Islamists get the Last Laugh at Swift Plant

by Chris on November 11, 2008 · Comments

This appears to be what is the final follow up on the story of the Muslims at Swift Plant who demanded extra break times to pray for the month of Ramadan. After a back and forth struggle which saw about 100 Muslims being fired, Swift will be paying the Muslims hundreds of thousands of dollars. They were even fined for having Muslims sign a contract saying that they would be willing to handle pork, which is considered haraam in Islam or forbidden. So now we see that employers cannot even defend themselves in advance by asking Muslims if they will handle pork. For more on the hazards of hiring Islamists go here.

Minnesota Plant That Fired Muslims for Taking Prayer Breaks Will Pay $365,000
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

MINNEAPOLIS — Under a settlement to a federal lawsuit, up to 100 Somali Muslims who are current or former workers at Gold’n Plump Inc. will receive a total of $365,000.

The settlement was filed in Minneapolis on Friday. It sprang from allegations of religious discrimination at the company’s chicken processing plants in Cold Spring and Arcadia, Wis.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed lawsuits against St. Cloud-based Gold’n Plump and the Work Connection Inc., an employment agency in St. Paul, which handled some hiring for the plant.

Under the settlement, Gold’n Plump agreed to pay $215,000 to workers who were terminated for taking prayer breaks.

The Work Connection will pay $150,000 to workers who were asked to sign a form acknowledging that they might be required to handle pork, which many Muslims consider unclean.

The EEOC estimates that 40 to 100 workers will qualify for the payments.

Link to Article

Related posts:

  1. Meat-plant owner “uncooperative” in Muslim prayer fight
  2. Colorado muslims walk out, get suspended by JBS Swift & Co over ramadan breaks
  3. The Hazards of Hiring Islamists
  4. UK:Muslim Twin Sisters hit the Jackpot With Lawsuit
  5. A Somali Influx Unsettles Latino Meatpackers
  6. UK: Muslim Postal Workers Demand 3 Extra Breaks a day
  7. Palo Verde Nuclear Plant on Lockdown
  8. Iran admits development of second nuke plant
  9. UK: Muslim chef suing, claiming discrimination for being asked to cook pork
  10. American Al Qaeda caught in Yemen worked at New Jersey Nuclear plant
Want automatic updates?
4 choices: Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or get daily email updates
  • Tonto
    Got it. Thanks bernie.  Pretty amusing really.  So, I guess, an employer should refuse to hire muslims and wait for the lawsuit.  Chalk it up to a added cost of doing business.  Let them take 'em to court.  Screw the muz!
  • @tonto:  hover over the words 13 reasons not to hire Muslims. and click on highlighted link.
  • Tonto
    OK Bernie, Where's the list?
  • Your post gave me the inspiration to list 13 reasons not to hire Muslims.
  • ender, I'm not berating you, I'm ticked off as usual. Muslims shoot kids in the head, make them drink there own urine in chechnya..

    Muslims relish death.....
    Muslims live to die.....

    AND WE HIRE THEM AT A FOOD PLANT ?

    WHO ARE THE FOOLS ? Us or them ?
  • ender
    they did control production, by walking off the line and starting a riot, they stopped production.

    the only good thing here is that the lawyers will get all the money.  but just watch as the number of lawsuits pile up as everyone wants a handout.

    I don't understand how anyone in the food industry could hire a muslim.  I would be worried of food tampering and the following deaths and lawsuits of their jihad.
  • Tonto
    The crux is not in the Constitution here, but in the labor contract.  I just talked to my brother, a LR lawyer, and he said the Constitution was actually on the side of the muz on this one.  If they were "controlling production" or causing a loss of productivity, the Company would have a bitch.  If there's no contract, company was wrong.  Besides, how many Northern Judges are conservatives?  Crap, they give suspended sentences to pedophiles up north.
  • simon
    what a friggin joke :(
  • SWIFT = " Stop While I Freaking Think "

    And for the readers, this should rile you all up a bit.

    President Bush, Israeli President Shimon Peres and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will attend religious tolerance forum headed by
    ( HOLD BREATH ) SAUDI ARABIA....
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111103029.html
  • Tonto
    We have a long way to go before the muz get anywhere around here.  The muz that went into that big "prayer" act at the airport in Detroit didn't get anywhere.  The acted funny and got kicked off the plane.  Reasonable suspicion.  They "could have" been saying their last prayers before death and were planning on dying trying to do something to the plane.  They sued.  They lost.  In, the Bible belt, are you kidding?  The lib-lefty pukes will buy into the BS, but the Southern Babtists won't play that crap.
  • scott
    Our own government is going to force Islam upon us in the name of political correctness (among other things).

    There seems to be no escape. 10, 15, years?  how long will it be until we resemble the UK or even Lebannon?

    Of course after BO disarms us then we won't be able to fight back against the animals we're embracing now.  Wonder if BO knows his daughters are destined for the hijab, and female mutilation.
  • simon
    ... very worrying.. I was wondering though... does that mean that all you have to do to get five breaks is say you are a moslem?.... how would they know if you are not one. Just say you hate gays, and beat your wife... voila lots of breaks
  • jennyjen
    Reading that crap just infuriates me. It's an American business and it functions under American guidelines. Screw these God-forsaken Muslims, swine be upon them. Now I just wanna go throw pork rinds in the mosque parking lot north of town, hmmm....I wonder what my buddy with the pig farm is doing later today haha!
  • Storm-Rider
    An American corporation has the right to fire people who don't perform the tasks agreed to prior to employment. An American corporation is an assembly of private individuals who agree under contract to work on the one hand, and pay for work on the other. When the contract is broken by an employee, the right of the employer to freely assemble with others, i.e.: to hire other workers, is protected by the first amendment of our Constitution. This court decision not only flies in the face of common sense; it is un-Constitutional.


    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


    We must not allow our courts, including the Supreme Court, to have the final word on the meaning of our Constitution - especially our Bill of Rights. The final word on its meaning must derive from the people of the United States themselves through their elected representatives, i.e.: Congress. We must have an amendment to our Constitution giving Congress 2/3 override power on all lower and Supreme Court decisions which affect our Constitution; just as Congress has a 2/3 override power to reverse a Presidential veto. We must also amend our Constitution giving term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court.



    “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.”   Thomas Jefferson



    “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”  Thomas Jefferson




    “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense.  Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”   Thomas Jefferson



    “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power are the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves….When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves….”  Thomas Jefferson



    “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.”  Abraham Lincoln



    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”  Abraham Lincoln
blog comments powered by Disqus