企業管理者難避職場宗教爭端

Last year ended as it began: with managers trapped in religious arguments.

去年的結尾和開頭一樣，都出現了企業管理者身陷宗教爭端的事件。

In January 2013 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that one employee had a right to wear a cross at work while another did not. And at the end of December, Marks and Spencer, the UK retailer, faced boycott threats when a Muslim employee insisted customers go to a different till to pay for alcohol.

去年1月，歐洲人權法院(European Court of Human Rights)裁定一名僱員有權在工作時佩戴十字架飾品，同時裁定另一名僱員無權這樣做。而在去年12月底，英國零售商馬莎百貨(Marks and Spencer)面臨受到抵制的威脅，起因是一名穆斯林僱員堅持讓買酒的顧客到別的收銀臺去結賬。

These were British disputes but they resonated widely, reported from New York to Shanghai.

這些爭端雖然出現在英國，卻引起了廣泛的共鳴——從紐約到上海，很多地方都對此有所報道。

My sympathy is with the managers: they are asked to judge questions that divide religious scholars while politicians and a febrile press inflame these workplace disputes to spread their own toxins.

我挺同情那些管理者的：外界要求他們在這些連宗教學者都無法達成一致的問題上作出評判，與此同時，政客和狂熱的媒體還在這些職場爭端上煽風點火，傳播自己的有害思想。

Does the Muslim prohibition on consuming alcohol or pork mean employees can’t touch them, even when they are sealed in glass or plastic? Anyone walking through a supermarket can see Muslims who have no problem sliding these products past the barcode readers. For those who do have a problem, M&S says it has long had a policy of placing them in the clothing department or bakery instead. It told the Jewish Chronicle that it did the same with Jewish staff who did not want to handle pork or seafood.

穆斯林禁止飲酒和食用豬肉，是否意味着穆斯林僱員不能觸碰這些東西，即使封裝在玻璃或塑料容器中也不行？任何逛超市的人都能看到不介意拿起這些產品在條形碼閱讀器上一掃而過的穆斯林僱員。對於那些介意的穆斯林僱員，馬莎表示，公司很早就制定了一項政策，也就是將他們安排到服裝部或烘焙專區。馬莎告訴《猶太紀事報》(Jewish Chronicle)，對於不想經手豬肉或海產品的猶太僱員，公司採取了同樣的做法。

To employ someone on a checkout who would not deal with all customers equally was a mistake, as M&S admitted – but that did not prevent an outpouring of press bile, and suggestions that customers were ready to take their business elsewhere.

正如馬莎承認的那樣，僱傭某個不願接待所有類型顧客的收銀員就是個錯誤。但這並沒有阻止媒體傾瀉怒火，也沒有擋住關於顧客準備到別處購物的說法。

When these disputes flare, companies find themselves caught in culture wars that have little connection with their businesses. The result is that nuance is lost, along with any recognition of companies’ efforts to behave reasonably.

當這些爭端爆發時，企業發現自己陷於文化戰爭之中，而這些戰爭與它們的業務幾乎沒什麼聯繫。這些戰爭的結果是，微妙之處的差異不復存在，人們對企業合理化自身行爲的所有認可也蕩然無存。

Take the case of the British Airways employee allegedly sent home from work for wearing a cross, one of the subjects of the human rights ruling I mentioned earlier.

就拿英國航空(British Airways)那名據稱因工作時佩戴十字架飾品而被停職的僱員來說吧，她是我上面提到的有關人權裁定的對象之一。

This was portrayed, once again, as an example of how companies strive to accommodate every religious whim – unless it is Christian.

這個案件再次被描繪成一個例子，表明企業如何竭力遷就各種宗教情結——除非它是基督教。

What happened was different. In 2004 BA introduced new uniforms, including an open-necked blouse for women, to be worn without jewellery. Any adornment for “mandatory religious reasons” was to be covered up if possible, but allowing male Sikhs to wear turbans, and bracelets with shorts sleeves during hot weather, and female Muslims to wear headscarves.

實際發生的情況卻不是這樣。2004年，英航推出了新制服，包括女性僱員穿的一款開領襯衫，要求穿着時不得佩戴飾品。任何出於“強制性宗教原因”而佩戴的飾品都應被儘量遮掩，但公司允許男性錫克教徒戴頭巾、熱天穿短袖時可戴手鐲，允許女性穆斯林戴頭巾。

For two years, the complainant, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian, wore a cross under her clothing. Neither she, nor any member of the 30,000-strong BA uniformed workforce complained.

案件的原告——一名生於埃及的科普特基督徒(Coptic Christian)——兩年來在制服下佩戴了一枚十字架飾品。她和其他3萬名身着英航制服的僱員都未對公司的相關政策有過怨言。

In 2006 she started wearing her cross above her uniform and when she refused her manager’s request to put it back under her clothes, was sent home without pay. BA offered her a non-uniformed job, where she could wear her cross openly, which she refused. Shortly after that, the company reviewed its policy and announced that staff could wear a cross or Star of David openly.

2006年，她開始將十字架飾品戴在制服上面。在她拒絕上司要她把飾品放回到衣服下面的請求後，公司停了她的職，而且不向她發放任何薪水。英航向她提供了一個不需要穿制服的崗位，在那裏她可以公開佩戴她的十字架飾品，但她拒絕了。此後不久，英航檢討了相關政策，宣佈僱員可公開佩戴十字架飾品或大衛之星(Star of David)。

The employee claimed she had been treated unreasonably – and lost at every stage in the UK, from the employment tribunal to the Supreme Court.

這名僱員稱，她之前受到了不合理的對待，而且在英國的每一級裁判機構——從勞資審裁處(Employment Tribunal)到最高法院(Supreme Court)——均輸掉了官司。

However, the European court decided that, as responsive as BA had been, its earlier ban had been disproportionate – a ruling greeted with joy by the politicians and newspapers who usually regard the court’s rulings as the work of the devil.

不過，歐洲人權法院卻裁定，雖然英航後來反應積極而迅速，但其早先的禁令卻是不適宜的。這項裁定受到政客和一些報紙的歡迎，儘管他們通常將這家法院的裁定視爲“魔鬼之作”。

At the same time, the court dismissed a claim from a nurse who had protested against her hospital’s insistence that she remove the cross from around her neck, in line with a rule that no chains or Sikh bracelets be worn in case a geriatric patient grabbed one. She had refused her managers’ suggestion that she wear her cross as a brooch instead.

同時，歐洲人權法院駁回了一名護士的索賠請求，後者狀告其所在的醫院堅持要求她摘下脖子上戴的十字架項鍊，以遵守醫院的相關規定——即不能佩戴項鍊或錫克教手鐲，以防有些上了年紀的病人突然抓住這些飾品不放。醫院領導建議她改佩十字架胸針，但她拒絕了。

Most workplace disputes do not come to this because most people are reasonable. Managers try to accommodate their employees’ requests, whether religious or personal, and most employees accept compromises and try to make it easier for their companies to help them.

多數職場爭端並沒有發展到這種程度，因爲大部分人是比較通情達理的。管理者努力遷就他們僱員的請求（不管是宗教方面的還是個人方面的），而大多數僱員也接受折中方案，併爲企業向他們提供幫助創造便利。

When these exceptional incidents hit the headlines, it is usually because someone wants them to for reasons that have nothing to do with work.

當這些例外事件成爲新聞頭條時，通常是因爲有人出於種種原因想讓它們成爲頭條，而這些原因與工作沒有半點關係。

It would be nice to think that managers will be spared the consequences in 2014 but I doubt that they will.

但願管理者們在2014年不會遇上這些麻煩。但我懷疑，他們還是躲不開。