyone elses expense?