It can be hard to take a clear view on this simply because it's not clear whether all the facts are in the public domain or not.
Certainly, from what I have read here and elsewhere, a pilot joined an airline on certain terms and conditions. Those T&C's led the pilot to believe that they might be able to make a long-term and intensive commitment to something outside of the workplace on the grounds that they could enter into a 50% part-time working arrangement. On application for this arrangement, the pilot saw their application refused and the eligibility criteria for said arrangement changed to their detriment.
There is a genuine cause for grievance here, a case to be answered. A case of breach of contract perhaps, or a dispute over the terms of employment. Alas, not so. The issue is considered sexual discrimination on the grounds that 'women are more likely than men to apply for 50% part-time working'.
I can understand, given WR's commentary, why this might be so - but I simply don't buy it. The rules are equally applied to all. That the likelihood is that more women would apply than men is not down to the airline. All staff are equally entitled to apply and the fact that more women do so than man is hardly attributable to the airline. I personally agree that mothers and fathers should both become more equally responsible for the raising of children, and over time perhaps general society will agree. In the meantime, to apparently hold the airline to account because of the attitudes of society seems itself to be somewhat discriminatory. If the mother wins this case, it will leave a taste of affirmative action in many mouths - which is fine, if you consider such policies to be an adequate way forward.
Some mentioned that it is shocking that BA don't have a policy on this, and are waiting for the tribunal to decide what the policy is. Actually, it isn't that strange. Given WR's viewpoint, it's easy to imagine that they do have a view on it and would like to implement it, yet are waiting for the outcome of this tribunal to see whether such a policy is legally enforceable, lest they find themselves in yet more hot water.
It could be argued that the way this claim has been interpreted is nothing more than a display of cynicism, almost as if a breach of contract claim or dispute over the terms of employment wouldn't stir the emotions as much as a sexual discrimination case would (as evident already on this thread). As if the airline wouldn't be as quick to perhaps offer concessions or an 'out of court settlement' (either literal or metaphorical) if the grievance was claimed to be more as it appears to some of us bystanders. As if the 'other' ways of presenting this grievance wouldn't provide the same level of polarised, populist support from sympathetic quarters.
Questions that, if answered, might crystallise opinion on this issue include:
- Has the father, a pilot with the same airline, considered applying for 50% working instead of the mother? Parentship is a joint responsibility. As people have said, it shouldn't necessarily be 'left to the woman' in this day and age. As a captain with the same airline, surely he'd have the requisite hours to qualify for the arrangement. If this move hasn't been considered by the couple, why not?
- Would the airline and the couple concerned be willing to enter into an arrangement whereby both of them work 75%? Again - if not, why not? Is it the case whereby it is only suitable for the couple if the mother is the one working part-time? Or is the father already working part-time already?
- If I can play devil's advocate for a moment, if neither of the above alternatives have been considered by the couple, who exactly is being the stereotypical 'dinosaurs'? The people on this thread at whom the accusation is levelled? Or the parents for failing to adopt the progressive, modern-thinking attitude that both parents could be responsible for the upkeep of the child?
In the absence of the above answers, it can be easy to jump to incorrect assumptions about the case. Yet in the absence of those same answers (and, perhaps, even with them) it can be understood why the 'can't have the cake and eat it' school of thought seems to the fore in many.
Finally, there are two sides to every story... except this one. Here there are four. There are those who choose to adopt the attitudes of old, who don't believe that women shouldn't be on the flight deck and who will use this case to cement their beliefs. There are those flag-waving
equalitistas who will say that this is blatant sexual discrimination, who will huff and puff about chauvinism and about how 'we make the right noises but we still aren't really trying, are we?' and who will maintain that women should be eligible for any job they want (which is true) and be able to stay in them on whatever terms of employment are required to facilitate their motherhood at whatever personal cost or incovenience is required, as long as none of it is borne by the mother (which is perhaps more debateable). In the middle ground, you have reasonable and articulate individuals who look at the arguments objectively and decide to come down on either side of the fence. Sometimes, sadly, only to be accused of being liberal tree-hugging luvvies or of having prehistoric attitudes by those with more 'extreme' views on the other side of the fence. I hope that those on that middle ground, on both sides of the argument, cannot discuss this openly and objectively without running the risk of having our character assassinated (often wrongly so).