PDA

View Full Version : Red (or brown) faces at BA


screwballburling
15th Jan 2013, 14:55
BBC News - British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332)

Serves them right I say. It is Britain they are writing about, is it not??

toffeez
15th Jan 2013, 15:08
This lady is so ugly she deserves something to cheer her up.

M.Mouse
15th Jan 2013, 15:21
As always in these matters there is far, far more to it than the basic story we read about in the press.

Firstly, this was not about BA, the group were suing the government for not protecting their rights and secondly anybody aware of the full circumstances, not just what was said in the press, of what happened with BA cannot but have an enormous amount of sympathy with the no-win situation BA found itself in.

screwballburling
15th Jan 2013, 15:25
Well Mouse

Maybe you will enlighten us.

Rossian
15th Jan 2013, 15:27
.... you, of course, are as handsome as Adonis.

So why don't you post a piccy of yourself so that we can all make comments on your beauty.

I'm sure there are one or two of the feisty females around jetblast who will help make you feel, if not good, then maybe adequate.

The Ancient Mariner

AlpineSkier
15th Jan 2013, 15:31
So why don't you post a piccy of yourself so that we can all make comments on your beauty.

Search his posts and you can make a pretty good judgement of his intelligence.

M.Mouse
15th Jan 2013, 15:38
Maybe you will enlighten us.

Have a read of this Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eweida_v_British_Airways_plc) especially the section entitled Employment Tribunal to get a flavour of the situation.

Andy_S
15th Jan 2013, 16:02
So once again the European Court of Human Rights rides roughshod over any number of sensible rulings at a national level......

Tankertrashnav
15th Jan 2013, 16:09
Personally I think they've got this one about right. Having seen the tiny crucifix worn by this lady, I fail to see how anyone could be offended by it.

In the case of the nurse I agree that jewellery worn by nurses is inappropriate. Now that her employers have been vindicated, I hope they will move to ban other jewellery - I've even seen a nurse with a nose stud ffs :yuk:

Andy_S
15th Jan 2013, 16:24
Tiny or not, it's not part of the BA dress code and there is no religious obligation to openly wear such an item. As such, I see it as I kind of exhibitionism. BA never said that she couldn't wear a cross, merely that she couldn't openly display it. And that seems an entirely sensible approach to me.

The only reservation I have is the suspicion that christians are perhaps treated more harshly than other religions. Do BA allow muslim women in customer facing roles to wear a headscarf for example? Because these are no more mandatory than a cross....

vee-tail-1
15th Jan 2013, 16:26
So please someone tell me how a normal person is supposed to give sexual counselling to gays? :confused: (Gary Mc Farlane)

Krystal n chips
15th Jan 2013, 17:05
" So please someone tell me how a normal person is supposed to give sexual counselling to gays"

Ah, for Perplexed of Pembrokeshire, the answer to your question is very easy.

Gay and Lesbian people are also normal.

Now, how about yourself ?

screwballburling
15th Jan 2013, 18:00
"How qualified is a heterosexual man to give sexual counselling to homosexual men?"

You will probaly go on a very expensive course, at the tax payers expense, then pick the rest up on the job.

Now, whats wrong with that??:}

M.Mouse
15th Jan 2013, 18:59
Having seen the tiny crucifix worn by this lady.

Allegedly the crucifix in question was wooden and of not inconsiderable size not the small one pictured in the Hate Mail. Allegedly this was the root of the problem.

vulcanised
15th Jan 2013, 19:49
Allegedly the crucifix in question was wooden and of not inconsiderable size


Was she nailed to it?

Mac the Knife
15th Jan 2013, 20:17
If Jesus had been born a few hundred years later we'd all be wearing little gold electric chairs.....

Mac

:ok:

exeng
15th Jan 2013, 22:07
She should have been aware of the uniform standards when she joined BA.

If she didn't agree then she should not have joined.

Wear a cross (or whatever) if you like as long as it isn't in view - why does this woman need to have this religious symbol in view? I'm sure her little god will forgive her for not displaying her reverence for a few hours.

BA were wronged by this decision.


Regards
Exeng

radeng
16th Jan 2013, 08:14
Note that the two dissenting judges lambasted Islington council and were somewhat heavy ion their dissenting comments.

Rightly so in my opinion. On the other three cases, I believe the 5 judges were quite simply wrong.

Worrals in the wilds
16th Jan 2013, 08:28
This one's even better, and we can't blame the EU cos we're not a member...
Long-haired Virgin steward wins back his job (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/longhaired-virgin-steward-wins-back-his-job-20130115-2crno.html)

The trouble started in July 2010 when the attendant told his bosses he would be growing his hair longer than the stipulated collar-length for religious reasons, but soon afterwards said the new hairstyle was due to a medical condition that he was uncomfortable discussing.
During the next 13 months, Mr Taleski provided Virgin with five medical certificates which, he argued, proved he was suffering from body dysmorphia disorder, relating to the length of his hair. But Virgin never accepted that the certificates provided a diagnosis that explained the attendant's persistent refusal to cut his hair.
:hmm::hmm:
I agree with exeng as long as the regulations are reasonable, made clear prior to employment, enforced equally across the staff and not degrading (such as the clothing store that made their young staff wear shirts saying 'don't pretend you don't want me' until they met a bigger bully, namely the Government).
Westco backdown follows shirt fury - National - www.theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/29/1080544422200.html)

Couldn't she wear it on a long chain under her shirt? It sounds like swank to me.

What the Fug
16th Jan 2013, 08:34
She was also whinging about working Xmas day, sorry but do you not accept that you could end up working Xmas day when you join BA.

Victor Inox
16th Jan 2013, 09:27
Tiny or not, it's not part of the BA dress code and there is no religious obligation to openly wear such an item. As such, I see it as I kind of exhibitionism. BA never said that she couldn't wear a cross, merely that she couldn't openly display it. And that seems an entirely sensible approach to me.

Last time I checked, there is no religious obligation for a Sikh to openly wear a turban either. Otherwise you would not have Sikhs playing cricket and wearing a helmet, or flying combat aircraft.

Likewise, there is no religious obligation for any Muslim women to wear a headscarf. Otherwise, you would not see millions of them NOT wearing them.

Andy_S
16th Jan 2013, 09:57
Fair do's. But my original question remains - would BA allow a customer facing Sikh or Muslim to wear garments or symbols associated with their religion? If so, then the lady in question may have just reason to feel aggrieved.

ExSp33db1rd
17th Jan 2013, 09:10
...........but do you not accept that you could end up working Xmas day when you join BA.

I reckon I did more than my fair share, too. Trouble was, one never knew if one was going to be home for Christmas Day ..... until after it had happened.

Bidline ? Don't make me laugh. Human roster clerks - with all the human frailty that that implies. ( like nylon stockings from New York, in the "early days" )

ExSp33db1rd
17th Jan 2013, 20:51
..... I believe nylons were available in the shops.

They were in my time too ( UK shops that is ) but remember - I was flying with guys who had flown to New York immediately after WW II !!

I had no such cards to play, tho' did once offer to help them by flying the next morning after my a/c went sick in the late afternoon, this saved me a long journey home only to doubtlessly be needed again a couple of days later, and asked if I could use their phone to ring a nearby friend and beg a bed for the night, no problem they said, we'll pay for a hotel ! and leave your car in the staff car park, we'll lay on transport v.v. Won one.

In my next airline I rose to the call at nil notice - not on standby - and got from my home to the flight deck in 40 mins. and pushed back on schedule, a couple of weeks later I had a desire to go to a popular destination and asked if that 'might be possible' ? No problem. It works.

Blacksheep
17th Jan 2013, 22:04
Last time I looked, the female BA uniform included a red, white and blue cravat that covers the throat completely. So a necklace worn normally would not be visible. Wearing a necklace over the top of the cravat would clearly be non-uniform, if not a little eccentric. I sense a hidden agenda.

As to turbans, one is reminded of the Singapore judgement. A Sikh gentleman was in court charged with not wearing a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle. His defence was that his religion required him to wear a turban at all times and therefore forbade him from wearing a crash helmet. The judge, exercising the wisdom of Solomon, declared that his religion therefore also forbade him from riding a motor cycle in the Republic of Singapore and fined him S$500.

M.Mouse
17th Jan 2013, 23:44
Last time I checked, there is no religious obligation for a Sikh to openly wear a turban either.

That may be true but I believe a Sikh is not supposed to cut his hair which is why most of them wrap their locks in a turban. It is not so much a symbol of religious faith but an acceptable method of containing very long hair and looking neat and tidy. In BA I flew several times with Sikh pilot (now a captain). I liked him a lot and personally I thought his regulation blue turban looked quite smart, although I would not have worn one!

I sense a hidden agenda.

Evangelical is a word that keeps popping into my head.