Even after they brought a "note" from the local Imam insisting they must wear ankle-length gowns," UPS would not budge, citing hazard concerns; and now the latter have "paid" (jizya?) -- though no one seems to know how much.
"8 Muslims settle skirt dispute with UPS," by Paola Loriggio for The Star, November 18:
Eight Muslim women who filed a human rights complaint against the United Parcel Service (UPS) over a dress code dispute, settled with the company yesterday.But it is unclear whether the company will change its policy, since neither party would discuss the terms of the agreement.
"Everyone is very happy," said Jacquie Chic, lawyer for the complainants, after announcing the agreement at a Canadian Human Rights tribunal yesterday morning.[...]
She added "The women are very happy with the settlement. ... Today was a big day for everybody."
The women, all devout Muslims, lost their jobs in 2005 because they refused to hike their skirts above the knee over their long pants.
They argued that Islam requires them to be fully covered for modesty and alleged discrimination on the basis of religion and gender.
UPS said the ankle-length skirts were a safety hazard as workers climb ladders up to six metres high. Only "a gap in the process" allowed the women to work at UPS for up to two years without being told their clothing posed a risk, a UPS manager previously told the tribunal.
In the end, yesterday's settlement means the tribunal did not answer the key question: Was it discrimination, or a legitimate safety concern?
The women's jobs required them to navigate open metal staircases and tall ladders to flip boxes on a conveyor-belt system at a Toronto UPS plant. The company eventually ordered a risk hazard analysis that determined the women's traditional garb – long skirts, hijabs and neck scarves – was unsafe.
Six of the women had brought the company a letter from their mosque confirming their religion insists they wear full-length skirts.
You run a business. You see this sort of thing in the media, you follow the jihad against the Swift meat packing plant. You do a little reading on Islam.
And you stop hiring Muslims.
Face it, muslims are not a good risk as employees. Only a glutton for punishment or a poor businessman would take the chance.
Let the market decide.
UPS do your homework. To bad you know. Well hopefully these case will make companies do more research on who they hire.
I wonder who was the Judge on this case. Man I am telling you with the swift plant case allowing Muslims 5 breaks and then this boy you almost have them do any work and get paid to practice your religion on the job. Maybe everyone should sue because I need to pray all the time, 24/7.
OK, UPS. When these robed invaders trip over their "modest garb," you'll get sued again--and I hope you do.
I use FedEx, anyway.
Why can't anyone ever be constrained by logic or reality when dealing with these stealth jihadists? Muslimas are not supposed to go about unescorted UNLESS they are carrying out the work of their jihadist masters.
"The women, all devout Muslims, lost their jobs in 2005 because they refused to hike their skirts above the knee over their long pants."
-- from the article above
So they were not being denied the right to have their legs fully covered, for the sake of modesty. They were merely being asked to refrain from wearing, over the long pants, a dress that went down to the floor and could easily be caught in the metal of the stairs, and possibly lead to their being thrown from a great height. Why do they need those skirts to be down to the ankles? Don't the pants do the covering and skirts help distinguish them from men? What more do they need?
And soon these Moslimas will reap big dollars in damages when they plunge from those tall ladders and crack their Islam-inculcated haids.
I really wish gays, Jews and women could start suing islamic businesses (if they could find any) or mosques, for the discrimination that comes from those places.
I only found one technical flaw with article, other than the disgusting content:
There! That fixed it.
don't hire Muslims...unless you like misery and giving up your money..
Isn't it about time companies who hire muslims started writing liability waivers into their contracts?
"Dress any damn way you please, but when you fall and crack your skull/set yourself on fire/get mangled in the machinery, you waive any right to claim compensation form the company, who duly informed you of the risks involved in wearing a sack to work."
That about cover it?
I worked in a UPS package transfer center as an outside contractor for several years.
UPS has a strict dress code for drivers, but is more lax with loaders and pre-loaders.
But safety is a concern. You can get seriously hurt or killed if you get caught by the conveyor belt. There are all kinds of hazards wearing a skirt or loose clothing. Pant's or even bare legs in summer are better.
A UPS Package center is an industrial area.
Proper clothing should be worn when working there...
Hugh, I'm sure you seen the argument that the female form in pants is haram. Must have the tent to hide a womans shape completely. Of course they use it to their benefit to harass employers.
The B.S. part that irks me is when did it become discrimination to require employees to wear a uniform? If not a uniform, some sort of dress-code. These workplace rules/regulations have been binding on employees for years - until recently that is.
Eventually, employers are just going to stop hiring people who dress outwardly muslim. It is just too risky. You never when they incur some slight and sue the jizya out of you.
Roll out the Big Brown Burkas. Really, just another contemptible capitulation to Islamic mores.
Don't blame the company.
Blame the liberals who pushed political correctness and multiculturalism down our throats at the point of lawsuits, the ACLU, etc.
Liberals are intent on destroying western society and we need to recognize it.
Human Rights Tribunal?? This group is nothing more than a smokescreen for implimenting sharia law and the dhimmitude way of "life" that will follow it. Companies need to quit hiring muslims in general because you never know which one will sue you. We just know that at some point, ONE or MANY of them will. How many examples are needed to bring us to our senses about the inherent dangers of islam and stealth jihad? Obvioulsy many more examples and I fear for the west and our freedoms being snipped away, one by one.
This is the exact kind of political atmosphere that BHO will be ushering in during his first and prayerfully, last term. Yes, alot of this has to do with PCness run amuck, Cair, Aclu and the ultra liberal mindset that we must have diversity and equality AT ANY COST. The cost is getting higher and higher to those of us who see it, hear it and SMELL it. If they insist on burkas perhaps one's made from pigskin might help them out the door, or start another lawsuit. Stopping them from immigtaing and deporting the ones already here surely could not hurt and it is already late in the game.
Yes, Tanstaafl, the market should, and would, decide. But we can't have that, can we? I mean...companies would actually decide not to hire Muslims and then, and then - why next thing you know, there'll have to be quotas to counter that "discrimination".
Not hiring those who "outwardly dress Muslim" isn't protection enough. What do you do with those who become more devout and suddenly take to wearing more traditional dress? What happens at UPS when the ladies bring a note from their imam that they must now start wearing the full Hefty bag?
No, best to follow reason and not interfere with companies ability to set dress-code policies from the get-go.
There ca never be quotas for Muslims. Muslims are on the receiving end of covert affirmative action for sure, but think about it. If there are quotas for Muslims there will be quotas for Jews. The Jews work harder and do a better job. Then they get promoted and the Mohammedans have to answer to them. That never ends well.
These women are not just endangering themselves. Anyone falling from that height, is liable to land on an innocent person working at ground level, and the results can be fatal.
They have no right to put other people at increased risk, and there should be a counter-action from the rest of the workforce.
Whenever muslims win some exemption to the rules, they are trashing someone else's rights.
The first problem was the precedent set by allowing the women to wear long skirts for two years before demanding that they conform to the dress code.
The second problem was that this was taken before a human rights tribunal. If one of these offices accepts a case, it always finds in favour of the victim group. As we all know, in Canada at least, Muslims are the biggest victim group at present. The women knew this; that's why they lodged the complaint with an HR office and not with the regular court. Plus the fact that, with an HR complaint, they would not be required to pay any legal fees (the taxpayers foot their bill).
It's a guaranteed win-win for the victim group.
What are "devout" Muslimas doing working at UPS anyway?
Isabella
Agree with you. Aren't they supposed to be tilths doing their husband's bidding? And why aren't their owners i.e. fathers/husbands/brothers/sons with them all the time? Put that in the clause, and you'll see Muslimah unemployment hit 100%.
It really doesn't matter - as long as Muslims are perceived as a victim group they will win these cases - look at the case in England with that young Muslima who sued the punk hairdresser for not hiring her because she wore a hijab and so could not display her hair.
Companies can refuse to hire Muslims but then will be sued for discrimination. It's claptrap.
If a Muslim decides s/he wants something and is refused they will sue on the grounds of religious discrimination and /or racism. It's cheap and easy and with so many legal personnel it works.
Two interesting points in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Infidel" - she pointed out that Somalis fighting each other and getting the best of each other is admired because it shows that the winner of a battle is the stronger and that is good. Good to know that they're using these skills in America too!
She also noted that Somalis, when refused something, even if it was reasonable would call that person who refused them a "racist". It was a deliberate tactic among the Somali refugees in her centre when she first came to Holland.
(Somalis are of course not the only ones using this kind of tactic for their own benefit - tyhere are so many types like this - but it's one more thing to know for these kinds of cases).