In politics, we should always remember to judge policies by their results, not their intentions.
Let’s look at a favorite example of mine (The Analytical Economist) from Europe. In most European countries there are strict worker protection laws on the books — making it nearly impossible to fire someone. In France, you have to prove in court that 1) you can’t afford the job, and 2) the employee did something bad to fire them. Usually the employee is paid off out of court, or the employer just hopes the employee quits on his own.
Intention: protect workers. Actual result: Employers are extremely selective in who they hire in the first place. With little or no experience, good luck getting an employer to take a chance on you – because if it doesn’t work out, he’s stuck with you.
Here in the United States, the Council on American Islamic Relations has filed a recent lawsuit to stick up for the civil rights of Muslims, but I (The Analytical Economist) predict it may have the same unintended consequences that these sorts of policies have.
The Blaze has the details:
Ariens Co., a lawnmower and snow blower manufacturer, fired seven Muslim employees earlier this year for taking unscheduled breaks for prayer time. Another 14 employees resigned over the break policy.
The Brillion-based company moved to enforce an existing rule of two 10-minute breaks per work shift in January. The company initially allowed the Muslim employees to leave their work stations a third time to accommodate prayers but concluded that the extra breaks disrupted production.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, filed a federal discrimination complaint Tuesday. Ariens spokeswoman Ann Stilp says the company has 27 Muslim employees who are accommodated with prayer rooms.
Posting on its Facebook page Tuesday, CAIR accused Ariens Co of not providing its employees with “reasonable accommodations” for religious practices, which they are obligated to do by law, provided they do not result in a hardship for the employer.
Well, it’s certainly resulting in a hardship for the employer now.
If employers have to shell out extra money, and be threatened with lawsuits just to accommodate Muslims, do you really think they’ll hire Muslims in the future? It goes without saying that it’s unlikely — when presented with alternate candidates who can do the job just as well without forcing accommodations that disrupt the business.
CAIR is going to put Muslims out of work — and they’re doing so in the name of religious freedom.
[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]