Religious liberty and the Cargill meatpacking plant

[rug]

Cargill should try to honor requests for Muslim prayer



Somali immigrant Halimo Ahmed places a cut of meat on a belt at Cargill Meat Solutions in Fort Morgan. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)

By The Denver Post Editorial Board
Posted: 01/01/2016 05:00:00 PM MST

Disputes between Colorado meatpackers and Muslim immigrants over accommodating prayer in the workplace are nothing new, with t he latest clash occurring this week when 190 employees at Cargill Meat Solutions in Fort Morgan were fired.

Spokesmen for the company and the mostly Somali immigrants have offered different versions of what prompted the firings, so it's hard to say who's at fault. Under state and federal law, employers must reasonably accommodate workers' religious practices, but not to the point they impose "undue hardship" on the operation.

In a workplace like meatpacking with a production line, agreeing to requests for daily prayer can be extremely tricky — especially if several workers wish to leave their post at the same time. But it's important that employers attempt to resolve the difficulties and, when possible, meet workers' desire to practice their faith.

In fact, it's a distinctly American responsibility given our First Amendment's "free exercise" clause that guarantees religious liberty. That liberty is eroded to the extent that deeply valued religious traditions are impossible to exercise.

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_29331256/religious-liberty-and-cargill-meatpacking-plant

[Buzz Clik]

1. This could get tricky when other religious groups start making requests...

....but DU is so fond of religions, that we'll be supportive.

[NastyRiffraff]

4. Amen!

(The snark is deliberate.)
I used to work in a place where Muslims had a "prayer room" which used to be a break room, with lockers and a TV, for everybody, until it became a "prayer room."

Pray, if you must, at home or in a place of worship. Nobody is stopping you. Keep it out of the workplace.

[earthside]

2. The more secular our society becomes, the better.

Practice your religion at your place of worship; your home; on your own time.

Keep your religion out of the government; the schools; public businesses; my space and time.

The reasoning the Denver Post uses about "... "free exercise" clause that guarantees religious liberty" only confirms the rationale for Hobby Lobby and those bigoted bakeries out there to use religion to discriminate.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

3. Faith is a distinctively personal experience

even when practiced in the public square, since no one has to be part of an organized religion to have first amendment protection. Who has the right to determine if someone else's faith is legitimate?

I see a lot more people suddenly needing to practice their "faith" at work if caving in to fundamentalists becomes the norm.

I want a room, too - with dance music. My religion requires that I dance 5 times a day!

[TygrBright]

5. I have never understood "conditional validity" theologies. n/t

As a believer, I pray all the time.

Nothing stops me.

I can pray in a supermarket checkout line, I can pray in a bar, I can pray at my desk.

To me, prayer happens through an intensely personal communion with the Divine Source, and it can happen any place, any time, I turn my attention to that communion.

It doesn't require that I do certain things, to make sure the prayer is valid or correct or 'heard.'

Do some types of prayer happen with greater intensity and impact? Does finding a quiet place, and giving greater attention to it, have a particular effect? Does using a little ritual to intensify my own investment in the prayer satisfy that sense of communion in a heightened way? Of course.

But if I'm in a place where those things- the ritual, the deeper attention, etc.- are impractical or potentially detracting from a shared activity like work, I can still pray.

I don't read the "free exercise" clause as a demand that public accommodations be made for every aspect of my personal faith practice. Someone upthread noted that government facilities, private enterprise shared with those of other faiths, etc., shouldn't be required to take accommodation to an affirmative degree. I agree.

The basics certainly require that they refrain from discriminating against those who profess a particular faith in ordinary matters like hiring, pay and promotion, etc. There's a reasonable gray area to be worked around where a substantial percentage of people desire observance of a religious holiday, and/or where a smaller number of people wish to observe a religious holiday.

Beyond that, I don't think free exercise really extends. It certainly makes good sense to accommodate anything that doesn't interfere with the normal work procedures, but at some point it's up to the believer to adapt their practice to permit them to work in a particular place, or find somewhere else to work.

Whatsername the County Clerk in Kentucky or wherever it was found this out the hard way.

bewilderedly,
Bright

[whitefordmd]

6. The first amendment guarantees

Last edited Sun Jan 3, 2016, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

congress makes no law prohibiting your free exercise of religion. It does not allow you to walk off the job to pray. The notion that the workers religious liberty was eroded to the point it was impossible to exercise those liberties seems to be a stretch.

This is a union plant with a contract that spells out workers and company rights. As well as work rules around breaks. When you take the job you know or learn the rules. If you want to change the rules you start to collectively bargain. If you walk off the job for three days your are going to get fired and the workers that took this chance should not be surprised.

[rug]

7. It also requires reasonable accommodation where possible.

The net result of your argument is that observant Muslims will not work there. Period. Of course, the gloss given to this discrimination is that they will voluntarily choose to not work there.

Labor law is governed by federal law, which includes the First Amendment. There have been way too many case where racial, ethnic, gender and religious discrimination has taken place under the guise of labor law, with or without a union contract.

[whitefordmd]

8. Everything I've read about the story indicates reasonable accommodations were made..

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29330180/cargill-tried-resolve-issues-before-firing-colorado-muslim

Cargill Meat Solutions said Thursday it tried to resolve a workplace prayer dispute with Somali workers at its Fort Morgan meatpacking plant that led to the firing of about 190 employees.

The workers who lost their jobs were mostly immigrants from Somalia, and their termination came after they failed to report to work for three consecutive days last week to protest what they say were changes in times allowed for Muslim prayer.

Workers including Somalis trim beef in manufacturing at Cargill Meat Solutions in Fort Morgan. Workers including Somalis trim beef in manufacturing at Cargill Meat Solutions in Fort Morgan. Cargill says, however, it makes every "reasonable attempt" to provide religious accommodation for all of its employees at the Fort Morgan plant without interrupting operations.

"At no time did Cargill prevent people from prayer at Fort Morgan," said Michael Martin, a spokesman for the Wichita-based company, which is part of the agribusiness giant Cargill Inc. " Nor have we changed policies related to religious accommodation and attendance. This has been mischaracterized."

Cargill also said while reasonable efforts are made to accommodate employees, accommodation is not guaranteed every day and depends on changing factors in the plant.

"This has been clearly communicated to all employees," Martin said.

[rug]

9. If the plant did, they're in the clear. If they didn't, they have a problem.

On Dec. 18, the Friday before employee protests began Dec. 21, "the workers were told: 'If you want to pray, go home,' " CAIR spokesman Jaylani Hussein said.

- snip -

Cargill provides a "reflection room" at the plant where observant Muslim workers are allowed to pray, something that has been available since 2009.

Hussein said depending on the season, the workers pray at different times of the day, typically taking five to 10 minutes away from their work. The time was carved out of a 15-minute break period or from the workers' unpaid 30-minute lunch breaks.

Many of the workers banded together and decided to walk off the job in an attempt to sway plant managers to reinstate the prayer policy.

The decision will be fact-specific.

What strikes me is how simply the 5 to 10 minute breaks could be accommodated. I can only imagine what negotiating with this company must be like.

[whitefordmd]

10. here's my take on it

Last edited Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I've worked on both sides of the labor fence, so I think I can read between the lines a bit.

It is very unlikely Cargill changed the prayer policy. I would guess the worker being told "'If you want to pray, go home,' is true but being taken out of context as being a change in policy. In my years of labor relations, I am continually amazed at the stuff people think they hear, especially after a termination.

It is a pretty good bet that walking off the job in an attempt to sway plant managers is forbidden in the contract, and was a really bad idea. I doubt the union leadership in the plant condoned it or we would be hearing them defending the employees rather than CAIR.

Getting all the facts is difficult from afar. I hope Cargill reconsiders the terminations

[rug]

11. Wildcats are time-honored and often the only tool available, provided they're done right.

Plus, these are Somali immigrants in a union whose membership is likely Iowan.

I wonder what other simmering grievances are there, aside from Salah.

Cargill should make the accommodation. They have as much as admitted they can without disruption.