The Worker Thread

[Seth Milner]

[rstrong]

Looks like either a Democratic candidate for Governor of California in 2003, or a Republican candidate for President in 2020.

[JTA]

I wanted to get a bitchin' tattoo on my scalp so I can look like Ragnar lothbrok when my baldness comes to completion here shortly but nah.

[O Really]

Anybody ever known somebody personally who had major face tats? (that would probably be you, JTA)
WTF were they thinking? Do they feel so totally disconnected from the rest of the world that they think at the time it doesn't matter? Is it just a desperate attention-grabber? I've got no problem in general with body art, but that just looks self-destructive.

[O Really]

It will be interesting to see how the "religious freedom" people play this one.


Suspended Muslim Flight Attendant Sues ExpressJet


Law360, New York (August 9, 2016, 6:34 PM ET) -- A Muslim flight attendant has filed a discrimination lawsuit against Atlanta-based ExpressJet Airlines Inc., claiming the airline refused to accommodate her religious beliefs and suspended her for refusing to serve passengers alcohol.

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relation filed the suit Friday on behalf of Charee Stanley, who says the airline placed her on administrative leave because she wouldn’t personally serve alcohol, in accordance with her faith.

Stanley contends the airline forced her “to choose between her religion and her job” and “acted with malice due to pique at [her] opposition and protestation at the denial of her accommodation request.”

The lawsuit, in federal court in Detroit, alleges a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and a state civil rights law. It seeks reinstatement of her position, as well as back pay and damages.

Stanley started working for ExpressJet in January 2013, which the lawsuit said is around the same time she converted to Islam. As she began learning more about the religion, she realized it prohibits her not just from consuming alcohol, but also from serving it to others.

In June 2015, she asked a supervisor for an accommodation and, at first, ExpressJet obliged, telling Stanley to make arrangements with the other flight attendant on duty when a passenger made a request for alcohol, the complaint said.

Things seemed to be going well, but a couple months later ExpressJet allegedly reversed itself. Stanley claims she was told she wouldn’t be allowed to continue directing passenger’s alcohol requests to other flight attendants.

“Ms. Stanley was told to either resign from her employment or keep her employment and serve alcohol in violation of her religious belief,” her complaint said.

The lawsuit said the change came after another flight attendant complained about Stanley not wanting to personally serve alcohol. The coworker also mentioned her hijab and book with “foreign writings.”

Stanley said she protested the airline revoking a religious accommodation it had previously granted, both in letters and meetings. In late August 2015, she was told she was being placed on administrative leave for 12 months, after which her employment would be ended, the lawsuit said.

Stanley's case gained national attention last September when she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency issued a notice of right to sue and dismissed the complaint in May, without determining whether ExpressJet violated the law.

Representatives for the airline could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.

Stanley is represented by Lena F. Masri of Council on American-Islamic Relation, Michigan.

Counsel information for ExpressJet is not yet available.

The case is Charee Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines Inc., case number 2:16-cv-12884, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

[Vrede too]

My opinion: Serving booze is integral to the job and refusing to do so diminishes the efficiency of passenger service and places an unfair burden on other flight attendants.

That said, I'd also punish the other flight attendant for mentioning her hijab and book with “foreign writings.” This calls into question the complainer's ability to contribute to a nondiscriminatory workplace and provide nondiscriminatory passenger service.

[JTA]

Anybody ever known somebody personally who had major face tats? (that would probably be you, JTA)
WTF were they thinking? Do they feel so totally disconnected from the rest of the world that they think at the time it doesn't matter? Is it just a desperate attention-grabber? I've got no problem in general with body art, but that just looks self-destructive.

It was a fad amongst dumb ladies in their twenties back in the mid to late aughts to get stars or some other bullshit tattooed behind their ears in order to be unique. I suppose that sort of counts. The tat could be hidden with hair, but still stupid imo.

[Vrede too]

Rarely appealing to me, but some people have careers where it doesn't matter. Though tats are permanent, which is a difference, the same things have been said at times about long male hair, short female hair, combovers, beehives, afros, facial hair, male earrings, gaudy female earrings, fake tans, makeup and lack of makeup. If it's not a business I own, I don't care.

[Seth Milner]

Looks like either a Democratic candidate for Governor of California in 2003, or a Republican candidate for President in 2020.

Or either. Possibly could be a front-running candidate for Canadian PM or mayor of Winnipeg.

[rstrong]

Looks like either a Democratic candidate for Governor of California in 2003, or a Republican candidate for President in 2020.

Or either. Possibly could be a front-running candidate for Canadian PM or mayor of Winnipeg.

Unlike California and post-Tea Party Republican primaries, neither race is noted for "zany" characters.

But your unbroken record for utterly missing the point is noted.

[JTA]

I'm gonna start a company that only hires these unique snowflakes. We'll pool our knowledge together and sell the best products known to man

[Vrede too]

[Boatrocker]

Trickle Up is working.

[Mr.B]

^^

[O Really]

So as of a couple of days ago, about 22 million workers expected, with good reason, to either get a raise or start getting overtime for all hours over 40 in a workweek, effective December 1.

After having ample time to consider, a Federal Texas judge (Obama appointee!) demonstrated, in stopping implementation of the new minimum salary for exemption from overtime, that he knew absolutely nothing about the history of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 1938, or how the "minimum salary" for employees exempt from overtime has worked since then. Therefore the 22 million will have coal in their stockings and Trump's people will get a chance to change the rule entirely. Merry Christmas, mo-fo's!

[billy.pilgrim]

So as of a couple of days ago, about 22 million workers expected, with good reason, to either get a raise or start getting overtime for all hours over 40 in a workweek, effective December 1.

After having ample time to consider, a Federal Texas judge (Obama appointee!) demonstrated, in stopping implementation of the new minimum salary for exemption from overtime, that he knew absolutely nothing about the history of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 1938, or how the "minimum salary" for employees exempt from overtime has worked since then. Therefore the 22 million will have coal in their stockings and Trump's people will get a chance to change the rule entirely. Merry Christmas, mo-fo's!

As I have maintained for 7 years, obama is a republicon


He received a hearing before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary for September 9, 2014.[4] On November 20, 2014 his nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[5] On Saturday, December 13, 2014 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed a motion to invoke cloture on the nomination. On December 16, 2014, Reid withdrew his cloture motion on Mazzant's nomination, and the Senate proceeded to vote to confirm Mazzant in a voice vote. He received his federal judicial commission on December 19, 2014.[6]

[Vrede too]

Walmart, labor group clash over app that connects employees

Walmart makes it difficult for workers to access company policy.

[O Really]

Walmart makes it difficult for workers to access company policy.

Actually, they don't. I really hate to have to say nice things about Wal-Mart - and there aren't many - but this is smoke and mirrors on both sides. Wal-Mart hates unions and anything connected to them, so obviously it would try to undercut any app created by a pro-union group, no matter its utilitarian value. The value of the app to the union-related organizations is indeed the ability to collect employee contact and other data and to connect with them. The "story" is that they're providing access to information Wal-Mart wants to keep secret, thus driving a piece of a wedge between employee and employer. Wal-Mart usually gets into trouble not because they don't have policies nor that they don't communicate them nor that the employees don't know about them, but because individual store management (and sometimes regional management) ignores or subverts the policies. Carve it in stone or tattoo it on a manager's hand that overtime off the clock is absolutely forbidden and then tell him if he misses budget he doesn't get his bonus. Hmmmmm.

[Vrede too]

According to the article Walmart makes it difficult for workers to access company policy. That it's on work computers doesn't mean that workers really have the time or ability to look stuff up anytime they need to. I'm often looking up work stuff from home or if I'm at work but not actually on-shift. I can submit time for this, but I doubt that Walmart workers can.

[Mr.B]

"Walmart makes it difficult for workers to access company policy."

"Actually, they don't. I really hate to have to say nice things about Wal-Mart - and there aren't many - but this is smoke and mirrors on both sides. Wal-Mart hates unions and anything connected to them, so obviously it would try to undercut any app created by a pro-union group, no matter its utilitarian value. The value of the app to the union-related organizations is indeed the ability to collect employee contact and other data and to connect with them."
I agree with you. Walmart/Sam's 'associates' have freedom to access company policy info either on company-owned or private computers or Internet-connected devices. Each 'associate' has an access name and password. Nothing is hidden, including Walmart's opinion of unions. Just like these "LIKE, COMMENT, and SHARE" prompts on social media sites, the app is designed to learn your personal info for the benefit of union-related organizations. 'Associates' can be fired for union talk on company time or company property.

"The "story" is that they're providing access to information Wal-Mart wants to keep secret, thus driving a piece of a wedge between employee and employer. Wal-Mart usually gets into trouble not because they don't have policies nor that they don't communicate them nor that the employees don't know about them, but because individual store management (and sometimes regional management) ignores or subverts the policies."
'Associates' are warned about talking publicly about company policies, employee information or profiles, pay rates, company "secrets" (whatever those may be), and harassment, but are encouraged to speak freely with management with any of those concerns. When I worked for Sam's, everything was open and above-board

"Carve it in stone or tattoo it on a manager's hand that overtime off the clock is absolutely forbidden and then tell him if he misses budget he doesn't get his bonus. Hmmmmm."
'Associate's' work schedules are also available online; as a P/T, I usually was scheduled 20-30 hours weekly. I was NOT to go over those given hours, regardless of reason. Strange thing, even though if I worked an hour over, I wasn't going to be paid time-and-a-half! Duh.