 |
 |
I'm normally a lurker here but feel moved to comment on this. So, from the article: 'For example, if a Jew asks not to have to work on a Saturday for religious reasons, his employer could accommodate this with minimum disruption simply by changing the rota. This would potentially be reasonable and would provide a good outcome for both employee and employer. Taking the devil's advocate position here (a suitable term I think): if I, as a conscientious philosophical atheist, am the person instructed to take the Saturday slot instead of my equally conscientious and observant Jewish colleague, what rights do I have under the current legislation to complain about this apparently positive discrimination in favour of another's belief system to my personal disadvantage? Again, if I find some religious object or image worn, used or displayed by my co-workers offensive to my (non-)beliefs, where might I stand? This may seem a petty or minor matter but I suspect it would not be seen as minor in the average workplace and the non-believer may hold his or her philosophical beliefs with as much tenacity and sincerity as a 'believer'. Questions like this may well be, as Darren says, more problematic than helpful. On another point, how long should the law continue to allow the C of E to discriminate against female clerics or gay men who wish to become bishops (for instance)? Should that blatant discrimination be subject to reasonable adjustments which permit the practice to continue? There's a bizarre danger of actually legally enshrining forms of clear discrimination as technically non-discriminatory through these suggestions. Richard Price --On 12 July 2011 13:51 +0100 "Mooney, Darren" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Dear All > > I was wondering if anybody else had seen this press release from the EHRC > about intervening in the cases of Nadia Eweida & Shirley Chaplin and > Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane > > http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2011/july/commission-proposes-rea > sonable-accommodation-for-religion-or-belief-is-needed/ > > The commission seems to be advocating a 'reasonable accommodation' > approach (similar to reasonable adjustments) for religious beliefs. In my > opinion the current law and approach already allows for accommodation > where required, but allows an organisation to justify certain decisions > such as dress codes, time off for religious observance, contract > conditions etc . To adopt a requirement to reasonable accommodate all > religious and philosophical belief systems may be more problematic than > helpful. > > Any other thoughts? > > Darren > > > > > > Darren Mooney BSc, MA > > Diversity & Equality Officer > > Human Resources > > Hart Building > > University of Liverpool > > Liverpool > > L3 5TQ > > > > T: 0151 795 5975 > > E: [log in to unmask] > > W: http://www.liv.ac.uk/hr/diversity_equality/ > > > > BAME Staff Network: [log in to unmask] > > Disabled Staff Network: [log in to unmask] > > LGBT Staff Network: [log in to unmask] > > > > [Image: "logos"] > > > Richard Price, Staff Welfare Officer. JMS 4D8, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton. BN1 9QG Tel. 01273-877712; Internal 7712 [log in to unmask]