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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
18 and under cannot handle alchohol.
18 to 21, can sell and serve alchohol. but cannot poor it
21 and older. Can do all the above and pour it.

The laws are different in the UK, under 18s most certainly can handle alcohol, take your money, bag it for you etc.. the only caveat is that the sale must be approved by an adult. This is enough to satisfy the law, and minimises inconvenience to the customer.

What I was actually questioning was what part of the process the stewardess in the OP objects to. Is it the handling of alcohol that she objects to? Is it receiving money for the alcohol she objects to? Is it assisting/permitting other people to drink alcohol that she objects to? Or a mixture of these things. Obviously, I don't expect people to know the answers to those questions, I'm just pointing out that they are important questions (obviously, it would be great if someone were privy to the details).

This article is about a similar thing happening in UK supermarkets. Some Muslim staff refuse to handle alcohol and pork.

Here's a quote:

One customer, who declined to be named, said: “I had one bottle of champagne, and the lady, who was wearing a headscarf, was very apologetic but said she could not serve me. She told me to wait until another member of staff was available.

“I was taken aback. I was a bit surprised. I’ve never come across that before.”

Personally, I think I'd be pretty pissed if I had to queue up for ages, and was then told I couldn't be served. I've done cleaning jobs, and believe me, there was plenty of gross stuff that I didn't want to touch (like deep in my soul, didn't want to touch), but that's part of the job. If someone can't do the job then maybe make some allowances, but don't put them on the front-line where they're gonna hold everyone up.

 Smacks wrote:
The laws are different in the UK, under 18s most certainly can handle alcohol, take your money, bag it for you etc.. the only caveat is that the sale must be approved by an adult. This is enough to satisfy the law, and minimises inconvenience to the customer.

Aye, we have the same. There must be an adult (if you consider 18 adult) who is responsible for the sale, even if the minor is the one standing behind the counter.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You think bosses saying 'So-and-so can't do X because of religion, figure it out' is bad probably has never been a single person in a team full of people with kids.

You want to know what excuse basically destroys every emergency, after-hours, overtime, scheduling issue?

"I Have Kids."

I would much rather take on an extra duty for a co-worker because of a religious issue than people who constantly ditch out on work responsibilities for kids.

I have had muslim co-workers who fast during Ramadan and we totally worked with them to avoid subjecting them to exhaustive labor while daytime fasting. Know what's not reasonable? "School ended and I have a week until summer camp kicks in, so my kids are coming in and going to color in the corner so I can't do X Y and Z because I need to watch my kids."

Wow. I hate kids and even I think this ppst is excessive.

I don't hate kids. I hate people who use their kids as an unquestionable excuse on how to get out of job responsibilities, especially when qualifying and dismissing other people's requests and dumping the load on their co-workers. And when it is for religious reasons, people get mad about it and want them fired, but no one says anything when it is people slacking at work because of 'kids'.

In today's age, some parents treat parenting children like a religion.

One of the major issues is you *CANNOT* do honest work while providing child care. People often telecommute 1-2 days a week, but then are watching a child during that entire 8-hour session. (especially young children). That is fraud and stealing from the company as no one can be even remotley close to as productive while watching children as they would be normally. Want to get 2 hours of work in during nap time? No problem. Don't be checking email every hour and have a screaming child while on a conference call. Take leave.

So since people with children frequently de-value needing to give 100%, 8-hours a day to their employer... I can't see why in most situations religious observance accommodations can't be made?

Poor women.

Blamed for not having enough children. Blamed for having too many children.

Blamed for having children and not going to work. Blamed for having children and working and not looking after the children. Blamed for having children, working and looking after the children.

I suppose they must be victims.

However this is rather getting off the topic.

 Bromsy wrote:
I am on the side of not exempting Sikhs or anyone else from grooming standards without a medical exemption. I had a beard and long hair before I joined the army, I shaved that gak when I joined up. Frankly, we don't need the tiny number of Sikhs who would have joined if the exemption continued. And if we are saying that Sikhs get to ignore grooming standards based on their religion, why can't I ignore them based on my deeply held personal philosophical beliefs that a beard makes me a better person?

How do you know it would have only been a tiny number? And it's not just the number we need to consider, but what that number brings to the fight. Medical professionals, linguists, etc., all things (particularly linguists) we could use more of.

And not to minimize your beliefs, but your deeply held personal philosophical beliefs are not the same as a well-established religion that previously had an exemption that was taken away for dubious reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Poor women.

Blamed for not having enough children. Blamed for having too many children.

Blamed for having children and not going to work. Blamed for having children and working and not looking after the children. Blamed for having children, working and looking after the children.

I suppose they must be victims.

However this is rather getting off the topic.

Only women have children or are responsible for their care? Are you assuming that nkelsch was only referring to female employees? That would be interesting.

Poor married men.

Blamed for not supporting their wives. Blamed for supporting their wives.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Poor married men.

Blamed for not supporting their wives. Blamed for supporting their wives.

There we go.

cannot accommodate



won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium

nkelsch wrote:
In today's age, some parents treat parenting children like a religion.

As they should.

The moment my daughter was born, raising her immediately became the single most important part of my life. So you can bet your danglies that her needs take priority over work, and I am totally and utterly unapologetic about that.

Of course, it helps considerably that I have an employer with the same attitude towards the importance of family.

One of the major issues is you *CANNOT* do honest work while providing child care. People often telecommute 1-2 days a week, but then are watching a child during that entire 8-hour session. (especially young children). That is fraud and stealing from the company ...

Only if the company is unaware of it.

We quite often have staff having to stay home to look after kids, or bring kids into the office. The boss is ok with it, as are all of the staff... because it's a smallish company where someone being away is a bit of an issue for everyone else, so someone logging on from home and working at 50% of their normal capacity and catching up the rest tomorrow or after hours is still preferable to them just not being there at all and the rest of us having to cover their work.

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Poor married men.

Blamed for not supporting their wives. Blamed for supporting their wives.

There we go.

More like an employee complaining about having to take on more responsibilities due to a team mate who observes Ramadan, but during spring break and Christmas break expect to be able to 'telecommute' while watching kids at home making them unavailable for certain tasks and compromises their ability to work, which makes the burden fall to those other team mates.

It is about the rank hypocrisy of some employees who complain about 'making accommodations' sometimes. Basically if your request isn't part of the majority, mainstream existence, your request becomes unreasonable and you should be fired, which I disagree with.

 Jihadin wrote:


cannot accommodate



won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium

BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?

The idea that Sikhs can't serve because of their beards and turbans is actually a really, really recent idea so it's kind of weird that it's totally accepted wisdom. It seemed to have not been a problem in World War I, World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam.

 Ouze wrote:
The idea that Sikhs can't serve because of their beards and turbans is actually a really, really recent idea so it's kind of weird that it's totally accepted wisdom. It seemed to have not been a problem in World War I, World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam.

Occupational Health And Safety wasn't such a big deal in World War I, World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam.

But yeah, it does seem to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. There are ways around it, and Hindu and Muslim countries seem to have military forces...

(edit - I think I misunderstood).

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 dogma wrote:
But the airline didn't explicitly accommodate the attendant, it basically said "Figure it out with your coworkers, we don't care."

That comes to the same thing. If they didn't care then about her serving drinks they have to a significant degree abandoned the responsbility of caring later on.

I have seen similar situations where management is alright with someone not performing the full scope of their job as long as their co workers are alright with the situation. Once objections from the co workers begin cropping up, it becomes a morale situation that, if not dealt with, begins affecting the workplace negatively. If the worker in question refuses to pick up their responsibilities, it's adios and out the door they go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


cannot accommodate



won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium

BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?

Spoiler:

What about effectiveness of gas masks with the beard?

Gas masks aren't a problem. I'm on a mobile, so copying links is difficult, but you can easily find pictures on Google.

Relapse wrote:
What about effectiveness of gas masks with the beard?

Reread my posts in this thread. I've specifically mentioned that multiple times. It is possible to get a good seal on a gas mask with a beard, and the currently serving Sikh soldiers were required to prove that they could achieve a good seal with their masks.

Amish communities demonstrated that they were able to get a good seal using SCBA masks to be exempt from OSHA rules that firefighters be clean shaven for mask use.

 Jihadin wrote:

. . . at first glance I thought that was a baby capsule, possibly for army babies.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

. . . at first glance I thought that was a baby capsule, possibly for army babies.

Take your kid to work day on a whole new level.

As for the pic of the turban, after seeing it I'm a little less against it then I was. Guess I was imagining the stereotypical big turban. Still not sold on the beard though. If they allow it then they need to go back to looking at ethnic hair for women, because removing thse styles from the list of approved ones was shenanigans.

What if you made Kevlar turbans?

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

. . . at first glance I thought that was a baby capsule, possibly for army babies.

Take your kid to work day on a whole new level.

As for the pic of the turban, after seeing it I'm a little less against it then I was. Guess I was imagining the stereotypical big turban. Still not sold on the beard though. If they allow it then they need to go back to looking at ethnic hair for women, because removing thse styles from the list of approved ones was shenanigans.

I don't really think they should have removed the ethnic hairstyles that had previously been approved either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
What if you made Kevlar turbans?

They already do. It's called wearing a Kevlar over your turban.

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


cannot accommodate



won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium

BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?

Spoiler:

That same individual

HOW HE DOES IT

Sikhism has five articles of faith all baptized Sikhs must wear at all times — the kesh (unshorn hair), the kangha (small wooden comb), the kara (a metal bracelet or bangle), the kaccha (cotton undergarments) and the kirpan (a small dagger). Lamba wears these too, and said he doesn’t violate AR 670-1 while doing it.

KESH: Lamba said that with helmets, he wears his hair in a tight underturban that produces no gaps or unsteadiness. With gasmasks, he uses petroleum jelly to make a solid seal with his beard, which is kept tucked into his uniform. He has ACU-patterned turbans instead of field caps.

KANGHA: The comb is small enough that he can place it in his turban without it being seen. It’s a constant reminder that hair must be well-kempt, Lamba said. “Hair is a gift from God.”

KARA: The small metal bracelet easily is hidden under his sleeve, he said.

KACCHA: The undergarments also are easy to wear with the ACU and other uniforms.

KIRPAN: Lamba said he wears a very small kirpan around his neck, and that it isn’t any longer than his dogtags.

So he is not wearing a full size turban under the ACH like your saying.

Edit

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


cannot accommodate



won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium

BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?

Spoiler:

That same individual

HOW HE DOES IT

Sikhism has five articles of faith all baptized Sikhs must wear at all times — the kesh (unshorn hair), the kangha (small wooden comb), the kara (a metal bracelet or bangle), the kaccha (cotton undergarments) and the kirpan (a small dagger). Lamba wears these too, and said he doesn’t violate AR 670-1 while doing it.

KESH: Lamba said that with helmets, he wears his hair in a tight underturban that produces no gaps or unsteadiness. With gasmasks, he uses petroleum jelly to make a solid seal with his beard, which is kept tucked into his uniform. He has ACU-patterned turbans instead of field caps.

KANGHA: The comb is small enough that he can place it in his turban without it being seen. It’s a constant reminder that hair must be well-kempt, Lamba said. “Hair is a gift from God.”

KARA: The small metal bracelet easily is hidden under his sleeve, he said.

KACCHA: The undergarments also are easy to wear with the ACU and other uniforms.

KIRPAN: Lamba said he wears a very small kirpan around his neck, and that it isn’t any longer than his dogtags.

So he is not wearing a full size turban under the ACH like your saying.

Edit

Oh, so he's still wearing a turban under his helmet that meets the requirements of his religion like I said before? Imagine that.

I never said he was wearing a "full-sized" turban under his Kevlar. I said the they all had to prove that they could wear a Kevlar safety over their turban (that is, a turban that would meet the requirements of their faith, which the underturban obviously does), something they were all able to do.

Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on

Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.

The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
What if you made Kevlar turbans?

IIRC they're working on it in the UK. Though they too have been thinking about that smaller head covering that would fit under a helmet.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.

That's what I was wondering about, also. I'd like to see how this action works in a practice with tear gas.

Man this thread wandered and then stayed lost.

 Jihadin wrote:
Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on

Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.

Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.

It wouldn't be difficult to keep the beard jellied up if you're operating in an area with a high threat of chemical attack.