Discussing religions and worldviews at the workplace

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This article on the RTE website caught my interest

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2024/0110/1425739-religious-discrimination-workplaces-ireland/

[ProfessorDavey]

This article on the RTE website caught my interest

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2024/0110/1425739-religious-discrimination-workplaces-ireland/

Your thread title seems inappropriate given that the article is pretty well exclusively about religion, with scant regard to any non-religious 'world-view'. Nor is there any semblance of equivalence given within the article, between the rights of those that hold religious views and those that do not.

The penultimate paragraph is rather telling:

'In other words, organisations need to create a workplace where its values are clear to everyone, regardless of the diversity of employees’ beliefs. Accommodating and respecting beliefs is not solely about respecting choice of clothing or appearance, but creating an understanding that there is a range of beliefs that are sacred to colleagues, and that connect them to their past and their traditions. Similarly, it's important to recognise that not everyone may share these beliefs, and some individuals might not adhere to religious convictions at all, which is perfectly acceptable too.'

So those with religious beliefs should have those beliefs accommodated and respected, while those without religious beliefs should merely be accepted. Why should their lack of belief be similarly accommodated and respected? Clearly this author isn't in the business of equality and respecting diversity and inclusion given his clear non-equivalent approach to those with religious beliefs and those without.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Your thread title seems inappropriate given that the article is pretty well exclusively about religion, with scant regard to any non-religious 'world-view'. Nor is there any semblance of equivalence given within the article, between the rights of those that hold religious views and those that do not.

The penultimate paragraph is rather telling:

'In other words, organisations need to create a workplace where its values are clear to everyone, regardless of the diversity of employees’ beliefs. Accommodating and respecting beliefs is not solely about respecting choice of clothing or appearance, but creating an understanding that there is a range of beliefs that are sacred to colleagues, and that connect them to their past and their traditions. Similarly, it's important to recognise that not everyone may share these beliefs, and some individuals might not adhere to religious convictions at all, which is perfectly acceptable too.'

So those with religious beliefs should have those beliefs accommodated and respected, while those without religious beliefs should merely be accepted. Why should their lack of belief be similarly accommodated and respected? Clearly this author isn't in the business of equality and respecting diversity and inclusion given his clear non-equivalent approach to those with religious beliefs and those without.

Also, why on earth should employees’ beliefs be “respected”? Their right to believe anything they like should be respected right enough, but not the beliefs themselves surely? 

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

Also, why on earth should employees’ beliefs be “respected”? Their right to believe anything they like should be respected right enough, but not the beliefs themselves surely?

Yes - that seems correct.

It is important that individuals are not discriminated in the workplace on the basis of their belief or lack of belief. And that cuts both ways so accommodation to one individual's beliefs could, for example, mean discrimination against another individual that lacks that belief. An example being a situation where a job requires regular weekend working on a rota - if a christian claims that requiring them to work on a Sunday is discriminatory due to their belief, accommodation of that view might actually result in discrimination against non christians who may be required to work more Sundays than reasonable to accommodate the views of the christian employee.

But this is all about preventing discrimination and, where reasonable, accommodating individual beliefs. None of that is about actually respecting those beliefs. This seems to be completely outside the remit of an employer/employee relationship to me. Accepting and accommodating reasonable requests based on a particular belief is one thing, requiring an employer to actually respect those beliefs quite another. And in this context what is meant by 'employer' - if this is an organisation then I don't see how respect of views is something an organisation is actually capable of. If 'employer' means an individual then a requirement to respect another person's views (rather than accept and accommodate and not discriminate on that basis) is quite another matter - to do so would seem to be discriminatory in itself as it would be disregarding the view of the employer as an individual.

Whether or not an employer or an employee respects the beliefs of another when interacting in a professional capacity seems to miss the point - what should happen is that the employee (or employer) should not be discriminated on that basis of those beliefs, regardless of whether one individual might find those beliefs wrong, abhorrent and/or completely unworthy of respect.

[splashscuba]

Prof,

Also, why on earth should employees’ beliefs be “respected”? Their right to believe anything they like should be respected right enough, but not the beliefs themselves surely?

This

[SteveH]

Prof,

Also, why on earth should employees’ beliefs be “respected”? Their right to believe anything they like should be respected right enough, but not the beliefs themselves surely?

"Respected" doesn't only mean "admired"; it can also mean "tolerated". It is, though, a much-overused word nowadays.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

"Respected" doesn't only mean "admired"; it can also mean "tolerated". It is, though, a much-overused word nowadays.

“Tolerated” doesn’t cover it either. If I’m to be required to tolerate something I have to know about it, which requires the believer to tell me about it – either expressly or for example by wearing religious symbols. What I should be expected to be is indifferent to the religious opinions of other employees regardless of what they happen to be, and moreover they should be expected to respect my right not to be told about their religious opinions.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SteveH,

“Tolerated” doesn’t cover it either. If I’m to be required to tolerate something I have to know about it, which requires the believer to tell me about it – either expressly or for example by wearing religious symbols. What I should be expected to be is indifferent to the religious opinions of other employees regardless of what they happen to be, and moreover they should be expected to respect my right not to be told about their religious opinions.   

Defence of the contradictory "Freedom of religion, Freedom from religion" nonsense  You can't have both.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Defence of the contradictory "Freedom of religion, Freedom from religion" nonsense  You can't have both.

What are you trying to argue here? Of course you can have both – Fred should be free to hold whatever religious opinions take his fancy, and Mary should be free not to hear about them. There's no contradiction there.   

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

What are you trying to argue here? Of course you can have both – Fred should be free to hold whatever religious opinions take his fancy, and Mary should be free not to hear about them. There's no contradiction there.

So you disagree with the employment tribunal here?


https://archive.is/zUMSl

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So you disagree with the employment tribunal here?


https://archive.is/zUMSl

Actually yes I do, but in any case the right to express something is not the same as the right to make anyone else to listen to it. If, say, someone wants to stand on the office roof and shout nazi propaganda that's up to them, but I don't agree that they should also have the right to stand in the crowded staff canteen at lunchtime and shout "kill the jews".

By the way, I haven't looked for the cases but I'm sure there have been rulings before this one about people in certain jobs not being allowed to wear religious symbols (a cross on a necklace for example),  which seems to be contrary in spirit at least to this case.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Actually yes I do, but in any case the right to express something is not the same as the right to make anyone else to listen to it. If, say, someone wants to stand on the office roof and shout nazi propaganda that's up to them, but I don't agree that they should also have the right to stand in the crowded staff canteen at lunchtime and shout "kill the jews".

By the way, I haven't looked for the cases but I'm sure there have been rulings before this one about people in certain jobs not being allowed to wear religious symbols (a cross on a necklace for example),  which seems to be contrary in spirit at least to this case.   

So what does free speech mean to you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So what does free speech mean to you?

More or less the same as it means to you I suspect, namely that it's vital for a healthy society and that any restrictions on it should be in extreme and exceptional cases - incitement to violence for example.

My point though was that the right to say something and the right to insist anyone else must listen to it are not the same thing.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

More or less the same as it means to you I suspect, namely that it's vital for a healthy society and that any restrictions on it should be in extreme and exceptional cases - incitement to violence for example.

My point though was that the right to say something and the right to insist anyone else must listen to it are not the same thing.   

How do you avoid someone's right not to listen becoming a suppression of the free speech in the work place? If someone from the Westboro Baptists say they don't want to see or hear anything in support of gay rights in the work place, your position seems to be that anyone talking about gay rights should be prevented from speaking. Now I don't think you think that so could you elaborate in more detail, please?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

How do you avoid someone's right not to listen becoming a suppression of the free speech in the work place?

By for example telling an evangelical Christian employee he’s not free to preach in the staff canteen at lunchtime, but he can do so in an office that people can access or not as they wish. It seems to me that curtailing what people can say and where they can say it are different things, and that sometimes the right to speak and the right not to hear are opposed so compromise is needed.     

If someone from the Westboro Baptists say they don't want to see or hear anything in support of gay rights in the work place, your position seems to be that anyone talking about gay rights should be prevented from speaking.

No – see above. My workplace experience has been that in general businesses treat their premises as places of work, not as places for proselytising religious, political etc opinions but they also make accommodations for personal beliefs where they can – with prayer rooms for example.

Now I don't think you think that so could you elaborate in more detail, please?

Re the case you linked to:

“For more than 20 years Rachel Meade has been a social worker in Westminster. On her Facebook page, which was set to private, she posted messages to about 40 friends.”

That seems to me to have nothing to do with her employment. If Ms Meade was in fact transphobic and there was evidence that she acted that way in the course of her work duties then sure Westminster Council should have an interest, but as reported so what?       

[SteveH]

In short, you are entitled to freedom of speech (with certain limited exceptions, such as the law of libel), but no-one is obliged to give you a platform.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

By for example telling an evangelical Christian employee he’s not free to preach in the staff canteen at lunchtime, but he can do so in an office that people can access or not as they wish. It seems to me that curtailing what people can say and where they can say it are different things, and that sometimes the right to speak and the right not to hear are opposed so compromise is needed.     

No – see above. My workplace experience has been that in general businesses treat their premises as places of work, not as places for proselytising religious, political etc opinions but they also make accommodations for personal beliefs where they can – with prayer rooms for example.

Re the case you linked to:

“For more than 20 years Rachel Meade has been a social worker in Westminster. On her Facebook page, which was set to private, she posted messages to about 40 friends.”

That seems to me to have nothing to do with her employment. If Ms Meade was in fact transphobic and there was evidence that she acted that way in the course of her work duties then sure Westminster Council should have an interest, but as reported so what?     

What if the speech is just in conversation, or in reply to training. Had Meade stated her comments in a diversity training session, should she have disciplined? I'd suggest the finding in the case is ni, and I would agree.

[Nearly Sane]

In short, you are entitled to freedom of speech (with certain limited exceptions, such as the law of libel), but no-one is obliged to give you a platform.

I think the question remains as to my reply to bhs, what is a platform? Can someone talk openly about beluefs at work, and raise them as regards work policies? I would suggest other than the limited exceptions you mention, the answer should be yes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

What if the speech is just in conversation, or in reply to training. Had Meade stated her comments in a diversity training session, should she have disciplined? I'd suggest the finding in the case is ni, and I would agree.

If someone chooses to express their faith or ideological beliefs in the workplace in conversation or in a training session then other employees have the right to tell them they don’t want to hear it. Incidentally, I’m struck by:

“Under UK law your staff have the right to both hold and express beliefs, which, as the judgment said “whilst (they) may well be profoundly offensive, and even distressing to . . . others, they are beliefs that are, and must be, tolerated in a pluralist society.”

Presumably this principle applies equally to both parties, so as well as “I don’t wish to hear it thanks” the other employee is also be free just to say a "profoundly offensive, and even distressing" “fuck off” instead?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

If someone chooses to express their faith or ideological beliefs in the workplace in conversation or in a training session then other employees have the right to tell them they don’t want to hear it. Incidentally, I’m struck by:

“Under UK law your staff have the right to both hold and express beliefs, which, as the judgment said “whilst (they) may well be profoundly offensive, and even distressing to . . . others, they are beliefs that are, and must be, tolerated in a pluralist society.”

Presumably this principle applies equally to both parties, so as well as “I don’t wish to hear it thanks” the other employee is also be free just to say a "profoundly offensive, and even distressing" “fuck off” instead?   

Expressing the views, yes. As to how you express them? I would suggest that's a different question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Expressing the views, yes. As to how you express them? I would suggest that's a different question.

But what if I’m an evangelical member of the Church of Fuckology whose central (OK, only) tenet is: “Thou shalt be free to save time by telling those who would presume to evangelise to you to fuck off”? 

After all “Under UK law your staff have the right to both hold and express beliefs, which, as the judgment said “whilst (they) may well be profoundly offensive, and even distressing to . . . others, they are beliefs that are, and must be, tolerated in a pluralist society” and “And they cannot be shut down or disciplined simply because other colleagues find them disagreeable”?

Ae you suggesting that employees should be free to express their views but not free to decide how to express them?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But what if I’m an evangelical member of the Church of Fuckology whose central tenet is: “Thou shalt be free to save time by telling those who would presume to evangelise to you to fuck off”? 

After all “Under UK law your staff have the right to both hold and express beliefs, which, as the judgment said “whilst (they) may well be profoundly offensive, and even distressing to . . . others, they are beliefs that are, and must be, tolerated in a pluralist society” and “And they cannot be shut down or disciplined simply because other colleagues find them disagreeable”?

Ae you suggesting that employees should be free to express their views but not free to decide how to express them?

I'm not suggesting any absolute freedom though so rhe idea that there is some limitation on how to express views is fine.

I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be diciplined simoky because others find tgem disagreeable?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I'm not suggesting any absolute freedom though so rhe idea that there is some limitation on how to express views is fine.

Wow! Seems to me that while restrictions on free speech should be in exceptional cases only, restricting free speech because of how it’s expressed is a much lower bar than restricting it on the basis of its content. Who then should decide which terms are and are not acceptable, and how?         

I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be diciplined simoky because others find tgem disagreeable?

I’ve never said that people should have their views “shut down” (except in exceptional cases) – what I have said though is that those who would express their religious or ideological opinions have no right to insist that others must listen to them.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Wow! Seems to me that while restrictions on free speech should be in exceptional cases only, restricting free speech because of how it’s expressed is a much lower bar than restricting it on the basis of its content. Who then should decide which terms are and are not acceptable, and how?         

I’ve never said that people should have their views “shut down” (except in exceptional cases) – what I have said though is that those who would express their religious or ideological opinions have no right to insist that others must listen to them.   

Note I didn't say you had said that. I asked a specific question and you seem to have answered a different one. I don't really understand either what views you classify as ideological, as opposed to just views.

As to how one expresses views, your ideas of higher/lower bars seems a confused and confusing one to me. Is it ypur position that there should be no restriction in how one expresses views, as long as the views are what you think should be openly expressed?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Note I didn't say you had said that. I asked a specific question and you seem to have answered a different one.

What question do you think you asked that I replied to with the answer to a different question?

I don't really understand either what views you classify as ideological, as opposed to just views.

The context of the article you linked to was ideological (ie, supposed transphobia) so I responded in kind. It’s a distinction without significance though – “views” is fine instead.   

As to how one expresses views, your ideas of higher/lower bars seems a confused and confusing one to me.

Why?

Is it ypur position that there should be no restriction in how one expresses views, as long as the views are what you think should be openly expressed?

No, my position is what I said it is: “freedom of speech should be restricted only in exceptional cases” and “the right to say something is not the same as the right to insist that someone listen to it” both seem pretty clear to me.

Also by the way it’s not about “what you think should be openly expressed“ – it’s about what the law says should be openly expressed which, in this country at least, seems broadly sensible to me.