Never Hire A Jehovah's Witness!

by Kent 59 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Stephanus

  Although Seeker made a point about being made to do something you don't want to do, I agree with Kent on this one. If a strip bar had hired Ms Miller, it's probable that patrons patronising that place might want to see her bereft of clothing. If a restaurant which hosts birthday celebrations hires her, they might expect her to cater to the customer's desires and make the customer's birthday celebration as happy as possible. Should a Jewish waitress refuse to take your order for bacon and eggs or prawns? If the birthday thing is so important, the time for questions is before being hired - eg "I note you have people come in for birthday celebrations - would I have to be involved?"

  You can bet that restaurant owner now doesn't hire any Dubs and makes sure of that. If I were he, I'd find more subtle ways of determing Dubbism than outright questions regarding birthday parties (that'd be too obvious to a Dub who knew about the case) - eg. asking for an opinion on serving up meat rare and whether or not they'd want time off to vote on election days.

  w75 9/1 519 Insight on the News One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct.
• 

  musky

  I agree with "seeker. I am sympathetic to Cora miller in the chi chi's case. She has a right to believe what she wants. It should have been a no- brainer for this restaurant to find another person for the birthday song. They should not have fired her for this reason alone
• 

  bigboi

  I agree with Musky and Seeker as well. There is no way you can fire somebody for what they believe. This was not an essential duty, she could have been reassigned with no problem.

  ONE....

  bigboi
• 

  AlanF

  I agree with Kent on this one. Anyone who gets a waitressing job at a Chi-Chi's Mexican restaurant knows that one of the standard duties is to sing Happy Birthday to customers. If Cora Miller didn't want to perform such a duty, she should not have accepted the job. If she accepted the job while knowing about this duty, she would have been showing bad faith. In any case, if her religious beliefs would have prevented her from doing her duties, she should have made it known to the employer upfront. Not doing so is lying. This case is not about religious discrimination -- it's about whether a person is willing to tasks they were hired to perform.

  Of course, we don't necessarily know all the details of the case from the news story.

  AlanF
• 

  Stephanus

  Good, Alan, you cleared up something that I didn't know, being in Oz: what is a Chi-Chi's restaurant and how important is the birthday thing (McDonald's after all have a party room for childrens [usually] birthday parties)? If she knew about Chi-Chi's and how central the birthday celebrations are to the place and wasn't willing to follow employee procedures concerning birthdays, then she was accepting the job under false pretenses. Perhaps the employer should counter sue.

  w75 9/1 519 Insight on the News One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct.
• 

  jelly

  Honestly I am unfamiliar with Chi-Chi's. If Chi-Chi's is a birthday orientated resturant like Chucky cheese, where the resturant is set up to catter to parties and that is their market niche, I would then agree with Alan F.

  But if Chi-Chi's is a standard resturant then Chi-Chi's should have simply had another waiteress sing the birthday song and bring the cake.

  I believe that the employer is responsible to make a reasonable attempt to accomadate their employees religious convictions as long as it does not damage customer goodwill.

  Jelly
• 

  Jeremy Bravo

  Hi guys,

  Chi-Chi's and similar bar and grill restaurants where the employees sing happy birthday usually have ALL the wait staff do so. And I'm sure that if one person begged off because of "religious reasons", legitimate or not, many others would try to make a similar excuse. I've never been a waiter, but I know that having to sing happy birthday to drunk jerks is not the kind of job duty I would enjoy. IMHO if the owner lets one person off easy, the others will make excuses or gripe incessantly. Sooner or later no one will sing the damn song if asked to.

  If she can't do the job she was hired for, I have to side with the boss based on the knowledge I have of the case.

  Jer.
• 

  Gozz

  Kent,

  to write to not hire a Jehovah's Witness is discrimination beyond that expected by reasonable humans. You lump all Jehovah's Witnesses together, and that is not fair. Alan's post throws some light on the situation. It would have been dishonest for the JW not to have disclosed that she would not do part of what would be her duties. It would have been the right thing for her to do, being in full understanding of the peculiarities of her own religious beliefs; but to make sweeping generalisations and admonish that such be the basis of employment is going too far. Jehovah's Witnesses are humans, having all rights like the others, and even if their beliefs and practices in furtherance of those beliefs are unreasonable by the perspective of others, it is still a debt to hold them in some esteem, and give them a benefit of the doubt.
• 

  jelly

  If she can't do the job she was hired for, I have to side with the boss based on the knowledge I have of the case.

  If it goes to court that will be the key to the entire case. If it is determined that singing birthday songs is not one of her primary duties or she could have been easily replaced by another worker; Chi-Chi's will lose.

  jelly
• 

  Kent

  musky said:

  She has a right to believe what she wants.

  
  Did I say she didn't? What I said was that her employer had the right to expect she would do the job she was hired for. If anyone feel they can't do that, they better not take the job! I have posted other examples here as well.

  then we have bigboy again (sigh)

  There is no way you can fire somebody for what they believe. This was not an essential duty, she could have been reassigned with no problem.

  
  As usual - he can't read, and as usual he jumps to conclusions. As many here already said, nobody was fired for what they believed. The case was about refusing to do what she was expected to do as part of the job!

  I can't see anything is changed just because bigboy "believes" "she could have been reassigned". Fact is, mr. bigboy - you were not her boss, and he didn't agree with you. Honestly, I don't think he gives a shit what you think either, and I'm 100% surehe will never hire a dub again!

  Then Gozz whined:

  to write to not hire a Jehovah's Witness is discrimination beyond that expected by reasonable humans.

  I don't know if you really are that stupid, or you try to fool us. If so, you certainly do a good job!

  Why don't you read this story:

  http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20010623&Category=JWANDSOCIETY1&ArtNo=10623005&Ref=AR

  What do you think would happen to Carol Keener's employers if they were sued? I have to say I really hope Hope Nicholson and her family actually does sue them, even though this lovely Jehovah's Witness, Carol Keener was fired on spot.

  This case could have costed her employers an awful lot of money - just because they were stupid enough to hire a JW.

  Gozz keeps on whimpering:

  You lump all Jehovah's Witnesses together, and that is not fair.

  It isn't fair? What do you men by "not fair"? Do you mean that some of these assholes won't follow the rules of the Watchtower? Isn't that to say that you expect employers to gamble that the JW he/she hires will NOT follow Watchtower rules - and MAYBE he won't get problems with his employee?

  It would have been dishonest for the JW not to have disclosed that she would not do part of what would be her duties. It would have been the right thing for her to do, being in full understanding of the peculiarities of her own religious beliefs; but to make sweeping generalisations and admonish that such be the basis of employment is going too far.

  They are dishonest. I know a lawyer here in town, and he has a JW secretary. This JW never told him she might break her confidentiality if a JW was involved in a case, and that she might find this was "A Time To Speak"!

  If I hire anyone, I set the rules for the job. I decide what shall be done or not be done as a part of the job. And I don't give a flying fart if some freak feel they can't comply. Then they will be fired, and that's that. They can believe what ever they want to - but I will have no messing around when they are at work. And they will have to do the job they are hired for. But then again, I would see to that such things were mentioned in the contract.

  Bottom line:
  

  Never Hire A Jehovah's Witness!

  Yakki Da

  Kent

  "The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."

  Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
  http://watchtower.observer.org