Das uber,
You call people muppets and then want them to provide the links for you.
No, I want you to provide this brand new thing called evidence. So far you've provided none and expect empty assertion to pass for argument. That's not how it works.
I suggest you actually read the 149 page 2010 Act instead of just downloading the 2 page fact sheet.
I have. Have you? Because if you had, you'd recognize that the 2nd quoted paragraph was the relevant section of the act itself, not something from a fact sheet.
I am well aware of employment law in Victoria and again, JQ will not be applying quotas.
Ah, the list of logical fallacies grows. This is one of my favorites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
"What are they actually doing? What evidence do you have for it?"
And i may have answered this before? I dont know what they are doing. Its not my company and not my business. All I know is what is published in the article:
Let me translate that for everyone here; "No, I don't have any evidence. But let me try to phrase it in such a way so that it doesn't sound so bad."
".....aim for an even split....." and "an explanation must be provided" and "striving for better diversity".
Maybe they have started an ad campaign to convince girls considering the industry that it is totally possible. Maybe they are holding aviation forums at girls schools.
Maybe they're building a rocket to take us to Mars too.
Its up to JQ as to how they achieve an "even split", but I assure you, it wont be by applying an employment quota.
Assure me based on what evidence?
Can I ask you das uber, why do you think JQ would want to discriminate against male pilots? What do you think would be the motivation?
The real question, the better question, is why did you ask this when the answer is so obvious? The reason is you're trying to pivot the debate away from that of the legality of the discriminatory practices of Jetstar, an argument you're rapidly losing (some say lost), into an inevitably circular and pointless argument about the motivations of the company, which isn't relevant and isn't something I'm interested in being caught up in.
So, lets recap.
Is J*'s stated aim illegal? It isn't.
Why? Because I've shown you specific legislation that enables it. When challenged, you have failed entirely to provide evidence otherwise.
This is why I call people muppets.
