I can't believe this (Minnesota immigration content)!

[J.]

Out of control. Simply out of control.

 

http://www.startribune.com/business/28119524.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiacyKUnciatkEP7DhU

 

 

Somalis win prayer case at Gold'n Plump

 

The agreement to permit short prayer breaks and accommodate rules against handling pork could set a precedent.

 

In a landmark settlement that could change the way Muslims are treated in the workplace, St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump Inc. has agreed to allow Somali workers short prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork at its poultry processing facilities.

 

The federally mediated agreement is among the first in the nation that requires employers to accommodate the Islamic prayer schedule and the belief, held by many strict Muslims, that the Qur'an prohibits the touching and eating of pork products.

 

"For this group of Americans at this time in our nation's history, this is a very important outcome," said Joe Snodgrass, a St. Paul attorney who represented workers in the case.

 

The agreement follows a year-long examination by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and a class-action lawsuit brought in October 2006 on behalf of nine Somali immigrants who worked at Gold'n Plump's poultry processing plants in Cold Spring, Minn., and Arcadia, Wis.

 

An EEOC attorney said both sides have reached a settlement in principle.

 

The settlement will include an undisclosed sum of money for some employees; and some workers may receive new offers of employment at Gold'n Plump.

 

More details of the settlement, including how exactly the prayers will be accommodated, will be disclosed in the next two weeks.

 

The Work Connection, an employment agency based in St. Paul that hired workers for Gold'n Plump's plants in Cold Spring and Arcadia, was accused in the class-action lawsuit of requiring Muslim applicants for work to sign a "pork acknowledgement form," in which they agreed to handle pork products. It was alleged in the complaint that Somali workers who did not sign the document were not hired.

 

A spokeswoman for Gold'n Plump confirmed in a written statement that the company had reached a "global agreement in principle" to settle that and other claims and that a formal process must now begin to obtain final court approval for the settlement. Jeff Wold, vice president of the Work Connection, which is based in St. Paul, said his company "categorically denied all the allegations of discrimination" and was "happy to say that this case has been resolved."

 

Traditional practices

 

The settlement could have profound implications for the estimated 25,000 people of Somali descent in Minnesota, who began arriving in the Twin Cities in the late 1970s. Many have insisted on adhering to their traditional religious practices, such as praying five times a day or wearing headscarves, even when they conflict with workplace rules.

 

This spring, six Muslim women who worked at a Mission Foods tortilla factory in New Brighton said they were fired after they refused to wear a uniform that includes pants, which are considered men's clothing -- and improper -- in their home country.

 

The disputes have ignited debates about whether employers were targeting Muslims, or whether the workers were making unreasonable demands.

 

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 employer.

 

But the vague wording of the act has left a lot of room for interpretation; and some employers, particularly manufacturers, have argued that frequent prayer breaks disrupt work flow and reduce productivity.

 

Snodgrass, the attorney representing the nine Somali workers, said there is some flexibility within the Islamic prayer schedule. In some cases, the windows for praying can extend several hours; and frequently the prayers last no longer than a bathroom break. He noted that the United States legal system has long accommodated the demands of Christians.

 

"There is a reason why your children have never gone to school on Christmas or Easter, and yet Muslim children go to school on the final day of Ramadan," said Snodgrass. "What this case does is highlight that, for a minority, no matter how unpopular or popular they are, there has to be accommodations if they are reasonable and practical."

[J.]

What happened to freedom to contract? What about freedom of association? You don't have to work for my business and I don't have to hire you. It's a voluntary relationship. Part of the job is handling pork. If you don't want to do that, find a different job.

[King Kashue]

"There is a reason why your children have never gone to school on...Easter

 

Yeah, because Easter is on Sunday...

 

 

Also, why is it necessary to handle pork at a poultry processing plant?

[Noise...]

Yeah, because Easter is on Sunday... Also, why is it necessary to handle pork at a poultry processing plant?

 

This is what we should be worried about.

[NoirAbattoir]

Wow, conservative propaganda in the midst of a presidential election!? Shocker!

 

I'm relatively amazed at how little it takes to manipulate the moderates of our country. Go GOP!

 

Hey, has anyone else noticed more garbage about 9/11 this year on the television and in the papers than in the past four years? I wonder why? :poke:

 

This stuff isn't rocket science, people.

[King Kashue]

Wow, conservative propaganda in the midst of a presidential election!? Shocker!

 

Indeed...I'm glad that there's no propaganda from the left. Dodged a bullet there.

 

Though, precisely how is a news story about a court decision "propaganda"? Did the court make this decision purely to "Manipulate the moderates of our country"?

 

I'm relatively amazed at how little it takes to manipulate the moderates of our country.

 

Indeed...I mean, why waste time on those who are unlikely to ever alter their positions?

 

Go GOP!

 

Definitely agreed. Again, I'm glad the Democrats don't ever try and sway Moderate voters with anything less than the 100% unadulterated truth.

 

Though again, I'm somewhat confused as to how a news story about a court's decision is "propaganda"...Maybe it was stated in the decision itself. Of course, the decision is decidedly left wing in who is happy about it, so I guess it's not that aspect...

 

But I'm sure that somehow, this is designed by the GOP to manipulate moderates with propaganda...sure of it...

 

Hey, has anyone else noticed more garbage about 9/11 this year on the television and in the papers than in the past four years? I wonder why?

 

No kidding...They talked about it an assload last week...

 

I mean, it's not like last week was the anniversary of the attacks or anything...why the extra attention in the news?

[Hopi]

I'm guessing that every meat processing plant has their own "hot dog" processing, that probably includes any mammal they can stuff into a grinder and a casing. That's probably where the pork factors in.

 

Being in MN, we have a handful of Somali guys at work. Nice guys, and management accommodates them without any trouble. On the other hand, they don't work on an assembly line, where everything they do might effect others.

 

It is a settlement though, so you can't blame "activist" Judges and the like.

[NoirAbattoir]

Indeed...I'm glad that there's no propaganda from the left. Dodged a bullet there. Though, precisely how is a news story about a court decision "propaganda"? Did the court make this decision purely to "Manipulate the moderates of our country" ? Indeed...I mean, why waste time on those who are unlikely to ever alter their positions? Definitely agreed. Again, I'm glad the Democrats don't ever try and sway Moderate voters with anything less than the 100% unadulterated truth. Though again, I'm somewhat confused as to how a news story about a court's decision is "propaganda"...Maybe it was stated in the decision itself. Of course, the decision is decidedly left wing in who is happy about it, so I guess it's not that aspect... But I'm sure that somehow, this is designed by the GOP to manipulate moderates with propaganda...sure of it... No kidding...They talked about it an assload last week... I mean, it's not like last week was the anniversary of the attacks or anything...why the extra attention in the news?

 

You're right. It makes sense the Star Tribune in Minnesota felt it was worth a run, just for local politics. When Fox New runs with it every night this week, or O'reilly, then it will become propaganda.

[georgestrings]

Indeed...I'm glad that there's no propaganda from the left. Dodged a bullet there. Though, precisely how is a news story about a court decision "propaganda"? Did the court make this decision purely to "Manipulate the moderates of our country" ? Indeed...I mean, why waste time on those who are unlikely to ever alter their positions? Definitely agreed. Again, I'm glad the Democrats don't ever try and sway Moderate voters with anything less than the 100% unadulterated truth. Though again, I'm somewhat confused as to how a news story about a court's decision is "propaganda"...Maybe it was stated in the decision itself. Of course, the decision is decidedly left wing in who is happy about it, so I guess it's not that aspect... But I'm sure that somehow, this is designed by the GOP to manipulate moderates with propaganda...sure of it... No kidding...They talked about it an assload last week... I mean, it's not like last week was the anniversary of the attacks or anything...why the extra attention in the news?

 

 

Nice job...

 

 

 

- georgestrings

[NoirAbattoir]

Did you know that Swift sausage company used to pay their workers between $15-18 dollars an hour ten years ago to do that dirty, difficult job? Then some suit decided to just fire everyone and pay illegal aliens $10 bucks an hour. Our politicians look the other way, the economy is quickly compromised to the point that no one can earn much more than $10 an hour doing dirty crap like that, and bottom lines for companies get fatter and fatter.

 

See, you don't need to outsource or send jobs overseas. Just let the illegal immigrants fill those jobs and {censored} the American people! Sometimes I wonder if anyone thinks in America anymore.

[walkerci]

Hey if they don't like handling pork, they don't have to take the job.

 

When you immigrate to a country, you implicitly take upon YOURSELF the job of assimilating and getting along with the rules, customs, and laws of that country.

If you can't or won't do that, please leave IMMEDIATELY.

 

Do you think for one second that Saudi Arabia would tolerate consumption of wine in Christian religious ceremonies???? Hell no!!:poke:

 

But that's OK???

 

So to all those intolerant religious zealot immigrants...

 

STFU and GTFOOMC!:mad:

 

What kills me is that these clowns could actually find an attorney to argue their case and a judge to hear it.

[King Kashue]

 

Did you know that Swift sausage company used to pay their workers between $15-18 dollars an hour ten years ago to do that dirty, difficult job? Then some suit decided to just fire everyone and pay illegal aliens $10 bucks an hour. Our politicians look the other way, the economy is quickly compromised to the point that no one can earn much more than $10 an hour doing dirty crap like that, and bottom lines for companies get fatter and fatter.

 

 

And Swift Sausage would be what company? Based where? And your information would come from where?

[King Kashue]

 

Do you think for one second that Saudi Arabia would tolerate consumption of wine in Christian religious ceremonies???? Hell no!!:poke:

 

 

And you believe it's wrong for them to have such restrictive rules?

[Zebra]

I don't get what the big deal is.

 

Muslims are having their religion respected at a minor inconvenience to a specific employer. Big {censored}ing outrage. What about freedom of religion as a founding value of this country? Do they print "in business we trust" on our money now?

[Thumper]

IIRC, Somali taxi drivers got in a row recently with the Minneapolis Airport Authority for refusing to carry passengers who were transporting alcohol.

 

It seems like a no-brainer---feel free to not accept fares carrying booze, and we'll feel free not to employ you. If that seems to harsh, you can always return to Somalia...

[Les_Izzmor]

Do you think for one second that Saudi Arabia would tolerate consumption of wine in Christian religious ceremonies???? Hell no!!:poke:

 

{censored}in' A, God-Damned, Right.

 

We need to be more like Saudi Arabia in this country. :poke:

 

 

[J.]

The Somalis sued because of the issues. The company reached the settlement because they were forced to, essentially. My position is this: there are requirements for the job that apply to everyone. You do not get special/preferential treatment because of your religion. If you don't like it, get another job. You have no right to force the employer to bend to your will.

 

I think it's absurd that the employer had to settle at all, and that they'll have to pay out money to the claimants and make new job offers to some people.

 

Luckily the taxi driver situation worked out better. They went to court, and the decision was basically 'if you don't want to carry passengers with pets or alcohol, find a different job.' Of course they're appealing.

[Incubitabus]

 

The Somalis sued because of the issues. The company reached the settlement because they were forced to, essentially. My position is this: there are requirements for the job that apply to everyone. You do not get special/preferential treatment because of your religion. If you don't like it, get another job. You have no right to force the employer to bend to your will. I think it's absurd that the employer had to settle at all, and that they'll have to pay out money to the claimants and make new job offers to some people. Luckily the taxi driver situation worked out better. They went to court, and the decision was basically 'if you don't want to carry passengers with pets or alcohol, find a different job.' Of course they're appealing.

 

 

Damn straight!

 

While we're at it, let's nix Christmas off the list of Federal Holidays, then. The government shouldn't give christians preferential treatment because of their religion. If they don't like it, they can get another job.

[WynnD]

I've always respected Chick Fil A's policy of being closed on Sunday. I'm not a very religious person, but I respect others beliefs. Not going to be bothered by moslems practicing their religion either. Any good company will find a way to accommodate good employees. Bad employees are a dime a dozen. It's the good ones you want to give a reason to stay.

[burdizzos]

 

And Swift Sausage would be what company? Based where? And your information would come from where?

 

 

My bedroom is the corporate headquarters for Swift Sausage, come by sometime and I'll give you a free sample of our fantastic product.

[chugheshc2]

In America, discrimination based on religious grounds is against the law.

The religion in question has multiple required prayers during the day, and forbids handling of certain products.

I don't understand any outcry about this; religion is a protected class, like gender, handicap, age etc.

-------

The question of why the companies are hiring recent immigrants who will work for less than less-recent immigrants is related to shareholder value.

If the Swift stock price will go up when they pay less wages, then they will hire people that will work for less. As a shareholder you would demand that they maximize value.

Until some other rationales are developed for American (everyones?) business, (responsibility to local community, reasonable profit instead of maximum profit, etc) this is going to be the pattern. Until the folly of unrestrained economic growth is realized we continue to witness events like these.

cheers!

C.

[phildogger]

Hey if they don't like handling pork, they don't have to take the job. When you immigrate to a country, you implicitly take upon YOURSELF the job of assimilating and getting along with the rules, customs, and laws of that country. If you can't or won't do that, please leave IMMEDIATELY. Do you think for one second that Saudi Arabia would tolerate consumption of wine in Christian religious ceremonies???? Hell no!!:poke: But that's OK??? So to all those intolerant religious zealot immigrants... STFU and GTFOOMC! :mad: What kills me is that these clowns could actually find an attorney to argue their case and a judge to hear it.

 

 

Right on!

[J.]

 

Damn straight! While we're at it, let's nix Christmas off the list of Federal Holidays, then. The government shouldn't give christians preferential treatment because of their religion. If they don't like it, they can get another job.

 

 

Straw man. Besides, I've worked on Christmas day for the past three years. Lots of companies require it. If a company wanted to give its employees Eid Al Fitr off every year, that would be the company's right. This isn't about holidays or run-of-the-mill religious discrimination.

 

This is about people refusing to do part of their job assignment. They have the right to practice their religion, but the company should also have the right to dismiss people who refuse to do their work. That's what the company was originally doing (or not hiring people who wouldn't handle pork), until they were forced to do otherwise. If the company wanted to make exceptions for people that didn't want to handle pork on it's own volition, that would be fine.

 

You know, I feel the same way about pharmacists that refuse to give out the morning after pill based on religious grounds. I think it's BS. If your pharmacy allows it, then it's part of your job. Do it or get a job somewhere else.

 

Here's a non-straw man analogy: Let's say I'm an ultra-conservative, pre-Vatican II type Catholic. I want to get a job working for planned parenthood. Since abortion and all types of contraception are against my religion, there's a heck of a lot of things I'd refuse to do at that place. Would the same "religious freedom" rules be applied to me?

[Thumper]

 

In America, discrimination based on religious grounds is against the law. The religion in question has multiple required prayers during the day, and forbids handling of certain products. I don't understand any outcry about this; religion is a protected class, like gender, handicap, age etc.

 

 

 

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 employer.

 

 

People who work in meat packing plants have to handle pork as part of the job description. If they refuse to do so, they're not meeting the job description, regardless of their reasons for refusing to handle the meat.

 

How about a fundamentalist Christian who believes gambling is a sin? Should they be hired to work at a casino? Why should an employer be compelled to hire someone who refuses to work?

[chugheshc2]

Straw man. Besides, I've worked on Christmas day for the past three years. Lots of companies require it. If a company wanted to give its employees Eid Al Fitr off every year, that would be the company's right. This isn't about holidays or run-of-the-mill religious discrimination.

 

I am pretty sure that "not working on christmas" is not part of protestant or catholic religious tradition. (ie; it's not like shabbos (sp) in judaism)

A better analog would be attending christmas mass - you probably have legal grounds to be able to do that.

 

This is about people refusing to do part of their job assignment. They have the right to practice their religion, but the company should also have the right to dismiss people who refuse to do their work. That's what the company was originally doing (or not hiring people who wouldn't handle pork), until they were forced to do otherwise. If the company wanted to make exceptions for people that didn't want to handle pork on it's own volition, that would be fine.

 

I'm on the fence on this one; I have not read the actual mediation case.

Possibly the company was discriminating on religious grounds to avoid having to deal with the handling of pork by only certain employees. It does make one wonder where the line lies - Companies cannot discriminate for religion, but religion may preclude you doing part of the job you are hired for.

 

 

You know, I feel the same way about pharmacists that refuse to give out the morning after pill based on religious grounds. I think it's BS. If your pharmacy allows it, then it's part of your job. Do it or get a job somewhere else.

 

Here's a non-straw man analogy: Let's say I'm an ultra-conservative, pre-Vatican II type Catholic. I want to get a job working for planned parenthood. Since abortion and all types of contraception are against my religion, there's a heck of a lot of things I'd refuse to do at that place. Would the same "religious freedom" rules be applied to me?

 

I'd be curious to hear from some of the legal types here about how this would play out. I'd imagine that either you could be assigned to only perform duties that do not conflict (mopping, accounting, etc). Sort of like concentious objector in the armed forces.

I also would not understand a pharmacy not allowing this. Drugs are drugs. Pharmacies sell drugs.

Legal types chip in?

C>