"while the will of the minority is respected and protected, there must also be a point where the will of the majority is respected and executed?"

Yes, that point is when lives are at stake, not over such trivial social matters as these.

this is entertain' stuff

I think a few concepts were confused witheach other,
perhaps because the terms used were a bit simplistic
& allowed different interpretations.

for example,
1 equality is not the same as uniformity

2 all workers should be equal
equal in what ? their rights to fair treatment ---- yes
their talents and abilities ? --- ridiculous

Religion, like Politics can be divisive at the workplace,
& they provide good tests for management skills.

One management style, that is popular, is to "eliminate any discordant voices"
to insist on "all singing the same song with no variation allowed"
it has it's benefits & costs & management challenges

Another management style, is to "allow some discordant voices", to "allow some individuality" it has it's benefits and costs & management challenges

and so on

What suits one business may well not suit another

So if a business needs more "rote task performance" and less "creativity & flexibility"
then the " uniform sausages approach" may work best & dissenters are to be expelled.

Another business may need a high level of creativity & flexibility & less "rote task performance"

Not all business's are the same, nor are all employees (across a wide range of criteria in both cases )

I worked in Mining Exploration, & the "program" doesn't just change week to week,
it can change 5 times a day.
7 am work 3 more days on this job, drive to location (a) do 10 or 12 days there then take a 5 day break
9 am Crisis at location (a) finish what you can today drive to location (A) asap
we'll work out the break later (if that's even consider'd)
11 am Forget location (a) it's stuffed for two weeks, stay here till your break
1 pm They've found equipment x and it's going to be at location (a) in four days
we want you to be there to fire that up & get them operating
3 pm No, leave tomorrow and get parts y from location (b) for equipment x
meet the truck with equipment x at location (c) to check compatability, then proceed to location (a) with all the gear
5 pm don't worry about it. fred will take care of all that, stay on this job till your break

next day, 3 pm Fred crashed his 4wd emergency pack & go

etc etc

as for the example of the "time waster" I think the chap must have had other "virtues"
so the example is that a team of different people can be very productive in their totality.

eg a chap might be a minor genius, but also a bit daffy with poor social skills.
so you don't let clients see him if you can help it,
but he's the chap who will provide the "elegantly simple solution to the seemingly
unsolvable problem" twice a day

New employees get told " That scruffy chap humming the dance of the sugarplum fairies from Swan Lake occasionally eats someone's lunch from the staff fridge. When that happens to you, don't make a scene about it, don't even mention it to him, or he'll burst into tears and hide in the broom cupboard until the tea lady sings him a Lullaby.
Just see your supervisor and the company will give you $15- to buy a replacement lunch. He's the absolute genius at solving encryption problems and data transfer problems and spotting design flaws."

And the new employee says, "Oh Dwaugnar, we play Wendiplomacy together,
no problems there that can't be managed"

+1 MajorM.
Although if he has other virtues he's not a time waster. He's simply taking breaks among highly productive periods.

Even I plus oned that MjrMitch. That is pretty much how I (and a few other developers here) operate. Although I do go in front of the client (team lead and all that rot), my wated time is rarely wasted as I am normally thinking about a problem int he back of my brain and I always come through in a crisis. Oh, I never eat others lunch...

I disagree about time wasting anyway, at least in some cases. Some people may need time away from a problem as part of their problem solving skills. It is a silly and illogical prejudice of the past that if an employee isn't working on their task right now, they are wasting your money. Walking around the halls greeting people may be a crucial part of their ability to solve problems at all; if they sat and coded all the time, their productivity might go down, not up. This should at least be considered; and if they are a good employee, it would be exceptionally stupid to fire them because they did not spend as much time actually coding (e.g.) as others while doing their job.

This, by the way, is also how the original question should be approached. View the contribution of the person in a totality. If the good they do despite their objection is a net benefit (and about as much of a benefit as the average replacement employee, accounting for cost of training, etc.), then accomodate them. If not, then let them go. Pretty simple. Don't be a rigid jackass, and don't run your company into the ground accomodating requests that you shouldn't. Seems so simple that it shouldn't have to be said.

"I disagree about time wasting anyway, at least in some cases. Some people may need time away from a problem as part of their problem solving skills. It is a silly and illogical prejudice of the past that if an employee isn't working on their task right now, they are wasting your money. Walking around the halls greeting people may be a crucial part of their ability to solve problems at all; if they sat and coded all the time, their productivity might go down, not up. This should at least be considered; and if they are a good employee, it would be exceptionally stupid to fire them because they did not spend as much time actually coding (e.g.) as others while doing their job."

-In these cases, the person is not *actually* a person wasting his time, he's just not displaying useful activity. Synapse's poste mentioned "a time wasting person", not a "person who manages his time in terms of peak and low productivity period and hence has the same production everyone else does."

Good example. I just got out of a 90 minute meeting going over the approach for a project and now I'm figuring out who I am giving what work to and what part I will tackle myself. My notes are in, and I will be comparing my notes with the skillsets of the various people under me on this project along with their workload and priorities of the various tasks to get a plan together. But I need it to simmer in the back while I also consider who might not be best but could do the job and expand out capabilities without putting the schedule at risk. So I am here chatting a little while I think about that plus wait for some replies to my folkswhere I offered up new learning to see who might be interested in tackling some of the farther out things and improving their skillsets. I will make my final decisions tonight probably around 10 or 11 PM.

Am I wasting time here on the site? Maybe, but thoughts about skills, personalities, and what I know fromt he rumor mill about certain individuals I might be able to scalp wanting out of their present projects are also running through my head (one in particular who I *know* can do anything I throw her way, she is an awesome developer).

Woah! When the fuck did I become a manager! :-/

On the other hand, an employer who requires his employees to stop and pray.......

that wouldn't result in an EEOC lawsuit at all would it ;-)

Straight from the EEOC's manual as directed by the Frredom From Religon's website:


EXAMPLE 15
Religious Conformance Required for Promotion

Wamiq was raised as a Muslim but no longer practices Islam. His supervisor, Arif, is a very devout Muslim who tries to persuade Wamiq not to abandon Islam and advises him to follow the teachings of the Quran. Arif also says that if Wamiq expects to advance in the company, he should join Arif and other Muslims for weekly prayer sessions in Arif’s office. Notwithstanding this pressure to conform his religious practices in order to be promoted, Wamiq refused to attend the weekly prayer sessions, and was subsequently denied the promotion for which he applies even though he was the most qualified. Arif’s conduct indicates that the promotion would have been granted if Wamiq had participated in the prayer sessions and had become an observant Muslim. Absent contrary evidence, the employer will be liable for harassment for conditioning Wamiq’s promotion on his adherence to Arif’s views of appropriate religious practice.[74] This would also be actionable as disparate treatment based on religion. In addition, if the prayer sessions were made mandatory and Wamiq had asked to be excused on religious grounds, Arif would have been required to excuse him from the prayer sessions as a reasonable accommodation.

I've got a religious joke for you ....... Church of England not allowing women bishops, how funny are they !!

EXAMPLE 19
Reasonable Person Perceives Conduct To Be Hostile

Although he hired employees of all religions, the Director of “Get Drug Free Today” required employees to sign a statement that they would support the values of the Church of Scientology. He regularly chastised those whose conduct did not conform to those values. A reasonable person would perceive this to be a religiously hostile work environment. [95]

Anyway why is this friendly atheist guy whining about the EEOC defending the rights of people that he disagrees with when it is just as willing to defend those that he would support?

Yeah, doesn't seem very friendly to me.

Did I end another thread? Shoot 2 for 2 and I've only been back a week or so. :-)

Requiring an employee to pray = actional bad thing. Sue the bastard!

Recommending that an employee do religious things to get a promotion = bad thing but should not be actionable. The owenr/manager can choose any grounds on which to base promotions in a privately owned company. He may find he loses top employees that way, but office politics, even religious ones, are part of the game if you want to get promoted. I do certain things to play into that promotion mind set and they have worked, but other things I refuse to do (like suck up by playing in the golf league [golf sucks] or going drinking on Thursday night with the other managers and team leads).

Hilarious. Who would have though that choosing to take advantage of your freedom of religion to follow imbecilic and nonsensical doctrines might have real world consequences?

No more kowtowing to the fundies. Fuck 'em all.

Seriously though, these issues need to be considered on an individual basis. I think most employers are more than happy to make reasonable concessions for those that believe in fairy tales. But there are cases where it gets out of hand.

The problem is generally with employers who believe trying to force prayer on those who don't, even though the company isn't a religious based one.

Take RoadID (whom I used to work for)... Free pizza every Friday but they *always* prayed over the meal and nobody could take anything until afetr the prayer and everyone was expected to pray the Lord's Prayer with them. What a crock! I'm a believer but have a problem with forcing my views on others who may not. Faith is a personal thing. If someone wants to *Ask* me about my views or has a problem and *asks* me to come a while and pray, fine. But to say "here is free pizza if you pray with us and, if you don't, we will look down upon you as not being a team player." Well that is quite simply bullshit of the highest order.

So we've established that the EEOC protects the rights of people who are not religious as well as those who are, and that's too hard to counter so let's go with ad hominem attacks?

I'm still curious as to why this guy is whining in the first place. The EEOC is there to protect employees from being maltreated. All he did was say lawsuits had been filed. He didn't mention one suit that anybody actually won.

It's a pretty silly article, designed to get people who already agree with him fired up about a nonissue.

Now I agree with what Draug said.

Forcing your religious views as an employer on others is wrong. And the EEOC is there to protect people from that as a last resort.

"so let's go with ad hominem attacks?"
"I'm still curious as to why this guy is whining "

And both from the same person in the *same post*. Hey pot! The kettle is calling!

Perhaps you're right Draug.

I hadn't placed calling the article whining on the same level as calling others doctrines imbecilic and nonsensical.

My apologies YJ

Still seems like the guy is worried about an organization defending people he doesn't agree with when it is obviously there to defend others that he would. Either let it do it's job as is protecting everyone, or shut it down and deny everyone it's protection.

Silly debate. Clearly all religions are not equal. MINE is right, and all the rest of you are going to hell!!

Anyone that *truly* believes in their own religion will believe my statement is true. If you *truly* believe your religion, but don't believe my statement...then I strongly, strongly question your "faith".

@CA - You were calling the *author* whiny, not the article ("this guy" is the author). But I was mostly poking fun at you. It is stupid to imply there is something wrong with filing the lawsuit before the decision is reached. LEt the courts do their thing. They usually get it right in this kind of thing.

Hey I'm just saying, if one chooses to allow dogma to supersede conclusions drawn from the observable, why is anybody surprised that the same person will then make ludicrous decisions and requests in the real world?

@ Draug

Yeah I kinda figured, but wasn't really taking the right tone there anyway. So I accepted the chance to change it.

@ YJ

You clearly have your mind made up. As far a ludicrous decisions go, secular people make them too. I just got back from my grandfather's completely secular funeral in which they left out such choice bits of information about him as the fact that he served every day of WWII, that he was a lifelong mason, that he was a genius at making the coolest mechanical gadgets, Oh yeah, and his NAME.

Not a reflection on atheists, I've never really considered them such. They're just people who don't go to church and are assholes.

I can see why you would want to associate religion with making poor choices, but you're just wrong in that.