new thread
Hello Everyone,
On an educational site in North Carolina, is a class on workplace harrassment, used by HR personnel. The example that follows is shocking:
Click on the link to read about a fictional case of a computer guy being harrassed at his job about his hair, and that his coworkers and superiors can make his life hell, and he has no recourse.
Fortunately, in Quebec, such a case would have been seen as harassement, and even, maybe sexual harassment, and would not have been tolerated. It slows down production, and destroys workplace harmony.
I may be wrong, but I do find this upsetting that any form of harassment is allowed that is not in the "protected categories".
Have a nice day,
Georges in Montreal.
Georges and everyone,
Remember this is a fictional situation, I suspect it is an educational game designed to raise the consciousness of people in NC.
I am sad to report that NC is a so-called "right to work" state, which means that an employer may fire an employee for any personal whim which displeases her. By law, if I have hired an employee and discover that she is a Christian, I can fire her forthwith.
In reality, this tends to happen only to homosexuals, and then only rarely, and it produces a community hub-bub when it happens, with a back lash against the employer.
One of the members of this site who said he was a faculty member at one the the NC state universities reported that he was the only long hair in his community. I can almost guess which campus, if his report was authentic, but when I asked he did not reply. I would guess Pembrock state, a small campus which serves a region in which there is a native American population only recently recognized by the BIA.
Long hair in NC is no big deal. I live in the mountainous west in the only city, which has less than 100,000. pop. I ate lunch at the local francise of the Red Lobster last week, and two of the waiters were long haired. Our waiter, had beautiful blond hair, and he was very helpful and patient, and after tipping him generously, leaving the table I said "you have admirable hair," and he smiled.
I went into an electronics store earlier in the week to buy a specialized battery, and noticed that 3/5 check out clerks had long hair.
If a private employer discriminates we have no recourse. But I assure you if a public employer discriminates, our local ACLU would be on the government in an instance. This is why some political parties in our beloved republic want to privatize everything. The government cannot require a civilian employee to eliminate in a cup, but if that task is outsourced, the private employee can.
This is one of the reasons there is a social virus in our country aimed to privatize everything. As our local Congressman in NC district 11 says "Government could mess up a one car funeral." I think that is an argument for him to resign, but he doesn't get the connection that he is messing up government. I think we will be able to get him out of office on 11/7.
If you think I am too political, it is because hair is a political issue involving our freedom.
Caldeonian
What the right to work laws actually do is to prohibit required union membership of workers at a job. In other words, a person may be hired without fear of being forced to join a union and pay union dues against their will. They have the freedom to join the union if they prefer.
Even in many non right-to-work states an employer may fire an employee. The flip side of this is that the employee has the freedom to leave any job without fear of recourse from the employer. It works both ways.
Right-to-work comes into play every day whenever an employee leaves a company, whether by choice or by force. It protects both the employer and the employee from lawsuits stemming from the separation.
Discrimination is illegal; recourse is through the courts. Right-to-work does not enable illegal practices as some might believe. This is a common argument against right-to-work, but is false.
Statistics show that where privatization has occurred the work has become much more efficient and costs have gone down. That is what competition does in a free market economy. Government run programs eliminate competition, and there is no cost control.
This social virus is called "freedom". Our country was founded on it. If allowed to proliferate we all would be much better off.
The system by which everything is run by the government is called "socialism". This is the opposite of a free market economy, which is competition based.
Sadly, facts bear this out. When a program is government run, there is no competition to force efficiency, cost control, employee responsibility, etc. Look at all of the $600 hammers and $1000 toilet seats purchased through government programs instead of allowing price competition through independent companies.
I have communicated privately with James (Caledonian) and I have great respect for him. He is passionate about his beliefs, as am I about mine. While we share the same passion and desire to change things, we don't always agree on our methods and ways of doing it.
It is this freedom of expression and the give and take between differing opinions that make our country what it is. As James and I have discussed in private, we may not agree on our views, but we must hear each other and understand where they are coming from to move ahead. We must never stop hearing the other side and learning from it.
And as a conservative Republican on a long hair forum, I find it unique (and pretty funny) that I am a minority on a minority forum. I guess I should demand equal rights, shouldn't I?
Big George
Oh please, you know very well that all the workers' freedom rights stuff screws the little guy. I love all this b.s. about "freedom"--freedom to do what, get a wage-slave job at wal-mart and get exploited? All the pro-business propaganda comes from people like Rush Limbaugh who is making $20 mil. a year, to be Karl Rove's mouthpiece. Are you making that kind of money? don't be a sucker--i have friends in the private sector; i hear their horror stories all the time--i know one guy who just got riffed out of his job--he's in his 50s and has little chance of finding something like what he had but oh, now he has his _freedom_ to what, watch the dow jones average go up, fall off the unemployment rolls eventually so the Republicans can mislead about the % who are unemployed, and watch his job get shipped off to some place like China. But now he can make something of himself. Rah Rah. I bet he'd rather have some rights that benefit him so he can work without worrying about getting screwed again.
No, most of the pro-business info comes from the 80% of the business people in this country classified as small business. If you want to get exploited at Wal-Mart, go ahead; its your choice. Where I am located they can't get enough workers; they are offering almost $10 per hour and bonus pay at MacD's and Wendy's; and it goes up from there. There are training programs in place looking for people to train for $20 -$25 per hour jobs that they can't fill. If your exploited, make a change. Don't just sit on your bum and gripe.
Every one always wants to blame others for their misfortune. When I was younger and out of work I did things like paint apartments, go door to door and install door viewers, etc; just to make enough money to get along. I didn't sit around and wait for someone to take care of me.
Do some small businesses fail? Sure they do. I had one fail when a German company I was representing filed bankruptcy. I had two choices; quit or move on. I moved on.
If you have no education, no work history, and no motivation, Wal-Mart is a blessing. If that's not what you want to do, do something about it. Find another job; take some computer classes; start a lawn and landscaping business (very low capital up front); paint houses; get a job as an apprentice for a plumber or carpenter and learn a trade; go to trade school; get an education. Your choices are limitless. Your only restriction is your attitude.
I know a number of small business people that are very successful. You need to associate with them and learn from them; not complain that they are successful and you are not.
And if you are satisfied sitting around and complaining about everyone else that moves past you, keep it up. It's a position you will hold for a long long time.
Big George
Is $10 an hour a lot for walmart?
I get way more, and I also work in retail.
It's close; Wal-Mart is pretty much a "slightly above minimum wage" position.
Right on, Big George, for saying it. I had for years belonged to the camp that held capitalism, big business, and free trade as the evils of the world (though with only anecdotal stories to back up any extreme (at times) claims. It took me years of self-study and comparing numbers to come to the conclusion that your posting is absolutely right:
Working at WalMart is a CHOICE! (as is not working at WalMart).
If one wants to complain that they are somehow being exploited by WalMart, I would ask them to consider why they would choose to leave themselves in a situation like that...there must be some payoff that makes it worthwhile (unless that person is a masochist) and therefore it is a voluntary trade to mutual benefit. The benefit might not be equal and WalMart may, in fact, make more money off of one as a worker than that person gets paid, but tough! Those are the terms under which that person accepted their job.
Anyone looking for stats (many from the UN) which show the corallories between open markets, free trade, and pure capitalism and a country's wealth, individual freedom, standard of living, education, health and average lifespan, I would highly recommend Johan Norberg's 'Defense of Global Capitalism' (linked to below).
Thanks again, Big George.
Shawn (Mr. Crow)
In the District of Colombia, 'hair style' IS a 'protected class' under the DC Human Rights Act. I have only been working in DC since March (I live in Maryland), and until I took this job and found out about the law I never knew how good it would make me feel just knowing that my boss is not permitted to tell me to 'get a haircut'.
We really should campaign to get this law passed in other places. the list of protected classes in DC is the longest I have ever seen, but do you know what that means? It means that if we used the DC law as a model then lots of other people would fall in with us so that their rights could be protected too!
As for harassment, my dictionary (Concise Oxford) says:-
harass /, disp. / v.tr.
1 trouble and annoy continually or repeatedly.
2 make repeated attacks on (an enemy or opponent).
harasser n.
harassingly adv.
harassment n.
[French harasser from Old French harer ‘set a dog on’]
Usage
That may not meet the legal definition in North carolina, but it damn well should!
Thanks for the info. I checked out the site and went on to the next scenario(about the guy with the cap and jewelry). I guessed "yes" and was right because the harrassment was based on his heritage. If the first guy had said he was celebrating his heritage by wearing his hair long, that would have been workplace harrassment. I've got some Cherokee and Creek Indian ancestry which I am going to celebrate by growing my hair out. I'm really excited about the prospects! Happy Growing...Mike
So therefore, if I were to claim I was growing hair to celebrate my ancestry (Scottish/English) by pointing out the likes of William Wallace, Robert de Bruce, and various Vikings, Scottish Highlanders, Saxons, and Jutes, would that be as valid as claiming Native American heritage? I think it would, but who would buy it? What is the difference?
Hi Bragi,
I think the difference or non-difference is whether that would prevail in the courts.
Glad to know you've found your road to independence.
Hans-Uwe
How about if you said you made a oath to God that you would keep your hair long?
Wonder if that would hold any water...
Well people of the Sikh religion are required to not cut their hair, though not all Sikhs abide by that today.
Sikhs also normally keep their long hair in a knot on top of their heads and cover it with a turban.
Charles
Negative reactions to longhairs always surprise me. I suppose, as they say, people fear what they don't understand.
It might not be considered harrasment but it would be definitaly fail any Treatment of others policy the company might have.
For example if you start calling names, and these have nothing to do with any of the categories, it will fall under a poor treatment of others.
That was actually a bad choice of an example for their students. Why? Because the answer is not black-and-white clear.
"Sex" is a protected class, and only men have beards. If a man wants to celebrate his male-ness, how is growing a beard different than someone who wants to celebrate his race or religion by taking on a certain look? Also, men are harassed about long hair more than are women, again a distinction drawn on sex.
Most courts have done lots of wiggling to get around the arguments just presented in the previous paragraph, but that maneuvering is based on shaky logic and is not mentioned, which leaves the student scratching his head a bit. Black and white examples are best given to beginning students. Complex examples that rely on court interpretations are best reserved for law students.
Bill