2 Sikh workers file complaint against Interfor over hard-hat policy Posted: 6 months ago by chinook
Two Sikh sawmill workers have launched a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal after they weren't allowed to work because they refused to wear hard hats over their turbans.
Comments: 12 Score: [-] 453 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 6 months ago by davethefish:
Lets see how long a turban lasts when a plank of wood hits their head. Then they wont complain about company policy!
Score: [-] 56 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by Fizz71:
Simple solution...sign this piece of paper in front of 10 lawyers that says ANY and ALL head related injuries will result in immediate termination of all insurance policies, workman's comp claims, unemployment claims or their equivalent off. Oh yeah...and you don't count for our "safety record"
Score: [-] 160 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by tragluk:
Geez people, have a little understanding! Haven't these people proved they have hard enough heads already? :P
Score: [-] 120 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by tigertony:
You have to admire a man who's not afraid of having his skull caved in.
Score: [-] 53 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by clscott645:
I understand the want to wear religious items. Okay, I get it. Really. But is it worth your safety?
This stuff bites my butt.
Score: [-] 47 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by coldbladed:
I am rushing to the patent office to claim hard-shelled turbans!
Score: [-] 113 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by acemak:
J**US this is exactly like that stupid chick with the hair stylist. You are expected to conform to certain aspects of society. You are working in an environment where there is a hazard of things falling on your head. You should not work in a place where you are required to do something that you don't think is right. screw them. being an atheist i think it's all crap anyway, but seriously they are trying to intentianally cause a problem
Score: [-] 41 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by chinook:
Things like this really put an employer in a bind, in my opinion.
The employer is liable if the worker sustains any injuries at work (even if that worker blatently disregards safety rules), but in this case the employer is in deep s**t for not keeping these people on staff.
I think any employer should have the right to not hire anyone who refuses to wear safety equipment, but this scenario is a bit different because these men had been working there for a long time already.
I'm curious as to what sort of agreement they will reach in the end.
Score: [-] 26 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by DoggySpew:
This can't hold. Safety trumps human rights.
Something that is designed to protect someone is not a violation of human rights.
Score: [-] 26 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by DerAlt:
This is really for everyones sake.
Brain spatter, however small, is difficult to clean from work clothes.
Score: [-] 91 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by eLJay:
Oh good grief!
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by PulsisX:
« DerAlt : This is really for everyones sake.
Brain spatter, however small, is difficult to clean from work clothes. You have just been moved into the "possible homicidal maniac" column.
Score: [-] 3 [+].
< 1 >