Is your boss demanding hand shakes unreasonable?

[DrZoidberg]

Then stop asking "what's the big deal"?

What? I will certainly keep doing that. Those are not comparable.

That It is not harmless to those who are allergic to it. And it is not harmless to those who are not allergic to it -URL="ttps://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm"]ttps://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets
/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm[/URL]

We can't organise society around every special need or corner case. That's ridiculous.

I'm all for the smoking ban anyway because I think it's nasty. Which is beside the point because we've now slid off track from the topic.

If you're worried about all the diseases you might catch from shaking hands, then you are a lunatic, and perhaps shouldn't burdon other people with your neurotic presence.

Coming from someone having a meltdown over this issue, that is hilarious.

[

This is a discussion forum. We come here to discuss. That's the point of this place. I think this is interesting to discuss

 

[DrZoidberg]

Imagine going to a country and applying for a job, and they don't hire you because you don't shake legs with the boss. Yeah, imagine in that country, shaking legs is the cultural norm but so is respecting diversity. Does shaking legs have anything to do with qualifications of the job? Maybe if you're a car salesman... other than that, it's highly cultural. The practice is on-par with other different cultural practices like bowing, curtseying, ... we're not talking about cutting off hands here, so one practice is not better than the other.

When in Rome, you should adapt Roman cultural norms instead of demanding that Romans all adopt yours.

So, as the nation goes further feminist, you'll adapt to follow the social norms?

When they outlaw prostitution, you're gonna stop hiring prostitutes?

Just a side note, the law doesn't dictate custom. That's why so many smoke weed, regardless if it's legal or not in your country.

If there's a custom to bang hookers there's nothing the law can do about that. It will continue

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think we need to separate things. I'm a progressive
I all for making extra effort for those who don't have it as easy. Or going out of my way to making minorities and what not feel more at home. Its just who I am.

But I also support those who aren't. I don't want liberalism and progressiveness enshrined in law. When it gets to that point they lose me.

I'm a liberal. Not a fascist in liberal guise. I care about freedom. Both the Muslim girl's freedom to do her thing and the employer's freedom to not hire her because she couldn't get her priorities straight in a job interview. Her freedom doesn't trump the boss' freedom, or judgement call on character.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, as the nation goes further feminist, you'll adapt to follow the social norms?

When they outlaw prostitution, you're gonna stop hiring prostitutes?

Law is different than cultural norms. Despite the unholy alliance of Feminazis and Christofascists in the US and their war on sex they don't like, sex work is very widespread in the US, proving that it is very much part of American culture. So I am just doing my part to further this long-standing American tradition. After all, if it's good enough for Benjamin Franklin, it's good enough for me.

You could have just said, 'no, because I wanna fuck women.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just a side note, the law doesn't dictate custom.

No, but the laws ARE some people's customs.
Derec is disingenuous when he misstated his real intention: When in Rome, do as those Romans I agree with.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it's a cultural norm, then just fucking do it. If you don't, you're being a dick.

Why is the cultural norm of handshaking more important than the cultural norm of not touching men you're not married to?

In the real world you sometimes end up touching your coworkers. (For example, handing someone something small.) I would consider an unwillingness to have minor contact with coworkers a hindrance to doing most jobs.

 

[ruby sparks]

What clothes you wear while walking down the street on your free time is nobody else's business.

So you'd be ok with allowing an employer to not hire a muslim interpreter because they wore a headscarf?

Note that: "Ms Alhajeh would have provided interpretation services via telephone or video, The Local reported, and would not have had to meet customers face-to-face."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ds-employment-interview-uppsala-a8494821.html

 

[Juma]

If it's a cultural norm, then just fucking do it. If you don't, you're being a dick.

Why is the cultural norm of handshaking more important than the cultural norm of not touching men you're not married to?

In the real world you sometimes end up touching your coworkers. (For example, handing someone something small.) I would consider an unwillingness to have minor contact with coworkers a hindrance to doing most jobs.

On the contrary. There are very very few jobs where it would matter at all.

 

[ruby sparks]

Muslims in Sweden don't have a Muslim culture.

HAHAHA! Good one, funny.

? No, thats true.

Not according to wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden#Controversies

In fact, if you think about it for just a second, the woman in the OP is a Swedish muslim and Dr Z could not even have started the thread if his statement (above) was true.




It may be that Captain Caveat, as I have come to affectionately think of him at times, actually meant that those Swedish muslims who don't have a muslim culture don't have a muslim culture.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Imagine going to a country and applying for a job, and they don't hire you because you don't shake legs with the boss. Yeah, imagine in that country, shaking legs is the cultural norm but so is respecting diversity. Does shaking legs have anything to do with qualifications of the job? Maybe if you're a car salesman... other than that, it's highly cultural. The practice is on-par with other different cultural practices like bowing, curtseying, ... we're not talking about cutting off hands here, so one practice is not better than the other.

When in Rome, you should adapt Roman cultural norms instead of demanding that Romans all adopt yours.

No. It is not rational to shake hands. It also is not a job requirement. And it is not a legal or moral requirement. Therefore, you do not have to shake legs with someone. Also if your interviewer sneezes and you do not say "god bless you" to send the soul back into the body, he ought not reject you for not saying it. Same reasoning. Not a job requirement. Not a legal or moral requirement. And irrational. Likewise shaking hands is a custom that came from showing you have no hand weapons. It no longer makes sense and is irrational to continue...so not required. I will add that CEO of my former company used to urinate in the bathroom and then not wash his hands. It would be immoral to require shaking his hand.

 

[laughing dog]

We can't organise society around every special need or corner case.

You mean like expecting people to shake hands to get a job as an interpreter?

 

[steve_bank]

I'll shake hands with anyone, as long as they use hand sanitizer first.

Yet another indicator that in general Muslim faith is inherently incompatible with western civilization. Some assimilate, many do not.

Over here several Muslims, at least one an immigrant, was discovered traing kids to attack schools. Kids lived in filth in a truck. Weapons were found. Human remains of a kid were found.

At arraignment they were granted release pending trial, with GPS ankle bracelets. If they had not been Muslim not likey released.

Progressive judges over here will lean towards Muslims because of the climate. If I had a company I;d be wary of hiring Muslims solely because of the potential of claims of bias over routine issues.

 

[Juma]

I'll shake hands with anyone, as long as they use hand sanitizer first.

Yet another indicator that in general Muslim faith is inherently incompatible with western civilization. Some assimilate, many do not.

Over here several Muslims, at least one an immigrant, was discovered traing kids to attack schools. Kids lived in filth in a truck. Weapons were found. Human remains of a kid were found.

At arraignment they were granted release pending trial, with GPS ankle bracelets. If they had not been Muslim not likey released.

Progressive judges over here will lean towards Muslims because of the climate. If I had a company I;d be wary of hiring Muslims solely because of the potential of claims of bias over routine issues.

Generalizing much? You realize that you say that all muslims is different from you (are potential terrorists) because of one/a few muslims you heard of... what the about ALL THE FUCKING MAD WESTERNERS? How can you hire any of them knowing what they are capable of?

Condemning millions because a tiny bunch are morons....

You realize what that makes YOU?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What clothes you wear while walking down the street on your free time is nobody else's business.

So you'd be ok with allowing an employer to not hire a muslim interpreter because they wore a headscarf?

Note that: "Ms Alhajeh would have provided interpretation services via telephone or video, The Local reported, and would not have had to meet customers face-to-face."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ds-employment-interview-uppsala-a8494821.html

I'm ok with employers not hiring people for whatever reason. I'm not a big fan of affirmative action in any way. I want a very generous welfare system but a deregulated jobs market. Because it's hard enough running a business. CEO's have enough on their minds as it is.

If the job is on the phone, the only time she'd ever have to shake anybody's hand is in the interview, then I guess shaking his hand wouldn't have been much of a sacrifice, now would it? Yet, she couldn't bring herself to do it. Tells us a bit about her doesn't it? If you were an employer, do you pick difficult employes above those who are easy going? That's what this is about IMHO.

The problem here is that Islamic wear is a uniform. It represents something. While wearing a uniform you are advertising something. If an employer doesn't want it's brand to be associated with a specific religion, or any religion, he/she should have the right to not hire employees who aren't able to think that far. It essentially risks brand confusion.

I remember working at a place that had banned all visible religious symbols. Including Christian crosses. Which caused a bit of a thing. Because there was a lady who was an atheist, but she'd inherrited a Christian cross from her grandmother she wore around her neck. And it was important to her for sentimental, rather than religious reasons. That was quickly solved by the HR guy saying "just wear it under your clothing". Which she hadn't considered was an option. she did, and that went away. But I think that's a completely reasonable demand from an employer.

I also remember a woman I worked with who had an amazing body, but wasn't that pretty. So she liked showing off her body with super sexy clothing. My boss had a chat with her about diling it back a bit. The girl was a programmer. She met customers very rarely. But the employer thought that it was distracting. I was young at the time and thought it was a shame, because I liked having a sexy fox at the office, so I took her side. But now when I'm a bit older and more mature I understand the issue about it. And now I agree with the employer. It took focus away from the work. It really did. I was there. I remember it. It affected me.

- - - Updated - - -

We can't organise society around every special need or corner case.

You mean like expecting people to shake hands to get a job as an interpreter?

Well... any job. Unless you have a hook for a hand. Which I actually have shaken in a job interview. We didn't hire this person. But that wasn't because of the hook. Which I thought was cool.

 

[J842P]

Ok this is bound to get messy (because this sort of thing is nuanced) but......if she didn't get the job (or a fair shot at it, in other words if her interview was cut short) because of refusing to handshake, then I would agree with the court decision in principle.

Why? What's your arguments for?

A handshake is a pretty low bar to cross for a job. I'm thinking about Christian nurses who refuse to assist with abortions. Ok, fine. No, problem. You can't be a nurse. Find another job.

So, the principle in the US is that *reasonable* accommodations must be made for religion. What is reasonable, I suppose, is ultimately decided by a jury.

If the job involved, say, interacting with potential clients, then probably shaking hands is a reasonable requirement. If the job *didn't* involve shaking hands, say, being a telemarketer or something, then yes, accommodations should be made.

I think the woman was making a good-faith effort not to discriminate based on sex by using her hand-over-heart greeting with both sexes.

I realize that Sweden is an insular country, and it doesn't really have a pluralistic society, or I suppose, a need for one since it is so homogenous. But if you are going to invite a bunch of people from different cultural backgrounds into the country, then you are going to have to open up your society *a little bit*.

 

[J842P]

Worse is that Swedish law is on the side of the employer. It was EU human rights laws that gave her right in the end.

Told you the EU courts were bad.

Correction: it was a Swedish court who made the decision and a Swedish ombudsman who represented the Islamist. Can't quite blame the EU for that one. Not even a Svedxit would solve the rot that has taken hold in the State of Sweden.

You have no idea if she is an Islamist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ok this is bound to get messy (because this sort of thing is nuanced) but......if she didn't get the job (or a fair shot at it, in other words if her interview was cut short) because of refusing to handshake, then I would agree with the court decision in principle.

Why? What's your arguments for?

A handshake is a pretty low bar to cross for a job. I'm thinking about Christian nurses who refuse to assist with abortions. Ok, fine. No, problem. You can't be a nurse. Find another job.

So, the principle in the US is that *reasonable* accommodations must be made for religion. What is reasonable, I suppose, is ultimately decided by a jury.

If the job involved, say, interacting with potential clients, then probably shaking hands is a reasonable requirement. If the job *didn't* involve shaking hands, say, being a telemarketer or something, then yes, accommodations should be made.

I think the woman was making a good-faith effort not to discriminate based on sex by using her hand-over-heart greeting with both sexes.

But I think it's the employers say whether or not that is good enough. He/she is also part of the culture, and also gets to make the judgement call. My issue around this is only that the progressiveness is enshrined in law. I don't like that. Conservatives are people to. They must be allowed to be conservative. They must have to have that right if they want, and be equally protected by the law.

I realize that Sweden is an insular country, and it doesn't really have a pluralistic society, or I suppose, a need for one since it is so homogenous. But if you are going to invite a bunch of people from different cultural backgrounds into the country, then you are going to have to open up your society *a little bit*.

I agree with this. I think we need this. But you can't force a country to adapt and open up to other cultures with the force of law. That's the exact wrong way to go about it, IMHO. It has to come organically. Getting all the Muslims into Sweden, I think was the right thing to do. It's slowly becoming more cosmopolitian. Which I think is good for Sweden. But it's going to take the time it is. We can't rush this.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm ok with employers not hiring people for whatever reason.

Say no more. I'm just really, really glad you're not in charge of Fair Employment laws.

Hey, it is of course about balancing the 'rights' of all parties and about specifics of each circumstance. I think you've got the balance wrong in this case.

For what it's worth, I think the putting your hand on your heart (usually accompanied by something like an overt or implied 'go in peace', or 'peace be upon you' when it's a greeting not a parting) is not only a friendly and harmless alternative but quite a lovely way to express the same thing as a handshake. Possibly even better, with the emphasis on heartfelt peace and not potentially 'see how firmly I can squeeze your hand' with possible overtones of power (sometimes sexual) as much as friendliness and trust and is sometimes an unwanted imposition even for many 'western' women. Shaking hands is kinda weird, in a way, I'm not much of a fan, and it goes back, I believe to letting the other person know you're not holding a dagger. To insist on a certain arguably archaic and old-fashioned type of Swedish/western (and arguably mainly 'male' type of) exchange seems to me unnecessarily intolerant on the part of the potential employer and I'm glad it was ruled that way in this case.

As to the employer's reasons (gender egalitarianism) I agree with the court. Nice approach in theory, but not by implementing it via enforced handshakes (for men or women).

 

[ruby sparks]

No. It is not rational to shake hands. It also is not a job requirement. And it is not a legal or moral requirement. Therefore, you do not have to shake legs with someone. Also if your interviewer sneezes and you do not say "god bless you" to send the soul back into the body, he ought not reject you for not saying it. Same reasoning. Not a job requirement. Not a legal or moral requirement. And irrational. Likewise shaking hands is a custom that came from showing you have no hand weapons. It no longer makes sense and is irrational to continue...so not required. I will add that CEO of my former company used to urinate in the bathroom and then not wash his hands. It would be immoral to require shaking his hand.

Well said.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm ok with employers not hiring people for whatever reason.

Say no more. I'm just really glad you're not in charge of Fair Employment laws.

Hey, it is of course about balancing the 'rights' of all parties and about specifics of each circumstance. I think you've got the balance wrong in this case.

For what it's worth, I think the putting your hand on your heart (usually accompanied by something like an overt or implied 'go in peace', or 'peace be upon you' when it's a greeting not a parting) is not only a friendly and harmless alternative but quite a lovely way to express the same thing as a handshake. Possibly even better, with the emphasis on peace and not potentially 'see how firmly I can squeeze your hand' with possible overtones of power as much as friendliness and trust and is sometimes an unwanted imposition even for many 'western' women. Shaking hands is kinda weird, in a way, I'm not much of a fan, and it goes back, I believe to letting the other person know you're not holding a dagger. To insist on a certain type of Swedish/western (and arguably mainly 'male' type of) exchange seems to me unnecessarily intolerant on the part of the potential employer and I'm glad it was ruled that way in this case.

As to the employer's reasons (gender egalitarianism) I agree with the court. Nice approach in theory, but not by implementing it via enforced handshakes (for men or women).

A job interview is a ritual. It has rules. The person looking for work has a very short moment to impress the other party. The fact that she choses to focus on a special style of handshake instead of going with the standard one would indicate to me that she's lacking in focus and unable to prioritise correctly. If I was the employer. Like I said, it's a red flag to me. It shifts focus from her competencies onto something completely irrelevant for the job. She's clearly not capable of setting her religion aside for a moment, if it would help her get employed. Red flag.

And like you said, she's not going to shake people's hand on the job. Since it's over the phone. So she'll only have to shake hands once. Yet, feels that is enough to make a big deal about it. And then sues the employer.

It also annoys me that she does it on religious grounds. I'm sorry, but I've worked with a number of Muslims over the years. They didn't have these kinds of issues. It's not a religious thing. She's just being a princess. Expecting everybody to prance around her specialness. It's a red flag to me