There are a few opinions and points of view written here which I can't really argue against because they are opinions on something which may or may not happen. I don't agree with them, and think that the laws are strict on sexual discrimination during recruitment & promotion. I know the EOC report found that a shocking number of employers openly flout the law with regard to pregnant staff. I certainly hope that BA will not do the same and indeed would be most surprised if they did. I'm not sure if the fact could be easily concealed: wouldn't a simple head count of the number of female pilots now and in a year's time reveal the answer? Or am I missing something?
airbusgirl's point is a belief rather than a stated fact or a claim. The point is correct about the law; what she is refering to is the industrial consequences of this judgement. For too long, PTW for both RTR and lifestyle have been denied for general and blanket reasons, mostly along the lines of "we can't afford it." This judgement allows us to approach the company with a platform to build a better way of doing things. From my perspective as a rep, this can only be positive.
Heliport:
1) I started to write a long answer here going into details about how we argued the case with regard to hours and I've scrubbed it. The case is still live, and with your forbearance, I would like to take some advice on just how detailed I can be in a public forum (is this classed as a public forum?). To date, I have only written what came out in the tribunal itself, which may or may not make it public knowledge. I'd better not go further without some advice. Sorry about that.
2) the 'personal' thing - fair play. I should have said "veered into personal abuse", for some of the things said about her have been inexcusable.
3) if you check on the previous page to this, lou scannon asked why she didn't have her children before entering the airline.
4) as for comprehension, I wrote this because I think it is the single biggest beef I have come across in all the months of advocating Jessica's case. And in a way I kind off understand, because discrimination laws are on the face of it supposed to make things equal, and this case seems to be doing the opposite. It is not until the crucial fact about it being assumed that the female is the primary carer and therefore suitable adjustments to working conditions should be made, does it make more sense.
Maybe "comprehension" has connotations I hadn't realised in this debate. I would certainly never intimate that anyone who didn't agree with me was blind and mad, nor do I agree with Madonna, who stated that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is the same as mine", though it would be useful sometimes...
cc - thanks for the kind words. Yes, to the best of my knowledge BALPA will be supporting Jessica through the appeal. The usual mechanisms will be in place.
Best wishes
Dave