Ethan is having a problem with an overly aggressive religious tone in the workplace. I actually find it a bit surprising since he works for a Fortune 500 company. I’d think they’d strive for sterility…
FalStaff has the tendency to say a prayer of grace before eating at any company outing. I’m not sure if that’s considered okay because it’s off company grounds and voluntary. I’d imagine so. When I worked for Wildcat, part of my job description was to edit the Come-to-Jesus book that he was writing. He was a deacon at his church and spent a fair amount of time in company meetings excoriating the theory of evolution.
None of this particularly bothers me and I doubt that what Ethan describes would, either. What is a problem, of sorts, is that these are emblematic of larger issues. In the office at Wildcat, I one of a minority (roughly 1/3) that did not go to a particular church. At FalStaff I am one of a third that is not Mormon. In both cases, a lot of socializing is done at church and in a sense morality is defined by allegiance to the ideals of their respective churches. Preference at FalStaff seems to be given to what I call Good Soldiers, those that are living by the Temple’s timetable. Wildcat had the same insider-outsider mentality.
But here’s the rub: I think that there’s a case to be made that such things increase cohesiveness. Part of me resents the setup that works against my advantage, but another part of me sees its virtue. There’s something to be said for a group that works and plays (or works and prays) together. So the question, I guess, is in what ways can unity be fostered without alienating those that think differently?
I drive the freeway every day and often see Covenant Transport semis. They’re somewhat religious in nature, both by their name and their “It’s a life, not a choice” bumper stickers. While I think it quirky and odd, I also wonder what right those of us that dissent have to tell someone what to do with their company. It’s a choice, after all, to work in one place or another. I’m in a bit of a jam myself because there aren’t very many secular employers in the area (which ward one belongs to is actually asked on some job interviews. It’s assumed that you belong to a ward just as it is assumed - often erroneously - that if you make a reference to “the kids” you are talking about your biological children and not your step-children. However, when you answer that you don’t belong to a ward, I’m willing to bet it doesn’t help your job prospects there). But it was our choice to live in Deseret, however temporarily.
But the problem that I have, being a non-Mormon in Mormonland, is not so easily alleviated for people who are devoutly non-Christian. Particularly true for those that are conspicuously something else. I may not like Paige a whole lot, but I can’t really dismiss the discrimination that she endures because of her religious choices. They can’t just move out of a particular state, they would have to go to Canada were every company allowed to hire only likeminded individuals.
But on the other hand, FalStaff did hire. And they did so presumably knowing that I was not a member of the brethren. And I think that they would have even if the law didn’t require it.
So I’m not completely convinced of my own victimhood, here.
Discrimination - or even an altered workspace - seems to be something that gets overlooked a lot. Partly because so much of it is so entrenched that it doesn’t stand out until you’re looking directly at it.
For example: my roommate. We’ll call him Fuzzles for the sake of argument. He’s pagan; in the US, of course, federal holidays and off-times are scheduled mostly around the Christian calendar (though even that’s not universal, since so many Xtian varieties have their calendars shifted around a number of days in any direction, such as Greek Orthodox whose holidays are about a week after the Catholic ones).
Obviously, he doesn’t celebrate those. Which usually entails him going in to work and getting overtime and holiday pay on those days.
In “Compensation”, however, he has to use up between 3 and 7 days a year of his very meager allotment of paid vacation days in order to attend HIS religious holidays. Leaving him with considerably less options (in terms of what vacations he can take) than someone who gets paid normal hours for not working those holidays, and still gets to use the vacation days whenever they choose to do so.
Not sure that’s fair or proper, but there it is. Yes, he gets a bit of extra money (much less than you’d think after their “creative accounting” department gets through with the timesheets too), but it’s still odd to think that he is essentially being “fined” vacation days for being of a different religion.
Then again, discrimination doesn’t have to be religious either. Sometimes it’s simply a matter of groupthink taken too far - for instance, in college I was one of perhaps two relatively conservative writers for the college newspaper, which had a staff of about 15 people writing opinion pieces.
As time has gone on, I’ve noticed myself shutting up more and more regarding politics and issues of the day. I watched during the last election as one of our new professors (a glug-glug borderline alcoholic, quite possibly nymphomaniac oddball who seems to be throwing herself at the dept chair and one other professor who both happen to be having divorces) declared how happy she was that Kerry was going to win and how evil conservatives were, and the response she got back was “let’s hope.”
It quickly became a “smile and nod” situation here after I overheard that one.
Comment by Webmaster — October 21, 2005 @ 8:21 am
Thanks for picking up on this. I would imagine that Deseret is indeed much more steeped in religious tradition and culture than say, my office. The trick is to find common ground and stay on the good side of the EEOC line, if you’re in a company greater than 15 people.
To draw a clear distinction regarding the issue I spoke of on my blog, this isn’t a case of a smart-alecky athiest trying to ruin everyone else’s life by declaring some sort of all-out war on religion. If the text in question were political in nature, regardless of my agreement or disagreement with the message, the issue would be the same: The company would appear to be either implicitly or explicitly endorsing that message. The management agreed and had the sign removed.
Comment by Ethan — October 21, 2005 @ 9:02 am
Web, politics at work is an iffy thing, too. I don’t think that there are any EEOC protections for it, but I’m presently out-of-step with most of my coworkers, politically, and I pretty much cringe whenever the topic comes up. It’s not conducive to a particularly healthy environment, though I also think that those of us in the minority in any office environment are probably better off just nodding and smiling.
Ethan, your situation is more egregious than most and I never meant to imply that anyone was simply trying to kill anyone’s fun. A company the size of your employer needs to have a more conservative idea of what’s appropriate. My thoughts were more geared towards employers with over 15 employees but well under 500. The law on this matter is clear, but I’m pondering whether or not the law is a good idea (since, as companies get big enough, they lose whatever benefits religious or cultural homogeny provides anyhow.
Comment by trumwill — October 21, 2005 @ 9:35 am
I’m still a bit confused at Ethan’s situation, in that he perceives the “writing on the wall” to be a threat to his employment, that if he doesn’t subscribe to their beliefs he may be out of a job. Ethan, I would think unless it were written by someone higher up than you, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. But maybe I’m missing something from the story.
Will, interesting analogy regarding workplace cohesiveness. I’ve seen little to no friction in my workplace regarding religious issues; I know that a number of my co-workers are Christian, or at least attend Christian churches. I’ve never noticed an overt display of evangelizing, and I think if something like what Ethan saw appeared on a whiteboard it would be still met by most everyone with a bit of bemusement. I don’t think anyone would consider it a threat. But I have noticed we all seem to work well together with our religious backgrounds being an unmentioned, but still present factor. Growing up in the South, most people simply go to church and that’s it, so it’s commonplace.
Webmaster - as for your holiday days off… I consider it not really unfair, as it’s more of a business decision than one of discrimination. If you poll 100 people and ask them which religious holidays they would request off, probably 90% would say December 25, Thanksgiving, Easter (whichever dates they are that year) and possibly Good Friday. The other 10% might request Passover, Ramadan, or even pagan holidays. But an employer needs to know that work can get done on the days when everyone is here, and as such can plan around Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc when everyone is gone. When employees take religious holidays off all over the year, I would think it might disrupt a workflow schedule, so I can see where they’re coming from. It’s a matter of numbers and majority rule.
Comment by Barry — October 21, 2005 @ 10:36 am
Barry - Sorry, but in the situation, it’s not anything you don’t know about ahead of time. They only ask for 3 weeks notice taking vacation time, you have a lot more warning as to your religious calendar.
I’d much prefer it to be an equitable exchange, as would he - given the choice, he’d willingly forego holiday pay for the days he doesn’t consider a holiday, in order to receive vacation days of an equal amount to put towards his own religious holidays.
Short version: time off for religious holidays needn’t be “majority rule”, especially in an industry where they have to get someone in the building ESPECIALLY on those religious holidays to cover the service they cover. You should be able to say “Here’s the dates of my religious holidays for this year” and that be that, rather than gutting the flexible leave time of anyone who doesn’t fit a particular cookie-cutter faith schedule.
Oh, and I’m saying this as a Christian. Catholic, to be precise.
Comment by Webmaster — October 21, 2005 @ 11:24 am
I think both Barry and Web are right, depending on the nature of the job.
My current employer in an 8-5 operation with a financial incentive to have everybody working at the same time. One person coming in on Christmas does no good, because they can’t accomplish anything. Even a skeleton crew isn’t particularly helpful because there are a couple of essential people guaranteed not to be here. Those companies probably ought to have a “majority rules” philosophy and let the chips fall where they may with the rest.
Fuzz’s job, however, is the opposite. They need people working off-peak hours in order to make sure the network keeps on going. So in that sense, someone like Fuzz that has different holidays is an asset, when you think about it, because they’re fine to work the days no one else wants to. They really should offer him 1-for-1 switches rather than forcing him to work more days than everyone else (even if for more pay).
Comment by trumwill — October 21, 2005 @ 11:39 am
I’m still a bit confused at Ethan’s situation, in that he perceives the “writing on the wall” to be a threat to his employment, that if he doesn’t subscribe to their beliefs he may be out of a job. Ethan, I would think unless it were written by someone higher up than you, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. But maybe I’m missing something from the story.
Barry, this has nothing to do with me feeling “threatened” as such. The issue is rooted in a) policy and b) the law. As a F500 company, we’re a huge target, let’s be honest here. I stepped in to remind the management of the legal issues at stake before serious problems arose. Again, the religious context of the issue is incidental, and would be equally applicable if the message was political.
Will, I added the “clarification” in a general way, since a hot-button issue like this often inspires knee-jerk reactions to a more nuanced issue. I count on you for the nuanced analysis that makes this blog a must-read.
Comment by Ethan — October 21, 2005 @ 2:11 pm