I wanted to share my views on this ruling that now employers have something else to add to their duty to accommodate. I am wondering when will or does this end? How does this affect all the employees that have older children and before this came to life, how did all the others deal with the face they had to work and have a flexible daycare for the times they have to work over time?
I am not siding one way or another, just to be clear I will be voicing my opinions on both sides.
Side one: the non-union employee; Why is it that they are not allowed to just change shift with another employee? You now have "Sally" who has just started about 8 months a go and now she is informing the employer that she can not work the shift she was hired on. So what is the solution? Well according the the new court rulings, the employer has to accommodate.
Side two: the union employee; how dies this fit in with a union environment? Will the union just sit by and watch this happen? So now picture "Sally" again has only started about 8 months ago and is the lowest for seniority. Sally has just informed the firm that she needs to change her hours to something that will be more flexible and meet the needs of her children. This will mean maybe bumping someone with more seniority and within the union.
So, the answer to the above? Well the union is going to flip and this means all collective agreements may have to be changed. This could mean the beginning of something horrible and might cause a lot of headaches for the employer. There is never a simple solution with things such as this. Your going to have employees that do not agree. Since you are not allowed to ask if the potential employee if they have children and go further into details, how does one over come this?
Stay tuned for more details.....