PDA

View Full Version : If he's only been wearing a Burka.... :)



Deeman3
10-28-2009, 09:16 AM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a "One nation under God" button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.

"I've worn it for well over a year and I support my country and God," Trevor Keezer said Tuesday. "I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country."

The American flag button Keezer wore in the Florida store since March 2008 says "One nation under God, indivisible."

pooltchr
10-28-2009, 09:23 AM
Being a proud American has been out of vogue since January. The new patriots understand that everything about America is bad and needs to be fixed by the government as quickly as possible.

Try to keep up with the times, will ya?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

Qtec
10-28-2009, 09:27 AM
The USA seems pretty much divided at the moment, don't you think?

What he does in his own time is his own business but at work...........

Q..

Deeman3
10-28-2009, 09:27 AM
I'll try but I got a bunch of loose bills in my pocket that clearly say, "IN GOD WE TRUST". How long before they will try to get them away from me. Oh! I forget about the new tax rules...They have already started. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

pooltchr
10-28-2009, 09:44 AM
Yeah, having money hasn't been in vogue since January either! The new plan is to spend as much of it as you can, as quickly as you can, and blame the previous administration for twisting your arm to do it!

Steve

Deeman3
10-28-2009, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The USA seems pretty much divided at the moment, don't you think?

What he does in his own time is his own business but at work...........

Q.. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Q,

I think we are pretty much divided but the point is, if he was wearing a symbol not of Christian origin, we would never have heard of this.

It is not a big issue but there is a call out of crosses in these circumstances when another symbol or word may get a pass. of course, this was "In God we Trust" so the argument can be made it was not targeted at Christians but at any belief in a Supream being. All-in-all this does not discourage lack of faith but, in a way, focuses more attentio on it, much like Obama's war on Fox distracts from his lack of attention to real issues. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

eg8r
10-28-2009, 11:56 AM
Maybe Home Depot will quit using all that horrible currency also. Since this is a private company and not Government then I believe it is their right to act this way and I respect that. I think they are totally wrong but it is their company and they get to decide what is "acceptable" in terms of what their employees wear. The only issue is whether they are consistent in these actions.

eg8r

eg8r
10-28-2009, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What he does in his own time is his own business but at work........... </div></div>While I agree with what you are trying to say, the phrase is not correct. What you do on your own time is never really your own time. If you decide to partake in drugs on your own time you can be fired when you fail the drug test.

eg8r

pooltchr
10-28-2009, 12:18 PM
Maybe I should sue Home Depot. Last time I was in there, I paid for my purchase, and they gave me change that referenced "God".

Should I be offended??

Steve

Chopstick
10-28-2009, 12:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The USA seems pretty much divided at the moment, don't you think?

What he does in his own time is his own business but at work...........

Q.. </div></div>

All persons shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.

<span style="color: #000099">Sound familiar Q?

It should.</span>

wolfdancer
10-29-2009, 10:49 AM
It's obvious that the man is a religious fanatic, somewhat like the Ayatollah Khomeini, and we don't need that Bible Baptist stuff, forced upon us, when we are just trying to buy the right size hardware to screw something,as opposed to someone, into place

Deeman3
10-29-2009, 12:23 PM
I just brought up the story to start comments. I, as you know, am not too crazy about showing outward agressive signs of your faith on either side. I would probably put the limit at things beyond a cross or other symbol, if my business was sensitive to it. Now, many of our women and some men wear religous themed shirts, etc. but it is the South and does not bother anyone in our place, I guess. If is ever got to be a war or concer for others, I's probably shut down anything not in line with the business but even Alabama/Auburn are considered faiths here. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
10-29-2009, 02:23 PM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a "One nation under God" button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that <span style='font-size: 17pt'>expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.</span>

<span style="color: #000066">Clearly, he went against company policy. </span>


"I've worn it for well over a year and I support my country and God," Trevor Keezer said Tuesday.

<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Supporting ones country is something completely unrelated to religious belief. </span> </span>

"I was just doing <span style='font-size: 20pt'>what I think every American should do,</span>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'> <span style="color: #000066">He doesn't get to decide what every American can, or should do, to support the country, totally subject on his part. </span> </span>

pooltchr
10-29-2009, 02:50 PM
He wasn't telling anyone what to do. As you posted, he said "I THINK" which means that is his opinion. He does not tell anyone what to do or think.

Personally, <u>I think</u> you should put some actual thought into your posts. I'm not forcing you to do it, just stating my opinion.

Also, If expressing personal beliefs is not allowed, why did Home Depot offer him a replacement button that says "United We Stand"? That could very well be an expression of personal belief as well.

Steve

sack316
10-30-2009, 04:29 AM
It took over a year for someone to notice?

According to the local paper (Montgomery Advertiser if anyone requires a source), it was not until he began bringing his bible in to work to read during lunch breaks that this became an issue.

Now, I understand that the company has a policy, and it is written in black and white that only company issued buttons and such may be worn. That's all well and good, but if he was wearing it for a year (which seems to be a fact not in dispute) I certainly hope his supervisors were fired too, for allowing such an outrageous act to take place within their store for such a long time. That's what happened, right?

Sack

Chopstick
10-30-2009, 10:25 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Welcome to the United States of the Offended</span>

Step to the side ya'll. It's a pinhead stampede.

Qtec
10-30-2009, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It took over a year for someone to notice?



Sack </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Okeechobee, Fla., a man is planning a civil lawsuit after<span style='font-size: 14pt'> he refused </span>to stop wearing a "One Nation Under God" button and was fired from his job at Home Depot. The company says it has a policy against employees wearing any buttons, but the man's attorney say the policy isn't really enforced. </div></div>

He wasn't fired for wearing it, he was fired because he refused to take it off.

Q.......2 sides to every syory.

sack316
10-30-2009, 06:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It took over a year for someone to notice?



Sack </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Okeechobee, Fla., a man is planning a civil lawsuit after<span style='font-size: 14pt'> he refused </span>to stop wearing a "One Nation Under God" button and was fired from his job at Home Depot. The company says it has a policy against employees wearing any buttons, but the man's attorney say the policy isn't really enforced. </div></div>

He wasn't fired for wearing it, he was fired because he refused to take it off.

Q.......2 sides to every syory. </div></div>

That he has been wearing for a year.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-02-2009, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The USA seems pretty much divided at the moment, don't you think?

What he does in his own time is his own business but at work...........

Q.. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Q,

I think we are pretty much divided but the point is, if he was wearing a symbol not of Christian origin, we would never have heard of this.

It is not a big issue but there is a call out of crosses in these circumstances when another symbol or word may get a pass. of course, this was "In God we Trust" so the argument can be made it was not targeted at Christians but at any belief in a Supream being. All-in-all this does not discourage lack of faith but, in a way, focuses more attentio on it, much like Obama's war on Fox distracts from his lack of attention to real issues. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span> </div></div>

Obama displays no lack of attention to our issues, Deeman. To the contrary, he has displayed careful, thoughtful study, as he welcomes input from experts, and displays his efforts to go forward without partisan bickering.

Unfortunately, Republicans choose to use obstructionism, wishing, above all, that the country fail in addressing the many disasters left to us by Bush et al, and your past votes, and hence, few call themselves Republican, and fewer still, call Republicans, Conservative.

One would think, since you voted twice for Bush, someone who, as proven, did not listen to expert opinion, and attacked those who spoke out against his policies, policies since proven to have been disastrous, sold to the public, on lies, that you would display a bit of humility, having voted twice for the worst president in history, and being a member of the party who voted in a block, giving him a blank check for his many failed polices.

Instead I find no humility coming from you, nor from any of your co-hearts on this site, nor from Fox, Limpballs, Coulter, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfoqitz, Kristol, Kagen nor any of the others who pushed for this fiasco in the Middle East for over a decade.

Some people never learn, I suppose, as one would think that you righties, of all people, would have learned the dangers of having a president who fails to study all the possible unintended consequences of going on "Gut" instincts, when it comes to war, rather than finding the facts, and creating reasonable policies to address the left over disasters of the Neocons.

But, alas, instead, you and the rest of the disaster creators, who voted for Bush, twice, are far too busy criticizing the man who has inherited the results.

Typical Republican response to failed Republican policies, just go forward and deny that they failed, and blame it all on the Democratics who must turn it all around, into a plus.

Distract, through deciet, like this post of yours, which is clearly a case of an employee, failing to abide by company rules. Now you twist what is a minor incident, which happens everyday, in this country, into some sort of evil plan, to attack God.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I think, Bush's legacy, gives us many far more pressing problems to address, don't you?



G.

Gayle in MD
11-02-2009, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It took over a year for someone to notice?

According to the local paper (Montgomery Advertiser if anyone requires a source), it was not until he began bringing his bible in to work to read during lunch breaks that this became an issue.

Now, I understand that the company has a policy, and it is written in black and white that only company issued buttons and such may be worn. That's all well and good, but if he was wearing it for a year (which seems to be a fact not in dispute) I certainly hope his supervisors were fired too, for allowing such an outrageous act to take place within their store for such a long time. That's what happened, right?

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">No, not IMO. They put up with it, obviously, for a while, and he continued to push it with further actions. The work place is no place for reading the bible. Let him read his bible, and push he religious ideology, in his private time away from work.

Simply put, he broke the rules, and was fired for doing so. Everytime some bible thumper is fired for disrupting policies, the right jumps on it for their usual purpose, to distract the country from more pressing problems, and push their political game, the fantasy that there is some war on religion, as they try to twist a simple act of firing an employee for breaking the rules, into some sort of God threat, which doesn't exist.

It gets old. We clearly live in a country which allows freedom of religion. that does not mean the religious are given a bye for breaking company policies.

G. </span>

sack316
11-02-2009, 10:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="color: #000066">No, not IMO. They put up with it, obviously, for a while, and he continued to push it with further actions. The work place is no place for reading the bible. Let him read his bible, and push he religious ideology, in his private time away from work.

Simply put, he broke the rules, and was fired for doing so. Everytime some bible thumper is fired for disrupting policies, the right jumps on it for their usual purpose, to distract the country from more pressing problems, and push their political game, the fantasy that there is some war on religion, as they try to twist a simple act of firing an employee for breaking the rules, into some sort of God threat, which doesn't exist.

It gets old. We clearly live in a country which allows freedom of religion. that does not mean the religious are given a bye for breaking company policies.

G. </span> </div></div>

All well and good... had he been fired a year ago when he first committed the violation of company policy they say he was fired for.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-03-2009, 08:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="color: #000066">No, not IMO. They put up with it, obviously, for a while, and he continued to push it with further actions. The work place is no place for reading the bible. Let him read his bible, and push he religious ideology, in his private time away from work.

Simply put, he broke the rules, and was fired for doing so. Everytime some bible thumper is fired for disrupting policies, the right jumps on it for their usual purpose, to distract the country from more pressing problems, and push their political game, the fantasy that there is some war on religion, as they try to twist a simple act of firing an employee for breaking the rules, into some sort of God threat, which doesn't exist.

It gets old. We clearly live in a country which allows freedom of religion. that does not mean the religious are given a bye for breaking company policies.

G. </span> </div></div>

All well and good... had he been fired a year ago when he first committed the violation of company policy they say he was fired for.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066"> Bull, they don't put time limits on company regulations. Loads of employees are kept until they can be laid off in the timely fashion which is in the best interest of the company. I've done it myself. It happens all the time. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
11-03-2009, 10:53 AM
So you believe that company policies should only be enforced when enforcing them is in the best interest of the company?
Selective enforcement?
Why even have a policy if you won't enforce it every time?

Steve

sack316
11-03-2009, 09:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ASSOCIATE DRESS CODE AND APRON ETIQUETTE

The badges, buttons and pins on our aprons are awarded to our associates for customer service achievements, store accomplishments, years of service and company efforts or milestones. Our dress code policy states that we do not allow non-company buttons, regardless of their message or content, to be worn on aprons or other clothing to ensure a consistent policy for all associates. While we respect the beliefs of all of our associates, they are expected to abide by the company dress code during work hours.</div></div>

http://corporate.homedepot.com/wps/porta...VUMzAwMDAwMDA!/ (http://corporate.homedepot.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDdwNHH0tDU1M3g1APR0 N3pxBjAwgAykfC5H1MzN0MzDycDANMYdIGBHT7eeTnpuoX5EaU AwBsFGYb/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfMEcwQUw5MTU1RjBVSEExR0VUMz AwMDAwMDA!/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="color: #000066"> Bull, they don't put time limits on company regulations. Loads of employees are kept until they can be laid off in the timely fashion which is in the best interest of the company. I've done it myself. It happens all the time. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

Policy is policy. It was a cashier... are you seriously trying to tell me that over THIS LAST YEAR, and how everybody and their Momma is out looking for a job, that the store would have issues for a whole year finding a replacement cashier???

I've managed retail for a good portion of my adult life. You see a violation in dress code, you address the issue with the employee and make sure they have an understanding of what is expected and allowable. If they do not respond accordingly to company policy, you move on to written referrals (write ups). Once you have documented that you, as a manager, have addressed the issue, it's on paper with the employee's signature of his or her understanding, you have then CYA and can move on to suspensions and/or termination process. This is how every big box retailer operates... and this does not take a full year to accomplish.

I spoke with two friends about this, one who is in HR locally with Home Depot, and another who is a merchandiser in another state. They agreed that while the firing is valid, based on violation of company policy (to which I agree as well)... but that it is very suspect that the company waited so long to do so.

And again... seriously? "are kept until they can be laid off in the timely fashion which is in the best interest of the company". It was a cashier, during a year with so many people seeking out any and every job they could try to find. Do you REALLY think that applied in this instance? Really?

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-04-2009, 10:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They agreed that while the<span style='font-size: 14pt'> firing is valid</span>, based on <span style='font-size: 14pt'>violation of company policy </span>(to which I agree as well)... but that it is very suspect that the company waited so long to do so.
</div></div>

If you agree with this statement, then why are you argueing with me about it in the first place? Obviousl;y, there was nothing in the employee contract, that set time limits on breaking the rules, and enforcing them, by firing someone.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "are kept until they can be laid off in the timely fashion which is in the best interest of the company". </div></div>

If you don't agree with this statement, fine. Just don't try to tell me that it doesn't happen that way, it does, and furthermore, it was just a hypothetical reason, I made up, as to why they may have put off the firing, loads of other things could have entered into their decision to wait a year. Like, for example, maybe, this bible thumpper was getting on the nerves of other Employees, as they often do, in REAL LIFE, preaching their bull**** to people who don't want to hear it.

I don't care how much you know about retail, the EMPLOYEE CONTRACT is the crux of this discussion, and I have been a CONTRACTOR, On both sides, hiring, firing, buying, renting, and selling, my entire adult life, hence, I know a bit about CONTRACTS.

There may have been a whole range of reasons why they waited, but, the point is, they were well within their rights to fire him, when and how they chose to do so, given the company rules, and the EMPLOYEE CONTRACT. That is THE point.

G.

LWW
11-04-2009, 11:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They agreed that while the<span style='font-size: 14pt'> firing is valid</span>, based on <span style='font-size: 14pt'>violation of company policy </span>(to which I agree as well)... but that it is very suspect that the company waited so long to do so.
</div></div>

If you agree with this statement, then why are you argueing with me about it in the first place? Obviousl;y, there was nothing in the employee contract, that set time limits on breaking the rules, and enforcing them, by firing someone.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "are kept until they can be laid off in the timely fashion which is in the best interest of the company". </div></div>

If you don't agree with this statement, fine. Just don't try to tell me that it doesn't happen that way, it does, and furthermore, it was just a hypothetical reason, I made up, as to why they may have put off the firing, loads of other things could have entered into their decision to wait a year. Like, for example, maybe, this bible thumpper was getting on the nerves of other Employees, as they often do, in REAL LIFE, preaching their bull**** to people who don't want to hear it.

I don't care how much you know about retail, the EMPLOYEE CONTRACT is the crux of this discussion, and I have been a CONTRACTOR, On both sides, hiring, firing, buying, renting, and selling, my entire adult life, hence, I know a bit about CONTRACTS.

There may have been a whole range of reasons why they waited, but, the point is, they were well within their rights to fire him, when and how they chose to do so, given the company rules, and the EMPLOYEE CONTRACT. That is THE point.

G. </div></div>

From that I can only assume then that you agree Bush was well within his rights to fire the US attorneys when he did?

You really have no actual understanding of the concepts involved at all, do you.

LWW

sack316
11-04-2009, 05:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you agree with this statement, then why are you argueing with me about it in the first place? Obviousl;y, there was nothing in the employee contract, that set time limits on breaking the rules, and enforcing them, by firing someone.</div></div>

Because he wore it for a year, violating the same policy he was fired for, but it not word one was ever said about it until now. Home Depot is correct to set a policy, and apply it equally across the board. They should just follow through with it, fully and completely. From what I have read about this incident, nothing was said until he brought his bible into work. Say what you will about that... but don't you find the timing suspect that his button, worn for a year until this point with nothing said, suddenly became a religious button at that point?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "are kept until they can be laid off in the timely fashion which is in the best interest of the company". </div></div>

If you don't agree with this statement, fine. Just don't try to tell me that it doesn't happen that way, it does, and furthermore, it was just a hypothetical reason, I made up, as to why they may have put off the firing, loads of other things could have entered into their decision to wait a year. Like, for example, maybe, this bible thumpper was getting on the nerves of other Employees, as they often do, in REAL LIFE, preaching their bull**** to people who don't want to hear it.</div></div>

and I'm certain, were that the case, something to that effect would be included in the story.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't care how much you know about retail,</div></div>

That's too bad, because I'd be relatively certain I have more first hand knowledge of big box retail in today's world than anybody here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the EMPLOYEE CONTRACT is the crux of this discussion, and I have been a CONTRACTOR, On both sides, hiring, firing, buying, renting, and selling, my entire adult life, hence, I know a bit about CONTRACTS.</div></div>

Excellent. Tell us what generally happens when someone breaks a contract?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There may have been a whole range of reasons why they waited, but, the point is, they were well within their rights to fire him, when and how they chose to do so, given the company rules, and the EMPLOYEE CONTRACT. That is THE point.

G. </div></div>

I never said they weren't within their rights. There are a whole myriad of ways to be within your rights, but still do a pretty crappy thing.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-04-2009, 08:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you agree with this statement, then why are you argueing with me about it in the first place? Obviousl;y, there was nothing in the employee contract, that set time limits on breaking the rules, and enforcing them, by firing someone.</div></div>

Because he wore it for a year, violating the same policy he was fired for, but it not word one was ever said about it until now. Home Depot is correct to set a policy, and apply it equally across the board. They should just follow through with it, fully and completely. From what I have read about this incident, nothing was said until he brought his bible into work. Say what you will about that... but don't you find the timing suspect that his button, worn for a year until this point with nothing said, suddenly became a religious button at that point?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "are kept until they can be laid off in the timely fashion which is in the best interest of the company". </div></div>

If you don't agree with this statement, fine. Just don't try to tell me that it doesn't happen that way, it does, and furthermore, it was just a hypothetical reason, I made up, as to why they may have put off the firing, loads of other things could have entered into their decision to wait a year. Like, for example, maybe, this bible thumpper was getting on the nerves of other Employees, as they often do, in REAL LIFE, preaching their bull**** to people who don't want to hear it.</div></div>

and I'm certain, were that the case, something to that effect would be included in the story.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't care how much you know about retail,</div></div>

That's too bad, because I'd be relatively certain I have more first hand knowledge of big box retail in today's world than anybody here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the EMPLOYEE CONTRACT is the crux of this discussion, and I have been a CONTRACTOR, On both sides, hiring, firing, buying, renting, and selling, my entire adult life, hence, I know a bit about CONTRACTS.</div></div>

Excellent. Tell us what generally happens when someone breaks a contract?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There may have been a whole range of reasons why they waited, but, the point is, they were well within their rights to fire him, when and how they chose to do so, given the company rules, and the EMPLOYEE CONTRACT. That is THE point.

G. </div></div>

I never said they weren't within their rights. There are a whole myriad of ways to be within your rights, but still do a pretty crappy thing.

Sack </div></div>

The work place, is no place for reading the bible.

I imagine, they overlooked his button, until he started bringing the bible in, and then decided, that's ENOUGH! He's gone!

I may well have handled it the same way. Tried to overlook his religious BS, for a whoe year, and then, thought, "That's it! He's gone!...after he started preaching (maybe) or dragging his bible to work everyday.

Hey, like it or not, some people are offended by others who push their religious beliefs on others all the time. If I had an employee who rought a bible to work, he'd be gone.

some employess were possibly offended by his reading his bible on the lunch hour, many are offended when people are always hacking around about their religion.

I am one of those people, offended by organized religion, and it's devastating results, and hence, I can understand how this may have come about, over a period of a year.

He broke the rules, and they fired him. No Biggie!

pooltchr
11-04-2009, 09:37 PM
But he didn't get fired for reading the Bible on his lunch hour. He got fired for the button. The button was a violation of company policy. But it wasn't enough of a violation for over a year to cost him his job.
If there were a policy against reading the Bible on your lunch hour, then that could have been the reason. If there is no policy against reading the Bible on your lunch hour, and yet that was why he got fired, he would have a strong legal case for religious discrimination.

Maybe they should have a company policy against eating a ham sandwich on your lunch hour because it might offend some co-workers.

Your arguement doesn't hold water. Try again.

Steve

wolfdancer
11-04-2009, 11:14 PM
I don't know any details about the firing, and don't care to know any. I trust though that he violated company policy and that was not in violation of any labor rules and regs, nor against his civil rights. It might end up in the courts?...and I'd only be guessing at the outcome. Apparently Steve has it all figured out, as usual " you're argument doesn't hold water, but mine does" and as proof he is comparing the Bible to a ham sandwich.....
I tried once to bring a ham sandwich into work with me, when I was a towel attendant at a Mikvah. I was fired for that.

sack316
11-05-2009, 01:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But he didn't get fired for reading the Bible on his lunch hour. He got fired for the button. The button was a violation of company policy. But it wasn't enough of a violation for over a year to cost him his job.
If there were a policy against reading the Bible on your lunch hour, then that could have been the reason. If there is no policy against reading the Bible on your lunch hour, and yet that was why he got fired, he would have a strong legal case for religious discrimination.
</div></div>

Thank you, I was afraid I perhaps wasn't being very clear in what I was saying.

Sack

sack316
11-05-2009, 01:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The work place, is no place for reading the bible.</div></div>

I'm sorry, I didn't see that in any company policy. I see no drinking, I see no drugs, and things such as that. I don't see where any specific reading material is forbidden other than pornography. What would you say if Broughton Hospitality took action against a worker for reading a book about evolution on their lunch break? I go to a private college, and some religion courses are part of the requirement... which obviously in many instances a bible is useful as reference in some of the study material. I should not be allowed to study in the break room on my lunch break?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I imagine, they overlooked his button, until he started bringing the bible in, and then decided, that's ENOUGH! He's gone!</div></div>

Well I wouldn't call that "consistent policy" as they have it described. Would you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I may well have handled it the same way. Tried to overlook his religious BS, for a whoe year, and then, thought, "That's it! He's gone!...after he started preaching (maybe) or dragging his bible to work everyday.</div></div>

The preaching portion I agree with you on. If that were the case. But there is zero evidence of that being any factor. To say because he carried his bible around with him... well that sounds just as idiotic as the religious nuts you hate so much that do book burning ceremonies.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, like it or not, some people are offended by others who push their religious beliefs on others all the time. </div></div>

True enough... I totally agree! Show me anything where this is the case here, and I'd gladly concede the point! A statement from home depot, and interview with a co-worker... anything.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If I had an employee who rought a bible to work, he'd be gone.</div></div>

I wear a cross on my neck, and my grandfathers dogtags... everyday. Should that preclude me from any type of employment?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">some employess were possibly offended by his reading his bible on the lunch hour, many are offended when people are always hacking around about their religion.</div></div>

Dollars to doughnuts that more employees there are offended by his termination than were offended by him reading a bible.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am one of those people, offended by organized religion, and it's devastating results, and hence, I can understand how this may have come about, over a period of a year.</div></div>

Under your hypotheticals, sure... I'd probably even agree with you then.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He broke the rules, and they fired him. No Biggie!
</div></div>

He broke the rules for probably over 250 days he worked over that time too where he wasn't fired.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-05-2009, 08:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The work place, is no place for reading the bible.</div></div>

I'm sorry, I didn't see that in any company policy.

<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.

</span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<span style="color: #000066">then you didn't retain much from reading it. He was fired for expressing hes personal religious beliefs...as in <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"simply Not Allowed." </span> </span>

I see no drinking, I see no drugs, and things such as that. I don't see where any specific reading material is forbidden other than pornography. What would you say if Broughton Hospitality took action against a worker for reading a book about evolution on their lunch break? I go to a private college, and some religion courses are part of the requirement... which obviously in many instances a bible is useful as reference in some of the study material. I should not be allowed to study in the break room on my lunch break?

<span style="color: #000066">Events point more toward his having annoyed other employees. Maybe there is a reason why it wasn't spelled out after the fact. Work, is no place for religious material, period. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I imagine, they overlooked his button, until he started bringing the bible in, and then decided, that's ENOUGH! He's gone!</div></div>

Well I wouldn't call that "consistent policy" as they have it described. Would you?

<span style="color: #000066">Believe me, their employee contract, which I haven't read, will support their decision. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I may well have handled it the same way. Tried to overlook his religious BS, for a whoe year, and then, thought, "That's it! He's gone!...after he started preaching (maybe) or dragging his bible to work everyday.</div></div>

The preaching portion I agree with you on. If that were the case. But there is zero evidence of that being any factor.

<span style="color: #000066">LOL, I'd say the fact that they fired him, after overlooking his behavior for so long, might suggest that he was annoying others in his rhelm. Just my 2C. </span>
To say because he carried his bible around with him... well that sounds just as idiotic as the religious nuts you hate so much

<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Hold it right there, Sack. If you're going to start using that kind of unfair attacks, we're not going to be debating in the future. I don't hate anyone on this earth. Hatred is a fool's game, and I'm no fool. You can't get on here and write lies about me, and expect me to continue to debate with you. </span> </span>

that do book burning ceremonies.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, like it or not, some people are offended by others who push their religious beliefs on others all the time. </div></div>

True enough... I totally agree! Show me anything where this is the case here, and I'd gladly concede the point.
A statement from home depot, and interview with a co-worker... anything.

<span style="color: #000066">LOL, to tell you the truth, the story isn't really that important to me. While neither of us has the whole story, perhaps we can make a deal. If the employee sues and wins, you get to apologize... </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif <span style="color: #000066"> We are both, obviously, reading between the lines on this one, only you are getting all bent out of shape over it. Wazzup with that, Sack?</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If I had an employee who rought a bible to work, he'd be gone.</div></div>

I wear a cross on my neck, and my grandfathers dogtags... everyday. Should that preclude me from any type of employment?


<span style="color: #000066">LOL, Not a good comparison, Sack, I'm disappointed in you. </span>
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">some employess were possibly offended by his reading his bible on the lunch hour, many are offended when people are always hacking around about their religion.</div></div>

Dollars to doughnuts that more employees there are offended by his termination than were offended by him reading a bible.

<span style="color: #000066">I seriously doubt that. I didn't hear anything about his fellow employees up in arms over his termination. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am one of those people, offended by organized religion, and it's devastating results, and hence, I can understand how this may have come about, over a period of a year.</div></div>

Under your hypotheticals, sure... I'd probably even agree with you then.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He broke the rules, and they fired him. No Biggie!
</div></div>

He broke the rules for probably over 250 days he worked over that time too where he wasn't fired.

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">Clue. When an employee breaks the rules, there is no time limit in most contracts. Show me one employee contract that limits the amount of time after an offense, for termination. That's what I've been TRYING to point out to you all along. Employee contracts are set up to protect the employers, not the employees. You can thank your own party for that. Beginning with Reagan, who fought to protect business, and limit employees rights, by working to destroy the Unions.</span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
11-05-2009, 08:43 AM
As a member of management, if I allowed one of my employees to violate company policy for over a year with an offense thatis deemed bad enough to result in termination, I would expect that the termination would probably extend to me as well.

Steve

wolfdancer
11-05-2009, 02:50 PM
Do you solemnly swear on this <s>Bible</s>
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

The new Bible according to (http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/phrase/3499/ham-sandwich.html)

Gayle in MD
11-05-2009, 07:19 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif Hey, is that the Bubbabible?