I've been following that
case of the woman that has been asked not to wear her cross outside of her uniform as much as anyone I suppose, but am I the only one who thinks it's a total waste of money?
If she took the job knowing full well that there was a dress code for customer-facing staff, why does she feel that she should be treated differently?
My issue is not the cross, as long as for instance a Star of David or any other religious symbol would be treated in the same way.
If I worked for Air India (assuming that I was not overweight
) and was told that one of the conditions of employment was that I wear a turban, then it would be up to me whether I took the job or not. I certainly would not take it, wear the turban for a few months and then take Air India to court becuse I'd decided that I did not want to wear it any more.
When I used to work at Woolworths, there were certain dress rules and others such as we were not allowed money on the shop floor. These were explained at the interview and it was our choice whether we took the job subject to the conditions of employment.
As I understand it, this lady can wear her cross under her uniform (like the majority of people) or she has been offered a non-customer facing role.
As I see it, the issue has nothing to do with race, religion, creed just the terms of employment that she agreed to and has now decided should not apply to her.