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.

Monster Rain wrote:Nothing on the Coming to America reference?

That wasn't as good a movie as I first thought it was.

Mannahnin wrote:Fraz has pointed out that it's illegal discrimination.

Fraz has pointed out that he thinks something that went on is illegal discrimination. While the joy of Fraz's posts are the main reason I hang around the OT forums, I don't regard him as a general-purpose authority, and think it's possible you've rejected some of his conclusions in the past, which means you don't just take 'Fraz said it's so' to mean 'that's an undisputable fact'. And just to clarify, I'm only concerned with the 'wear a nametag with a different' bit, if the bit about other employees calling him a “terrorist” and “Al Qaeda boy” is true, that would be bad and would clearly constitute racial or religious harassment. I can't tell from Fraz's post whether he is saying that bit would be (which I agree with) or the nametag bit which seems to be getting all of the press.

Then you're simply not thinking it through. Not all of those situations are at all analogous.

I'm thinking it through just fine, but you don't seem to be making any argument. How are they not analogous? The practice of using an assumed name in jobs where you interact with the public is perfectly normal, not some kind of abuse. Claiming illegal discrimination for a company deciding that you should use one appears patently absurd to me after thinking it through, and you haven't stated any reason why this common practice is terrible in this case.

If the hotel did like Disney and said that everyone had to wear a name tag with a name from a preapproved set of names, and respond to that name when dealing with customers, would the objection still apply? If a Saudi Arabian hotel told a guy named 'Jesus' to wear a fake name, would they also get the same condemnation, and could you give a reason why beyond accusing me of not thinking?

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.

What do you mean 'would be' - that's an extremely well-known practice, not a hypothetical, so that should be 'is' or 'isn't'. And what difference does it make if people are informed up front or later on - if it's abuse and mistreatment, then that's what matters, not the exact timing of when the abuse and mistreatment began. And I don't see how it's a racist practice to use one-syllable names that customers can immediately recognize and respond to instead of multi-syllable foreign names that they won't be able to remember or distinguish at all.

I'm not concerned with whether it's specifically against Indian labor law (which I doubt anyone here knows enough about to discuss), but whether it warrants the same condemnation or not. You also don't seem to be concerned with the legality of the practice, since I doubt you'd say 'oh, that's all fine then, he should shut up and wear the name tag' if the court rules against him, so I think it would just get really silly to discuss Indian-specific laws any further..

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.

No one is being abused or mistreated by customers, that's the whole problem I have with the outrage. There's a guy complaining because he wasn't allowed to express himself on company time. You don't get to turn your job clerking a hotel into your self-expression extravaganza, you wear the outfit you're supposed to and say what you're supposed to, or you get fired. If the bit about other employees calling him racist names is true, that still wouldn't constitute the CUSTOMERS abusing the staff, and again that part I do think would be wrong.

BearersOfSalvation wrote: There's a guy complaining because he wasn't allowed to express himself on company time.

If by express himself, you mean be himself, yes.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
I'm thinking it through just fine, but you don't seem to be making any argument. How are they not analogous? The practice of using an assumed name in jobs where you interact with the public is perfectly normal, not some kind of abuse. Claiming illegal discrimination for a company deciding that you should use one appears patently absurd to me after thinking it through, and you haven't stated any reason why this common practice is terrible in this case.

Its clearly a discriminatory practice as there is no report of other employees, particularly other employees with good, God-fearing Christian names like Michael, Paul, or John, being required to work under a different name.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
You don't get to turn your job clerking a hotel into your self-expression extravaganza, you wear the outfit you're supposed to and say what you're supposed to, or you get fired

How very extravagant we all, living under names we identify with, are. Clearly this is the great excess of freedom which causes the developing world to resent us.

dogma wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
You don't get to turn your job clerking a hotel into your self-expression extravaganza, you wear the outfit you're supposed to and say what you're supposed to, or you get fired

How very extravagant we all, living under names we identify with, are. Clearly this is the great excess of freedom which causes the developed world to resent us.

Indeed, we should all do what my old Barnes and Noble co-workers did and invent whimsical and fanciful names for each other and ourselves that we can then convince friends in managerial positions to print name tags for us with this new name upon it to wear.

How dare we selfishly wish to bear our given birth names in a professional environment!

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.

I think that the number of people who would avoid the hotel because of his name, but not because of the colour of his skin to be incredibly small. Ludicrously, stupidly small, relative to the risk of eventually having to give this guy a hefty court settlement.

This is another case of really incompetent middle management over-managing a non-issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote: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.

"The law in its majesty prohibits rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges"

This isn't a piercing, it's a guy's name, nor is it some very unusual name (did they require every black woman at the hotel with a name like Mon'eesha to change their name?), it is one of the most common names in the world. It just happens to be mostly used by people who belong to a certain religion.

sebster wrote:
I think that the number of people who would avoid the hotel because of his name, but not because of the colour of his skin to be incredibly small. Ludicrously, stupidly small, relative to the risk of eventually having to give this guy a hefty court settlement.

Not to mention the impact of the negative press.

Fraz has pointed out that he thinks something that went on is illegal discrimination. While the joy of Fraz's posts are the main reason I hang around the OT forums, I don't regard him as a general-purpose authority, and think it's possible you've rejected some of his conclusions in the past, which means you don't just take 'Fraz said it's so' to mean 'that's an undisputable fact'. And just to clarify, I'm only concerned with the 'wear a nametag with a different' bit, if the bit about other employees calling him a “terrorist” and “Al Qaeda boy” is true, that would be bad and would clearly constitute racial or religious harassment. I can't tell from Fraz's post whether he is saying that bit would be (which I agree with) or the nametag bit which seems to be getting all of the press.

Blasphemer! Heretic!


Wait, Manny and I have disagreed in the past?
But to your point-all of it. By mandating a different tag for just him and then giving the reasons being stated, are joyous. How the other employees acted are just facts in evidence to support. Its old school direct discrimination and not more the more nebulous disparate impact style. This is an easy case.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

If you're going to claim unjust discrimination, you're appealing to fundamental rights, so you brought it into the discussion.

I see, and if rights that protect people from discrimination are 'fundamental', why did our ancestors keep slaves? Why was it illegal to be a practising homosexual up until relatively recently. Discrimination doesn't just stem from the violation of 'fundamental rights'. This man is being discriminated against.

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.

You know, considering you come from a country that so readily trumpets its 'freedom', you're all certainly pretty willing to surrender that freedom to private companies. It's weird.

What the WA did would NEVER fly here.

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.

I guess some people are just psychotically committed to capitalism. And what the hell do you mean by 'non-offensive'? There is nothing offensive about the name Mohammed. It's the most common name in the world.

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.

Oh, stop copping out and just admit that you don't like Muslims, and that you were secretly glad that they told the guy to change his name. I'd respect that more than ridiculous arguments equating having the given name Mohammed with proselytisation.

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.

Yes, if a person thinks that it's acceptable that a company can tell an individual to change his name (a completely normal and common name) because it might offend or confuse customers, then that person is either trolling or a moron. Which are you?

And I find the fact that you seem to think that I'm some sort of left-wing anti-authoritarian absolutely hilarious.

Frazzled wrote:Wait, Manny and I have disagreed in the past?
But to your point-all of it. By mandating a different tag for just him and then giving the reasons being stated, are joyous. Its old school direct discrimination and not more the more nebulous disparate impact style. This is an easy case.

I don't think that a policy of 'if the name you chose for your tag bothers our customers, you're required to use an alias' qualifies of any kind of illegal discrimination, and since there's no actual damages there wouldn't be anything to sue for in a general civil suit. You've got to actually do something bad to someone to run afoul of laws, and I don't think the courts consider using a stage name as damaging on it's own.

Also, does this mean that your only objection (and the only legal objection you can see) is that they went case-by-case on names. That is, that if they did like Disney and told employees 'here's a bunch of name tags with acceptable names, grab one and use that' everything would be hunky-dory? There are several people who seem to have a fundamental objection of setting any limits on what goes on a name tag at a job, that you should be able to "display proudly any fething name you want"

How the other employees acted are just facts in evidence to support.

Other employees offering racial and/or religious insults and management doing nothing to stop it (or actively encouraging it) means there's a a hostile work environment, it's not just 'evidence in support', it forms the whole base of an EEOC (or state anti-discrimination) lawsuit on it's own. Presuming that it's true, it's all the facts he would actually need, so the name tag bit is completely irrelevant. I'm trying to seperate them because the name tag is the thing the article and people commenting on it are focused on.

Albatross wrote:You know, considering you come from a country that so readily trumpets its 'freedom', you're all certainly pretty willing to surrender that freedom to private companies. It's weird.

I don't believe in 'freedom to do whatever you want instead of the job you were hired to do but force someone else to still pay you for not doing the job'. The whole concept of working a job is that one guy says 'I'll pay money to do this stuff' and either you do the stuff and get the money or don't do the stuff and don't get the money. I don't find that to be a violation of any actual freedom, while the idea that someone should be forced to pay you for doing the opposite of their job would violate their freedom.

I guess some people are just psychotically committed to capitalism. And what the hell do you mean by 'non-offensive'? There is nothing offensive about the name Mohammed. It's the most common name in the world.

I guess some people are just psychotically committed to throwing out insults and failing to make any sort of actual sensible point. And are you trying to argue that no one is bothered by the name Mohammed, or that no one was days after the 9/11 attacks? Note that I'm not asking if anyone SHOULD be bothered by it, just if they are or were - because a non-offensive name would be one that didn't offend people. The name 'Jesus' would probably be offensive in for a Saudi Arabian hotel clerk, and I'd have no problem with that hotel telling the guy to work under an alias.

Oh, stop copping out and just admit that you don't like Muslims, and that you were secretly glad that they told the guy to change his name. I'd respect that more than ridiculous arguments equating having the given name Mohammed with proselytisation.

Yes, if a person thinks that it's acceptable that a company can tell an individual to change his name (a completely normal and common name) because it might offend or confuse customers, then that person is either trolling or a moron. Which are you?

They never told him to change his name, they told him to use an alias while working. And I never claimed that having the given name Mohammed was proselytisation. If a person starts making up stuff that didn't happen, then claiming that someone else supports it, they're either trolling or delusional and in need of psychiatric care. Which are you?

Well we'll have to disagree. But seeing how this will settle quickly I guess I'm right HAHAHAHAAH!



(sorry couldn't help myself)

BearersOfSalvation wrote:...and since there's no actual damages there wouldn't be anything to sue for in a general civil suit...

I see we haven't spent much time observing civil court.

Pain and suffering man, pain and suffering.

dogma wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:...and since there's no actual damages there wouldn't be anything to sue for in a general civil suit...

I see we haven't spent much time observing civil court.

Pain and suffering man, pain and suffering.

I see I must have spent much more time on it than you have - rewards for 'pain and suffering' aren't just handed out like candy. Can you name a single case where someone got a 'pain and suffering' reward for being told to work under an alias?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Well we'll have to disagree. But seeing how this will settle quickly I guess I'm right HAHAHAHAAH!

Well, part of what I posted was simple question - do do you think someone is going to snag a similar settlement from Disney soon for their 'you must use one of these names' policy, or is that one OK, it's only the 'if people find a particular name offensive, use an alias' that causes a problem? The 'how dare they deny him the right to use his real name' crowd clearly has a problem with the Disney policy, but I'm guessing that one's fine to you.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
I see I must have spent much more time on it than you have - rewards for 'pain and suffering' aren't just handed out like candy.

That isn't what I said. You claimed that there were no damages to sue for in a general civil case. I said that the argument could be made for pain and suffering. What you said is flatly incorrect, and indicates that you have no knowledge relevant to this issue. Of course, its really my fault for opening this line of argument with someone who considers the use of ones own name to be an extravagant display of self-expression.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Can you name a single case where someone got a 'pain and suffering' reward for being told to work under an alias?

It doesn't matter if its been done successfully, what matters is that it can be done.

Well, part of what I posted was simple question - do do you think someone is going to snag a similar settlement from Disney soon for their 'you must use one of these names' policy, or is that one OK, it's only the 'if people find a particular name offensive, use an alias' that causes a problem? The 'how dare they deny him the right to use his real name' crowd clearly has a problem with the Disney policy, but I'm guessing that one's fine to you.

***If the name tag policy is specific to him or a certain group of people only you betcha. If the the general policy is everyone has to have snoopy names then thats not discrimination.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Albatross wrote:You know, considering you come from a country that so readily trumpets its 'freedom', you're all certainly pretty willing to surrender that freedom to private companies. It's weird.

I don't believe in 'freedom to do whatever you want instead of the job you were hired to do but force someone else to still pay you for not doing the job'. The whole concept of working a job is that one guy says 'I'll pay money to do this stuff' and either you do the stuff and get the money or don't do the stuff and don't get the money. I don't find that to be a violation of any actual freedom, while the idea that someone should be forced to pay you for doing the opposite of their job would violate their freedom.

See, when you put it like that, it sounds perfectly reasonable, up until the point that it suddenly becomes acceptable for a company to tell an individual that his name (and by extension his religion) are unacceptable, offensive, and that he must operate under an alias at work. Private companies do not own their employees. They may have a certain latitude when it comes to dress code, but that's a completely different thing to telling someone that the name they were given upon birth is not suitable for work because there's an outside chance that especially ignorant, xenophobic idiots will find it offensive.

I guess I just find the idea that a person must completely surrender their 'self' to 'the company' pretty odious. Guess you don't, which leads to...

I guess some people are just psychotically committed to capitalism. And what the hell do you mean by 'non-offensive'? There is nothing offensive about the name Mohammed. It's the most common name in the world.

I guess some people are just psychotically committed to throwing out insults and failing to make any sort of actual sensible point. And are you trying to argue that no one is bothered by the name Mohammed, or that no one was days after the 9/11 attacks? Note that I'm not asking if anyone SHOULD be bothered by it, just if they are or were - because a non-offensive name would be one that didn't offend people.

That's a non-point. Yes particularly ignorant people may have been offended by the name 'Mohammed' immediately after 9/11. Such people are beneath contempt. Why should a company be expected to side with ignorant islamophobes? Because their money is just as good as everyone else's? That's a pretty morally bankrupt position to take, and again, is reflective of my earlier reference to psychotic commitment to capitalism. The company should side with their employee - he wasn't breaking any laws by having that name, and as far as I can make out, having that name didn't violate his employment contract. No, instead they're persecuting the guy. And you're defending it.

Stay classy.

The name 'Jesus' would probably be offensive in for a Saudi Arabian hotel clerk, and I'd have no problem with that hotel telling the guy to work under an alias.

We've already established why that is, and besides, Jesus is a highly respected figure in Islam - a prophet, in fact. Plus, taking your moral cues from the Saudis?

Fail. Of the most epic variety.

Oh, stop copping out and just admit that you don't like Muslims, and that you were secretly glad that they told the guy to change his name. I'd respect that more than ridiculous arguments equating having the given name Mohammed with proselytisation.

Yes, if a person thinks that it's acceptable that a company can tell an individual to change his name (a completely normal and common name) because it might offend or confuse customers, then that person is either trolling or a moron. Which are you?

They never told him to change his name, they told him to use an alias while working.

Oh, behave. Do you really want to go there? Because we can go there if you like.

*sigh*

OK:

They told him to use an alias. Was the alias 'Mohammed'?

No? In that case, was it a different name? Yes it was. What is the process of making something different called?

That's right, it's called 'change'. They made him make his name different at work. They made him 'change' his name.


Can you stop being silly now, please? You know exactly what I meant.

And I never claimed that having the given name Mohammed was proselytisation. If a person starts making up stuff that didn't happen, then claiming that someone else supports it, they're either trolling or delusional and in need of psychiatric care. Which are you?

I must be an amnesiac, because I thought remembered you posting this:

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.

Turns out I must have remembered it incorrectly. Wait, what year is it? Where am I?

What colour is Michael Jackson?!

What colour is Michael Jackson?!

Er...Grey?

SHRIEK!

*faints*

Did somebody say waldorf?

Albatross wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Albatross wrote:You know, considering you come from a country that so readily trumpets its 'freedom', you're all certainly pretty willing to surrender that freedom to private companies. It's weird.

I don't believe in 'freedom to do whatever you want instead of the job you were hired to do but force someone else to still pay you for not doing the job'. The whole concept of working a job is that one guy says 'I'll pay money to do this stuff' and either you do the stuff and get the money or don't do the stuff and don't get the money. I don't find that to be a violation of any actual freedom, while the idea that someone should be forced to pay you for doing the opposite of their job would violate their freedom.

See, when you put it like that, it sounds perfectly reasonable, up until the point that it suddenly becomes acceptable for a company to tell an individual that his name (and by extension his religion) are unacceptable, offensive, and that he must operate under an alias at work. Private companies do not own their employees. They may have a certain latitude when it comes to dress code, but that's a completely different thing to telling someone that the name they were given upon birth is not suitable for work because there's an outside chance that especially ignorant, xenophobic idiots will find it offensive.

I guess I just find the idea that a person must completely surrender their 'self' to 'the company' pretty odious. Guess you don't, which leads to...

I guess some people are just psychotically committed to capitalism. And what the hell do you mean by 'non-offensive'? There is nothing offensive about the name Mohammed. It's the most common name in the world.

I guess some people are just psychotically committed to throwing out insults and failing to make any sort of actual sensible point. And are you trying to argue that no one is bothered by the name Mohammed, or that no one was days after the 9/11 attacks? Note that I'm not asking if anyone SHOULD be bothered by it, just if they are or were - because a non-offensive name would be one that didn't offend people.

That's a non-point. Yes particularly ignorant people may have been offended by the name 'Mohammed' immediately after 9/11. Such people are beneath contempt. Why should a company be expected to side with ignorant islamophobes? Because their money is just as good as everyone else's? That's a pretty morally bankrupt position to take, and again, is reflective of my earlier reference to psychotic commitment to capitalism. The company should side with their employee - he wasn't breaking any laws by having that name, and as far as I can make out, having that name didn't violate his employment contract. No, instead they're persecuting the guy. And you're defending it.

Stay classy.

The name 'Jesus' would probably be offensive in for a Saudi Arabian hotel clerk, and I'd have no problem with that hotel telling the guy to work under an alias.

We've already established why that is, and besides, Jesus is a highly respected figure in Islam - a prophet, in fact. Plus, taking your moral cues from the Saudis?

Fail. Of the most epic variety.

Oh, stop copping out and just admit that you don't like Muslims, and that you were secretly glad that they told the guy to change his name. I'd respect that more than ridiculous arguments equating having the given name Mohammed with proselytisation.

Yes, if a person thinks that it's acceptable that a company can tell an individual to change his name (a completely normal and common name) because it might offend or confuse customers, then that person is either trolling or a moron. Which are you?

They never told him to change his name, they told him to use an alias while working.

Oh, behave. Do you really want to go there? Because we can go there if you like.

*sigh*

OK:

They told him to use an alias. Was the alias 'Mohammed'?

No? In that case, was it a different name? Yes it was. What is the process of making something different called?

That's right, it's called 'change'. They made him make his name different at work. They made him 'change' his name.


Can you stop being silly now, please? You know exactly what I meant.

And I never claimed that having the given name Mohammed was proselytisation. If a person starts making up stuff that didn't happen, then claiming that someone else supports it, they're either trolling or delusional and in need of psychiatric care. Which are you?

I must be an amnesiac, because I thought remembered you posting this:

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.

Turns out I must have remembered it incorrectly. Wait, what year is it? Where am I?

What colour is Michael Jackson?!

I approve of this.



All of it.