Martin, its a palm cross, which is difficult to decorate oneself with. As such, this is a a form of discrimination - not so much of Christians, per se, but of quite what one is allowed display of one's faith. Ironically, Christianity has possibly the lowest number of compulsory symbols - none (after all, none of us are required, as part of our faith or denominational belief, to display any symbols). I wonder why crosses seem to offend people so much?
Then get a silver cross and hang it around your neck, or a tie clip or a badge! For heaven's sake Andy, use your imagination! The company's policy doesn't say that it has to be a compulsory symbol to exempt it, only that it has to be worn on the person rather than displayed in the vehicle. It ain't rocket science.
I think the other issue is that the company would appear to be being inconsistent in the application of their own policy. If they had applied it consistently, why hadn't this guy been told to remove his symbol long before this complaint was made? Surely the van is checked on a regular basis. As such, it would smack of hypocrisy on their part - and I can see why the guy is querying the decision.
Well this is a feather in the cap of the company isn't it? What they've done is to ignore the problem until there's been a complaint. I daresay they'd say that it hadn't been drawn to their attention and that they don't go looking for ways to criticise their employees. The guy isn't 'querying the decision' he's refusing to comply with the policy.
Home
Search
Calendar
Login
Register