Taking on An Airline for Discrimination- Whos been there?

[Bendigo]

Wondering if anyone has any knowledge about how to take on an airline if you felt you had been discriminated against in the hiring process?

Initial enquiries indicate that the various state eocs( equal opp comms) may be the most effective mechanism, as federal HREOCs doesn't have the legislative teeth. I'm talking about a situation where you felt you probably did OK in an airlines appt tests, sim , and interview, maybe even better than some of those that got hired, but were maybe a litle outside ideal parameters(age,or age/experience).

Not bitter at all ,and have moved on to alternate career - still love to fly a high performance single though! But i have a belief that in this country if you feel you didn't get a fair shake at something you should be able to have a crack at the organisation-no matter how powerful and wealthy that organisation maybe.

As stated previously my initial advice indicates that the state eocs are the way to go- the option of seeking a remedy directly in the courts directly is not availiable. So is there anyone out there who knows something about this.?The only person i can think of who successfully took on an airline for a employment discrimination type issue was Debra Wardley, have there been others?Do you think an airline would settle or fight like a tiger if someone decided to take them on in this type of matter?

As previously stated am not bitter or angry, or on some kind of crusade, but believe i may have a strong case. Unfortunately it seems that in Oz many powerful organisations whether they be corporates,insurers,banks or the govt p!ss on the individual because they think they can get away with it. You can take them on and win if you are in the right.

[The Voice]

Bendigo ..

you don't say which state you're in or where this happened, but based on your nic, I've punted that it is Vic.

My advice would be to make a time to attend and speak personally with one of their (The EOC Vic) officers and tell them the story/issue(s).

They are the ones that will counsell re the best course of action to follow.

Now, I know that the following is not aviation specific, but an individual took on the government agency that was employing, (but not initially him - he was passed over for recruitment).

He made enquiries thru' the EOC of his state/territory. They (the EOC) approached the relative recruitment body/person and quietly asked them what/how/when they arrived at the decision.

When it all came out, the facts were thus:

Yes, he has a disfigurement,
the reason given for non selection was that in the opinion of the recruiter, this disfigurement would preclude him from completion of all training/tasks required, in particular the firearms training.

When asked, the recruiter had to admit that there had not been at any time during the physical testing (as required at that time) to test specifically if this/or any person could complete/do that task.

The EOC advised that they could not justify without doubt that he could not do the job.

Negotiation = him volunteering to complete a test to see his ability to meet the training standard. He did it, both 'hands', better than an able bodied person.

Result? said recruiter could not successfully argue that the male with the deformity was not discriminated against at the time of recruitment, and together with him ably demonstrating that he could in fact complete the training, ensured him a place on the next recruit intake.

He successfully completed his training.

The physical testing component of the recruitment has been amended to hopefully include the appropriate demonstration of what may be required in the job if there is some sort of deformity.

no nasty litiguous event took place, all very quickly and quietly dispensed with.

His disfigurement? one x normal hand and one arm with partial hand formation, no fingers to speak off, but three 'buds' that he has over the course of his life learned to manipulate everything that everyone else does with normal fingers.

Now, I realise it isn't age that was his issue, however it is illegal to disallow anyone from employment on that point.

But I have demonstrated that not every issue that is raised, is one of discrimination that needs to get to the point of a trip to the local court, or god forbid .. the High Court ..

contact the EOC in your state, every EOC operates under the federal requirement ...

[ITCZ]

Whos been there?

Deborah (Lawrie) Wardley.

Pretty big case it was too. Not for the faint hearted.

There is a biography around somewhere...

Background info:

http://users.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/dlawrie.html

By the way, you weren't really very specific on what it actually was that you were unfairly discriminated against..? Age? Experience?

[BlueEagle]

Bendigo - Just a word of caution. Employers still have the right to employ, or not and if they have twenty vacancies then those that didn't make it have not been discriminated against, they just were not in the top twenty. How it is decided that they were not the best could be an issue but whereas you think you did well in the SIM, were you in the top twenty, (or however many vacancies there were)? In this instance it won't be your opinion that counts but that of the Check and Trainers who carried out the SIM ride.

You mention age/experience, it is possible that for your given age and experience they didn't think you were good enough, despite you believing that you were OK and you will have a really hard job to prove otherwise. It was the check on the day that counts, not your training history and any employment tribunal will have to accept the airlines point of view that they have to be able to draw the line somewhere based on their interview process. Your only glimmer of hope in that direction, as I see it, is that you can prove that their recruitment process is faulty, fat chance I would say.

Would you be considering having a go at the company if they were quite small and did not have deep pockets? Launching a crusade against big business by the Little Man may be commendable but has to be founded on rock hard indisputable facts and your belief that you did as well as or better than some other applicants simply won't cut it as your opinion is subjective.
The company will recruit, according to age and experience, people who will fit into their structure and hopefully enjoy a career path without always being the odd one out due to either an excess of age or experience and possibly become disenchanted and unhappy, demoralised employees as a result.

Think about it - in the meantime the best advice so far has come from The Voice and sounds like a good path to follow.

[griffinblack]

Blue Eagle,

I am far from an expert at civil aviation, having no experience of the commercial world. Nevertheless, I have a lot of experience in the check and training role. I also have a lot of friends who have gone, or propose to go, to the airlines and talk about ‘being too old’ or not ‘having enough hours for my age’.

You state ‘The company will recruit, according to age and experience’. I would have thought companies would recruit based on competencies. This is relatively easy to measure and produces a level playing field without bias. The old days of getting in a jet and saying ‘yeah, you did ok’ without a model or structure has gone – or should go!!

I am not sure what sim Bendigo flew and how the company evaluated those flights. Nevertheless, all assessments should be graded against performance-based criteria. Anything less and you run the risk of redress.

I understand what you mean, Blue eagle, when you state that people need to fit into the structure. Thus if you have a bunch of young twenty and thirty something’s in the company it may be difficult to fit in when you are fifty. But that should not be the basis upon which selection is made. The military has increased their entry requirements to 48(?). This is not necessarily because 48 year olds are desirable. Or because they find getting through pilots course easier. Far from it. And, I believe they are assessed on a level playing field. Not based on age versus experience.

I think Bendigo may have to seek the assessment criteria upon which he was assessed (possibly under FOI). I am not sure if he is entitled to access the other candidates. You are quite right about the fact that if there were twenty places, he would need to place in the top twenty, not just passed. How he does this – I am not sure.

Hiring on the basis of age is not legal.

Griffinblack

[Bendigo]

Well the airline involved is the mighty Q. Personally i think they are a great airline and i wish them well. But my gut tells me i didn't get such a fair shake at the flight crew selection process. So i am considering taking them them on.

The proof would be in comparing my data (appt scores etc plus biograhical data) with that of applicants who got hired. This data is clearly held by QF , and you couldn't get it without supena. Therefore the only way of obtaining the proof involves taking action.

State EOCs are a cost free mechanism, you only start paynig legal costs if an agreement isn't reached and your case proceeds to a hearing. You hear so many stories about employment at QF. It is difficult to seperate those that maybe factual ,from those that involve obvious disappointment or biterness. Does anyone know where some of the bodies are buried regarding QF flight crew selection. You here so many stories that your surname matters ?- is there any evidence of this? Feel free to PM me.

[BlueEagle]

Griffinblack - Didn't make myself clear. An Airline will employ based on age and experience that best fits their criteria and mould assuming competency to be a given.
I agree that it would be wrong to tell someone who had 'aced' it through the SIM check that, despite that, they were not selected due to age.

Bendigo, go for it by all means but I suspect QF are well enough ahead of the game not to get caught out at a tribunal on a discrimination issue, I feel certain they will have all bases covered and I doubt you are the first to consider taking action.

[Red Hot Chili Pepper]

QF’s selection process is not very legally robust.

According to xxx xxxxx , QF has had very few people challenge their hiring decisions. This is because pilots are so hesitant to challenge the results of a selection process, not because the decisions are legally sound.

The farcical skills testing stage is highly questionable both in the choice of tools and the manner in which the data is interpreted.

I know candidates who having failed this stage, have asked QF for feedback and been told they don’t provide feedback as a manner of corporate policy. I wonder if the person making such a comment realizes that they are indeed required to provide feedback.

QF recently employed a good friend of mine. Having completed skills testing, simulator and interview, he was informed that he had passed the selection so far and all that remained would be a brief chat with Cap XYZ (CP or similar). This suggests that had he been unsuccessful, the reason would have been that the CP had vetoed him. I wonder what competencies Cap XYZ was measuring during the brief chat.

[bitter balance]

Discrimination is part of any selection process by its very nature. Federal and state legislation establishes areas in which it is illegal to discriminate between candidates. For example: it is not illegal to discriminate against a ********. It is illegal to discriminate aginst a ******** on the basis that said ******** is male or female. Until recently in some states it was perfectly legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexuality.

The real question is do you have any basis to believe that Qantas illegally discriminated against you in their selection process? i.e. did they exclude you because of your age or racial background? More importantly, do you have any possible way of proving it? Tribunals and courts are not there for fishing expeditions, you need a compelling argument or you may find yourself on the wrong end of the QF legal machine. The usual "I'm an ace and bloggs isn't and he got in" routine that we see from people here won't cut it.

Red Hot Chilli Pepper - I'm not aware of any law that requires an employer to provide feedback to an unsuccessful candidate (at least not in Qld). Many govt departments and companies do this as policy however I can't find any law that requires it.

[bonvol]

There was one guy who took on QF about 5-8? years ago. Went to court and he "won". Was in the papers so maybe a search would dig up the details.

By "won", as I recall, the court decided he was discriminated against but didn't order he be given a job. I think the basis was age but could be wrong.

[BlueEagle]

RHCP you said:
"QF recently employed a good friend of mine. Having completed skills testing, simulator and interview, he was informed that he had passed the selection so far and all that remained would be a brief chat with Cap XYZ (CP or similar). This suggests that had he been unsuccessful, the reason would have been that the CP had vetoed him. I wonder what competencies Cap XYZ was measuring during the brief chat."

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Having been successful so far, as adjudged by those qualified to do so, a candidates name will then be put on a list of equally qualified candidates that is sent to Capt XYZ.
That will possibly be the first point at which Capt XYZ has any say in the matter, Capt XYZ makes an assessment of how he thinks that individual will fit into the flight deck, something he is surely qualified to do? How many pass all the tests and then get knocked back at the final interview?

[Red Hot Chili Pepper]

Blue Eagle,

I am not sure how many are rejected at this final stage. Probably very few.

“Capt XYZ makes an assessment of how he thinks that individual will fit into the flight deck, something he is surely qualified to do”

The skills testing, sim ride and interview are designed to do precisely that – determine the candidate’s job/role/organizational fit, technical ability etc.

What grounds would Cap XYZ have for rejecting a candidate? Flying skills? This was tested in the sim with a pass. Leadership, teamwork, communication? These were covered in the interview with a thumbs up.

Cap XYZ would find it very difficult to justify rejecting a candidate based on an informal discussion. In the example I refer to, the CP was not taking any notes or keeping a record of questions asked. This is a legal requirement – what if my friend had been rejected and persued the matter in court. How would Cap XYZ present his case? From memory? What reasons would he give? He didn’t like the cut of his jib. He wasn’t wearing a club tie?

[Kelly Slater]

Red Hot Chili Pepper, you say that Qantas are required to provide feedback on skills and aptitude testing. Could you please explain how one would go about getting said information. Obviously, asking nicely does not work. Thank you.

[bitter balance]

RHCP, there is no legal requirement to record interview questions or to record the measurement of competencies. It is good practice to do so (in the event you have to justify a decision in the future) however it is not a requirement. The scenario you have put together would only be a problem for QF and Captain XYZ if he discriminated against the candidate using an illegal basis as defined in fed and state legislation. No company has a legal requirement to employ someone who passes their selection process.

[Cart_tart]

This is an interesting topic. I'd like to hear what you think from an FA's point of view.
I have been flying with a QF regional carrier for 4 years now. I am on the shortlist with QF mainline and have been for over 12 mths, with the shortlist to expire Feb 28 2004.
When I received my shortlist letter I was told when vacancies arise and you meet our critera (hmm thought I already had!) you will be offered a position. NOW. I paid a fair wack of money to even apply for the job (with medicals, courses, security check etc and I know I certainly haven't paid anywhere near as much as you pilots do for your training!!) and i'm starting to really wonder whether i will get a job at all as QF are employing through a NZ agency & basing new recruits (kiwi's) in AUK. Cheap labour compared to us Aussies. I don't understand how they can be allowed to get away with this when there are Australian's on a "short list" to work for an "Australian" company.
IF my time on the short list is not renewed, I am seriously thinking of approaching QF for my $$ back for medical & security check, as it is in my opinion that they have never had any intention of employing anyone from the shortlist and they will just continually employ cheap labour from overseas.
Does anyone else share the same opinion? Do you think i'd have a chance in hell of getting anywhere? :) I would almost consider what they are doing as a type of discrimination as they obviously need crew, but are employing overseas (NZ & Thai's although i'm not sure if any Thai recruitment has gone on lately) and there are Australians that have gone through the QF recruitment process and obviously been found to be worthy of being employed by them. Hence discrimination due to nationality! Perhaps there is a case there? The whole thing really pi$$e$ me OFF! :*
CT
x

[Q-Tee]

Some information that may help.

No Q is not required to keep any records of test results etc. However, you are entitled to see any records they do have on your application - by law.

The Federal Privacy Act (1988) was originally designed to keep government bodies a bit more 'transparent' in regards to the personal information they kept on individuals. In Dec 2001, the same act was broadened to apply to all large businesses and charities in Australia.

Any personal information collected by a business (including for job applications) must be made available on request to the individual involved.

Principle 6 - Access to records containing personal information

Where a record-keeper has possession or control of a record that contains personal information, the individual concerned shall be entitled to have access to that record, except to the extent that the record-keeper is required or authorised to refuse to provide the individual with access to that record under the applicable provisions of any law of the Commonwealth that provides for access by persons to documents.



Qantas is not required, however, to provide feedback .... just any information they have stored about your application - hence if you ask them for feedback, they will say no. However I believe thay cannot say no to a request to view any information they have compiled in regards to your individual application. They arent required to show you the questions/ criteria etc used during the selection decision. Just anything relating to you personally.


They, however, can not under law provide you with others' information for comparison purposes etc . This is a breach of the same Act.



I believe Q has been taken to task by quite a few people for 'discrimination' in regards to employment. All of the instances I have heard of relate to cabin crew employment. The most famous being the 'height case' where some people took Q to court claiming that their height restrictions were discriminatory. Q went to great lengths to prove that their height restrictions were based on occupational health and safety reasons. They brought in specialists from all over the world and proved that people too tall or too short would eventually have health problems if they continually worked in an environment where the bench heights/ cart heights/ ceiling heights etc were too high or low for people outside a certain height range. They proved that by hiring people outside the set height requirement, that they would be breaching the OH&S act, by knowingly putting employees at risk just by by hiring them (vey clever!). I dont believe Q has lost any employment discrimination case in regards to crew recruitment.

Q has a very fierce legal team, they would fight any claim of discrimination. If they didnt, they would open the floodgates to thousands of people.



Cart_Tart

Q has the right ( like any other business) to employ staff based overseas. Most airlines do, and so so a lot of large corporations in other industries.

You havent actually passed all of their selection criteria until you are offered a position in writing. ;) That is why they say 'when there are vacancies and you meet our criteria' in their letters. They are telling you that you have gotten this far - but the process is not over yet!

As for getting your money back, you have no hope I am afraid. Sitting the medical/ security checks etc is the same as having a first aid cert. It is a requirement to be considered for the position, and a requirement that you have to fork out for if you wish to be considered for the position.


As for Q never intending to hire those on the short list, well you would have to prove that, and that would simply be impossible. Q would just come back with figures on how much it costs them to do a national recruitment drive, and that would be enough for anyone to see that they wouldnt do it for 'fun' ;)

good luck with the shortlist though :cool:

[bush mechanics]

Bendigo,Maybe you were just not good enough!!!maybe your attitude shone thru?
Life goes on.You can still buy a ticket and sit up the back.
Who gives you the right to tell someone to give you a job,Any job?

[The Voice]

BENDIGO

I appreciate your disappointment at being unsuccessful, but consider this:

you may have just flagged to the mighty Q some impending dilemma .. the element of surprise is lost. I'll bet you London to a brick they will have answers for whatever it is you may think that you've got them on.

I would'nt proceed without getting very very good legal representation .. and heed the advice that is given after you have laid down the FACTS to said legal eagle.

the first place I'd go to, is the EOC ... then if there is a case to be made, I'm sure they'd be in there, writs and all ...

[Bendigo]

Bushmechanic:

You could be correct, may i wasn't good enough. For a number of reasons i think this is unlikely, and it would probably be unwise for me to elaborate further, but i would not be able to prove this unless i could access records of how successful applicants rated as compared to me. I don't think i have an attitude but you can call me by whatever name you wish that's your perogative. I don't think you have the right to tell a company to give you a job, but i do believe your entitle to a fair shake once you throw your hat in the ring. I had a few chats with some senior QF drivers was told a few things "off the record" like regarding age. In my experience if something looks like a duck, and it quacks its probably a duck, if somethings not quite right you can smell it.

The Voice:

I appreciate what you say about the element of suprise, and i did consider it. In my experience in Oz large companies will always "spin" , and if need be lie and destroy or alter documents to win in civil litigation. So there is no real advantage to have an element of suprise, as an Australian Corporate is going to "spin" ,lie, deny , and destroy documents regardless. Like it or not that's standard practice in Oz and that's why we have a reputation as sleazebags overseas. My understanding is that the only avenue you have is a state EOC , which sends a copy of your complaint to the respondent, you don't have the option of lodging a writ in a court for these matters. In Oz the company will then respond saying whatever it has to to deny any wrondoing- and the game then begins.

[The Voice]

Bendigo ..

did you get a new shovel for christmas or something ..?

you keep digging yourself a deeper hole everytime you post ..

or, this IS a wind-up!

[bush mechanics]

Bendigo.
Maybe you win a court case and you get the job.
You then fail your check to line.Are you going to take them to court again?
Maybe just maybe they have seen something in you they didnt like.

[BlueEagle]

Bendigo - another thought! If you were to win a discrimination case against QF they may not be obliged to employ you and if they were Bush Mechanic has given you a possible scenario.
On the other hand such a victory would be all over the Australian press and every CP from Broome to Hobart would know that you are the litigious one and not want to employ you either. Every one is human and makes mistakes but they don't need you sitting on their shoulder to point them out!
Any victory would indeed be pyrrhic, suggest you put QF behind you and move on, convince yourself that not only do they not need you but that you do not need them! Best of Luck and once again I suggest you heed the advice from The Voice and many others on this thread.

[Bendigo]

Well i guess you can never really project tone on these boards. I am really pretty happy with my present career , and still fly regularly. Maybe i will take QF on maybe i won't it's really not something i obsesse about.

This post isn't a wind up. BM: I think you definetly have to pick you battles -life isn't fair - that is something i understand. So i 'd reckon it would be pretty unlikely that i'd issue legal proceedings following a busted sim check. I've always copped sweet any test result from school, or flight school.If you went around issuing writs every time you got the shaft- you would be a pretty unhappy camper.

I don't agree with the naysayers on this thread though-Who seem to be putting the view that QF is so powerful and mighty , and their lawyers so crash hot that it would be a pointless fight.Ordinary people do have the ability to take on corporates/government and whip em good. WWW.austlii.edu.au will provide you with thousands of examples.

If i do decide to take action i would be fairly unconcerned to say the least if the matter attracted any publicity, and any CP forming the view that i was "litigious".

[Di_Vosh]

Okay Bendigo. You tried for something, and you didn't get what you wanted. Now you want to go to the courts.

(Sounds a familiar tune of the times, or is it just me?)

And yet here you are, asking for our help/tips, possibly even sympathy, and yet it is obvious that you're not levelling with us.

Your posts are contradictory. Read through them again, if you will, including your bold statement on D&G Reporting points where you "Will be taking on QF - regards employment discrimination - Pilot." How does that reconcile with your posting of only 3 hours prior, and your more recent postings?

While I agree that you cannot post tone on these boards, IMHO, you appear to be a bitter and litigious person (despite your denials).

Please do not insult our intelligence by claiming that you want to take them to court JUST TO PROVE A POINT!

Regardless of what you've read, or heard (or watched on L.A. Law or Ally McBeal) litigation of any kind is a traumatic experience for both sides of the case. While I've never "had the pleasure", I know a few who have, and they are not the same people afterwards (not in a good way). The best advice I've ever had from a Barrister is "Don't be on either end of a Subpoena".

Read the advice from The Voice, BlueEagle, and Bush Mechanics.
They are trying to help you.

Get on with your life.

P.S. Why do you think it would be simply CP's that were concerned with you? The publicity wouldn't be limited to just flying employers...

[funnelweb]

Bendigo,

Have a look at the third or fourth page of:

http://www.equalopportunity.wa.gov.au/pdf/dm2.pdf

or put "Blatchford v Qantas" into Google and have a read;

you won't get anywhere though as Qantas will always win, just

reconcile yourself to the fact that if your over forty you'll never be

good enough to be a member of the boys club at QCC2.

[Bendigo]

Well this thread is starting to get interesting.


Funnelweb:

Thanks for the case. My reading of the reference was the Blatchford won , i'm pretty sure on this but check it again. I checked austlii and couldn't find any appeal from Qantas either.So
it seems someone has taken on QF in the relatively quick ,and cost effective forum of an EOC tribunal and won. I couldn't find the case on the NSW EOC database- they don't list all cases. Does anyone know any more about the case, ie: what orders were made eg: compo or directive for person to be employed? The other thing to consider is that others may have taken action and had their applications settled before a public hearing-so for sure there may well be a few bodies buried somewhere.

My gut tells me that very few flight crew take on QF in this regard. It seems some folks really get quite emotional when this topic is discussed.

At the risk of further inflaming further emotions,my reference to surnames(prior post) referred to those who had others with the same surname already employed as flight crew.I also hear that some within QF felt that the many contract 737 FOs from Ansett, were given a pretty raw deal when many were rejected for permanent employment.

[Bendigo]

Come on ,who is Blachford,someone must know what orders the EOC made. Seems like the " You've got buckleys mate, you can never beat Qantas" Brigade have quietened down very quickly when it becomes apparent that they are incorrect.

[DirectAnywhere]

Just had a look on the crew lists and whoever "Blatchford" may be they're not working for QF mainline anyway.

[Di_Vosh]

Personally, I couldn't be bothered discussing it further with you.

IMHO, you are wrong. You disagree.

You seem determined on your course of action, regardless of the advice/opinions that you asked for.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Look at the positive side. QF knocked me back about four years ago after my second interviews. Looking back on it, I'm glad they did.
I'd much rather fly for a living anyway.:cool:

[BlueEagle]

Well, for someone who comes here seeking advice, (and gets it), you can certainly be bloody rude can't you Bendigo?
Like Di_Vos and many others we frankly couldn't give a toss, we have lost all interest. Go ahead and sue, make a name for yourself, though possibly not the name you would be hoping for.

The very attitude you display here may well be the reason that QF said "No thanks" - one could hardly blame them.

[The Voice]

Bendigo ..

It is very hard to have a reasonable and logical discussion with someone who is neither ..

so, go take your tough guy stance and use it somewhere else, it is neither warranted nor appreciated in this place.

[Bendigo]

Well i haven't come across a group(last few) who are as defensive, reactionary, and quite frankly as dim for some time. Your standard response if someone does not agree with you is to insult them.
Most of the advice given by the last few is wrong as the Blatchford case proves - you seem to have some conceptual difficulties accepting this.I suggest this is because of you education level,and where you are at mentally.The arguments you make demonstrate a lack of maturity and sophistication in your thought processes ,and reasoning ability.

[404 Titan]

Bendigo

Go ahead and sue QF. Personally I think you’re treading on your own d**k. Failing an airline interview can be a major body blow to one’s ego, but don’t let it cloud your judgment. From someone who has conducted interviews for another airline, technical ability is very black and white but personal attributes are very subjective. Just because you may think you are a great bloke doesn’t mean everyone does. If QF knocked you back because they thought you didn’t fit the personality profile they were looking for, I think you have bucklies of winning. They have every right to refuse you employment on these grounds. You mightn’t like it but that is life and I think you should get over it. My suggestion to you is to re-apply and try and get another interview. Next time though, sell yourself better. After all that is all a job interview is and as pilot’s we are generally pathetic at it. Oh and may I suggest you loose the attitude. The people on this forum are trying to give you advice. You don’t have to take this advice but there is no need to be rude about it. :rolleyes:

[Woomera]

Titan404 ahhh. now there's a great workhorse and a lovely ship to fly.:O

Thank you and on that note and a cornucopia of the best advice around.

I think I might sue them too, for not giving me Geoff Dixons job :rolleyes:

click!

W