The Mounties yesterday.

The Mounties today.

The Mounties tomorrow.

Fine, you don't have to wear the hard hat... but we won't spend a nickel of insurance money on you when a chunk of lumber cracks your skull open if wearing a hard hat would've prevented or mitigated the damage. Fair enough?

Perhaps the Sikhs will begin to resent the funny hats the RCMP wear. Maybe they'll file a lawsuit and force all RCMPs to wear turbans.

It's time for America to stop following those who seek to tear her down, whether inadvertently or deliberately.

http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-time.html

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com

Can you blame them?

Hindus will see "other" religious groups shouting and getting their own way and must think "Hey, maybe that would work for us, too"

All this PC nonsense should have been stopped years ago, now I fear it may be too late.

These comments are disappointing, Sikhs are to Muslims as the Hildabeast is to the Republican party.

The turban for them is not a political statement, but an expression of their faith, much like some Jewish men who choose to wear skullcaps in public.

"much like some Jewish men who choose to wear skullcaps in public." - ex-pat

It would be comparable to a Jewish man who demanded to wear a yamulke on the job instead of the required uniform. I'd object to that as well.

Concerning the Sikhs, in addition to their turban, they are also to carry a dagger and a comb for their beards. Are we going to have people carrying daggers on airplanes or into court rooms because it's an old religious "expression of faith"? I doubt it, but you never know anymore.

"This is pretty ignorant and pretty insensitive of the employer to bring such a policy. We are living in the 21st century. We are living in the hub of multiculturalism."
It's not about intolerance, it's about SAFETY ON THE JOB, stupid!

I have known a number of Sikh men, none of whom have ever carried a dagger on their person. Theory and practice are being muddled here. As for their beards, what is the problem with them or any other male sporting one?

Second the comment about the yarmuke (the proper name) and a uniform is a red herring. It would be a stretch to envision a workplace situation in which wearing a yarmuke would interfere with a uniform. As an employer, one would find oneself with some serious workplace issues if a practicing Jew was told to remove his yarmuke.

"I have known a number of Sikh men, none of whom have ever carried a dagger on their person. Theory and practice are being muddled here."

Indeed they are being muddled - by you. So you're saying the dagger and comb are kinda optional, but the turban is not?

I have know several Sikh men as well, and they generally did not carry the dagger, but they also removed their turbans to do work on a regular basis. You can't make your argument both ways.

As for the yamulke - it can be worn under hard hats or other uniform headwear. No problem. Nobody really needs to see because, as you said, it's an expression of religious belief - not a political statement.

I think that if safety on the job demands it, for instance construction or in this case working in the lumber industry, then safety regulations should trump personal/religious preference - put on your hardhat and quit yer bellyachin!
I do know, however, that sikhs served with distinction in both world wars and the administration of Inda under Great Britain. I think the sikh mountie looks kind of cool and would not see an issue with a turbaned mountie.

This is a job safety issue. If the hardhats could fit properly over the turban, no one would say anything.

This is a silly comparison, but think about it: if one's religion demanded that one wear spike heels all the time, would you want that person on a construction site, climbing steel beams and so on?

If these guys were to get injured or worse, killed on the job because they weren't wearing hardhats, just imagine the tort lawyers lining up to sue the construction company. Safety first.

Can't we come up with a compromise? we could have them dip their turbans into resin and they could wear hard-turbans?

I have actually seen Sikh men wear the dagger here in Texas, I'm not sure its illegal but does make people nervous.

xantl,

I worked with a guy from Texas once who had a cowboy hard hat, so maybe your idea would work with the turbans too.

I was wondering about the Sikh dagger too, so I did a little digging. It's supposedly strictly symbolic (to cut through to enlightenment etc), but what about the origin of the custom? I suspected it derived from a need for protection from the ROP, and sure enough, persecution of Sikhs by the ROP is at its root.

This is absurd, if you cant use the required uniforms and equipment then find another job. What next? If a persons religious beliefs prevent them from working with women should they be accomodated and all the women fired?

I guess the next madness is that Sikh race-car drivers and motorcyclists will demand to wear their turbans instead of crash helmets.

I think I would just make them sign a waiver and if they are OK with getting their nice little turban all bloody when their head gets split open, so be it. It's when they start wanting people outside their faith to engage in their religious rituals that I get concerned. We certainly have challenges to the "now everybody just get along" theory that our parents and grand parents never had!

The cute little lid for Jewish men sure causes confusion. It has 3 valid names. I've always heard it called a yarmulka, but skullcap and kippah or kipot are considered proper names as well.

I think I would just make them sign a waiver . . .

HoosierArmyMom

The problem here is that we are trapped in a "it's not my fault" society. Even when wavers are signed, the rule becomes, "My lawyer can beat up your lawyer." Then there's also the argument of, "Well if you get injured, the medical expenses paid by the insurance/government/etc come out of other people's pockets, so since they are paying your way, you have to play by their rules."

All of this mess could be cleaned up rather neatly:

• No-fault insurance (we were just informed here in Texas our MANDATORY liability insurance rates are going up)
• Hard and fast insurance rules: If you wreck your motorcycle and you're not wearing a helmet, tough.
• PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (this is the real reason it will never happen)

No, there's really no need to go any further. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past.

Amen Lyle... I was "living in the past"... sigh!!!

Attorneys=Politicans=Laws... no wonder jurisprudence isn't "prudent" any more. We should call it American Jurisclusterschmuck!

A turban is more important than keeping your cranium in one piece?

If the company has any brains, it will force these idiots to sign a waiver for any future head injury.

Or find new employment.

you guys are wrongh . have heard this joke white are no even a little dumb browns are perfect and blacks are over done
and sisyphus you are an idiot you self

supid idiots

you guys are wrongh . have heard this joke white are no even a little dumb browns are perfect and blacks are over done
and sisyphus you are an idiot you self

supid idiots