Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sunday Catholics are Catholics by self description only.

My friend is a scion because he was very wealthy prior to certain deaths.

If the W-A is good enough for King Jaffe Joffer, it's good enough for me.

Bad form about the nametag bit, though. Those people are so fired.

4M2A wrote:I think it's more of a problem with the populations belief that muslim = terrorist than the hotel staff.

That's the origin of the problem, but the way the hotel handled it is just bizarre.

While what they did seems bad if they genuinly believed that it would have a noticable effect there isn't much they can do. They can't change people views. They are stuck with:

Make him change his name tag- this means they are considered racist.

Fire him- again that makes them seem racist.

Pay him and let him not work- How long can they do this for? What if people opinions don't change. They are paying someone for nothing.

Let him wear his real name- Lose customers because they don't want to be served by a "terrorist".

None of these options look good.

How many people do you think would stop staying at a hotel because one of the waitstaff had the name Mohammed?

It's the terrible business decision that annoys me more than anything.

I don't get what I'm supposed to be upset about here. What's the supposed discrimination, that is how is he beat treated in a bad manner because of his religion? From what I can see, the hotel has a policy that if your name might offend people or cause confusion, they have you work with a different name tag, which seems like a sensible policy to me. If you've got 4 'john's, you come up with 4 different tags. If your guy has a name that's going to bug customers, then he wears a different name tag than his real name. It would be discrimination if they were denying him a job, paying him differently, or something like that because of his religion.

As far as I can see this has nothing to do with his religion, just his name, and there isn't any fundamental right of 'Work Under Your Own Name In A Job Where You Wear A Name Tag', and IMO the guy should be out of work for refusing to do his job.

dogma wrote:Sunday Catholics are Catholics by self description only.

My friend is a scion because he was very wealthy prior to certain deaths.

Oh ok, thanks for the clarification. So he was some sort of Pakistani aristocrat? That makes two of us then!

asimo77 wrote:
Oh ok, thanks for the clarification. So he was some sort of Pakistani aristocrat? That makes two of us then!

Do you know the Manekas?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't get what I'm supposed to be upset about here. What's the supposed discrimination, that is how is he beat treated in a bad manner because of his religion? From what I can see, the hotel has a policy that if your name might offend people or cause confusion, they have you work with a different name tag, which seems like a sensible policy to me. If you've got 4 'john's, you come up with 4 different tags. If your guy has a name that's going to bug customers, then he wears a different name tag than his real name. It would be discrimination if they were denying him a job, paying him differently, or something like that because of his religion.

As far as I can see this has nothing to do with his religion, just his name, and there isn't any fundamental right of 'Work Under Your Own Name In A Job Where You Wear A Name Tag', and IMO the guy should be out of work for refusing to do his job.

Sweet lord! What is it with you people and 'fundamental rights'?

How about agreed upon rights, where people come together and agree not to be total dicks to each other? For example, how about the right to be treated like a human being, and to display proudly any fething name you want? Or are you honestly telling me that people can be as racist as they want, as long as they pay for the privilege?

You need to have a word with yourself. Or you're just trolling.



Either way, it's naughty.

Albatross wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't get what I'm supposed to be upset about here. What's the supposed discrimination, that is how is he beat treated in a bad manner because of his religion? From what I can see, the hotel has a policy that if your name might offend people or cause confusion, they have you work with a different name tag, which seems like a sensible policy to me. If you've got 4 'john's, you come up with 4 different tags. If your guy has a name that's going to bug customers, then he wears a different name tag than his real name. It would be discrimination if they were denying him a job, paying him differently, or something like that because of his religion.

As far as I can see this has nothing to do with his religion, just his name, and there isn't any fundamental right of 'Work Under Your Own Name In A Job Where You Wear A Name Tag', and IMO the guy should be out of work for refusing to do his job.

Sweet lord! What is it with you people and 'fundamental rights'?

How about agreed upon rights, where people come together and agree not to be total dicks to each other? For example, how about the right to be treated like a human being, and to display proudly any fething name you want? Or are you honestly telling me that people can be as racist as they want, as long as they pay for the privilege?

You need to have a word with yourself. Or you're just trolling.



Either way, it's naughty.

Right there with you Alby, i couldnt decide if this was a serious comment or not, either way, bad form sir!

dogma wrote:

asimo77 wrote:
Oh ok, thanks for the clarification. So he was some sort of Pakistani aristocrat? That makes two of us then!

Do you know the Manekas?

Nope, sorry.

Chongara wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:disgusting. And seriously, in New York? DO they really think NYers go around assuming anyone named Mohammed is a terrorist?

I doubt it. However it was a hotel, not some random local spot. That potentially means a lot of Midwestern/Southerners, typically regions that are far more conservative & suspect of foreigners. I'm not saying it makes their actions remotely close to right or acceptable, but I can certainly understand where the concern was coming from.

Don't blame the South for your Yankee racism and xenophobia. You did it, not us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

micahaphone wrote:They have employees representing six continents? They're even discriminating against Antarctica.

Until our Penguin brothers are equal before the law, there can be NO PEACE!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, that was ten years ago. Why is this an issue now? Someone stirring the pot to get some legal Lotto money me thinks. Meh fire him, just because this wasted my time.

I don't know if it's "horrifying" but it's certainly looking for trouble.

My wife has a very unusual name and went by a 'regular" name when waiting tables, just to avoid the ever-persistent "is that your REAL name?" conversation.

If I had an employee named "Hitler" I'd probably not require him to where a nametag. Unfortunately, due to what nutjobs do in his name, Muhammad is just as inflammatory a name to some people.

If only we had more exposure to Islam that explosions on CNN perhaps?

I agree its a pretty crappy thing to do but there were parallels around at the time; think Freedom Fries, or French's Mustard having to run an ad campaign denying they were French.

Unfortunately, at that time there was an awful lot of anger, misdirected and otherwise, outrage, upset, ignorance and bigotry. It doesn't justify the actions of the hotel but it does go some way to explaining them. Its still a crappy thing to do though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

If I had an employee named "Hitler" I'd probably not require him to where a nametag. Unfortunately, due to what nutjobs do in his name, Muhammad is just as inflammatory a name to some people.

If only we had more exposure to Islam that explosions on CNN perhaps?

A similar story:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/12/child_named_after_adolph_hitle.html

Imagine if that child grows up to work in Walmart - 'Hi, I'm Adolf Hitler, how can I help you?'

See... that is why I'm all for mandatory sterilization in certain cases.

Albatross wrote:Sweet lord! What is it with you people and 'fundamental rights'? How about agreed upon rights, where people come together and agree not to be total dicks to each other? For example, how about the right to be treated like a human being, and to display proudly any fething name you want?

If you're going to claim unjust discrimination, you're appealing to fundamental rights, so you brought it into the discussion. I have no problem with a company setting a dress code, or with telling people that they're not allowed to proseleytize at customers while they're working, or telling people to use an alias while they're on the clock if there's an issue with their actual name. The 'right' to proudly display any fething name you want is not an agreed upon right, it's something that you just made up yourself without any general agreement, and violates the business owner's right to decide how to run his business. I don't think that a strip club that requires dancers to use an alias, a call center that tells people with long 'foreign' names to use short 'american' names on the phone, or a store that requires use of a name tag with a non-offensive name on it is doing anything wrong.

Or are you honestly telling me that people can be as racist as they want, as long as they pay for the privilege?

I don't see anything 'racist' here, and yes I believe that people are allowed to think whatever they want, even if I disagree with it or find their beliefs distasteful. And I don't have a problem with people choosing a business that doesn't practice religious proselytization to its customers, whether it's telling someone not to use 'Mohammed' or 'Jesus' on a name tag.

You need to have a word with yourself. Or you're just trolling.

Ahh yes, if someone disagrees with your RAGE about THE MAN making them wear a non-offensive name tag at work, they're just trolling, they couldn't possibly think that it's OK for a business to set a dress code or policy on communicating with customers and require employees to follow it.

Either way, it's naughty.

Refusing to follow the dress code at a job after having it explained and being repeatedly warned is what I'd call naughty. As far as I'm concerned the guy should be fired and ineligible for unemployment, this is willful violation of a clear company policy after having it explained and being warned to follow it.

This was a disgraceful episode. It's yet another reason to stay at the Four Seasons.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Albatross wrote:Sweet lord! What is it with you people and 'fundamental rights'? How about agreed upon rights, where people come together and agree not to be total dicks to each other? For example, how about the right to be treated like a human being, and to display proudly any fething name you want?

If you're going to claim unjust discrimination, you're appealing to fundamental rights, so you brought it into the discussion. I have no problem with a company setting a dress code, or with telling people that they're not allowed to proseleytize at customers while they're working, or telling people to use an alias while they're on the clock if there's an issue with their actual name. The 'right' to proudly display any fething name you want is not an agreed upon right, it's something that you just made up yourself without any general agreement, and violates the business owner's right to decide how to run his business. I don't think that a strip club that requires dancers to use an alias, a call center that tells people with long 'foreign' names to use short 'american' names on the phone, or a store that requires use of a name tag with a non-offensive name on it is doing anything wrong.

The policy, and the way the hotel handled it, is offensive and bigoted. It's pandering to idiots and fools, and the lowest common denominator. There is no real issue with the name. It's one of (if not the) most common names in the world. Anyone scared by it is a fool and an ignoramus, and should be encouraged by all intelligent human beings to open their minds and let go of their more childish and absurd prejudices.

If a company wants to have a policy of requiring employees to use fake names, they should spell that out at the interview stage. Doing it later is crap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:I agree its a pretty crappy thing to do but there were parallels around at the time; think Freedom Fries, or French's Mustard having to run an ad campaign denying they were French.

Unfortunately, at that time there was an awful lot of anger, misdirected and otherwise, outrage, upset, ignorance and bigotry. It doesn't justify the actions of the hotel but it does go some way to explaining them. Its still a crappy thing to do though.

Speaking as a loyal member of the team, I think those incidents were dumb and shameful too. We are, or should be, better than that. As Americans and simply as human beings.

Unfortunately, the Lowest Common Denominator is a huge cash cow.

Why else would NASCAR still be in business?

Agreed. Further, they should go with first initial, last name. Anything else is being insultingly familiar.

Sebster- As odd as it appear there are a fair number of people who are afraid of muslims. I know a few myself. They know it's irrational but they still feel uncomfotable and would avoid the situation. For a large buisness that will be dealing with a lot of customers they will run into these people. The Hotel must have know that it wouldn't go down well so I doubt they did without the belief that it would make a difference.

Mannahnin- regardless of whether these people are right or not they are customers. Driving away customers is bad even if they are stupid one.

4M2A wrote:Sebster- As odd as it appear there are a fair number of people who are afraid of muslims. I know a few myself. They know it's irrational but they still feel uncomfotable and would avoid the situation. For a large buisness that will be dealing with a lot of customers they will run into these people. The Hotel must have know that it wouldn't go down well so I doubt they did without the belief that it would make a difference.

Mannahnin- regardless of whether these people are right or not they are customers. Driving away customers is bad even if they are stupid one.

Having said that one cannot desciminate under applicable federal and state legislation even if your clients want you to. Thats seriously established law.

Exactly.

If a customer of Norwegian heritage notices my Swedish name and wants to spit on me, that's not okay.

Same with prejudice and fear toward people with brown skin. Or Islamic names.

The customer is not always right. Sometimes he is a racist jerk. And the proper response to that is not for the employer to engage in racism themselves.

I want Mannahnin to be my boss.

Mannahnin wrote:The policy, and the way the hotel handled it, is offensive and bigoted. It's pandering to idiots and fools, and the lowest common denominator. There is no real issue with the name. It's one of (if not the) most common names in the world. Anyone scared by it is a fool and an ignoramus, and should be encouraged by all intelligent human beings to open their minds and let go of their more childish and absurd prejudices.

I don't see what's bigoted or offensive about the policy, and all anyone has been able to offer for justification is to accuse me of trolling or to sling around insults. A guy's natural name is something the hotel thought might bug people, so they told him to use a fake name. I don't see how it's different from telling someone to cover a tattoo or take out unusual jewelry, or from a call center having indian employees use US-sounding names, or from a strip club having girls use stage names, or from telling a guy who's name is too long and convulted to fit on a name tag to use an alias.

Pandering to customers, whether you consider them idiots and fools or not, and whether they're the lowest common denominator or not, is the thing that businesses are about. If you don't want to pander to customers, don't work a customer service job (hint: most jobs where you wear a name tag on your uniform and aren't in the military are customer service jobs). If you want to educate people and free their minds, you have to do it on your own dime.

If a company wants to have a policy of requiring employees to use fake names, they should spell that out at the interview stage. Doing it later is crap.

Changing policies to reflect changing customer preferences is ordinary business practice, not 'crap'. The idea that a company has to come up with policies and set them in stone before hiring anyone is just nuts and would seriously constrain businesses. Plus the 'use an alias if there's any issue with your real name' bit was probably already in their handbook, since they probably have competent HR people. The idea that 'the interview stage' should have a part where the interviewer reads out all policies and procedures of the company is disconnected from any interview process I've ever heard of, and I don't see how it would make a difference here, since I think you'd still complain if they refused to hire the guy for being unwilling to work under an alias.

Frazzled wrote:Having said that one cannot desciminate under applicable federal and state legislation even if your clients want you to. Thats seriously established law.

That means that they couldn't refuse to hire him, refuse to promote him, pay him differently, or otherwise take an action against him for his race or religion. I don't see how having him use an alias for working with customers qualifies as actual discrimination, I don't see what right is being violated, and it's a routine practice.

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly.

If a customer of Norwegian heritage notices my Swedish name and wants to spit on me, that's not okay.

Same with prejudice and fear toward people with brown skin. Or Islamic names.

The customer is not always right. Sometimes he is a racist jerk. And the proper response to that is not for the employer to engage in racism themselves.

Having said that I reserve the right to freak out if someone has blue skin. I'm just saying...

Maybe they should just hand over the Unobtanium.

Monster Rain wrote:Maybe they should just hand over the Unobtanium.

Nah, just nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

I wonder if they Nahvee taste like chicken?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The policy, and the way the hotel handled it, is offensive and bigoted. It's pandering to idiots and fools, and the lowest common denominator. There is no real issue with the name. It's one of (if not the) most common names in the world. Anyone scared by it is a fool and an ignoramus, and should be encouraged by all intelligent human beings to open their minds and let go of their more childish and absurd prejudices.

I don't see what's bigoted or offensive about the policy, and all anyone has been able to offer for justification is to accuse me of trolling or to sling around insults. A guy's natural name is something the hotel thought might bug people, so they told him to use a fake name. I don't see how it's different from telling someone to cover a tattoo or take out unusual jewelry, or from a call center having indian employees use US-sounding names, or from a strip club having girls use stage names, or from telling a guy who's name is too long and convulted to fit on a name tag to use an alias.

Pandering to customers, whether you consider them idiots and fools or not, and whether they're the lowest common denominator or not, is the thing that businesses are about. If you don't want to pander to customers, don't work a customer service job (hint: most jobs where you wear a name tag on your uniform and aren't in the military are customer service jobs). If you want to educate people and free their minds, you have to do it on your own dime.

If a company wants to have a policy of requiring employees to use fake names, they should spell that out at the interview stage. Doing it later is crap.

Changing policies to reflect changing customer preferences is ordinary business practice, not 'crap'. The idea that a company has to come up with policies and set them in stone before hiring anyone is just nuts and would seriously constrain businesses. Plus the 'use an alias if there's any issue with your real name' bit was probably already in their handbook, since they probably have competent HR people. The idea that 'the interview stage' should have a part where the interviewer reads out all policies and procedures of the company is disconnected from any interview process I've ever heard of, and I don't see how it would make a difference here, since I think you'd still complain if they refused to hire the guy for being unwilling to work under an alias.

Frazzled wrote:Having said that one cannot desciminate under applicable federal and state legislation even if your clients want you to. Thats seriously established law.

That means that they couldn't refuse to hire him, refuse to promote him, pay him differently, or otherwise take an action against him for his race or religion. I don't see how having him use an alias for working with customers qualifies as actual discrimination, I don't see what right is being violated, and it's a routine practice.

Direct discrimination based on ethnicity and potentially religion. If they are smart, they settle quickly if he's within the legal statues for suing. I'm still loosy goosy on the waiting 10 years thing. It smells bad.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The policy, and the way the hotel handled it, is offensive and bigoted. It's pandering to idiots and fools, and the lowest common denominator. There is no real issue with the name. It's one of (if not the) most common names in the world. Anyone scared by it is a fool and an ignoramus, and should be encouraged by all intelligent human beings to open their minds and let go of their more childish and absurd prejudices.

I don't see what's bigoted or offensive about the policy, and all anyone has been able to offer for justification is to accuse me of trolling or to sling around insults.

Fraz has pointed out that it's illegal discrimination.

I haven't accused you of trolling or insulted anyone here. I've judged the management of the hotel harshly, and the fools they were pandering to.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:[A guy's natural name is something the hotel thought might bug people, so they told him to use a fake name. I don't see how it's different from telling someone to cover a tattoo or take out unusual jewelry, or from a call center having indian employees use US-sounding names, or from a strip club having girls use stage names, or from telling a guy who's name is too long and convulted to fit on a name tag to use an alias.

Then you're simply not thinking it through. Not all of those situations are at all analogous. The indian call center thing would be racist too, though possibly allowed under employment laws there. Again, it may be okay as they may be informed of it up front.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:[Pandering to customers, whether you consider them idiots and fools or not, and whether they're the lowest common denominator or not, is the thing that businesses are about. If you don't want to pander to customers, don't work a customer service job (hint: most jobs where you wear a name tag on your uniform and aren't in the military are customer service jobs). If you want to educate people and free their minds, you have to do it on your own dime.

I have managed customer service people, trained customer service people, and have awards for doing it. My last team had a better than 10/1 compliment to complaint ratio. Pandering (indulging people's basest desires) is a different thing from good customer service.

You apologize for things which aren't your fault, you fix problems you didn't cause, you help people even if they're in the wrong department, you empathize with people who have done really stupid things, you never abuse or lecture or are hostile with your customers. But you also don't let them abuse your staff with impunity, and you don't allow your fear of their racism or prejudice to cause you to abuse or mistreat your staff.

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly.

If a customer of Norwegian heritage notices my Swedish name and wants to spit on me, that's not okay.

Same with prejudice and fear toward people with brown skin. Or Islamic names.

The customer is not always right. Sometimes he is a racist jerk. And the proper response to that is not for the employer to engage in racism themselves.

Mannahnin is Swedish?

Also, the midwest isn't 100% racist.

wiki wrote:As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 97,775 people, 36,770 households, and 23,863 families residing in the city. The population density was 4,013.2 per square mile (1,549.7/km²). There were 38,981 housing units at an average density of 1,600.0 per square mile (617.8/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 86.86% White, 1.28% African American, 0.26% Native American, 1.47% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 0.73% from other races, and 9.38% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.00% of the population.

33.4% were of Arab ancestry (categorized as "White" in Census collection data), 10.3% Polish, 9.9% German, 6.5% Irish, and 6.0% Italian ancestry according to Census 2000. 61.9% spoke English, 29.3% Arabic, 1.9% Spanish, and 1.5% Polish as their first language.

Dearborn, Michigan is also home of Shatila Bakery, a fine, fine establishment responsible for many bits of Baclava entering my mouth. Their rosewater icecream is terrible though.

Mmm...now you have me thinking of saffron rice....mmmmm

Nothing on the Coming to America reference?