I have two thoughts on reading of a Muslim woman who alleges that she was fired for wearing the traditional Muslim garb and thus failing to comply with a retail store's dress code.[1] Obviously to the extent this is true, it is entirely unacceptable. While I am rather unsure how much this could directly be used against Catholics, I remain convinced that any and all examples of religious discrimination or persecution must be resisted because otherwise the practice and mindset is confirmed and legitimized.
But that is not, perhaps surprisingly, my sole focus on reading this article. Equally noteworthy is the opportunity this presents to look at the practice of requiring retail employees to wear clothing that can be purchased at the store, or, as the dress code apparently states, "wear clothing that reflects the current in-store seasonal fashions."[2] Retail is a hard business, with hard hours, (relatively) low pay, and lots of demands. Despite the discounts given to store employees, the fact remains that they are required to buy clothing several times a year (as fashions consistently change from year to year), where I might purchase clothing only to replace stuff that has gotten old or no longer fits. This necessarily detracts from the real wage they earn. Now I certainly understand the company's perspective. Being in the business of selling clothing, you certainly do not want your employees to effectively be advertisements for someone else. Along the same lines, this requirement effectively re-enforces the dress code, maintaining the desired atmosphere of the store (which is necessarily affected by the employees). In justice though, if you are to require what amounts to a uniform, it seems at best border-line unjust to then turn around and require the employee purchase it. This is compounded by the fact that occasionally you see sales where "the employee price" is the selling price. I sincerely doubt that the store is making zero profit on these sale items, that the sale exists simply to pull people into the store in hopes they will return outside the sale or purchase non-sale items. To the extent that I am correct, that a profit is still being made, the requirement that employees purchase clothing becomes more unjust, as it amounts to the same as taxing federal employees. In both situations, you result in paying your own salary.
I point this out, because lately I have been asserting that our capitalist society has many points about it which are indistinguishable from slavery. Once, we recognized that the factory or mining town owning all the homes, and the stores were goods were purchased was unjust. This really amounts to a limited form of the same situation. For the bank owns your home, the company makes profit on both your labor and your purchases to enable you to do that labor. Compound this with the temptation to avoidable debt, and the (relatively) low salaries that make that temptation at once felt and at the same time create instances of unavoidable debt, and you see a situation not entirely unlike the situation share croppers found themselves in just after the civil war, or that indentured servants found themselves in before the Revolutionary War. I believe both situations are clearly not significantly distinguishable from slavery strictly defined.
[1] Duffy, Shannon P. "Judge OKs Muslim Woman's
Lawsuit" Law.com 2005-08-09
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1123504530160
[2] quoted
in the above.