Conscience and Profession

[Seasanctuary]

Since it's in the news again (http://mediamatters.org/research/201001150013), let's talk about conscientious objection at the workplace. I see these situations as a collision of principles. On the one hand, there's the principle that workers shouldn't be discriminated against because of a strong moral or ethical objections. On the other hand, some jobs or businesses are expected to provide services or carry out their work in a way which is known to be against some people's ethics.

Consider telemarketers. As a telemarketer, your employer may ask you to use tactics which you consider outright deceptive (but are legal). You could sell products over the phone without violating your conscience, so should you have the legal right to tell your boss you won't do so and keep your job?

Consider a nurse who believes vaccines cause health issues rather than help at all. The nurse could do all sorts of helpful things otherwise, but she refuses to assist with or administer vaccinations.

Or a DMV desk worker who refuses to assist citizens who have been convicted of drunk driving in the past.

Is there a general principle which can be applied to protect workers, employers, and customers whether or not you -- the reader of this thread -- agree with the objection?

[princesa]

well it's not black and white, that's for certain, ....private organizations would have a right to fire an employee for not performing his duties based on personal beliefs (i.e the DMV worker....in which case I side with the DMV).....nurses who don't want to administer vaccines, I can respect that but again it shouldn't come as a surprise to the hospital, she should make this known upfront or be fired if this is goes against the hospital policy. It all depends on circumstances too,,...if I need to feed my family than my conscience is going to have to wait and I'll be a telemarketer using deceptive tactics while i look for another line of work....i think maybe the general principle will bend according to the circumstances

[Faramir]

Under Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, an employee may request reasonable accommodations for strongly held belief's and the employer is bound to grant any request for reasonable accommodation as long as it does not produce an undue hardship on the employer.

Wait, that is still confusing. Welcome to my world (I deal with Title VII issues a lot).

Edit to add:

For example.

Employee A is a doctor opposed to abortion. He gets a job at an abortion clinic. It would be an undue hardship on the abortion clinic to pay a salary to a Dr. that does not perform the primary and essential function of a Dr. and an abortion clinic.

Same employee A, gets a job at a hospital out patient surgery clinic. The clinic performs abortions about twice a year and has 10 other doctors who are willing. For employee A to not perform abortions is a reasonable request that does not pose an undue hardship on the employer.

[Seasanctuary]

"reasonable" and "undue" leave a lot of room for interpretation, I'm guessing!

[Faramir]

"reasonable" and "undue" leave a lot of room for interpretation, I'm guessing!

Yes. There is a ton of case law on this. The example I gave was pretty black and white, it is the gray ones that drive me crazy (and make me think I deserve a raise :smile: )

[Seasanctuary]

Yes. There is a ton of case law on this. The example I gave was pretty black and white, it is the gray ones that drive me crazy (and make me think I deserve a raise :smile: )

I definitely agree with the examples and the overall intention.