Religious Accomodations in the Workplace
As the subject of religion becomes a topic that more and more people feel comfortable talking about in the public sphere, workplaces are being forced to make tough decisions regarding how to make the office a comfortable place for believers (of any faith) and non-believers alike. In When Religious Needs Test Company Policy Kelley Holland explores ideas on how to create a welcoming workplace.
She compares two major companies, Ford and Procter & Gamble...who take very different approaches to the religious accommodation issue. Ford takes a very involved approach. They established the Ford Interfaith Network, an employee-run committee that works to bring accommodations (such as sinks designed for religious washings for Muslims) and holds discussions on different religions. On the other side of the issue sits P&G who takes a "hands-off" approach. P&G does not offer ANY organized religious activities on company property, choosing to deal with accommodations by offering its employees "floating holidays" that they can use whenever they deem appropriate (such as for religious observations) and offers empty rooms that employees may choose to use as prayer rooms.
Ms. Holland also mentions the British Airways incident where a stewardess was told she could not wear her cross on the outside of her uniform. British Airways saw their uniform as a representation of the company and did not allow any type of jewelry to be worn on top of the uniform. The stewardess lost two appeals and was put on unpaid leave, until newspaper editorials, Prime Minister Blair, and the Anglican Church all criticized the airline. Recently British Airways had revised their policy to allow religious pins to be worn on the lapel. I feel like the airline had a great argument that their uniform was a representation of their company and they did not want to include religious symbols on the uniform. Do you agree with British Airways giving in to public and church opinion to allow employees to showcase their religion on their uniform?
She compares two major companies, Ford and Procter & Gamble...who take very different approaches to the religious accommodation issue. Ford takes a very involved approach. They established the Ford Interfaith Network, an employee-run committee that works to bring accommodations (such as sinks designed for religious washings for Muslims) and holds discussions on different religions. On the other side of the issue sits P&G who takes a "hands-off" approach. P&G does not offer ANY organized religious activities on company property, choosing to deal with accommodations by offering its employees "floating holidays" that they can use whenever they deem appropriate (such as for religious observations) and offers empty rooms that employees may choose to use as prayer rooms.
Ms. Holland also mentions the British Airways incident where a stewardess was told she could not wear her cross on the outside of her uniform. British Airways saw their uniform as a representation of the company and did not allow any type of jewelry to be worn on top of the uniform. The stewardess lost two appeals and was put on unpaid leave, until newspaper editorials, Prime Minister Blair, and the Anglican Church all criticized the airline. Recently British Airways had revised their policy to allow religious pins to be worn on the lapel. I feel like the airline had a great argument that their uniform was a representation of their company and they did not want to include religious symbols on the uniform. Do you agree with British Airways giving in to public and church opinion to allow employees to showcase their religion on their uniform?
posted by stevie at
5:25 PM
2 Comments:
Again, a great preview of a topic to which we'll devote an entire class after the break!
As far as which approach is best, the "involved" or the "hands-off" approach, I think it's great that Ford is attempting to create a workplace where different religions are accepted and understood; however, it may create a slippery slope, wherein they could be pressured to provide more and more accomodations for every religion, which could become costly. I feel as long as a company does not discriminate or make it impossible for an employee to practice religious observances, a "hands off" approach might be best.
In the case of British Airways, I feel that they were entitled to claim the uniforms as a representation of the company and therefore enforce rules regarding what can be worn on the uniform. I'm surprised that they were forced to change this policy; however, I really don't see any damage. An employee who wishes to wear a cross (or any other religious symbol) but who respects the religious differences of others doesn't seem to be breaking any rules to me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home