Hard Hats vs Turbins

[Quintin]

Hope they lose, Hardhats for all (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1124920224803&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes)

[I LIKE EGGS]

This has always been an issue to me. People come to Canada for freedom, opportunity and a better way of life. People immigrating to this country should respect the rules, regulations and laws that we have in place. Do you think for one second that any rules, regulations or laws that are broken by us in another country would be allowable if we as Canadians were to break them just because it is "o.k." here? I think not. If you want the rights, freedoms, opportunites, safety and quality of life we have to offer in this country.......follow the damn rules.....plain and simple. I am sick and tired of this diverse country always trying to "bend the rules" for others and people such as myself could not get that kind of leneincy on anything and I have been here my whole life. Put up or shut up because the bottom line is.....if it is soooooo bad here, then go home!

[I LIKE EGGS]

...and furthermore, how would other countries deal with the fact that I say "I will come to your country....and here is what I want changed."? On the other side of the coin should I really blame people for trying to get what they want because our government gives in to everything for everyone other than the people, such as ourselves, that have been a contributing factor for years.

[Exmortis]

Because of Bill C-45 (A bill introduced by the Westray mine scandal), employers will be held responsible for criminally negligent acts in the workplace. Companies have a lot to lose if they don't provide a safe working environment. Therefore the need for protection far outweight the need for religious pride.

[Bogie]

There has to be give-and-take on both sides. As mentioned in the article, Sikhs do have a "reduced" size turban that can be used, but they do not want to meet halfway to comply with safety regulations. This is unfortunate, and may be the downfall of their "fight for freedom of religion". Canada is famous for tolerance and compromise, and this is why we attract so much immigration. Those that come here, through our almost "open door" policy, have to also realize that we do have set rules and regulations that are required to be followed. If you want to take advantage of all our positive aspects of life, here in Canada, then expect to give a little for that right and privilege.

[Exmortis]

Bogie, read Bill C-45 here (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/c45/index.html). It's very hard to adopt a "give-and-take" approach when there's a very strict law that will eat you alive if you don't provide a safe work environment. C-45 was adopted last Spring, I believe.

[Bogie]

Bogie, read Bill C-45 here (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/c45/index.html). It's very hard to adopt a "give-and-take" approach when there's a very strict law that will eat you alive if you don't provide a safe work environment. C-45 was adopted last Spring, I believe. Yes, but, if you read the Star article, they talk about the compromise that was offered, and would meet the regulations.

[Exmortis]

Yes, but, if you read the Star article, they talk about the compromise that was offered, and would meet the regulations.

Well the compromise is only done by the Sikhs, not CP Rail who has to demand people on the site wear a hard hat. Not really a "give-and-take" approach...

Problem is, CP Rail is in a very bad spot. Workers will sue if they enforce, the government will sue if they don't.

[Just Doug1]

The solution is simple.

Allow them to wear the turban as they see fit.

They are then responxible for their own medical care and wage replacement, etc. should they become injured on the job.

Religious freedom, and the opportunity to show some balls and backbone.

[reiver]

If they want to sign away all rights to sue, collect Worker's comp, or receive OHIP from an injury due to the lack of a hard hat, etc., then by all means.

[Nave]

yea, and in this 2 month "grace period" one of those drivers is going to get killed because he was hit on the head with something and sue the company for not making it safer..... come on people its for your own saftey. well i guess you can wear the turban and get to heaven quicker, or take it off for a few hours and go to hell later on,

this religion has caused quite the number of incidents with our tolerance issues.....

[Bogie]

Well the compromise is only done by the Sikhs, not CP Rail who has to demand people on the site wear a hard hat. Not really a "give-and-take" approach...

Problem is, CP Rail is in a very bad spot. Workers will sue if they enforce, the government will sue if they don't.

Quote from the Star article:
"CP Rail has suggested the issue could be resolved by asking men to remove one of the two parts of the six-metre-long turbans: the five-metre "overturban" on top of the "underturban.""Without the overturban, protective headwear may sit comfortably on the worker's head and provide the required protection," said an accompanying advisory."

[SuperFriend_XP]

Not to be insensitive or descriminative, I'm pretty sure founding Guru would have allowed his followers to wear hard hats on the job. I thought that keeping all the hair on one's head was the point of it, not wearing a turban.

[x86/Z80asm]

^^ I agree with that. Religious headwear means nothing when you have blood gushing from your head...

[I LIKE EGGS]

On another side note....this is not only about the safety issues of the Sikhs. If they don't care about their safety that's one thing....but if it involves the safety of others and they don't care....then its a problem. Example...say 2 workers are carrying something that requires 2 people to carry. Something falls from above...nothing catastrophic.....say a small rock. With a hard hat on, you "may" be hit and still able to function at your joint task. However, if it falls and you are rendered usless and the other person has to try to counter whatever the object is that you are carrying together.....right there you have waived your rights towards the safety of others. And at any jobsite, you show disregard for the safety of others it is instant termination.

[SuperFriend_XP]

Generally speaking, the entire Sikh culture is about showing power, inclusive of the obligatory dagger everyone has to have. Take away the turban & his knife and what do you have? An unarmed guy with alot of hair.

[x86/Z80asm]

Well its just a matter of picking your battles. In my opinion this battle wasnt meant to be fought.

[Mouse]

Doug said if for me.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service."

You wear a turban, it's a waiver for any head injuries.
You're on your own.
Let God decide.

[Tim]

I agree. If you don't wear a hard hat, you sign away all rights to sue. Period.

[Mouse]

I would go beyond that Tim.

No hardhat, no government medical coverage.

Why should taxpayers pay for their religious freedoms?

[Rustynut]

Certain areas of the facility at Vaughn do require some sort of head protection, but as for the drivers who only exit the cab to turn the locks on the chassis pinning the container down is ludicrous.
I feel as many do that where there is a danger or a SET uniform as the Serge in the case of the RCMP, that shouldn't be tampered with for any reason.
If they cannot adapt then they have no business in an institution such as that.
I too have issue with religious daggers worn by children. Kids have no need to carry weapons, are they allowed to bear these arms in school? I would hope not and if so then it will be my campaign to allow my child to carry an M-1 Garrand to school as a religious item that stopped the Huns in WWII.

However, where a person goes into an area where extremely heavy items are loaded, no amount of body armour will protect you from injury.
Imagine Wiley Coyote about to be crushed by a huge rock and he pulls out an umbrella to cover his head, that is about the same as a 40 tonne container dropping onto some poor sob, no plastic helmet or steel toes will change the fact that he's about to become luncheon meat under that container.

[I LIKE EGGS]

No hardhat, no government medical coverage.


I agree. If you don't wear a hard hat, you sign away all rights to sue. Period.


Doug said if for me.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service."

You wear a turban, it's a waiver for any head injuries.
You're on your own.
Let God decide.

You cannot just go and waive your rights........If an employer was to (by law) pay you minimum wage, you cannot "waive" your rights and say please pay me $5 an hour instead. You do not have that right to waive that.....so why in the hell would you be able to waive your rights to safety standards?

[Exmortis]

Certain areas of the facility at Vaughn do require some sort of head protection, but as for the drivers who only exit the cab to turn the locks on the chassis pinning the container down is ludicrous.

Well, what if the Sikhs in question were workers on the site instead? It's all convenient that the ones we're talking about are drivers, but if you relax the rules for one, the rest will want it too! It sets a precedent that can have ripple effect legally as well. Have you not read how harsh bill C-45 is toward employers found guilty?

I often go to the Nova Chemicals plant in Alberta, but I don't venture far on the site. I simply go from the main gate to the admin building which is right at the entrance. I'm not going anywhere close to any big machinery. Yet, I'm obligated to wear a hard hat regardless. CP Rail is far from being the only site taking this new law seriously.

[Exmortis]

Quote from the Star article:

Which confirms what I said....

[Rustynut]

Well, what if the Sikhs in question were workers on the site instead? It's all convenient that the ones we're talking about are drivers, but if you relax the rules for one, the rest will want it too! It sets a precedent that can have ripple effect legally as well. Have you not read how harsh bill C-45 is toward employers found guilty?

I often go to the Nova Chemicals plant in Alberta, but I don't venture far on the site. I simply go from the main gate to the admin building which is right at the entrance. I'm not going anywhere close to any big machinery. Yet, I'm obligated to wear a hard hat regardless. CP Rail is far from being the only site taking this new law seriously.
I understand the delema and the ramafications for making exceptions. I just wanted to state that not all areas require the added safety gear. But rules are rules and once you are on the company's property you must abide their wishes like it or not. I remember well when I worked in construction, the rules of the job sites had to be adhered to or you were escorted out of the area. Even then there were times that the safety gear was not needed but there is alway that "What IF" scenerio and that is what the companies are trying to avoid > being sued for some injury that may take place.

I understand that companies must protect themselves from people in general with the lawyers ready to litigate at the drop of a hat ... or turbin :)

To be real, there is no real need physically for some of the requirements
Just legal protection is where it is at these days. But the risk is always present when working or merely being around those large heavy containers and when things go wrong, no amount of safety gear will prevent you from being pancakes under 40 tonnes.

As for the Wrap-em-up Cowboy hats they choose to wear, that is their choice and the company's responsibility is only to try to protect them from actually meeting their maker prematurely.

[Rustynut]

Now here's a Money making suggestion, Create a hard hat that looks like it was Wrapped on!

That ought to sell! :)

[I LIKE EGGS]

I saw on the news last night a where a Sikh construction worker was complaining about the hardhat....and stated.....(get this) "in the 7 years I have worked here, not one person has been injured". I could not believe my ears. Does this guy not see for one second that maybe....just MAYBE that is due to the fact that people HAVE been wearing their hardhats. What kind of mentality is that? Seriously, can you imagine if a construction company looked at their injury reports and said "oh well there has not been an accident in 7 years....lets save some money and NOT purchase hardhats this year."? That would be like me saying "Oh I have not had a car accident in several years.....screw having insurance." What a tool!!!

Which brings me to a previous thought that I had mentioned....about it is one thing if they do not care about their safety....but the others around them by not wearing one. What if they were driving their trucks and got smacked in the head by a piece of wood or a tool that fell from a rafter or something...and knocked them silly? Here they are passed out because they were not wearing protective head gear....and their truck is running on a rampage and out of control. To me they should be caring about EVERYONE's safety and not just their own.

[Rustynut]

I saw on the news last night a where a Sikh construction worker was complaining about the hardhat....and stated.....(get this) "in the 7 years I have worked here, not one person has been injured". I could not believe my ears. Does this guy not see for one second that maybe....just MAYBE that is due to the fact that people HAVE been wearing their hardhats. What kind of mentality is that? Seriously, can you imagine if a construction company looked at their injury reports and said "oh well there has not been an accident in 7 years....lets save some money and NOT purchase hardhats this year."? That would be like me saying "Oh I have not had a car accident in several years.....screw having insurance." What a tool!!!

Which brings me to a previous thought that I had mentioned....about it is one thing if they do not care about their safety....but the others around them by not wearing one. What if they were driving their trucks and got smacked in the head by a piece of wood or a tool that fell from a rafter or something...and knocked them silly? Here they are passed out because they were not wearing protective head gear....and their truck is running on a rampage and out of control. To me they should be caring about EVERYONE's safety and not just their own.
You've been watching too much Bugs Bunny, Convertible cab trucks do not exist and that is what you would need to fulfill your scenerio. There's a roof over your head even little fork trucks have a cage to stop things from hitting your cranium.
Besides most big trucks have A/C and heat in the winter for the comfort of the driver. I know of very few that would drive a truck standing on the running board looking to become a target.

[I LIKE EGGS]

You've been watching too much Bugs Bunny, Convertible cab trucks do not exist and that is what you would need to fulfill your scenerio. There's a roof over your head even little fork trucks have a cage to stop things from hitting your cranium.
Besides most big trucks have A/C and heat in the winter for the comfort of the driver. I know of very few that would drive a truck standing on the running board looking to become a target.

And you seem to think that things only fall straight down. Fact of the matter is one is still capable of getting hit in the head while driving (a tool, something flying thru the air, a bird whatever). Regardless of that....I have been to several places where hard hats are manditory......even if you are completly out of danger.....but that is their rule, if it is stated that a person should wear a hardhat within a specific area, room or jobsite....then that is the rules and if you do not like it.....LEAVE!!!! Companies are insured for a reason and what they do as far as rules and what they enforce is a part of that policy. This is all just stupid.


And again it still falls on the fact that it is not only a danger to themselves but to the others that work with you.....and if you disrespect that then what does that say about them? Don't wanna follow rules, don't wanna care about your safety and don't wanna care about the safety of others.....they should not work there to begin with. If another worker gave disregard for another's safety due to stupidity or not following protocol......they would be subject for review and possible termination.....nice that some people have the ability to abuse the civil rights movement....and play that card. There are a billion other things these people could be doing....a place that requires any hat (especially for safety)....and you cannot wear a hat...then you should NOT work there. Case and point.

[I LIKE EGGS]

You've been watching too much Bugs Bunny, Convertible cab trucks do not exist and that is what you would need to fulfill your scenerio. There's a roof over your head even little fork trucks have a cage to stop things from hitting your cranium.
Besides most big trucks have A/C and heat in the winter for the comfort of the driver. I know of very few that would drive a truck standing on the running board looking to become a target.

What, are you actually FOR their rights?

[soldier]

:hst:

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/5300/hardhatbig0ze.jpg

[Walter]

I thought this whole headwear/turban issue had been resolved when Sikh police officers were not required to wear regulation headwear. But this current discussion brings up a couple of questions;

* if you are a police officer although you do not have to wear regulation headware if you are a sikh what happens if you join one of "Swat" type teams.

* what is the present situation on construction job sites....are sikhs exempt from wearing hard/bump hats?

* what is the postion of the unions in this matter?

When is all is said and done.................

[debbie]

In ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (Appellants) and G. MICHAEL ROOSMA and ROBERT WELLER (Complainants) against FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA LIMITED and THE NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF CANADA, CAW LOCAL 707 (Respondents) the following was deliberated by the Divisional Court:


Difficulty arises when the question is posed of how far the person is entitled to go in the exercise of his religious freedom. At what point in the profession of his faith and the observance of its rules does he go beyond the mere exercise of his rights and seek to enforce upon others conformance with his beliefs. To what extent, if any, in the exercise of his religion is a person entitled to impose a liability upon another to do some act or accept some obligation he would not otherwise have done or accepted? ... To put the question in the individual context of this case: In the honest desire to exercise her religious practices how far can an employee compel her employer in the conduct of its business to conform with, or to accommodate, such practices? How far, it may be asked, may the same requirement be made of fellow employees...

Roosma and Weller became interested in the Worldwide Church of God ("WWC"), which observed the Sabbath from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday and wanted to be relieved of working their Friday night shift completely. DUNNET J. of the Divisional Court ruled:

THE UNION'S DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE

[144] In examining the Union's duty to accommodate, the Board found that the proposals significantly interfered with the rights of other workers and/or entailed substantial departures from the normal operation of the terms of the collective agreement. As was stated in Renaud, supra, at para.38, the Union was entitled to rely upon prejudice to other workers that would have resulted from the proposed accommodations.

Complete decision
http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onscdc/2002/2002onscdc10123.html

Elsewhere in the ruling are references to the safety implications as well.
The appeal to a higher court was dismissed.

[stuff]

Is this new egg guy for real?
He writes"

This has always been an issue to me. People come to Canada for freedom, opportunity
and a better way of life. People immigrating to this country should respect the rules, regulations and laws that we have in place. Do you think for one second that any rules, regulations or laws that are broken by us in another country would be allowable if we as Canadians were to break them just because it is "o.k." here? I think not. If you want the rights, freedoms, opportunites, safety and quality of life we have to offer in this country.......follow the damn rules"

To have freedom who have to give up your freedoms - i think this is one of the main reason why people come to Canada. Further did the Europeans follow the native rules?
The charter of rights and freedoms is good and something to be proud of but if someone tries to enforce it, it is considered breaking the rules. Some rules must and have to be broken. (Blacks not having the right to vote, jews not allowed to hold office, women not treated as equals, gay rights) Moreover , I am a sikh and was born in Canada so where do you want be go back to ( vancouver ? I still it is a part of Canada) New egg why don't you go back to country of origin (probably somewhere in Europe) but i think you will find france as a good place.

[smirnoff]

frankly i would say they ask too much.

this is a issues of safty and not a matter of how a person worships.

when they wanted to wear them as members of the rcmp i saw no problems since the hats served no fuction besides dress.

if a persons dress is risking there lifes on the job they have two choses either obay the rules or find work eleswhere.

one could say its there choice but what if them getting hurt puts others at risk?

now if theres no risk on the job or risk to others then why should a person dress affect there job.

[stuff]

I can understand how a construction site poses a risk - there are alot of things that can fall but in this case the only thing that can fall is containers and a hard hat would not help. Moreover when the container is being lifted from the chasis the driver is required to leave the area ( not even the truck could save them). There has been no injuries at the site that were caused from things falling so the safety issue is questionable. Where is the evidence to support this safety claim - there is none.

[smirnoff]

I can understand how a construction site poses a risk - there are alot of things that can fall but in this case the only thing that can fall is containers and a hard hat would not help. Moreover when the container is being lifted from the chasis the driver is required to leave the area ( not even the truck could save them). There has been no injuries at the site that were caused from things falling so the safety issue is questionable. Where is the evidence to support this safety claim - there is none.

at first glance that would seem to be true.

truth is theres alot more going on around there besides that and hats come in handy alot more then you would think.

[I LIKE EGGS]

Is this new egg guy for real?

To have freedom who have to give up your freedoms - i think this is one of the main reason why people come to Canada. Further did the Europeans follow the native rules?
The charter of rights and freedoms is good and something to be proud of but if someone tries to enforce it, it is considered breaking the rules. Some rules must and have to be broken. (Blacks not having the right to vote, jews not allowed to hold office, women not treated as equals, gay rights) Moreover , I am a sikh and was born in Canada so where do you want be go back to ( vancouver ? I still it is a part of Canada) New egg why don't you go back to country of origin (probably somewhere in Europe) but i think you will find france as a good place.

1st of all, yes I am for real and I am very spectacular.

2: regardless of what you think, believe or feel, I still stand by my decision. In any country, freedom has a price. To me, if the price of a sikh living, breathing or immigrating to Canada means you have to "alter" your religious beliefs due to a safety issue then so be it. Why should an entire country change safety rules so that a few select people can be happy? See you have 3 choices.....Comply, don't work there or go to a place where issues of safety VS religious garb is NOT an issue.

3: I could give a rats arse WHAT goes on in Europe. In case you did not notice this is in fact CANADA, we are talking about an issue in CANADA so for you to retort using the " Do you think the Europeans blah blah blah" means squat to me because what they do over there does NOT have any affect on me OR anyone's safety when it comes to the jobsite. If that is the way they wish to do things over there.....then I guess Sikh's can go and work there too!

4: Issues that revolve around job safety vs religious garb have NOTHING to do with blacks, jews voting, equal rights for women or gay rights. This is not a political issue it is a safety issue. This is about the rules of the jobsite. No one is saying you do not have the right to wear a Turban.....what they are saying is that it is againts the rules of the jobsite, an infringement on their insurance policy and a potential danger to others on the jobsite. If you can bend safety rules then why not bend all the rules so that drinking and smoking pot on the jobsite will become acceptable behaviour? Bottom line is Sikhs have a choice, comply or DON'T WORK THERE.....it is that simple. Stop thinking about yourself for one minute and think about the companies. They have to fight with unions, politicians and insurance companies (just to name a few). The safety rules have been put into place to protect everyone without exceptions. See it opens up major lawsuits if a Sikh (or anyone else that refuses to wear safety protection) and the company has to and is obligated to protect itself. So follow the rules of the jobsite or quit.

5: And last but not least. I will take your word for it that France is a good place. To me the only thing good that came out of France were the North American Troops during WWII.

[I LIKE EGGS]

at first glance that would seem to be true.

truth is theres alot more going on around there besides that and hats come in handy alot more then you would think.

Exactly. See there have been a few tools in here arguing me that were opposed to what I have said. The trucks you are driving perhaps my cover you enough to provide safety, however are they in that truck 24/7? Do they not go on lunch, bathroom breaks or quitting time and leave the truck? Again, I have been to many factories and jobsites where a hardhat is a requirement and is strictly enforced. If you do not wear one, you cannot get in....even if you are no where near any immediate danger....that is their rules. It's their company not the employees.

[Exmortis]

Some rules must and have to be broken. (Blacks not having the right to vote, jews not allowed to hold office, women not treated as equals, gay rights)

Isn't that really stretching it? Comparing heavy discriminatory laws to a safety rule? The safety rule in question is not targeting a specific race, religion or sex so how can it compate? It's to protect you and your employer.

And here's food for tought... If you become the exception to the rule, how about forfeiting your right to sue in case of injury? Will you accept to refuse any recourse for compensation?