How University Draft House Doesn't Respect Freedom of Religion
Under capitalist society, religious and 'spiritual' devotion is reserved for the upper-classes.
Author’s Note: This is Part II of a series exposing how University Draft House, just one link part of a bigger business chain in the Rio Grande Valley, exploits workers and treats them like disposable commodities. Read Part I here.
Although churches and other sizable religious institutions insist that working people follow their edicts and precepts, bosses are not expected to respect their observances, even if there may be some ‘laws’ that suggest otherwise. In practice, bosses have their way with working people, when it comes to that. Religious observances affecting work availability are only respected at the managerial level-and-up. Working people, especially those employed at restaurants open over the weekend, are expected to work as the managers please.
University Draft House in Edinburg is just one of those places within the broader national and international context. In fact, as a recent employee of this restaurant, managers at this location often weaponized the fact that it’s “no different than other restaurants” to justify their disregard for some workers’ preferences for coming in on Sundays, among other complaints.
The first group message I ever received, after being allowed into a group channel on a phone application used for scheduling and communications, came from the store manager — Chris Cedillo. I don’t have a record of the exact wording, but it basically explained that (legally-speaking) University Draft House was not obliged to grant people’s requests to have Sunday mornings off for church. He cited staffing issues and sprinkled the statement with disingenuous and faux apology, but the message was quite clear:
‘We don’t have to legally let you go to church; so we’re not going to.’
On the day I got fired for exposing their ‘tip stealing’ operation to other servers, one of these former coworkers asked me if I could trade my upcoming Sunday evening shift for his Sunday morning shift, so that he could attend church. I knew how much it meant to him, so I gladly accepted, and told him I would cover for him. He was very grateful and told me about how his requests to not work Sunday mornings were never respected by management.
It is rather odd—come to think of it—that they would schedule him to work on a Sunday morning, knowing full well that he’s a passionate believer, and that they would not schedule me for a Sunday morning, knowing full well that I’m a passionate non-believer.1 Another co-server told me the same thing, that they wouldn’t respect her availability, either. She said it’s something she would bring up at the upcoming staff meeting July 23.
Emily, an assistant manager, had been going around requesting “anonymous” suggestions for Monday’s meeting which she later used to snitch on me to Steven Salinas, the person who fired me. (Salinas mentioned that I was the only one to submit an “anonymous” question about ‘tip sharing’—which was a lie. So much for anonymity.) This coworker who shared our concerns said she placed the question of availability in the “anonymous” suggestion box. We agreed managers were purposly antagonizing people with scheduling requests.
After getting fired at the end of my shift Thursday night-Friday morning, I noticed I still had a few notifications on my phone screen from the scheduling app. The first two informed me that the shifts I traded with co-servers had been “completed.” Then, an hour later, it said our shift trades had been “deleted.” (Only management can delete ‘completed’ shift trades.)
Funny, isn’t it, how on the day I was fired for exercising constitutionally-protected speech I also accepted to work in the place of two other co-servers who needed the time off, because management did not respect their requested availability?
Related Coverage:
Cedillo asked me upon hiring if I’m free to work Sunday mornings, citing issues with other staff who request Sundays off. I said of course, I’m an atheist. He laughed and replied in the affirmative, adding that he himself was “agnostic”.