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]
|