Qantas pregnancy policy 'flawed'

[Wirraway]

Wed "Melbourne Age"

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/21/lindy_howe,0.jpg
Lindy Howe has accused her employer, Qantas, of treating her poorly after she became pregnant.
Picture:Nick Moir

Qantas pregnancy policy 'flawed'
By Brigid Delaney
April 21, 2004

As a Qantas long-haul flight attendant, Lindy Howe enjoyed glamorous locations and a healthy pay of about $90,000.

But four months into her first pregnancy in 1998, she was made a filing clerk in the engineering department on a grade one clerk rate of $33,000.

The change of duties was the result of a Qantas policy that forbids attendants to fly when more than 16 weeks pregnant.

The policy is implemented because the sustained exposure to radiation in aircraft is thought to harm the foetus.

Ms Howe, a flight attendant for almost 16 years, has taken Qantas to court over the arrangement, which she says was prejudicial to her and deprived her of income and opportunity.

She argues that pregnant flight attendants should be given duties more commensurate with their pay and experience. Her claim, before the Federal Magistrates Court in Sydney, also seeks to change the arrangements at Qantas on part-time hours for flight attendants.

A spokeswoman for the Flight Attendants Association, Victoria Skinner, said: "The association would like to see the company provide a structured program of ground duties for pregnant flight attendants."

When Ms Howe became pregnant with her second child in late 2000 she was working full-time as a customer service manager, supervising up to 14 other attendants on long-haul flights.

Ms Howe again ceased flying at 16 weeks and again the filing position was offered to her. This time she turned it down.

She said the cost of child care virtually consumed the $33,000 wage that went with the engineering department role.

Ms Howe, who began unpaid maternity leave at 16 weeks, argued that as a trained teacher, more suitable duties could have been arranged in a training role.

She is seeking compensation for the period of time between leaving work at the 16-week mark and the birth of her second child.

After the birth, Ms Howe found her difficulties at work continued.

Since no part-time work was offered in her position, she argued, she was forced to demote herself to the position of flight attendant. As a result, she suffered a loss of income.

Qantas made no comment on the case. The hearing continues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Capt Fathom]

The 'me, me, now, now' generation!
I want a family, I want it now, and Qantas can pay for it thanks.
I just wish I could take 18 months off, and then walk back into my old job!
Let's hope commonsense prevails.

[Pharcarnell]

Sorry Cap. Better invest in cast iron jocks, you're on a kicking to nothing on this one under the anti-discrimination act. I'm not making comment on the act itself just your response to the situation.
No matter how biased or relevent anything may seem, the act is quite serious about descrimination in this "enlightened" PC world.
And don't ever think sense, comon or otherwise, has any bearing on the law.

[Air Ace]

And had she continued flying beyond 16 weeks and suffered a misscarriage, Qantas would again have been on a hiding from hell in the subsequent damages claim.

Maybe I'm old, from a previous culture and out of step with modern thinking, but I simply do not believe a long haul attendant's job is the place for a pregnant woman.

She was lucky Qantas offered her some income during her pregnancy.

My two sheckles worth! :uhoh:

[cunningham]

Perhaps the job they offered her was all that was available at the time ? Poor dear.

[126.9]

I guess that Ms Howe has not yet realised that in many countries (mine for example) the minute a cabin attendant is found to be pregnant, she is put out on maternity leave for 6 months, which is compensated for with a remuneration of 10% of her gross annual income. Any further time that she may require off is covered in the furlow agreement with her union, and is "time off without pay."

I guess things aren't half bad Downunda..?

:}

[FFG 02]

Yeah but how many $$$$$ would she have got if she insisted she remained at work, then an actual emergency happens. She gets whacked and looses the baby. Qantas would probably be sued for making her work????????

[kram]

$90,000 to serve tea and coffee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Oz Ocker]

she was made a filing clerk in the engineering department on a grade one clerk rate of $33,000.

Looks like that's all your worth if ya ain't flyin' Ms Howe.

Now fair sucka the save, luv - ya knew that if ya got preggers the established policy of yer employer was to stand ya down to protect yer unborn kid, yerself, and the passengers in yer care, even if you wasn't sensible enuff ta understand that yerself!
The choices ya had - knowing fully well that this would happen - was to (i)take preventitive measures to stop gettin' prego,
(ii) an' I know some of youse are gunna get riled about this, but I'm just tellin' it like it happens, which ain't ta say I condones it..is ta terminate the pregnancy, if ya really want that cash,
(iii)prepare for the stand down, get yerself better educated so that yer can get $90k p.a. when yer not flyin'.

An' then ya went and done it AGAIN!!!

Be seein' youse round!

[Chronic Snoozer]

Looks like a Mysogynists Anonymous bulletin board.

Agree wholeheartedly S-T.

[Pimp Daddy]

Ms Howe, who began unpaid maternity leave at 16 weeks, argued that as a trained teacher, more suitable duties could have been arranged in a training role.


Or as a trained flight attendant, a job in the staff canteen

[34R]

C-S & S-T

Give me a break.

I find it difficult to believe that Ms Howe would not have been aware of QF's policy regarding pregnant employees, particularly it's over cautious approach to cabin crew (in place for the unborn childs well being believe it or not.)

Her role within the company is a flight attendant. If she is undable to fulfill that capacity, why shouldn't her remuneration be affected accordingly. I am asuming she made an intelligent choice to fall pregnant, if that is the case she should make another intelligent decision and realize, right or wrong, that choice was going to have ramifications career wise.

If another flight attendant was unable to perform their duties due to health reasons, failing reval or whatever, would it be reasonable to expect their employer to shift them to another department, but leave their salary unchanged? Please.

Yet another example of an over litigeous society unwilling to take responsibilities for their own choices.

[Taildragger67]

A bit of calm, please, gentlemen.

The law is as it is. So whether it's sensible or an ass, there's little point in arguing about it. If you want to change it, stand for Parliament.

Possibly more pertinent is management of human RESOURCES. That is, it should be possible to statistically model how many staff are likely to be removed from certain duties due to certain conditions, such as pregnancy, and plan around this. That is, if the company knows it will need, say, 10 trainers over the next year and that, say, 8 ladies will go off flying due to pregnancy, then when the statistics are borne out, presto! We don't have to hire outside trainers, the pregnant ladies get ground jobs and Robert is your father's brother.

If, however, twelve ladies fall pregnant, then the last two might have to put up with filing jobs.

This sort ofthing may already be happening however a quick scan through recent posts suggests it may be yet to cross some minds...

I'd suggest that if the company has an active system for placing such staff in commensurate positions, then I'm sure they'll see this one off if they can show that they were genuinely unable to place her. But many other companies allow pregnant females to work right up to confinement - on full pay - so why should an F/A (or pilot) be different?

As for questions as to how she got pregnant... we're all supposed to be of reasonable intelligence here, are we not?

Two cents.

[Left2primary]

"Gentlemen".................?

[VTM]

Taildragger,
I thought the PRIMARY role of a flight attendant was for emergency procedures.
If the women is capable of of carrying out these duties whilst 8 months pregnant then there should not be any problem.

VTM

[Capt Claret]

VTM

I think that you're right, and you're wrong.

The statutory duties of an F/A are indeed safety orientated.

A pregnant F/A may well be able to perform most, if not all said safety duties, such as safety demo, in an evacuation leading pax off the aircraft, or shouting commmands but depending on how heavily pregnant, may not be able to man-handle pax not obeying instructions, or lift incapacitated (through fear or disability) pax if required, and may well be reticent to put their bodies in harms way, through a natural inclination to protect the unborn.

Further, in the litigious times we live in, imagine the affect on the employers bottom line, should an F/A be injured in say a CAT encounter. The possible payout for life long injuries to mum and/or the babe, don't bear thinking of.
---------------------------------------------------------

As for comments on what the lady looks like, and other similar derogatory remarks, well, some folk need to grow up. I wonder if they like listening to the denigration of their own wife/partner/mother/sister?

[VTM]

Capt I agree with your comments, thats why I said capable. I wonder how many F/A s 8 months pregnant would be prepared to jump down an escape slide during emergency reval.
I am sure I would not like my wife to risk it.

[Kaptin M]

The policy is implemented because the sustained exposure to radiation in aircraft is thought to harm the foetus. Interesting comment - I wonder how they feel about the crew`s "sustained exposure to radiation", and possible future liability there?

[Keg]

Kap, a friend from church works at ANSTO and he's previously expressed surprise that there hasn't been more research done on the issue- both of pregnant F/As flying and the general health issue for crew. There has been some research done but I don't recall when or by whom. This bloke reckons he gets less radiation working at ANSTO than the average long haul crew would and yet he wears a radiation detection card regularly whilst we get.....

Admittedly, his becomes more important in the case of a leak which we won't have to deal with but his isn't JUST for a leak.

[air-hag]

When I was pregnant with my 4th (cute little bastard, he was) I regularly flew. Dunno how she can call it "flying" as a hostitute since she just drives a trolley. It's the pilots what do the flying... all she does is get her arse carried around.

Anyway radiation is not to blame for that dirty little bastard's 11 (in total) fingers.

Still, I believe the punters do not want to see pregnant old hags of the air. I believe they want to see crew like these....... (http://www.bfound.net/employers.aspx?CoId=43)


:ok:

[AerocatS2A]

$90,000 to serve tea and coffee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, and $200,000 to sit up the front and drink it. Putz.

I don't see her saying that she should have kept flying after 16 weeks, just that she could have been given other ground duties more in line with her old pay and skill set. Sounds fair, but then maybe Qantas just didn't have anything else.

[Johhny Utah]

That's a huge call there Aerocat :yuk:

Last time I checked, the total time taken to train a flight attendant was somewhere in the order of 3 weeks - with no prior aviation experience needed; rumour has it that QF have recently been training management staff in the role, with it taking as little as a few days to have them up to regulatory standard.

Training to be a pilot takes a lot longer than that. Let's not mention the costs involved in either route of training either, for obvious reasons... :rolleyes:

Like I say to the F/A's at work who put on the sour face/have a subtle dig when i'm heading back to the crew rest while they're about to start the meal service - "If being a pilot is such a cushy job, why don't you go pay for your training & come & join us up the front...." Surely if it was so easy, they wouldn't be breaking their backs doing cart exchange, having to put up with punters, or heaven forbid having to make tea & coffee for the techies....they would be earning
$200,000 to sit up the front and drink it
:ok:

[Keg]

lol. Now thats what I call a 'smackdown'. Nice job Johnny! :}

[Uncommon Sense]

Good to see you are all getting along still.

[mexicomel]

So is there any official policy for pregnancy and exposure levels for airline crew. I know there are rules in europe and the UK.
why are we being so slow here?

[air-shag]

Dunno 'bout up there, me big sis will be able to tell ya, but down here exposure to pregnancy contracted during layovers :} comes under the Workers Compensation Act.:=

[I'm gone!]

Gday all,

To the best of my knowledge the greatest damage from radiation etc is actually done during the first trimester, whilst the most critical cell division is occuring.

Sooo, by 16 weeks its too late luv! Any damage that was going to make any real difference to the development of Jnr, has already happened.

And to comment on the 90k to throw "sorry boxes" out to the punters:yuk: :mad: :{

And then to winge when the company offers you an alternative job, because now due to your own actions and choices you made yourself unfit for the position you were employed! Get a life!:yuk: :mad:

OZ OCKER was on the right track:ok:

Cheers,

I'm gone!

[Bill Smith]

I'm just wondering if they are already onto the Radiation Exposure risks. This disclaimer is on the end of Jetstar's application on pilot.staffcv

I understand and agree that:

Jetstar is under no obligation to provide reasons should I not be successful in my application for employment.
If Jetstar requires me to undertake a company medical examination then my employment will be subject to passing this exam.
An offer of employment is not deemed to be valid unless formally made in writing by an authorised Company Officer and signed by me as an acceptance of the offer and conditions set out therein.
The information provided in this application form is to determine my suitability for employment. Any deliberate misrepresentation or omission in my application may be justification for refusal, or if employed termination of employment.
I understand that the role of a Pilot involves working at high altitudes and latitudes resulting in exposure to cosmic radiation which, although within accepted guidelines, is higher than the exposure of the general population.

[AerocatS2A]

That's a huge call there Aerocat

Which bit?

Johnny,

The point is that if one poster can reduce the flight attendant's job to "serving tea and coffee" then it's just as valid to refer to a Pilot as merely loafing around drinking it. I should point out that my retort was meant to be light hearted, perhaps I should have used a smilie face.

I'm sure that a flight attendant has a fairly easy job when all is going well. However, we both know that they are not just there to "serve tea and coffee" they also have to deal with idiot passengers, not to mention the herd of sheep trying to leave the cabin if, god forbid, something goes wrong.

If flight attending is such a cushy job why aren't we doing it ourselves?

I know what job I'd rather have (and it's not because it's cushy, I just like flying).

[MarkD]

Working as I do at an employment law firm (though not as a lawyer) I can only say good enough for QF. To say "well you're grounded so the only thing you're good for is filing" - the manager who made that call should be fired as it was a gift to her lawyer.

She should have been redirected to training and assisting in recruitment pending return to flight status as this could have been seen as "comparable" and related to her training. Instead QF came off looking like they attempted constructive dismissal.

If a pilot grounded for temporary medical reasons was put filing for spanner wielding lads in the hangar, the screams would be 14 pages and counting by now.

[mexicomel]

so airline staff are covered under the workers compensation act?
Doesnt qantas or virgin have a specific policy?

[cribble]

I suggest that Bill Smith and Kaptin M have the reason she was no longer allowed to fly - exposure of the fetus to cosmic radiation, not spilling someone's drink because of a bulgy belly.

FAA have a good site on cosmic radiation exposure (url to a particularly illuminating part of the site is http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-600/radiation/trainingquestions.htm#reference3).

IIRC, here in NZ, crew are classed as radiation workers and can be subjected to more ionising radiation in the workplace than, say, passengers. We pretty much follow the FAA guidelines. I ran a number of "what ifs" using the FAA's CARI program and crews in my mob would not be able to do enough repetitions of the LAX/LHR run (our worst case) to get anywhere near the max allowed dosage. Growing sprogs, though, are a different matter, and people tend to be a lot more conservative because "we just don't know"

EU have slightly different rules.Qantas will, no doubt, be well aware of their obligations to crews in this area (there is a Qantas 744 captain doing his PhD thesis on radiation exposure to crews).

[mexicomel]

Yeah I have read the Qantas guy's stuff, but I dont think there is a policy in place in Australia. I think we r in the "gung-ho" basket rather than the "cautious" basket like the UK.

Qantas and virgin may be aware but there aint nothin' in place

I know reports in Europel have warned of not just pregnant f/a's but pilots and high exposure and they monitor it much more closely than we do. Does NZ have a similiar policy to australia?

[Jatz]

Female tech crew at QF are not allowed to operate from 'confirmation of pregnancy'...AT ALL... ground duties may be assigned at a fixed wage. (Not full pay but better than waitressing rates) Once again due to cosmic radiation.... I don't know a lot about it but surely after, say, 10 years flying longhaul you're pretty much radiated already... along with any ovum your body releases? Female pilot applicants are warned of this policy at the pre-employment medical -along with a warning about elevated risk of breast cancer.
I can handle not operating if that is company policy. But I do have an issue with being banned from the simulator too! At least let the techies stay current, instead of letting our licences lapse and then re-training.... just seems like a waste of time and money.
My two cents...J
(BTW it is not CASA policy to ban women from exercising their licence priviledges whilst pregnant. Nor as I understand it many other international airlines... So long as you are 'fit')

[huntsman]

how much of the $90K would be her basic pay?

surely she couldn't complain if they paid her at that rate, no matter the duties.