The meatpacking industry is an interesting one where I live. You can always tell how the immigration trend is changing by who makes up the work force. Interestingly enough, we are getting a ton of Somali workers. A lot of them are muslim and have had difficulty with a packer known as Swift & Co.



Now I know that some folks will argue that the bill of rights only applies to government and whether or not it can choose your religion for you or stifle your own belief system. However, a lot has changed since 1789, and one of those changes has been the importance of work in society. In some regards, it is where you spend a good portion of your day and it is very important to your financial well-being. As such, perhaps it is time that we look to see how we can best incorproate our rights in our every day business. Without doing so, we essentially have little fiefdoms where the bill of rights doesn't apply to us, which unfortunately, is everything in our dealings outside of state or federal government, which covers 90% of our business every day in our lives.

Somali meatpackers complain of religious harassment.

Questions for debate:

1.)Should the Swift & Co. workers win this lawsuit? Keep in mind they were on break-why or why not?

2.)How effective are our rights if they don't apply to the working world and other sectors of our lives which are more influential and comprise the majority of our day?

3.)In the issue of freedom of religion and the ability to stay or leave for employment, which one deserves the highest priorityin this case and why?

No they should not. As you hinted, the Bill of Rights [like the rest of the Constitution] protects individuals from the action of government. It does not protect them from the action of private employers, who, lest we forget, they consensually contracted themselves to. They signed on the dotted line, now they have to follow the demands/regulations of their employer or find work elsewhere. They don't have the right to their job nor do they have the right to do what want while under the contract of that job.

Extremely effective. The reason why the Constitution only applies to the government is because the government has a monopoly of force. In other words, we cannot simply ignore requests from the government, we must obey what it commands. As a result the Constitution limits what it can demand and do. The private sector is a whole 'nother ballgame. It is based on the concept of free, consensual exchange between parties. As a result, both parties establish their own rules and "rights" in the form of a contract. If one party does not agree with those rules and "rights" than he or she is not obligated to join into the contract, whereas the government does not give an individual the choice not to participate.

The latter. You have no guarenteed right to practice your religion at your jobsite. You do have the right to practice your religion without interference from the government.

CP

Should the Swift & Co. workers win this lawsuit? Keep in mind they were on break-why or why not?
Employers may not have to afford freedom of religion, but they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

This lawsuits should be filed on discrimination and harassment grounds. If this news story is a good indication of what really happened, they ought to win.

Employer or not
1.) They were on break.
2.) They have no right to "grab" anyone.

How effective are our rights if they don't apply to the working world and other sectors of our lives which are more influential and comprise the majority of our day?
Not very. Historically the private sector can be just as dangerous as the government when it come to trampling our rights to live freely.

The Constitution doesn't directly apply, but other federal legislation does.

In the issue of freedom of religion and the ability to stay or leave for employment, which one deserves the highest priority in this case and why?
Freedom of religion, employers have the right to institute reasonable, legal, restrictions.

They are not above the law.

Should the Swift & Co. workers win this lawsuit? Keep in mind they were on break-why or why not?
No. They left to pray but they weren't supposed to leave the line while on break. However, opening themselves up to the possibility of being fired doesn't give employers the right to lay a finger on them. Either fire them or take administrative action, but employers don't have a right to harass employees. I think this is probably a case of employers taking advantage of immigrant workers. If they filed harassment charges I wouldn't see anything wrong with that. In fact, I'd hope they win damages. Somehow I doubt the meatpacking plant has an HR office.

How effective are our rights if they don't apply to the working world and other sectors of our lives which are more influential and comprise the majority of our day?
They're as effective as limbo.

In the issue of freedom of religion and the ability to stay or leave for employment, which one deserves the highest priority in this case and why?
Their religious freedom wasn't violated. Their right not to be harassed was, however.

Oh yeah, I forgot, someone Forced them to work there!

Quote from the article


If the state doesn't allow breaks, then religion or not, no breaks.

Why don't people get that work is voluntary? If that company won't allow you to do what you need to... find another company!

Probably around the time I forgot people work for fun.

Yeah, I mean its not like you need to eat or anything...
...and everyone knows that there always a position in your field open around the nearest corner, that pays as well or better.

I mean why expect an employer to be reasonable?

It's funny how being a paid employee suddenly dooms you to serfdom.

Silence peasant! I am your Boss, pray to me!

Well, the problem is that they were not on break, from what I gathered. People who left the line to pray, did so without permission to take a break.

Granted, they may have a case for harassment but not discrimination. If other people were allowed to go on break to pray, then maybe... but this isn't the case here.

Good point that they were not allowed to break, though the article says they were not bothered for a couple of days, which raises doubts on the actual motivation.

I would argue that if workers were allowed to go on breaks of a comparable length for any reason, they have a discrimination case. They argue that people get breaks for restroom visits and smoking.

We're talking about five to ten minutes of prayer here. Why is that any worse than a smoke break?

I think in my line of work there are 3 or 4 easy reasons that this might not be acceptable.

Sincerely, no offense turnea, but business experience definitely lends itself to understanding why this isn't acceptable.

It said they weren't allowed to leave the line. I bet that's because it was a production job. If someone leaves, particularly in mass at the same time, there is a loss of production.

Consider this. If the Muslims have to all leave at ___ time, how many of them work there? What impediment to work would it be? Would the whole line have to shut down?

If a smoker leaves, do all smokers leave (I wish they would, ha!)? Of course not.

Secondly, you cannot allow employees dictate when their breaks are (if you give them). The issue becomes then that the cycle and scheduled work doesn't get done in an orderly fashion, and frankly most work of this nature require structure. Inefficiency costs money. Plain and simple.

Finally, we can't allow people to break policy. If there's a policy that says "smoke breaks for 5 minutes every 3 hrs is acceptable, pending approval", then there you have it. Just ensure that the Somali's can pray on that schedule. If not, who are they to dictate what happens?

The issue I find with this is that it's a Muslim. Sure- they might be getting harassed, but it's legally approved harassment. So long as someone didn't say "damn muslims don't get breaks", we're cool. The fact that this is going to court is a farce.

Breaks in many states aren't even required. If the people don't like it.... Turnea, unemployment is VERY low. If they don't like taking a pay cut or travelling for another job... umm... they DO have an option.

I'll give you an analogy. In 2001 I worked for a telecom firm here in the DFW area. It's actually in Allen, and rhymes with "rage". Look it up if you'd like. I managed a sales team and worked for a gentleman (if you can call him that) that required retarded hours. I had to be there 1/2 hr early, take calls from our outsourced vendor on the weekends, make meetings once/week, do QA on night reps in our customer service dept, etc. I hated it, but the job paid well for back then and the Dallas market was a little slow for jobs. Sometimes I even had conference calls w/ my Mexican outsourced vendor on Sundays, when I should've been in Church. I took PTO and literally beat the bushes. I eventually found another job that was in the wrong direction and paid less but I took it. Why? Because I hated that job. I took an immediate $12-13K pay cut, lost a great expense account, but didn't really care.

Did I go to HR and complain? Nope. Did I call the labor board? Where was the ACLU? No where. Why? Because I was a white male Christian? It's that plain. In the US, no one has to work at their current job. Maybe they don't like the conditions, but how many Americans don't like their jobs? 40%? 50%? Who knows. Most people I know don't like to work. I could only imagine if these were farm boys from Arkansas that decided that they had to stop working the cattle or hogs to pray 3x/day, and got fired. It wouldn't even make the AD radar.

I'm 100% positive that the job in the plant is better than living in Somalia. They can save a little $$ and move somewhere else where the conditions are better. It's the American way.

I agree that if this is a case of evenly applied rules to maintain productivity then a discrimination suit is not justified.

However they claim these rules were not evenly applied. According to the article the workers did not all have to leave at the same time they had a 45 minute window, that's 9 "shifts" of prayer break at minimum prayer time, which would satisfy their religious concerns.

Second, they were able to complete these prayers unharassed for some time, if it were an immediate productivity problem I suspect the response would also be immediate.

It's fishy.

Of course we don't have all the facts so I think that calling the claims a farce is a bit premature.

If they were actually physically restrained, as one worker claimed, the harassment charge at least, is clearly within reason.


I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist, a Christian denomination. I know for a fact that there are people willing to go to court for white male Christians to defend their religious rights in the workplace. I've read on a number of cases.


Allowing harassment is not the American way by a long shot.

I think people should be aware of labor history in this country, an employer has a right to demand standards of behavior from employees, within reasonable limits, a factory is not a manger's personal fiefdom.

Edited to change "immature" to "premature" which is what I meant.

They moved the article

I'm not generally a fan of American employment law - to my mind it places way too much power in the hands of employers (especially in states that don't require contracts of employment for all workers, or allow people to be fired with no notice on a whim with no compensation).

However, reading this article makes me wonder a few things in this case.

Only the sunset prayers are at issue here; as they (and the sunrise prayers which are not in the shifts of the Somalis making the complaint) are the only ones that move with the seasons. Swift & Co do allow their workers a formalised break structure, but for perfectly reasonable production reasons they are time-specific - e.g. they always take place at 6 pm. When the sun sets within 45 minutes of 6pm, there's no problem; the Somalis can pray during their break time. When it sets later (in summer) or earlier (in winter), the required prayer time would fall outside the mandated break times, and I can see Swift & Co's point.

Especially if the Muslim workers are taking their mandated breaks AND then taking their prayer breaks as well. Not only would that not be unfair on their employers, it would be unfair on their work colleagus too, who would presumably have to pick up their slack when they are praying.

So, are the Somalis in question taking their prayer breaks in addition to their mandated breaks, or instead of them? If in addition, they're in the wrong, big style.

If not, while they are being more diligent, another question arises about the nature of the business. If the business process is a strict traditional production line, then the absence of one person messes the whole line up. If it's a more informal environment (a good example would be an office), then proper functioning does not require that everyone is at their desks all the time.

Having read Fast Food Nation, I suspect that Swift & Co are running a relentless production line, so absences outside agreed break times would present real problems.

I've worked in both production and office environments, and alongside both Muslims and smokers. I have to say that it's been the smokers who've been the problem colleagues. Mainly because they seem to need four or five smoke breaks (I'd use the British vernacular and talk about fag breaks, but that would conjure up different images in the minds of US readers!) during the working day, over & above regular scheduled breaks, where the Muslims I've worked with have been among the most hard-working and disciplined colleagues I've had the pleasure to know.

But in essence, an all-Muslim workforce would present few problems, because the business could structure it's breaks in a predictable and productivity-friendly way. Similarly, a completely non-Muslim workforce is problem free. The trouble arises when you get a mixed workforce.

My inclination would be to accommodate the need for prayers by having a mandatory mid-shift break for lunch (or anohter meal, depending on the time of the shift) that EVERYONE takes at the same time, and then discretionary breaks of up to, say, 20 minutes to be taken when required. Smokers can smoke; Muslims can pray; everyone can go to the bathroom as required; and non-smoking non-Muslims with large bladders can read a book, newspaper, or - if the facility is there - log onto .

This isn't ideal for the kind of strict production process found in meatpacking and associated industries, but (again harking back to Fast Food Nation, if that means I don't get a side order of dung with my meat, that animal welfare standards improve, and that consumption of highly-processed and intensively-farmed meat products goes down and in turn reduces obesity and associated disease, that migth not be such a terrible thing for society as a whole (Swift & Co's shareholders might disagree, but just like their workers, they get no guarantees and can sell up and buy someone else's stock any time they want, and - despite any protestations from free-marketeers like aevans176 - can do so more easily and quickly than any employee).

1.)Should the Swift & Co. workers win this lawsuit? Keep in mind they were on break-why or why not?

Well, my reading of the article is that the workers were on break when they prayed only when the sunset time was within 45 minutes of their scheduled break. Outside those times of year, some of them were trying to take prayer breaks outside official times. There was some talk of harassment during prayers that were on legitimate break time as well, so on balance I'd say fault was a 50:50 split between managment and staff.

Actually, scratch that. Where's the union in all of this? The article says that the breaks that are allowed are there because of union-negotiated contract. If the Somalis aren't in the union, they should join it, and press for a renegotiation of the contract. And if they already are, and the union turns their noses up at the idea of this just because they're Muslim, they should sue the union.

2.)How effective are our rights if they don't apply to the working world and other sectors of our lives which are more influential and comprise the majority of our day?

Now here's the nub. I don't think ANYBODY has the right to curtail our rights. As written, the US Consitution doesn't concern itself with anything except the role of the government, which allows libertarians and market-is-king merchants to turn a blind eye to more or less anything businesses do in the name of the supposed freedom to enjoy private property (something which is not a delineated constitutional right anyway - you don't have the right to do what you like with your property, only that your government can't take it from you or tell you what to do with it without due process).

As a model, I think I prefer the EU's vision of human rights being completely inalienable by anyone or anything, be they governments, institutions, corporations or individuals. I may not agree exactly with all the list of rights in the Treaty, but as a model I much prefer it because it binds the whole of society, and not just governments.

3.)In the issue of freedom of religion and the ability to stay or leave for employment, which one deserves the highest priorityin this case and why?

As I've indicated, I think that decision will and should rest of the specific details of who did what & when, which are not really gone into in the linked article.

As a matter of principle, I think the individual's freedom of religion should trump the right to conduct business on by management whim, though only to the extent that all individuals get the same freedoms. Muslims shouldn't get more time off, or more of any other privileges, than non-Muslims, Christians than non-Christians, Duke-Of-Edinburgh-Cargo-cultists than non-Duke-of... you get the idea.

I could do an L Ron Hubbard and make up my own religion tomorrow. If I decided that the most appopriate way to praise the Holy Tortoise, Creator of All Things was to stay in bed until noon and spend the rest of the time slightly drunk, I don't think anyone (except perhaps powerful Hollywood devotees who'd taken my practical joke at face value) would seriously argue that employers would be obliged to let me bumble into work at 1 o'clock and then bump into things exhaling whisky fumes for my whole shift, punctuated by multiple restroom breaks to dilute the blood level in my alcoholstream. (Fun though that might be for a week or two **hic**)

Most employers are required to make "reasonable accommodations" for a worker's "firmly-held religious beliefs". However, in most cases, it is the worker's responsibility to inform the employer at hiring time (or when their beliefs change) of the details of their firmly-held religious beliefs that the employer may need to accommodate; otherwise, the worker can be demoted, fired, etc., if the accommodations requested would not be reasonable (if there would be an undue burden) considering the job description, time limitations, etc.

If the employer agrees accommodations of religious beliefs are reasonable at hiring time, it is much more difficult for them to argue later that the accommodations were unreasonable or imposed an excessive burden. If the employee changes beliefs or fails to request accommodation in a reasonable amount of time, the employer can take these requests on a case-by-case basis. There's a lot more detail involved; repeatedly granting accommodation can establish a pattern that can be taken to be a de-facto policy which becomes a reasonable expectation of accommodation which is difficult for an employer to later rescind. This intricacies go on and on. However, by and large, I believe the case law in this area, in spite of its complexity, tends to be rooted in common sense that's just as fair the worker as it is to the employer.

1.)Should the Swift & Co. workers win this lawsuit? Keep in mind they were on break-why or why not?

Not to parse words too closely, but this is being reported as a complaint filed with the EEOC, which indicates a serious threat of a civil suit if left unresolved, but is usually handled out of court. I'll assume for the sake of debate we're discussing what might happen if/when it evolves into a civil suit.

This seems to be a rather routine case of both sides being wrong-- the supervisor was wrong if (s)he physically abused the workers as described, and the workers were wrong if they left their posts without requesting to be accommodated and giving the employer a reasonable amount of time to react before endangering the production line. The Swift company is only likely to be in trouble if it should have been aware of the supervisor's abusive behavior and failed to respond appropriately, or if it had a written or unwritten policy of trying to force Muslims not to pray at the appropriate times. 3-12 instances is not often sufficient to show a pattern, but this case may be different.

Being on break usually has little to do with religious accommodation cases. On break or not, if the employer can reasonably accommodate a firmly-held religious belief, the employer must reasonably accommodate the firmly-held religious belief, assuming the worker responsibly informs the employer of needs for accommodation. Of course, saying it in such a short form makes it sound far more cut-and-dried than reality usually is. There are several questions that have to be answered to determine if the beliefs are sincere, if the request for accomodation is reasonable, and if there is some satisfactory alternative which would accommodate the belief without as much burden on the employer.

Back to the point that this is an EEOC complaint rather than a civil suit, currently at issue is whether to increase federal regulatory scruitny of Swift's hiring and firing practices, and possibly impose remedies through court if necessary. The EEOC may try to determine whether Swift responded properly to any complaints by the workers about being harassed by their immediate supervisors. In general, a proper response would probably be to fire the supervisor(s) that harassed or assaulted the workers, and take steps to make clear to future hires that requests to leave the line, even for religious reasons on break, must be approved in advance. The sticking point could concern whether the company should reinstate the fired workers; a decision which would revolve around details not presented in the article-- to what degree were the employees and employers at fault for jeopardizing the production line?

2.)How effective are our rights if they don't apply to the working world and other sectors of our lives which are more influential and comprise the majority of our day?

The constitution doesn't say life has to be fair, only that the government has to be fair in the respects it outlines; but there are some circumstances with regards to civil liberties that have traditionally required some degree of government mediation to keep some social institutions from effectively denying some groups of people the liberties discussed in the bill of rights. Considering American history, we seem to have learned that there is value in securing human rights even against powerful social forces other than government, by helping ensure injured individuals and groups can bring civil cases to an impartial court or file complaints with a regulatory agency.

When workers feel they've looked everywhere and can't seem to find a job they can do that their religion won't interfere with, they should ask themselves how hard they're really looking, or whether they need to change careers or learn a new trade that is more conducive to their religious beliefs. In the Swift case, however, the situation seems a bit more dire. The workers may not have many other realistic choices of jobs. There could be restrictions keeping the workers from moving to another employer or city. Skills, certifications, education, or health may also be restricting opportunities. Families could be on the brink of poverty, or worse. There could have been a communication barrier resulting in miscommunication, where both sides tried to be responsible and just didn't understand each other. A culture clash might have arisen when immigrant workers have always worked where production always shut down at sunset for prayers, so they may not have expected to ask to leave the line until it was too late.

Equal-opportunity employers of workers in such situations should be sensitive to these problems and respond to them as fairly as possible. When large employers fail, it's in the state's interest to try to mediate the problem (through EEOC, etc.) such that the worker remains employed rather than going on the dole, because in general, productive workers are good for a stable society and economy; but the state must also avoid unnecessary or excessive interference.

There's no good reason for an employer not to honor reasonable requests for religious accommodation, even if it weren't required by law. If the request is unreasonable, if the beliefs aren't firmly-held, or if the accommodation places an excessive burden on the employer, then the employer is off the hook... with a few sensible exceptions. Otherwise, the only reasons I can think of why any employer would resist accommodating the religious beliefs of workers is if they haven't studied productivity, if they don't know anything about human nature, or if they harbor some form of bigotry. That may sound a bit harsh, and I'm fully aware that many workers who interface with the public need to exhibit a degree of professionalism that represents the company's philosophies instead of their own; but by and large, good employers know that a few minor accommodations can go a long way toward keeping employees happy, focused, and productive. Going slightly overboard can help keep them loyal even during hard times.

3.)In the issue of freedom of religion and the ability to stay or leave for employment, which one deserves the highest priorityin this case and why?

This does not seem to be an unprecedented case where the freedom of religion is in tension with so-called "employment rights" in some unique way; it's such a well-trodden path that it's currently being handled within a bureaucracy set up for the purpose of reviewing such conflicts. So, in this case, I don't see a need to pit religious accommodation against at-will employment. While it's usually in the state's best interest to keep workers out of unemployment lines, doing so is not mandated in the Constitution, so obviously, in most cases, government making "no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" tends to be superior to any notion of "employment rights". Freedom to exercise religious beliefs includes the freedom to quit your job if your boss, or even a court, determines your requests for accommodation aren't reasonable. Free exercise and at-will employment are not always in conflict, but tend to bolster one another when there's no systemic pattern of abuse.

There seems to be an element of employment entitlement in some posts. The U.S. motto is not "workers of the world, unite!" There's nothing in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing me the right to work in any job I want and am qualified to perform; nor should there be, unless we want communism or paleo-socialism. We can't all be CEOs of Fortune 500 companies; even working our way up, there's only 500 positions available and 300 million Americans. A whole lot of people are overqualified for their jobs, and that's sad, but not unconstitutional. Overqualification is not as much of a problem in the U.S. as in Russia, China, Mexico City, and a whole bunch of other places; but nevertheless, we're not always going to get the jobs we may deserve. At-will employment frees us to look for other opportunities elsewhere, and thus gives workers more leverage than they might appreciate when seeking a raise or a promotion. The key to negotiation is the willingness to walk away, so to those in the lowest-paying jobs struggling against starvation, that takes a whole lot more courage.