One-Third of U.S. Employees Say Employers Do Not Accommodate Religion in Workplaces

[cbayer]

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb11066796.htm

Tanenbaum’s national survey, ‘What American Workers Really Think About Religion,’ finds religious discrimination is rampant in American workplaces with members of different religions all experiencing religious prejudice at work.


What American Workers Really Think About Religion
...religion is a workplace issue. Employers who ignore it, do so at their own risk.

New York, NY (PRWEB) August 30, 2013

Consider a typical workplace: meetings, production deadlines, coffee or smoke breaks and casual Fridays all come to mind as part of the routine. But when it comes to prayer breaks, wearing religious garb in the office and other accommodations specific to religion, that’s a different story.

This Labor Day weekend, a new national survey released by the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding makes the point. Today, more than one-third of workers report observing or being subjected to religious bias at work. The survey, "What American Workers Really Think About Religion: Tanenbaum’s 2013 Survey of American Workers and Religion," examines religious bias and discrimination against American workers.

“This survey puts employers on notice,” said Tanenbaum CEO Joyce Dubensky. “American workplaces in-creasingly reflect the makeup of the country; they’re more and more diverse. Work is the place where people with extremely different beliefs interact on a regular basis. But where there’s more diversity, the survey shows that we can expect to find more conflict.”

Survey results confirm that a majority of workers believe Muslims are facing discrimination at work. The Muslim community is not alone.

more at link

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Isn't religion something to practice on one's own time?

Even when I was religious I didn't expect my job to revolve around that.

[cbayer]

5. It's about accommodation and non-believers are also expressing concern.

[kestrel91316]

2. Fundies think they aren't being accommodated when they are prohibited from proselytizing

on the job or not allowed to force others to join their religion. I think that's where that statistic comes from.

[cbayer]

6. Well, that's not what the study found.

[FiveGoodMen]

8. That certainly seems to be part of it

“The experience of discrimination by the white evangelical community is a real issue for companies. It’s also a
societal issue, one that goes beyond the workplace,” Dubensky said. “Workers from the white evangelical
community are twice as likely to believe that they are experiencing a lot of discrimination, as they are to believe
that African-Americans are being discriminated against.”

...

"Atheists (55%) are substantially more likely than workers in any other group to report that they themselves
face a lot of discrimination today. However, unlike white evangelical Protestants, atheists are also more
likely than workers overall to believe that Muslims (66%), gay and lesbian people (63%), Hispanics (50%), and
women (39%) experience a lot of discrimination."

(emphasis mine)

[atreides1]

3. I seen to recall the Bible saying something

Matthew 6:1
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.


Matthew 6:5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.


But I guess it's true that so many fail to read their own Holy Book!

[cbayer]

7. Well, that's why some complain about the lack of accommodation to allow

them the privacy to do so.

And non-believers also feel that they are discriminated against.

The point here is that companies need to address it and set up clear and fair policies, instead of just making it up on the fly.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Here is the policy that works: strict secularism in the workplace.

Anything else is discriminatory, just as it is in government.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Do it on your own time.

Problem solved.

[cbayer]

13. Problem not solved. Some religions involve brief prayers several times a day.

Others involve the wearing of certain garb, like a yarmulke.

Would you really deny people the right to express themselves in those ways?

What about it is so threatening to you?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Some people like to smoke. They can go outside.

No one is denying them anything.

I have a concealed pistol license. I carry a firearm. My employer does not allow weapons on corporate premises. I follow the rules. That's part of employment, you have an agreement with your employer. Things you can do, things you cannot do. Things they can do, things they cannot do, Things expected of either party.

If a religious person needs it that bad, they can make it part of their employment agreement, or find something else to do. Someone who 'needs' to smoke could be accommodated with a special room with a powerful ventilation system, etc. No employer is going to bother to.

At my work, if people need to pray, there are conference rooms available all hours of the day. If that's not good enough, go outside or wherever.

[cbayer]

20. I don't think those feeling discriminated against are asking for any more

than some accommodation.

I don't know any Muslims or Jews who would object to having a conference room available to them for private prayer.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. My employer makes 'mothers rooms' available for pumping or breastfeeding.

A hygiene issue, since the only other fully private place they could do it is the bathroom, and such biological functions should absolutely not be relegated to the bathroom. It is food, after all. The conference rooms are not suitable for that either, due to lack of privacy that at least some of the mothers desire.

I have seen some of the Muslims at my work use empty offices for their daily prayers. They plaster paper all over the office windows when they do it. Apparently privacy is at least somewhat desirable to them.

[cbayer]

22. Both of those scenarios make sense to me.

But let me point something up, your last two sentences convey a sense of ridicule or disdain. It's not overt, but it's there.

Is it intentional?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. It is a counterpoint only to this.

"I don't know any Muslims or Jews who would object to having a conference room available to them for private prayer."

(Not seen any jews doing it, not even the guy with the strings hanging from under his shirt for some sort of orthodox clothing thing that I do not recall the name of)

My point was they seek some privacy. At least the ones I have observed. So that rules out the conference room, sans hasty paper coverings.

I cannot see my employer going and doing anything further to accommodate it. It's not a business-necessary function. Need to pray? that's what breaks were invented for. (not really, but you take my meaning I'm sure)

People are resourceful. I'm sure they'll figure it out.

[cbayer]

24. Would you like some rules that prevented people from proselytizing in the office?

That could be included in a policy that address religion in your workplace.

Lots of things aren't business-neccessary functions, but employers can choose to address them anything. The woman who is pumping breast milk isn't performing a business-necessary function, but the courtesy of the employer addressing this and accommodating her makes for a better workplace.

Just letting people figure it out leads to problems. The people in charge need to address it up front. And what is wrong with that?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Again, pumping is a biological function. Religion is not.

One is a material fact, and not strikingly different from legal requirements my employer follows for allowing access to certain types of mobility chair standards, etc.

The other is an idea.

We do have rules against proselytizing in the office, actually. Things that can be displayed, etc.

For non-material-fact/idea issues, I have some male muslim co-workers. How would you feel if to accommodate them, my employer required women to cover their hair, and get rid of one of my co-worker's service dogs?

[cbayer]

26. Huh? Male muslims don't expect for all women to cover their hair.

And why would they want the service dog removed?

They just want a private place to pray.

Of course denying them that would send a clear statement that their religious differences won't be tolerated. And prove that you really have the upper hand.

Go for it. Should be great for morale and worker satisfaction.

Or, I have another idea!! Only hire people just like you and you won't have to deal with any of these pesky little problems.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Sunni and Shi'a sects do not generally like dogs much, as they are considered unclean.

In the UK, drug sniffing dogs are require to wear foot coverings so as not to offend in and around searches on Muslim's homes. Their saliva is actually the 'unclean' part though. So if the dog licks you, etc, there's a problem. Prisoners of various Islamic sects are usually offered new clothes if a dog licks them during a search.

I have observed visible discomfort at the presence of a dog in the room, by multiple muslims. I imagine it's a cultural insensitivity to them to force them to sit in a room with a dog (Again, some sects, this is not universal). Whose rights win? The person who needs a service dog, or the person whose interpretation of their religious faith declares a dog an unclean animal?

The hair thing is also not universal, but there are some sects where it is expected of all women.

[cbayer]

31. This is why these things need to be addressed by policy and that policy

should be developed by a representative group.

It's really not that hard and can lead to much greater understanding, which generally decreases prejudice and promotes tolerance.

The solution clearly is not "Screw religion - don't accommodate anything". Unless someone just wanted to be a jerk about it.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Religion is, by definition, special pleading.

Every one is different, based on different pleas.

I am not the one being unreasonable here.

[cbayer]

33. Hey, if you keep it up, you might get every one of those "logical fallacy" arguments in here,

which in and of itself is a logical fallacy.

Sorry, I'm done here for now.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. I didn't accuse you of special pleading.

So, no, no logically fallacies here.

[cleanhippie]

40. I see what she did there. She intentionally misrepresented your post in an effort to get away

I'm sure most other readers saw it too.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I'd have to look for it, but reasonably certain it's not the first time either.

Maybe it was unintentional or the poster misunderstood me. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

[cleanhippie]

42. Considering the frequency with which it happens, it seems intentional.

But in this group, when the tough questions are asked, this is the usual tactic.

[Leontius]

16. Just as true as the many that read without understanding.

[atreides1]

27. A Biblical Scholar?

Please tell me what I don't understand? It seems pretty simple to comprehend...but since you're obviously an expert on the topic, enlighten me?

[trotsky]

4. If I'm the world's biggest [insert baseball team name here] fan...

given that there are many games for all teams on a weekday during the season, should I have the right to demand my workplace accommodate my fandom and let me watch those games?

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Mmm.... I don't want prayer breaks at work. Keep your religion home.

[cbayer]

12. This is more generally about discrimination, including discrimination towards atheists.

What difference does it make to you if someone goes to pray privately a few times a day, anyway? Why would you deny them the right to do that?

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Nope. It is about the self proclaimed victim

status of theocratic Christians pushing their theory that they should be deferred to all over the place in their religious practices, from pharmacists refusing to dispense, hospitals refusing to provide care, corporate CEOs demanding the right to opt out of insurance requirements etc.

[cbayer]

15. Did you read the article? It clearly talks about complaints from atheists about discrimination.

Are they also self proclaimed victims?

And a lot of it is about muslims.

That's your agenda you are talking about, not the meat of the article at all.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Why yes I did. Did you?

Consider a typical workplace: meetings, production deadlines, coffee or smoke breaks and casual Fridays all come to mind as part of the routine. But when it comes to prayer breaks, wearing religious garb in the office and other accommodations specific to religion, that’s a different story.

Again I don't want accommodation for people who insist on bringing their religious practices into public spaces. Again, the evangelical right feels discriminated against because they cannot force their beliefs on others and cannot impose their practices on the rest of us.

[cbayer]

18. Are you saying that as an employer you would make no attempt to accommodate?

I don't think this has much to do with the evangelical right.

It has to do with recognizing the differences between people, addressing those differences and making appropriate accommodations if possible.

Your rhetoric seems to have nothing to do with what this article is talking about.

Again, muslims and atheists both report high levels of discrimination.

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. Consult your calculator...

Atheists and Muslims combined constitute less than 5% of the population. With one-third of 2,000 polled employees reporting experiences of "religious bias", the 6-in-10 white evangelical Christians who believe themselves the targets of discrimination and persecution is the more troubling figure.

If we can gleam anything from this study, it is that 95% of those reporting religious bias in their workplace are very likely delusional, and that there's nothing their employers may reasonably do to make them happy.

[cbayer]

36. Anyone who concludes that 95% of a polled population is delusional

really doesn't understand science, imo.

While you may disagree that they are in fact discriminated against, and you may well be correct, they are most certainly not delusional.

[cbayer]

37. Also, unless you think evangelical christians constituted 95% of the people polled

(which they most certainly did not), your 95% number is just pulled out of the air.

And even if they were, the actual number of those you consider delusional would be less than 50%, as only 60% of that populations reported discrimination.

Not very reasonable or scientific.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. It's unfortunate you didn't read what I wrote very closely...

... but, hey--nobody's perfect.

[cbayer]

39. It's unfortunate that your calculator seems to be very broken.

[dem in texas]

28. Leave your religion and politics at home

When you go to work, you are paid to do a job, do the job, and leave your politics, religion, love life, kids problems, etc. at home.

[cbayer]

29. Yes, just be an automaton, a cog in the wheel.

Everyone will be much happier that way.