Religious accommodation...how far does it go?

[blü 2]

Here's an interesting little conundrum, happening right now in the city of Toronto.

City employees, in some situations, for the protection of the vulnerable who depend on city-delivered services, are required to wear N95 masks. Medical science has established that this can reduce the spread of viruses, and where there are vulnerable (elderly or immune-compromised) people, this is seen as important.

However, it is also well established that N95 masks lose a great deal -- or almost all -- of their protective capacity when worn on a face with facial hair, and especially with a full beard. Thus, Toronto's rules state that the N95 masks must be worn over clean-shaven faces in such circumstances.

Thus, many Sikhs in such roles in Toronto have been taken out of the roles that they were in, and either put on paid leave or assigned elsewhere, because their religious beliefs forbid them to remove their beards.

The World Sikh Organization (WSO) of Canada is lobbying for them to be returned to their jobs, regardless of their shaven status.

There is a summer wave of the virus coming, driven by a new variant, and this is well known. Unprotected, vulnerable people will die. This is also a certainty.

How do you resolve it?

The thought that comes to my mind is the full length headpiece-mounted clear-plastic face mask worn by eg the nurses and technicians who've administered my covid tests (all neg). But I dare say it's been considered by the experts of course, so maybe there are reasons why that won't work adequately.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The thought that comes to my mind is the full length headpiece-mounted clear-plastic face mask worn by eg the nurses and technicians who've administered my covid tests (all neg). But I dare say it's been considered by the experts of course, so maybe there are reasons why that won't work adequately.

I think, in the end, my real point is this:

When your religious beliefs (or your personal preferences, for that matter) cause you to put other people at risk, then it is not those other people who should be asked to accommodate your beliefs and preferences, but you who should accommodate their need not to be at risk.

This should not be so difficult a concept, and yet, for reasons I can't fathom, it seems to be.

 

[blü 2]

I think, in the end, my real point is this:

When your religious beliefs (or your personal preferences, for that matter) cause you to put other people at risk, then it is not those other people who should be asked to accommodate your beliefs and preferences, but you who should accommodate their need not to be at risk.

This should not be so difficult a concept, and yet, for reasons I can't fathom, it seems to be.

I agree with what you say.

I was just groping round in the back cupboards of my brain for an accommodation. In my teens when I played field hockey I knew one Sikh ─ hi Sahdool, if you're still out there! ─ and he was a decent human (albeit he didn't drink and we did, so he was missing from the bar after the games) and a pretty slick left wing. So if accommodation / compromise is possible, I'm all for it. But as I said, no doubt more expert folks than I have looked into it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I agree with what you say.

I was just groping round in the back cupboards of my brain for an accommodation. In my teens when I played field hockey I knew one Sikh ─ hi Sahdool, if you're still out there! ─ and he was a decent human (albeit he didn't drink and we did, so he was missing from the bar after the games) and a pretty slick left wing. So if accommodation / compromise is possible, I'm all for it. But as I said, no doubt more expert folks than I have looked into it.

Being a resident of Toronto, I've known and worked with many Sikhs. I've had good relationships with a few (we all like lots of people, but we really only develop close ties with a small proportion of them). One, who I like very much (Harnoor Singh S. for you, if you ever read this), did not wear the turban, had his hair nicely cut on a regular basis, and had one of those very close-shaved beards that only young urban men with expensive electric gizmos ever manage.

Yet, he still thought of himself as Sikh. I liked him very much, actually.

 

[blü 2]

Being a resident of Toronto, I've known and worked with many Sikhs. I've had good relationships with a few (we all like lots of people, but we really only develop close ties with a small proportion of them). One, who I like very much (Harnoor Singh S. for you, if you ever read this), did not wear the turban, had his hair nicely cut on a regular basis, and had one of those very close-shaved beards that only young urban men with expensive electric gizmos ever manage.

Yet, he still thought of himself as Sikh. I liked him very much, actually.

I'm just trying to reconstruct in my mind the sort of slight top-knot cover that Sahdool used to wear in the games. It was proper practice to use it, I gather, and of course back then India were up there with the world's best at field hockey, so no surprise the Sikhs had addressed the question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They were probably in the field before the outbreak. CNA's are workers that are absolutely needed by nursing homes and they are jobs that immigrants are willing to take. Unfortunately I am sure that there are simply not enough other trained personnel to take their place. And unfortunately there is often no reasoning with the religious when it comes to religious rules. This was a religious rule that did not have that much of an impact in the past but now it does. Frankly there does not appear to be an easy solution to this one.

Well, the right solution does not involve letting people who do inherently pose a threat to those they work with to continue in the field.
Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they should get to have free reign over society and do whatever they want. The medical field, it is not just you. You have to keep not just yourself but your patients safe. They can do neither due to the ineffectiveness of the N95 mask going over facial hair.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few maybe.

Yet there is tyranny of the minority.

Hard to tell what's right sometimes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, the right solution does not involve letting people who do inherently pose a threat to those they work with to continue in the field.
Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they should get to have free reign over society and do whatever they want. The medical field, it is not just you. You have to keep not just yourself but your patients safe. They can do neither due to the ineffectiveness of the N95 mask going over facial hair.

Simple solution.

Find another care facility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the right solution does not involve letting people who do inherently pose a threat to those they work with to continue in the field.
Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they should get to have free reign over society and do whatever they want. The medical field, it is not just you. You have to keep not just yourself but your patients safe. They can do neither due to the ineffectiveness of the N95 mask going over facial hair.

I agree, but sometimes one has to be practical. It looks as if they resolved this problem, but what if one runs into this again with people that work directly with residents and patients. This does no appear to be such a case. What if they cannot be replaced? What does one do in that case?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not sure exactly how Canada works but it seems that if the masks are a requirement of the job then the employees need to decide to shave or find another job. You should be allowed to practice your religion but that does not mean employers need to accommodate your every desire.

In Canada, employers generally have a duty to provide reasonable accommodation for employees' religion. Exactly where the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" is drawn is determined by each province's Human Rights Code.

Details on the duty to accommodate in the Ontario Human Rights Code (which would have been the one that applies in the Toronto case):

9. The duty to accommodate | Ontario Human Rights Commission

One example they give on that page:

Example: A trucking company requires a Sikh driver, who cannot wear a hardhat in the truck unloading area due to his turban, to remain in the truck cab upon arrival at the point of delivery. As fumes from the truck present health and safety risks, he is required to turn off the engine upon arrival at the destination, while others unload the truck. As a result, he is exposed to high temperatures while waiting in the cab in the summer and cold temperatures in the winter. The company has a duty to explore accommodations that better respect dignity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, but sometimes one has to be practical. It looks as if they resolved this problem, but what if one runs into this again with people that work directly with residents and patients. This does no appear to be such a case. What if they cannot be replaced? What does one do in that case?

In Ontario, employers have a duty to accommodate employees' religious obligations up to the point of "undue hardship."

I'm not a lawyer and all that, but I'd hope that a significant life safety risk to a vulnerable person would count as "undue hardship."

 

[Subduction Zone]

In Ontario, employers have a duty to accommodate employees' religious obligations up to the point of "undue hardship."

I'm not a lawyer and all that, but I'd hope that a significant life safety risk to a vulnerable person would count as "undue hardship."

I agree. I was looking at it from the practical side. Some jobs, at least in the US, are rather grossly underpaid, and those are often in the medical field. One may not be able to replace those workers quickly.

But I saw that these were security guards. They do not work directly with patients, or residents so it may be possible to find a work around.

 

[Watchmen]

Well, I'm too late. Under pressure from religions, Toronto has backed down, and everybody will be allowed to return to their positions.

Your religious facial hair is far more important than the mere life of a beloved grandmother in a nursing home, after all. I mean, how long's she got, anyway?

Somebody keep reminding me about this "pro-life" thing people keep talking about.

I see. So you weren’t really interested in resolving the dilemma as suggested in the OP. You just wanted things to be your way. Got it.

 

[Watchmen]

In Ontario, employers have a duty to accommodate employees' religious obligations up to the point of "undue hardship."

I'm not a lawyer and all that, but I'd hope that a significant life safety risk to a vulnerable person would count as "undue hardship."

That’s an interesting argument and I wonder if it will get any footing. Typically, “undue hardship” refers to a financial hardship, which is difficult to prove.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Here's an interesting little conundrum, happening right now in the city of Toronto.

City employees, in some situations, for the protection of the vulnerable who depend on city-delivered services, are required to wear N95 masks. Medical science has established that this can reduce the spread of viruses, and where there are vulnerable (elderly or immune-compromised) people, this is seen as important.

However, it is also well established that N95 masks lose a great deal -- or almost all -- of their protective capacity when worn on a face with facial hair, and especially with a full beard. Thus, Toronto's rules state that the N95 masks must be worn over clean-shaven faces in such circumstances.

Thus, many Sikhs in such roles in Toronto have been taken out of the roles that they were in, and either put on paid leave or assigned elsewhere, because their religious beliefs forbid them to remove their beards.

The World Sikh Organization (WSO) of Canada is lobbying for them to be returned to their jobs, regardless of their shaven status.

There is a summer wave of the virus coming, driven by a new variant, and this is well known. Unprotected, vulnerable people will die. This is also a certainty.

How do you resolve it?

Extreme situations show limitations of religious rules.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That’s an interesting argument and I wonder if it will get any footing. Typically, “undue hardship” refers to a financial hardship, which is difficult to prove.

It was interpreted to include significant patient risk when they were laying off or reassigning unvaccinated medical staff.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see. So you weren’t really interested in resolving the dilemma as suggested in the OP. You just wanted things to be your way. Got it.

Excuse me, but at least find out BEFORE you start flinging the accusations. If you were to check Toronto's papers, you would find that the second piece of news came out AFTER I wrote the OP. But perhaps that would spoil your agenda.

 

[Watchmen]

Excuse me, but at least find out BEFORE you start flinging the accusations. If you were to check Toronto's papers, you would find that the second piece of news came out AFTER I wrote the OP. But perhaps that would spoil your agenda.

That’s my point. I was really intrigued by the OP, but when the second piece of news came out you showed you weren’t really interested in finding a solution to a difficult issue. You already wanted things a certain way and we’re upset it didn’t turn out that way.

Also, I have no agenda. I’m not even right wing. So you might want to check yourself before making assumptions.

I hope you enjoy the rest of the day.

 

[GURSIKH]

Here's an interesting question: why would anybody think God hates cutting hair and beards, but is perfectly okay with fingernails and toenails? It's all freaking keratin, after all.

Hi, It's not due to God hates...
You need to know the history of that region. Actually Mughals(descendants of Mongols) were invading India from central Asian countries like Afghanistan and were forcing their religion on native population with sword. Guru(10th Guru) created an army known as Khalsa Khalsa - Wikipedia to defend. Five K including Kesh(Hair) and Kripaan(Sword) were part of Khalsa army uniform. So beard was to gave fierce fighter look to army.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi, It's not due to God hates...
You need to know the history of that region. Actually Mughals(descendants of Mongols) were invading India from central Asian countries like Afghanistan and were forcing their religion on native population with sword. Guru(10th Guru) created an army known as Khalsa Khalsa - Wikipedia to defend. Five K including Kesh(Hair) and Kripaan(Sword) were part of Khalsa army uniform. So beard was to gave fierce fighter look to army.

That is interesting but arguably irrelevant.

I would appreciate it if you could read (or reread) post 48 and respond to it. More to the point, I would like to know if you believe that shaving one's beard is necessary and appropriate in the situation being addressed.