 2 Sikh workers file complaint against Interfor over hard-hat policyReligion | 206921 hits | Apr 02 8:11 am | Posted by: hurley_108  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.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Its a safety issue, not a human rights issue. If they didn't get hurt in 20 years, they got lucky. I'm all of relgious, cultural and human rights BUT safety comes first and foretmost in any industry.
Totally. This is even dumber than the motorcycle helmet case. Just because you haven't been injured yet doesn't mean you can't get injured in the future. If one of these guys does get injured or even killed because they weren't wearing a hard hat, do you think they or their family isn't going to sue? With the state of the forestry industry these days, could the plant stay open after such a suit? One guy's religious freedom doesn't trump the company's right to set reasonable rafety requirements, nor does it allow him to put others' livelihoods in jeopardy.
Yes, people have the freedom to believe what they wish and observe how they wish, but freedom of religion isn't an ultimate trump card.
You know the company should let them work without hardhats if they want. So long as the sign waivers stating that the company is not liable for any injury they sustain while on the job because they refuse to use the required safety equipment, and on top of that they are ineligible to collect workman's compensation or unemployment if injured.
This is complete BS. You don't like get another job.
You know the company should let them work without hardhats if they want. So long as the sign waivers stating that the company is not liable for any injury they sustain while on the job because they refuse to use the required safety equipment, and on top of that they are ineligible to collect workman's compensation or unemployment if injured.
I say let them dispense with the hard hats so long as they indemnify their employer and anyone else the lawyers can think of for any injuries resulting from the refusal to wear a hard hat.
No. No waivers. Either they wear the hard hat or they don't do the job. Waivers can be taken apart at trial. It's not enough protection for the company.
This is complete BS. You don't like get another job.
You know the company should let them work without hardhats if they want. So long as the sign waivers stating that the company is not liable for any injury they sustain while on the job because they refuse to use the required safety equipment, and on top of that they are ineligible to collect workman's compensation or unemployment if injured.
I say let them dispense with the hard hats so long as they indemnify their employer and anyone else the lawyers can think of for any injuries resulting from the refusal to wear a hard hat.
No. No waivers. Either they wear the hard hat or they don't do the job. Waivers can be taken apart at trial. It's not enough protection for the company.
I agree. A good lawyer can find a loophole in any document and it could cost the company big time. No hardhats, no work. End of story.
Wouldn't the motorcycle helmet case have set a precedent for this? So really I would not think they have much of a case.
I say let them dispense with the hard hats so long as they indemnify their employer and anyone else the lawyers can think of for any injuries resulting from the refusal to wear a hard hat.
Sounds fair. To be honest the sikh insistence for thier turbans at the expense of everyone else annoys me but I sympathize with being forced to wear a helmet against my wishes.
One summer I worked as a tree planter and the company we were sub-contracted too had a hard-hat provsion for all their workers in the field including those of us in the sub-contract classification.
Needless to say the ill fitting mass produced cheapo helmets they gave us were a bitch to stay on during the rigours of tree planting. There was a great deal of us taking the helmets off and them yelling at us for it.
I say let them dispense with the hard hats so long as they indemnify their employer and anyone else the lawyers can think of for any injuries resulting from the refusal to wear a hard hat.
I'm with the workers on this one. It is not a law, it is a new company policy. The've had their jobs for 20 years then one day the company comes up with a new policy saying they now have to wear hard hats.
Sorry, THAT is bullshit.
I say let them dispense with the hard hats so long as they indemnify their employer and anyone else the lawyers can think of for any injuries resulting from the refusal to wear a hard hat.
I'm with the workers on this one. It is not a law, it is a new company policy. The've had their jobs for 20 years then one day the company comes up with a new policy saying they now have to wear hard hats.
Sorry, THAT is bullshit.
They've been offered different jobs at equal pay with the same company. This is, to my mind, pretty much both the minimum and the maximum that the company is obligated to do. You can't fire them because their belifs conflict with new policy, but they can't expect that their job will never , only that their job can't be taken away from them by new policy.
I say let them dispense with the hard hats so long as they indemnify their employer and anyone else the lawyers can think of for any injuries resulting from the refusal to wear a hard hat.
I'm with the workers on this one. It is not a law, it is a new company policy. The've had their jobs for 20 years then one day the company comes up with a new policy saying they now have to wear hard hats.
Sorry, THAT is bullshit.
It doesn't say anywhere that the company just came up with this recently. I assume they just let it slide for awhile and someone outside of the company must have said something to spark it. Like Hurly said, company policy is bound to change eventually. I know it changed several times when I was doing the fast food thing at A&W.
I say let them dispense with the hard hats so long as they indemnify their employer and anyone else the lawyers can think of for any injuries resulting from the refusal to wear a hard hat.
I'm with the workers on this one. It is not a law, it is a new company policy. The've had their jobs for 20 years then one day the company comes up with a new policy saying they now have to wear hard hats.
Sorry, THAT is bullshit.
It doesn't say anywhere that the company just came up with this recently. I assume they just let it slide for awhile and someone outside of the company must have said something to spark it.Maybe you should read the article.