With cigarettes, I believe they are all behind one special counter, not behind each and every register. And that special customer service / lottery / cigarettes register is manned by one to three people.
The problem with the laws in these areas is that the pharmacists can claim wal-mart is discriminating hours/employment based on willigness to give out plan B. :/
I'm saying (in the prior comment) that there is really not much of a difference between having a pharmacist check the ID and hand over the plan B and having a customer service attendant check the ID and hand over the plan B.
Wal-Mart also discriminates hours/employment based on willingness to work on Saturdays. I don't see a difference either way. I truly believe in people's right not to do things that are prohibited by their religion or morals, but Wal-Mart is a public business with a duty to find employees that will serve its customers' needs. That's the stupid thing - the law here is, I think, ridiculously clear.
If the cigarettes are behind a counter with no more employees then I guess it doesn't make much of a difference. But if either counter is constantly staffed by more than one employee at once it is EASY to accommodate both people who need EC and people who don't want to give out Plan B, and it's ridiculous that this is a problem at all.
Well, I don't see why the stores don't just fire people who are unwilling to give out plan B. There are plenty of pharmacy techs in the job market. What I find frustrating is that the manager in the article shrugged and said the pharmacist had the law on his side. So I think there may be a precedent case supporting pharmacists' rights not to do their job based on morals.
IMHO, if you morally object to an aspect of a job and are thus unwilling to perform it, you are not fit for that job. Unlike being wheelchair-bound or having a speech impediment (handicaps that effectively preclude an individual from some jobs anyway), it is a choice to fail to meet the expectations of a job. You don't see dealers in Vegas refusing to hand out the cards because they morally object to certain people gambling, do you?
Neither you nor Wal-Mart understands the actual law.
Employers are required to make reasonable accommodation for employees whose religious beliefs prevent them from doing certain tasks. However, an accommodation isn't "reasonable" if it ends up in essential job tasks not being done by anyone. A "reasonable accommodation" in this case would be making sure that there is always someone else around to do the job that needs to be done.
For example, if I am a deaf secretary, it is a reasonable accommodation to assign phone tasks to another employee. It is not a reasonable accommodation to simply not have anyone answering the phones.
Likewise, if I am an orthodox Jewish employee who works at Wal-Mart, it is a reasonable accommodation not to require me to work between Friday evening and Saturday evening. It is NOT a reasonable accommodation to schedule me to work on Saturday and then let me just not show up. A small employer who can't reliably find extra employees to work on Saturday, and needs to be open on Saturday, does not have to hire or keep that employee, but one like Wal-Mart, which could do that easily, probably would have to.
That's federal law, though, and there are laws in some states that do seem to specifically give more rights to pharmacists. From what I understand though most state laws specifically addressing rights of pharmacists to refuse require the pharmacist to refer the customer to someone else competent to fill the prescription. I think some of the laws don't require there to actually be anyone else competent to fill the prescription, which might have been the case here, but we can all agree those laws are clearly fucked-up.
A small employer who can't reliably find extra employees to work on Saturday, and needs to be open on Saturday, does not have to hire or keep that employee, but one like Wal-Mart, which could do that easily, probably would have to.
Is this why the ADA and FEMA and such only apply to companies with 15 or more employees?
Sort of. The ADA already excludes accommodations that would cause "undue hardship," but I think they decided to also restrict it to companies with more than 15 employees so that people wouldn't complain as much that it would hurt small businesses. IIRC, it's also the case with the Civil Rights Act, which is sort of ridiculous as it means that you can sexually harass your secretary if you're an attorney in private practice, but not if you're at a firm...
Note that while I have generally little sympathy for Wal-Mart, if/when there ARE laws specifically protecting pharmacists who don't want to give out EC (which give them an advantage over ALL OTHER PEOPLE whose religious beliefs interfere with some of their job requirements), there's little that Wal-Mart can do about it and our anger would be better directed at the laws themselves.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 05:46 pm (UTC)The problem with the laws in these areas is that the pharmacists can claim wal-mart is discriminating hours/employment based on willigness to give out plan B. :/
I'm saying (in the prior comment) that there is really not much of a difference between having a pharmacist check the ID and hand over the plan B and having a customer service attendant check the ID and hand over the plan B.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 05:53 pm (UTC)If the cigarettes are behind a counter with no more employees then I guess it doesn't make much of a difference. But if either counter is constantly staffed by more than one employee at once it is EASY to accommodate both people who need EC and people who don't want to give out Plan B, and it's ridiculous that this is a problem at all.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 06:09 pm (UTC)IMHO, if you morally object to an aspect of a job and are thus unwilling to perform it, you are not fit for that job. Unlike being wheelchair-bound or having a speech impediment (handicaps that effectively preclude an individual from some jobs anyway), it is a choice to fail to meet the expectations of a job. You don't see dealers in Vegas refusing to hand out the cards because they morally object to certain people gambling, do you?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 06:28 pm (UTC)Employers are required to make reasonable accommodation for employees whose religious beliefs prevent them from doing certain tasks. However, an accommodation isn't "reasonable" if it ends up in essential job tasks not being done by anyone. A "reasonable accommodation" in this case would be making sure that there is always someone else around to do the job that needs to be done.
For example, if I am a deaf secretary, it is a reasonable accommodation to assign phone tasks to another employee. It is not a reasonable accommodation to simply not have anyone answering the phones.
Likewise, if I am an orthodox Jewish employee who works at Wal-Mart, it is a reasonable accommodation not to require me to work between Friday evening and Saturday evening. It is NOT a reasonable accommodation to schedule me to work on Saturday and then let me just not show up. A small employer who can't reliably find extra employees to work on Saturday, and needs to be open on Saturday, does not have to hire or keep that employee, but one like Wal-Mart, which could do that easily, probably would have to.
That's federal law, though, and there are laws in some states that do seem to specifically give more rights to pharmacists. From what I understand though most state laws specifically addressing rights of pharmacists to refuse require the pharmacist to refer the customer to someone else competent to fill the prescription. I think some of the laws don't require there to actually be anyone else competent to fill the prescription, which might have been the case here, but we can all agree those laws are clearly fucked-up.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 09:27 pm (UTC)Is this why the ADA and FEMA and such only apply to companies with 15 or more employees?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 10:03 pm (UTC)Do you mean FMLA?
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 10:08 pm (UTC)And oh fudge, I just realized it clouded over. So much for observing in the nice warm evening.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-22 10:07 pm (UTC)