About 150 Muslim workers at the JBS Swift meatpacking plant in Greeley, Colorado didn’t show up for work on Monday after they were told the company wouldn’t accommodate to the holy month of Ramadan, as reported by The Tribune, of Greeley.
Ramadan is a month of fasting, and one of the five pillars of Islam, during which people of the faith don’t eat between sun-up and sundown. The dispute came about when the workers wanted to take their break at 7:30pm instead of 9:30pm so they could drink water and eat after a day of fasting. JBS refused because they claimed it would be unfair to the non-Muslim workers at the plant. They then reportedly told the employees to not show up for work until the dispute could be settled, which as of this writing has yet to happen.
This is a very critical issue in the world of religion and American law and something that is popping up more and more in the growing, diverse religious population of our country. The article states that United States law requires companies to “make reasonable accommodations” for religious observances. The question then becomes what is defined as reasonable? If a religious observance slows production or causes halts in a factory, is that reasonable? Does the company decide what’s reasonable or do the courts?
Especially in a country of pluralism, where pretty much anything can be called ‘religion’, the definition becomes increasingly important. I’m sure that in any given week, there is some religion in the world that has some kind of holy day that requires it’s members to do some kind of ritual that may disrupt a work-type setting. How far do we go in allowing these observances? How much can we force people to let go of their religious beliefs when it interferes with our careers?
I really don’t think there is an easy solution to this problem. If there were, we’d have come to it already. It might be easier to say that each worker gets so many ‘religious observance’ days, much like sick days. Or maybe we just get rid of them altogether because of the enormous possibilities for fraud. I don’t believe that our current method of handling these situations is an effective one. It seems like every year there are more and more cases such as this. I had an internship this summer and was told I could no longer use “God Bless” at the end of my e-mails. The issue is obviously a little bit different, but I was definitely being asked to somewhat quarantine my faith while I was on the job. In this particular case I didn’t mind, but if it was something truly important to me, I can easily see where it becomes a much bigger problem.
This problem doesn’t just affect the workplace either. It is now clearly spilling into the education system too. In the syllabus for this very class, Religion and American Law, missing a class session due to religious observance is just as excused as an athletic event or doctor’s appointment. That term religious observance is so broad as it is that it’s nearly impossible to give a clear definition. Is there a way in which we can narrow it down and make it more black and white, or will it be stuck forever in gray?
Posts
2 comments:
I think Jeremy brings up a good point. It does seem impossible to come up with a solution that seems fair in cases dealing with religious freedom. Ideally, everybody could practice their own religious beliefs without encroaching on those of others. It is hard for our legal system to step into these situations because businesses and the state lose money with the decreased productivity that inevitably follows more time off for employees and the inconsistencies of flexible scheduling. On the other hand, the court would not want to seem like they were diminishing another religion’s importance by not allowing the workers to freely, follow their beliefs. As Jeremy pointed out, it would also be hard to decipher what is “acceptable” for missing work.
I believe in this situation that the business was right. Having a break two hours earlier would have been nice for the workers, but it was not necessary to follow their religious practices and beliefs. Since it was not necessary, it would have been unfair to the other workers. The inflexibility of the break time in no way prevented them from fasting. I do not see why the company should have to let them break two hours earlier just because they are hungry. Also, there are many jobs that mandate work on Christmas and other widely “accepted” holidays so this situation over break time and two hours of more hunger seems slightly overblown.
Last fall, I took a course on Islamic Ethics that started around 4:45 in the afternoon. I learned a lot, but somehow I was oblivious to the growing lethargy among the many Arab, Persian and South Asian students in the class. When the professor invited us all to a celebratory iftar (dinner/feast) to conclude the month of Ramadan, I was disgusted at how many times I’d unknowingly entered the classroom with a sandwich or cup of coffee that had surely tempted the poor yet ambitious souls.
I decided, out of guilt and curiosity, that I would attempt to observe Ramadan this year; I lasted one week before I made up my mind to wait until a year when Ramadan fell during a season with shorter days than 6:40am – 7:40pm. Going about the most active thirteen hours of the day with absolutely no food or water is, well, really difficult.
Jeremy makes a good general point that it can become a sticky situation for businesses or the government to attempt to define what constitutes a legitimate religious observance, or even a religion. But I think this specific incident is fairly clear rather than an obscure exception. Islam is a major world religion, and as noted, observance of Ramadan is one of its pillars, or duties incumbent upon every Muslim adult. They definitely aren’t just trying to shirk their responsibilities.
In addition, I disagree strongly with Francisco’s comment that the two extra hours of hunger seem overblown. The men’s religious obligations already leave them with a very inopportune time frame to nourish their bodies, as most of it is during our typical hours of rest. Another two hours of fasting would not only disrupt the men’s ability to stay healthy during Ramadan, but it would keep them from having a much-needed energy boost for what is likely a rather physically demanding job. Everyone who has seen Rocky knows that it takes a lot of effort just to pummel massive slabs of meat, much less to transport and package them! The men are not asking for more time off – just an earlier break. Unless a contingent of non-Muslim workers actually came and presented a good argument about the unfairness of the exception, granting the men’s request seems as though it would benefit all parties and create a decent amount of goodwill.
Post a Comment