• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Which Rights Take Priority?

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
LOL that is a very blunt way to put it. It is a bit off the mark though. In my job I work with machines that have over the years maimed some very good tradesmen. I take that risk everyday, there are several machines however I will not run because to me the risk is to great, thanks to the Union, my boss has to work around that. With the exception of those machines, I do my job in a professional manor on any other machine in the shop.

Now if the Moral Pharmacist (TM) refused to dispense lots of meds then I'd side with you. This one however has drawn the line at birth control medication. Now the boss knows this and has to work around that fact.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
You're right. The pharmacist had no obligation whatsoever to do her job if she didn't feel like it.

Just imagine what would happen if everybody didn't do their job because they didn't feel like it.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
LOL that is a very blunt way to put it. It is a bit off the mark though. In my job I work with machines that have over the years maimed some very good tradesmen. I take that risk everyday, there are several machines however I will not run because to me the risk is to great, thanks to the Union, my boss has to work around that. With the exception of those machines, I do my job in a professional manor on any other machine in the shop.

Now if the Moral Pharmacist (TM) refused to dispense lots of meds then I'd side with you. This one however has drawn the line at birth control medication. Now the boss knows this and has to work around that fact.

That's the thing though. The boss didn't know, because the employee never stated the he/she had anything against contraception.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
That's cause the issue didn't come up. I didn't tell my bosses I would operate certain Machines because I didn't know. In this case the boss found out after the case (s)he made a mistake when questioning potential pharmacists.
 
That's cause the issue didn't come up. I didn't tell my bosses I would operate certain Machines because I didn't know. In this case the boss found out after the case (s)he made a mistake when questioning potential pharmacists.

I'm not really sure that it can be called the boss's mistake of not finding out. It may be that many employers ask that sort of thing, maybe even right on the application. Still, I tend toward the view that the mistake is most likely with the employee who has an objection.

However, regarding your previous post, I agree that it is very important to consider how many medications the employee has a moral objection to. That is why comparisons to things like a pro-life person working (er...not working) in an abortion clinic are clearly mistaken in application. Still, it is reasonable to ask why the person chose to work in a pharmacy.
 
I think the person decided to work in the pharmacy because they like that kind of work.

I work in a refrigerator factory, but I refuse to get large or heavy crates off of the top racks (60 or so feet up). I even have my forklift license and drive the lift quite often. But I'm just not comfortable doing that, even though it's necessary on a regular basis. They just get somebody else to do the tricky drops. My boss wouldn't dream of firing me just because I'm uncomfortable doing one tiny part of my job. He just finds someone else to do it.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
That's cause the issue didn't come up. I didn't tell my bosses I would operate certain Machines because I didn't know. In this case the boss found out after the case (s)he made a mistake when questioning potential pharmacists.
The pharmacist should have told their boss that there would be a conflict in morals, but the the pharmacist didn't do that. It's their own fault.

I think the person decided to work in the pharmacy because they like that kind of work.

I work in a refrigerator factory, but I refuse to get large or heavy crates off of the top racks (60 or so feet up). I even have my forklift license and drive the lift quite often. But I'm just not comfortable doing that, even though it's necessary on a regular basis. They just get somebody else to do the tricky drops. My boss wouldn't dream of firing me just because I'm uncomfortable doing one tiny part of my job. He just finds someone else to do it.
You don't do a required part of your job, because you can just get someone else to do it for you? What happens when there's no one else?
 

Hox

Banned
You don't do a required part of your job, because you can just get someone else to do it for you? What happens when there's no one else?

You aren't really seeing what mattj is trying to get at. Currently, there are laws in the U.S. that provide reasonable accommodation to workers that may not be able to completel specific facet of their job. For example, if you have rheumatoid arthritis you might not be able to lift certian things over a specific weight limit. It is against the law to discriminate against this person (Unless the job in question is focused mainly on lifting things, like being a stock boy for UPS or FedEx) At a gas station where heavy lifting isn't required that often, employers are expected to accommodate. So the question is, is a physical in-ability to do something as important not to discriminate against a religious or moral inability to do something?
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
The pharmacist should have told their boss that there would be a conflict in morals, but the the pharmacist didn't do that. It's their own fault.
Yeah it would have been nice for the moral Pharmacist(TM) to have showed even more moral fiber by outing him/her self but that is a slightly different topic.

You don't do a required part of your job, because you can just get someone else to do it for you? What happens when there's no one else?
In my case the job waits till someone can do it. Honestly making someone who is concerned about the safety of said job can be a bad idea.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
You aren't really seeing what mattj is trying to get at. Currently, there are laws in the U.S. that provide reasonable accommodation to workers that may not be able to completel specific facet of their job. For example, if you have rheumatoid arthritis you might not be able to lift certian things over a specific weight limit. It is against the law to discriminate against this person (Unless the job in question is focused mainly on lifting things, like being a stock boy for UPS or FedEx) At a gas station where heavy lifting isn't required that often, employers are expected to accommodate. So the question is, is a physical in-ability to do something as important not to discriminate against a religious or moral inability to do something?

I get it. People with disabilities get benefits. We're not talking about that here. It's more like if the person with arthritis didn't tell anyone and then didn't do their job.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
I get it. People with disabilities get benefits. We're not talking about that here. It's more like if the person with arthritis didn't tell anyone and then didn't do their job.

That's not the only part of what mattj was talking about. He brought up the example of his job at a refrigerator factory where despite having a forklift license, he isn't comfortable moving some of the higher items. The employer just gets someone else to do it. That's good because if mattj isn't comfortable doing it, nobody should want mattj to do it anyway because he might have that instinct for a reason and not do the job well.
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
I think the person decided to work in the pharmacy because they like that kind of work.

I work in a refrigerator factory, but I refuse to get large or heavy crates off of the top racks (60 or so feet up). I even have my forklift license and drive the lift quite often. But I'm just not comfortable doing that, even though it's necessary on a regular basis. They just get somebody else to do the tricky drops. My boss wouldn't dream of firing me just because I'm uncomfortable doing one tiny part of my job. He just finds someone else to do it.

You really think that compares?
 
No. I was testing a new font. I had to post something to see what it looked like so I just made that up. I don't really believe any of it.

@ Marioguy:

Seriously, where is the proof that the pharmacist didn't tell their boss that they were not comfortable handling birth control? No one has provided it when asked, especially not you, so stop making the claim. There's just as much evidence (none) that the pharmacist told their manager, but the manager neglected to staff accordingly.
 
Last edited:

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
No. I was testing a new font. I had to post something to see what it looked like so I just made that up. I don't really believe any of it.

How cute. Now, just so I'm clear. You personally do not feel comfortable getting loads off of high shelves due to skill/safety reasons? Where as the pharmacist did not feel comfortable handing out regular prescriptions of birth control because of her moral beliefs.

Is the comparison here the employers right/ability to fire the employee (you or the pharmacist) or are you attempting to compare the two situations based on the employee not doing something...


@ Marioguy:

Seriously, where is the proof that the pharmacist didn't tell their boss that they were not comfortable handling birth control? No one has provided it when asked, especially not you, so stop making the claim. There's just as much evidence (none) that the pharmacist told their manager, but the manager neglected to staff accordingly.

Wouldn't what needs proving be that the part time pharmacist did tell her employer that she did not feel comfortable handling birth control? Do forgive me if that is not the case due to misunderstanding the current trend in the topic. I've not managed to keep up with everything over the past few weeks since the semester started back up.
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
@ Marioguy:

Seriously, where is the proof that the pharmacist didn't tell their boss that they were not comfortable handling birth control? No one has provided it when asked, especially not you, so stop making the claim. There's just as much evidence (none) that the pharmacist told their manager, but the manager neglected to staff accordingly.

Look at the first link.
A spokeswoman for Lloyds pharmacy said she was not aware which religion the pharmacist belonged to...

This reminds me of your Bible thread. Instead of telling us why the Bible should be used in debates, you asked why it shouldn't and then dismissed every response.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
You really think that compares?
They are the same thing at the core of it Ched. An employee does not feel right doing a specified task and exercised their right to refuse said task. If the Moral Pharmacist (TM) dispenses 300 scripts a day in a timely manner and fails to deliver one or even ten is that really a grounds to fire the employee?
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
They are the same thing at the core of it Ched. An employee does not feel right doing a specified task and exercised their right to refuse said task. If the Moral Pharmacist (TM) dispenses 300 scripts a day in a timely manner and fails to deliver one or even ten is that really a grounds to fire the employee?

Oh sure, strip them of all intent and meaning and they are indeed the same at the core. The core being you have two employees not doing their job. Whether or not they are comparable in terms of having grounds to fire said employee is debatable but reasons for which someone does not do their job makes all the difference. In this case not doing your job because you are morally against it does not compare to not doing your job because you feel incapable of performing your job in a safe manner.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Nicely argued. Yes you have two employees not doing something they feel strongly about. 99% of the time the employee gives you a solid days work why fire them over one hiccup?

Both employee's show a level of concern that an employer should respect. Both are placing safety of health/life over making a buck. Do we really wanna crush that because we are more interested in money? I DON'T like the Pharmacists choice, but I respect the reason for the decision, just as I do the warehouse worker who feels unequal to the task of getting a pallet of fridges safely.
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
People are fired every day for hiccups. It is common, it is acceptable and in some case it is expected.

You can respect their reasons all you want, that doesn't make them exist on the same level. Both employees are refusing to do their job. One is refusing to do their job because they feel incapable of performing the task safely. The other however is refusing to do their job because they do not agree with it. They are not the same and one deals with safety or health/life as you put it. The other? Not so much; in our pharmacy case, it's actually conflicts with concerns of safety because the woman was using birth control to treat other conditions.

I'm curious where your profits argument even came from though. I've seen no indication that the loss of profits were the main repercussion...
 
Last edited:

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Slightly convoluted but it is there. Each Script and each fridge sold makes money, so if one is not sold profits are lost. Lose enough profits and your business closes. Thus it is the loss of profits as well as service that are being considered here. It's why we put so high an emphasis on customer satisfaction. Give the customer what they want and they will probably come back.

Do you think the pharmacy would have issued an apology if they were not worried about losing business? It's just one script out of thousands processed every week. By itself it's not even peanuts!

Maybe I am being cynical...
 
Top