The difference presumably being,
ifaxu, that she and her husband
chose to have children.
Had the situation you described occured, I dare say that the situation would not have transpired as a result of choice. Consequently I would suggest that the two situations would not be considered in the same way.
I'm only calling this the way I see it, on the basis of what has been written in the thirty-odd previous pages. Many people who have a beef with this decision do so because the occupants of Starmer Towers made a
choice to have kids with what appears to the casual observer to be a '...and bugger the company" attitude.
What is as significant about this case for me personally, just as much as the verdict, is the fact that we can seemingly right what has been referred to by many as an inequality by swapping it with, in my view, just as big an inequality. Humour me for a moment, if you will....
By that, I mean that any pilot granted a part-time working contract (and again I'm referring to a general situation rather than this specific case) will continue to accrue seniority at the same rate. Meanwhile while those who are left working the line have to firstly help pick up the slack left by the lack of resource (i.e. they have to work harder - and elsewhere on these forums are BA pilots talking of how they already feel worked to the bone) while only gaining seniority at the same rate as those who work half as hard.
This, to me, seems inequitous. Yet nobody seems to have picked up the banner of righteousness on this issue.
And what'smore, it has been shown that more women both apply and are granted part-time working within BA than men. Consequently, I conclude that male pilots are going to be disadvantaged by this inequity in the rate of accrued seniority disproportionately moreso than women.
I'd say that, on the basis of the transcripts from the tribunal, might well be a case for playing the sexual discrimination card....
Finally, a day or three ago somebody said that if this sets a precedent, it will create jobs. That may be true, but here is some food for thought;
If it does, will they be part time jobs or full time?
If new staff get taken on to fill the manpower gap left by those going onto PT contracts, what would happen if, for any socio-cultural reason, many of those PT workers came back to work therby creating a manpower surplus?
Once the kiddies have grown up and left home, maybe they would want to come back to work. If/when the pensions crash really bites, perhaps they'd be forced back into FT work. Perhaps when they've accrued enough seniority for a captaincy they might feel more inclined to go FT again. There are many possibilities.
What happens then? Does BA just end up with a bloated workforce and hence become uncompetitive? Do the pilots taken on as back-fill recieve their cards ("Sorry darling, but you're no longer needed...")? Or do those on PT contracts get told that they simply can't come back full time?
And, if the latter, will we see more tribunals?
