Women pilots told ‘terminate your pregnancy or employment’

[dr dre]

Women pilots told ‘terminate your pregnancy or employment’ Many contract pilots afraid to speak up, says head of Irish Air Line Pilots' Association (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/women-pilots-told-terminate-your-pregnancy-or-employment-1.3932081?mode=amp)

[Icanseeclearly]

the article seems to suggest it is self employed contractors who are affected rather than traditional employees so I am not sure how this fits into employment law.

Its interesting that the article states
“Capt Evan Cullen told an Oireachtas Committee investigation into bogus self-employment that about half the pilots working in Irish-registered airlines were hired as self-employed contractors.
He said all Irish-registered airlines were involved to some extent in employing workers as self-employed contractors with many global airlines, who were “not household names”, setting up companies and registering here to take advantage of Irish labour law.
For the pilots there were implications for wages, sick pay, maternity cover and pensions, as well as collective bargaining and other rights.”

Maybe the Irish need to start clamping down on this type of behaviour, especially the bogus self employment part.

[clackerbag]

Maybe the Irish need to start clamping down on this type of behaviour, especially the bogus self employment part.

This type of practice is not an issue particular to Ireland, and happens in a number of industries throughout the UK as well. Granted, not sure how prevalent it is in the airline industry in the UK but very common in engineering.

[Icanseeclearly]

The point I was trying to make was they should be clamping down on the fact

“global airlines, who were not household names, setting up companies here and registering here to take advantage of Irish labour law”

Rather than the fact they are self employed, they are doing it because presumably the labour laws are more lax than elsewhere and the headline seems to confirm it.

[bill fly]

Uber tried it...

Nevertheless airlines I know have kept these ladies on and benefitted as a result.

[meleagertoo]

What's this got to do with self-employed contractors? That's another issue altogether. Surely any problem of pregnant pilots who contnue to fly is a matter for that imfamously blind, deaf, insensible rubber-toothed poodle known as the IAA rather than employment law?

[Speed of Sound]

the article seems to suggest it is self employed contractors who are affected rather than traditional employees so I am not sure how this fits into employment law.

I’d say that this would be a matter of anti-discrimination legislation rather than employment law as only a female worker can be affected.

[Toolonginthisjob]

I’d say that this would be a matter of anti-discrimination legislation rather than employment law as only a female worker can be affected.
If these are self employed pilots. Ie, they employ themselves. Then presumably they’ll have to take themselves to court?

[Speed of Sound]

If these are self employed pilots. Ie, they employ themselves. Then presumably they’ll have to take themselves to court?

Hardly, as it is not them doing the discriminating,:rolleyes:

[marchino61]

Discrimination law does not apply to the self-employed. Nor does any other employment law. They can have their contracts terminated whenever the client wishes, given whatever notice period is specified in the contract. Which can be no notice, if that is what the contract says.

[Mac the Knife]

Interesting. Back in the bad old days of absolute Consultant rule of appointments in the 60's a young specialist trainee (married, respectable), accidentally became pregnant,
When she told her Consultant, he said, "Well, my dear, you have two choices".

When she asked what these were, he replied curtly, "Resign or have a termination".
She had a termination. Brutal.

Bad old days. One of my trainees had TWO children during her training which added a year to her normal five.
She took two months off for each child. Pretty tough on her colleagues who had to cover, but hey...

Mac

[DrCuffe]

The Irish government is taking a dim view of people being considered self employed, when they work solely for one employer. Apart from the disadvantages in terms of employment law from the viewpoint of the employee, the state looses out on tax revenue which might otherwise have been collected. This may be why that statement is being made at this time.

[Speed of Sound]

Discrimination law does not apply to the self-employed. Nor does any other employment law.

Discrimination law applies to EVERYBODY.

15 years or so ago a West Indian self employed plumber won a case against a housing management services company operating in Central London after he discovered that he wasn’t being given work in certain wealthy areas because the people who lived there ‘preferred to see a white face’ if a tradesman needed to come into their home. These things are notoriously difficult to prove but this guy was lucky enough to be contacted by someone who worked for the management company and told him what was going on.

The case was brought under the Equalities Act (or probably the Race Relations Act as it was then) and it is believed that the guy received ‘substantial compensation’.

[racedo]

Women pilots told ‘terminate your pregnancy or employment’ Many contract pilots afraid to speak up, says head of Irish Air Line Pilots' Association (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/women-pilots-told-terminate-your-pregnancy-or-employment-1.3932081?mode=amp)

Claim made but seems he not able to provide real proof.

[Speed of Sound]

When she asked what these were, he replied curtly, "Resign or have a termination".
She had a termination. Brutal.

Bad old days.


Those days are still with us.

Only last year a female musician was told to have a termination by her record label or they would drop her as they didn’t want to promote her new album if she was pregnant.

[Just a Grunt]

Discrimination law does not apply to the self-employed. Nor does any other employment law. They can have their contracts terminated whenever the client wishes, given whatever notice period is specified in the contract. Which can be no notice, if that is what the contract says.

Um...no. Maybe in Timbuktu...

[currawong]

If the contract does not suit your circumstances, don't take it.....

[marchino61]

Um...no. Maybe in Timbuktu...
No, to what? I made several points there. In case you didn't notice.

BTW, I worked on a similar basis to Ryanair pilots for 15 years, so I know how easy it is to have your contract terminated by the client. And as you are trading as a limited company, you personally have no comebacks. That is why it is different from the case of the plumber.

[172_driver]

Claim made but seems he not able to provide real proof.

What do you want, a name and a date?

For the sake of our own credibility, I seriously hope the union is not making stories up out of thin air.

[His dudeness]

Isn´t it the case that the moment pregnancy is discovered, the lady in question is deemed medically unfit to fly ? I was told so by a german lady who had a baby and was deemed unfit by the AME. She had no issues, I understood that it is more or less to protect the child.

IF this is the case also in Ireland, the self employed will have a disadvantage.

[Less Hair]

It's right to medically protect the embryo from radiation and such in the earliest phases. However women pilots must be guaranteed to not lose their jobs in case of pregancy. I thought they were but reality seems to be different.

[His dudeness]

It's right to medically protect the embryo from radiation and such in the earliest phases. However women pilots must be guaranteed to not lose their jobs in case of pregancy. I thought they were but reality seems to be different.

I´m with you on that, BUT being self employed has certain advantages and dis-advantages. Can´t have your cake and eat it too. For regular contracts I guess we are there. I don´t see the big difference between a dude, say, breaking a leg and thus being terminated on medical grounds as a contractor and a pregnant woman who is unfit to fly on medical grounds.

[Less Hair]

I understand that you don't get full flight pay when working on ground jobs only for some time but getting fired for not terminating your pregnancy is beyound brutal. There must be another way to treat people fair.

[currawong]

I understand that you don't get full flight pay when working on ground jobs only for some time but getting fired for not terminating your pregnancy is beyound brutal. There must be another way to treat people fair.

Contract pilots. Not employed, contracted. Employees might be re-tasked to another role. Contractors not likely. Unless to another contract ie cleaning. Its not "fired" as such.

Many contractors are on an as required basis, only called in for a specific task. So not like a regular job that one turns up to every day. And if one is "unavailable" for any reason, well the phone will probably go quiet.

Given the "pilot shortage" (cough) it is surprising there are any contract pilots at all. As operators surely would want to employ in order to keep hold of their crews, given the "pilot shortage" (cough).

[Longtimer]

I understand that you don't get full flight pay when working on ground jobs only for some time but getting fired for not terminating your pregnancy is beyound brutal. There must be another way to treat people fair.

Fair has 2 sides when one is hired under a contract. You have the right to be paid and your employer has the right to your labour under the terms of the contract. It has nothing to do with the sex of the individual signing the contract but rather solely with the provision of labour under the terms of the contract.

[kwh]

Right, but 'self-employed' people who are constrained by contract to working for a single 'client' [employer] at that employer's effective beck & call aren't actually contractors at all, they are disguised employees. Having a pool of contractors you use on an ad-hoc basis for surge capacity & to cover full time staff out sick etc is one one thing, but of course unless they are also allowed to go and 'do a bit' for the competition when not required by you, that's a zero hours contract. Which again is a source of concern to people trying to enforce employment law.

[Longtimer]

You make it sound like they were conscripted. I imagine they entered their association / contract with eyes open. We keep hearing about a "pilot" shortage so they must have had reasonable alternates.

[beachbumflyer]

Don't blame the Irish Government only. It was the contract pilots own choice to take the contract. They knew what they were doing, or they should have.

[tdracer]

As others have noted, it depends on what the contract says. When I was working, we often had a significant number of 'contract' engineers. Boeing liked contract engineers because they were easy to hire or let go, and so they could respond to variations in workload without adversely affecting the core workforce. Some of the really good contract engineers were made offers and became direct employees - many others we were just as happy to seen gone when they left.
One of the terms of the contracts was that either side could terminate, at any time and without cause, with 2 weeks notice (no notice required if the termination was 'for cause' - e.g. theft).
About 20 years ago, our division chief came out of meeting where he'd been told he needed to cut costs and announced all contract employees in the division were given their 2 week notice, effective immediately (at the time, roughly 10% of the engineers in the division were contract). Given the circumstances, coordination and transfer of tasks from the contract engineers was all but none existent - in fact many simply stopped coming in. Although the reaction of direct employees was near panic, it turned out that by most metrics (e.g. on time completion of tasks) things actually got better after the contractors were let go.

If the pilots contracts are similar with provisions that either party can terminate without cause - and a pregnant pilot can't fly - then it's perfectly reasonable for the employer to say 'if you can't fly, you're terminated'. Sure, it sounds bad, but if you're under contract to do a job, and you're no longer able to perform that job, then most people are going to be be let go.

[parkfell]

The Irish government is taking a dim view of people being considered self employed, when they work solely for one employer. Apart from the disadvantages in terms of employment law from the viewpoint of the employee, the state looses out on tax revenue which might otherwise have been collected. This may be why that statement is being made at this time.

New legislation is needed with anti avoidance provisions to counteract such conduct by the hirer quasi employer.
In the UK get your MP involved to bring about change. Get BALPA on board to lobby as well.

[flyingmed]

Unfortunately the headline is quite far from reality in some cases. I have met some of these pilots who had been offered permanent employment within some airlines but refused as there is quite a significant gain in income if operating as a contractor, less tax etc. I also know of pilots who were full time employees and moved to self employed contracts.

Unfortunately in most contract jobs there are clauses saying that if you can no longer offer flying services then the contract can/will be terminated, for those female pilots this would be the case during pregnancy due to temporary loss of medical.

This has the potential to ruin contracting for those of us who want it. The freedoms in contracting are beneficial to some of us. Unfortunately again a group of people might ruin this for the pilots who genuinely want and need contract jobs. I have no sympathy for those pilots who choose to work as contractors and then complain about lack of rights.

[Chris2303]

Unfortunately the headline is quite far from reality in some cases. I have met some of these pilots who had been offered permanent employment within some airlines but refused as there is quite a significant gain in income if operating as a contractor, less tax etc. I also know of pilots who were full time employees and moved to self employed contracts.

Unfortunately in most contract jobs there are clauses saying that if you can no longer offer flying services then the contract can/will be terminated, for those female pilots this would be the case during pregnancy due to temporary loss of medical.

This has the potential to ruin contracting for those of us who want it. The freedoms in contracting are beneficial to some of us. Unfortunately again a group of people might ruin this for the pilots who genuinely want and need contract jobs. I have no sympathy for those pilots who choose to work as contractors and then complain about lack of rights.

Selfish a little?

[Longtimer]

Selfish a little?

Selfish would be those who sign a contract and then because of their sex or other personal considerations believe that they are somehow exempt from the terms of their contract.

[Steepclimb]

Evan Cullen is being a bit disengenuous by playing the gender card which he knows plays well with the media and politicians particularly of the leftish variety. But the reality is the same with any self employed contractor pilot. If you you're not fit for work you don't get paid whether it be a sprained wrist, a broken leg, flu or a flare up of your gout. Not just pilots but anyone who works for themselves.
So the discussion is exactly how to define self employment and that's not just a matter for aviation but across a lot of business sectors. Not just in Ireland either.

This is a much bigger issue than maternity leave for a small handful of women.

[marchino61]

New legislation is needed with anti avoidance provisions to counteract such conduct by the hirer quasi employer.
In the UK get your MP involved to bring about change. Get BALPA on board to lobby as well.

The UK already has such provision, at least from a taxation point of view. It is called IR35 and severely limits your ability to avoid tax if you claim to be self-employed but have only one "client".

[cwatters]

IR35 also has this interesting point...

https://www.simplybusiness.co.uk/knowledge/articles/2019/01/what-is-ir35-a-guide-for-the-self-employed/

substitution – could you bring someone else in to complete the contract, or do you need to do the work yourself? If you can’t send someone else, you’re likely to be within IR35

In other words if you have to turn up to do the work yourself they may consider you are employed. If you can send someone else you might be self employed. Problem if you need someone's unique skill set.