The Quebec Soccer Federation's Ban on Turbans

[Iormlund]

Wearing a hart hat on a construction site is a different situation entirely.  Now, maybe they should still be allowed to wear a turban on a worksite (I think they are in Canada) but it's a much tougher decision to make.

It's not tough at all. If it is deemed that people have to wear a hard hat, they should, too.

[Barrister]

Wearing a hart hat on a construction site is a different situation entirely.  Now, maybe they should still be allowed to wear a turban on a worksite (I think they are in Canada) but it's a much tougher decision to make.

It's not tough at all. If it is deemed that people have to wear a hard hat, they should, too.

The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection.  If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?

If you want the obvious example of when religious rights should give way to society's needs, it's the veil vs photo ID.  Sorry - you need to uncover your face ma'am...

[crazy canuck]

Wearing a hart hat on a construction site is a different situation entirely.  Now, maybe they should still be allowed to wear a turban on a worksite (I think they are in Canada) but it's a much tougher decision to make.

It's not tough at all. If it is deemed that people have to wear a hard hat, they should, too.

The question is who deems it necessary and why.  If we had, for example, some folks from the Quebec soccer asssociation deeming it necessary I would have some doubts as to whether in fact that were true.

[Neil]

The hard hat goes over the turban.

[crazy canuck]

The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection.  If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?

The issue is normally analyzed in terms of bona fide accupational requirement regarding health and safety risks.  Normally on a construction site the bona safety concern requires the hard hat regardless of whether the employee is willing to take the risk.

[crazy canuck]

The hard hat goes over the turban.

Yes, a modified turban can be worn the accomodate the hard hat if the hard hat is a bona fide occupational requirement.

[Iormlund]

The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection.  If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?

That argument is just as sound if you remove the religion bit.

BTW, there are very, VERY good reasons to keep health and safety standards mandatory. Trust me.

[viper37]

The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection.  If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?

it doesn't work that way and you know it.  The family or the worker will still sue the employer, and he'd still have to pay benefits.  Some lawyers will make it work.
Plus, hospital care is 100% paid by taxes, so we let them pay hospital fees for their behaviour too?

[viper37]

Wearing a hart hat on a construction site is a different situation entirely.  Now, maybe they should still be allowed to wear a turban on a worksite (I think they are in Canada) but it's a much tougher decision to make.

It's not tough at all. If it is deemed that people have to wear a hard hat, they should, too.

The question is who deems it necessary and why.  If we had, for example, some folks from the Quebec soccer asssociation deeming it necessary I would have some doubts as to whether in fact that were true.

Do you think that hockey players should play without hard hats if they so choose?

[Neil]

Viper raises a good point:  Lawyers are utterly evil and poison everything they touch.

[dps]

The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection.  If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?

The issue is normally analyzed in terms of bona fide accupational requirement regarding health and safety risks.  Normally on a construction site the bona safety concern requires the hard hat regardless of whether the employee is willing to take the risk.

I don't know how it works in Canada, but generally in the U.S. the employer is liable for on-the-job injuries, even if the injuries result from the failure or refusal of the injured employee to follow proper safety procedures.  And failure to follow proper safey procedures is actually the cause of a great many on-the-job injuries.

[crazy canuck]

The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection.  If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?

it doesn't work that way and you know it.  The family or the worker will still sue the employer,

Is Quebec the only Province in Canada that doesnt have a Workers Compensation scheme for injury which removed ability to sue the employer?

[crazy canuck]

The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection.  If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?

The issue is normally analyzed in terms of bona fide accupational requirement regarding health and safety risks.  Normally on a construction site the bona safety concern requires the hard hat regardless of whether the employee is willing to take the risk.

I don't know how it works in Canada, but generally in the U.S. the employer is liable for on-the-job injuries, even if the injuries result from the failure or refusal of the injured employee to follow proper safety procedures.  And failure to follow proper safey procedures is actually the cause of a great many on-the-job injuries.

That is not how it happens in Canada.  Here (at least outside Quebec) there is a workers compensation scheme which compensates workers for work related injuries.  Employers pay premiums for the coverage.  The bona fide occupational requirement is related to the human rights analysis.

[Grey Fox]

Same here.

[ulmont]

Most states in the US have a workers compensation system which seems similar to what you describe.