Virgin Blue bias against older women
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I was chatting to another crew member whilst checking my internal emails the other day at work. She was reading the email sent to all staff regarding the outcome of the case. She looked at me and said "Funny, I was hired at the exact same time as these girls went through their interviews." She's just celebrated her 41st birthday."
Smile, I am one of those women. Your friend should check her start date. You will find that she is either a) the only one who was 36 years of age at the time of employment (VB's very own stats supplied at the anti discrimination court) or b) she received her position AFTER we lodged in Aug/Sep 2002.
Anything else is complete rubbish. I know because I was there. And you know what else, we won so it really doesnt matter what you and your friend think. Cheers Uncle Dickie!!!!!!!
Smile, I am one of those women. Your friend should check her start date. You will find that she is either a) the only one who was 36 years of age at the time of employment (VB's very own stats supplied at the anti discrimination court) or b) she received her position AFTER we lodged in Aug/Sep 2002.
Anything else is complete rubbish. I know because I was there. And you know what else, we won so it really doesnt matter what you and your friend think. Cheers Uncle Dickie!!!!!!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I made the following post in the similar thread that was running in the D & G forums, however that thread has gone quiet...
The below quote is from this post on the D & G thread
If thats the one sometime around 1990 or so (forgive me if the dates are not entirely correct - it was the #2 engine that blew, a/c came back in and pax were evacuated on the runway?) one of the F/A's onboard that aircraft holds (and has done for quite some time - over 4 years) a position with VB, and is now quite senior in the CC training department.
Agreed 100% with SkySis - I too went for both EK and QF but was knocked back (more than once too I hasten to point out). I can conjure up any number of discrimination theories (age, height, weight, sexuality, teeth not being 100% perfect etc) but I did not turn around and sue them - I simply accepted the fact that I was not right on the day(s).
At the end of the day everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter - I am not here to belittle anyone elses nor have mine belittled - but my opinion is not only that justice has been denied to VB; but also the precedence this sets implies that the process of recruiting the people you feel are most appropriate for your company is no longer an option for any company that does not wish to be sued on entirely unfounded grounds. There is no proof that these ladies were denied employment on the basis of their age and just because they were experienced crew from another airline does not mean that they are automatically entitled to any CC job they apply to!
I am not in any way at all condoning any form of discrimiation against any person or group of people, however I do believe that in this case justice has not been served. I look forward to the appeals process and hopefully a more realistic judgement. If not, watch out EK and QF - using this precedent, a lawsuit will be coming your way!
(edited to fix my bad html scripting)
The below quote is from this post on the D & G thread
I happened to be on duty one Sat morning here in BNE when B727 ANA blew an engine just after rotation and was still on fire when it landed
Agreed 100% with SkySis - I too went for both EK and QF but was knocked back (more than once too I hasten to point out). I can conjure up any number of discrimination theories (age, height, weight, sexuality, teeth not being 100% perfect etc) but I did not turn around and sue them - I simply accepted the fact that I was not right on the day(s).
At the end of the day everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter - I am not here to belittle anyone elses nor have mine belittled - but my opinion is not only that justice has been denied to VB; but also the precedence this sets implies that the process of recruiting the people you feel are most appropriate for your company is no longer an option for any company that does not wish to be sued on entirely unfounded grounds. There is no proof that these ladies were denied employment on the basis of their age and just because they were experienced crew from another airline does not mean that they are automatically entitled to any CC job they apply to!
I am not in any way at all condoning any form of discrimiation against any person or group of people, however I do believe that in this case justice has not been served. I look forward to the appeals process and hopefully a more realistic judgement. If not, watch out EK and QF - using this precedent, a lawsuit will be coming your way!
(edited to fix my bad html scripting)
Last edited by sinala1; 17th Oct 2005 at 11:44.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... the process of recruiting the people you feel are most appropriate for your company is no longer an option for any company that does not wish to be sued on entirely unfounded grounds. There is no proof that these ladies were denied employment on the basis of their age and just because they were experienced crew from another airline does not mean that they are automatically entitled to any CC job they apply to!
Recruitment is about selecting the best person for the job, regardless of age, racial orientation, sexual preference etc. It is all very well for any company to want to hire people that are "appropriate" however it is called discrimination when they deliberately exclude a person or persons because of age (or any other issues outlined in the Anti Discrimination Act). It is apparent that a court of law agreed that Anflygirl and her colleagues were amongst the best for the job, but discriminated against based on age.
DJ would have had to supply evidence of candidates recruited for the role of cabin crew along with their dates of birth. Had there been an even spread of people recruited amongst various age groups then there would have been no case.
These women have a legal right to be treated fairly, regardless of their age. They have proven that they would be equally competent cabin crew as their younger peers.
As for the woman you mentioned re the AN 727 evac, you said she is in the training department - she's not cabin crew.. which is what this case is all about.
SG
PS. Congratulations Anflygirl on a positive result for you
Edited to fix a spelling mistake!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SydGirl thanks for your compliment re my usual posts and for your replies to my previous post. With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you...
What has not been proven (or made public if it were proven) is that the recruiters actively discriminated against 'older' applicants and imparticular the AN 8. The findings from the tribunal were that the recruiters "unconciously" discriminated against the 'older' applicants because they themselves were younger and therefore related better to people closer to their ages. The understanding I get from that finding is that VB should probably have had a broader range of ages working in their CC recruitment department, however as far as I am aware its not discrimination or illegal for a recruitment department to not have a wide age range of recruiters working within it. There is still no proof that the recruiters purposely discriminated against the AN 8, which is what amazed me about the tribunals judgement. It has not been proven that these ladies were denied employment purely on the basis of their age.
Again I refer to my refusals by QF and EK - would it be fair of me to be awarded compensation on the basis that I did not get the job just because the recruiters were not 24yo white aussie gay males and I therefore did not get the job? No, because I have no proof that I was specifically denied employment on that basis - just as the tribunal admitted the AN 8 did not have proof of deliberate denial of employment purely on the basis of age.
I have no personal grudge against these ladies - I wish them all well in their future endeavours - however I look forward to the ruling being overturned and VB being cleared.
Oh and as far as the Crew member from the 727 evac is concerned, she was crew - a Cabin Supervisor who I learnt a lot from on our trips (stuff that I now use regularly as a CS myself, or at least will do when I return to that role upon my return downunda) but last I knew she had made the voluntary decision to move into training.
Cheers
What has not been proven (or made public if it were proven) is that the recruiters actively discriminated against 'older' applicants and imparticular the AN 8. The findings from the tribunal were that the recruiters "unconciously" discriminated against the 'older' applicants because they themselves were younger and therefore related better to people closer to their ages. The understanding I get from that finding is that VB should probably have had a broader range of ages working in their CC recruitment department, however as far as I am aware its not discrimination or illegal for a recruitment department to not have a wide age range of recruiters working within it. There is still no proof that the recruiters purposely discriminated against the AN 8, which is what amazed me about the tribunals judgement. It has not been proven that these ladies were denied employment purely on the basis of their age.
Again I refer to my refusals by QF and EK - would it be fair of me to be awarded compensation on the basis that I did not get the job just because the recruiters were not 24yo white aussie gay males and I therefore did not get the job? No, because I have no proof that I was specifically denied employment on that basis - just as the tribunal admitted the AN 8 did not have proof of deliberate denial of employment purely on the basis of age.
I have no personal grudge against these ladies - I wish them all well in their future endeavours - however I look forward to the ruling being overturned and VB being cleared.
Oh and as far as the Crew member from the 727 evac is concerned, she was crew - a Cabin Supervisor who I learnt a lot from on our trips (stuff that I now use regularly as a CS myself, or at least will do when I return to that role upon my return downunda) but last I knew she had made the voluntary decision to move into training.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sinala1,
Firstly, I appreciate your calm and rational reply. With all due respect to you too, I will also disagree (heehee)..
There are actually two forms of discrimination. Direct and indirect. I am fairly sure that DJ did not put out a memo to the recruitment team to state that they should not employ any persons over the age of 35. That is an example of direct discrimination.
What DJ did do, according to your post, was create a team of recruitment professionals that were unprofessionally biased - in other words discriminatory. It is natural for people to like others based on the same age, interests, experience etc. A recruitment specialist puts all those personal 'gut feelings' aside and hires the best person for the job, not necessarily the 'nicest' person or the person that they best personally relate with. You are right in saying that it is not illegal for a recruitment department to not have a wide range of recruiters working within it - the same as any other job.
However! If a person or persons can prove that over a course of time (let's say 12 months) when a certain amount of recruitment for a position took place, that not one person hired was over the age of 35 (or whatever age it might be) yet there were capable applicants within that age bracket then that is discriminatory.
As for your personal situation with QF and EK that is a different issue altogether. EK is not bound by the Anti Discrimination Act so therefore you have no right of recourse. If you took QF to court, then they too would be required to produce evidence that they had recruited people of your age (the issue of colour and sexual orientation are different court cases!). If they could not produce evidence then they would lose.
It's quite simple.
In regards to your training colleague, I have no doubt about her vast amount of knowledge and skill. However she was not recruited during this period contested by the AN 8. Companies regularly change their recruitment policies and strategies over time, and as long as they aren't discriminatory that is fine. It's when the line between 'right fit' and discrimination becomes blurry that the trouble starts.
Best Wishes
SG
Firstly, I appreciate your calm and rational reply. With all due respect to you too, I will also disagree (heehee)..
There are actually two forms of discrimination. Direct and indirect. I am fairly sure that DJ did not put out a memo to the recruitment team to state that they should not employ any persons over the age of 35. That is an example of direct discrimination.
What DJ did do, according to your post, was create a team of recruitment professionals that were unprofessionally biased - in other words discriminatory. It is natural for people to like others based on the same age, interests, experience etc. A recruitment specialist puts all those personal 'gut feelings' aside and hires the best person for the job, not necessarily the 'nicest' person or the person that they best personally relate with. You are right in saying that it is not illegal for a recruitment department to not have a wide range of recruiters working within it - the same as any other job.
However! If a person or persons can prove that over a course of time (let's say 12 months) when a certain amount of recruitment for a position took place, that not one person hired was over the age of 35 (or whatever age it might be) yet there were capable applicants within that age bracket then that is discriminatory.
As for your personal situation with QF and EK that is a different issue altogether. EK is not bound by the Anti Discrimination Act so therefore you have no right of recourse. If you took QF to court, then they too would be required to produce evidence that they had recruited people of your age (the issue of colour and sexual orientation are different court cases!). If they could not produce evidence then they would lose.
It's quite simple.
In regards to your training colleague, I have no doubt about her vast amount of knowledge and skill. However she was not recruited during this period contested by the AN 8. Companies regularly change their recruitment policies and strategies over time, and as long as they aren't discriminatory that is fine. It's when the line between 'right fit' and discrimination becomes blurry that the trouble starts.
Best Wishes
SG
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything else is complete rubbish. I know because I was there. And you know what else, we won so it really doesnt matter what you and your friend think. Cheers Uncle Dickie!!!!!!!
Wow!! This sounds a little like something you hear in the school playground!! (na-na-na-na-na)
Sorry that my little post caught such a raw nerve. I personally don't have any facts on this other crew member, all I 'know' is that she has been in cabin crew longer than me and I started in July 2002. She told me that she is 41 and I have no reason not to believe her.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Smile. You are probably right. Just getting a little over the negative comments. Thanks to everyone who had positive ones though. This has been a long hard road for everyone concerned. A lot has been said that will never come to light. 5 out of the 8 of us had been re employed or are about to be with airlines. The other 3 have moved on and are happy with their choices. I just hope that when any of you reach 35yo+ you can still keep doing what you love even though that once pretty face has a few character lines. I still love my job and I doubt there is anyone in either of the airlines that I have worked for that would say otherwise (oh bar that one CM, but thats a personality thing). There are plenty of ex AN CC and techies at Virgin Blue that could and would vouch for any one of us. Anyway, I think this horse has been flogged enough. It is well and truly dead. May you all have really long (as long as you would like anyway) flying careers. I have enjoyed every one of my 24 years and am still counting. Cheers.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
smile,
If anything, she's probably older - we all know how women lie about their age and say they're younger!!! 
She told me that she is 41 and I have no reason not to believe her.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sinala, smile ....
You are floggin a dead horse here.
Simple fact is, a court (read: a judicial board of society's thoughts) found that Virgin Blue did indeed discriminate against these ladies. Your persoal views are obviously protectant of Virgin Blue ... thats cool, but if a court case was heard, well you have to go with it!
I know people who work for VB, a good mate of mine is in his 30's, and he often comments about how 'old' he feels when he is at work. Is that a healthy way to feel when you are in your 30's? Virgin obviously has a 'young is great' culture for him to feel that way.
Virgin needs to see that yes 'young-dumb-and-pretty' may appeal to a certain niche, but they also need to understand that their customers are varied in age, race, size, nationality .... therefore their crew should be too. how else are their crew to relate to the customers? And yes I have flown Virgin, once, and never again! Why? the particular crew on that flight were so unprofessional, I would not trust my life with them in an emergency. My opinion only, and based on that particular crew, but once was enough for me!
And no - I am not an 'old-qantas-hag' trying to justify my existence (I aint 30 myself yet!), but when a mate of mine who is three years older than me feels intimidated because he is past 30 in his workplace, well I think there is a problem !! And based on that, the ladies had a great case! Good on 'em
You are floggin a dead horse here.
Simple fact is, a court (read: a judicial board of society's thoughts) found that Virgin Blue did indeed discriminate against these ladies. Your persoal views are obviously protectant of Virgin Blue ... thats cool, but if a court case was heard, well you have to go with it!
I know people who work for VB, a good mate of mine is in his 30's, and he often comments about how 'old' he feels when he is at work. Is that a healthy way to feel when you are in your 30's? Virgin obviously has a 'young is great' culture for him to feel that way.
Virgin needs to see that yes 'young-dumb-and-pretty' may appeal to a certain niche, but they also need to understand that their customers are varied in age, race, size, nationality .... therefore their crew should be too. how else are their crew to relate to the customers? And yes I have flown Virgin, once, and never again! Why? the particular crew on that flight were so unprofessional, I would not trust my life with them in an emergency. My opinion only, and based on that particular crew, but once was enough for me!
And no - I am not an 'old-qantas-hag' trying to justify my existence (I aint 30 myself yet!), but when a mate of mine who is three years older than me feels intimidated because he is past 30 in his workplace, well I think there is a problem !! And based on that, the ladies had a great case! Good on 'em
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have only flown DJ once and as soon as they got a passenger up to do the safety demo, that put me right off. It's great to have a laugh at work while being professional, but the safety demo etc i think are times where you need to be a little bit more serious and jokes don't come into it. Just my opinion anyway.
Oz
Oz
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: london
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These cases are really kind of sad. Someone within the Virgin corp has decided Virgin blue is a fresh young airline, or that older women may struggle with the high workload. Corprate; marketing, personal; or someone has come up with this rubbish, and its crazy.
I think its
BULLS***T
Never judge a book; I worked for an airline that had many " older " women, and they were fabulous. A balance is the best way, and a lot can be said for older crew either male or female. I have seen many "older' crew out-work the young summer temps many times. Each person should be judged as an individual. Boo hoo Branson; I though you would have learnt by now. Its his loss ladies. Do what women do best, tell eachother, I say destroy; call Oprah. Do you have her down under? Or the Aussie version.
I think its
BULLS***T
Never judge a book; I worked for an airline that had many " older " women, and they were fabulous. A balance is the best way, and a lot can be said for older crew either male or female. I have seen many "older' crew out-work the young summer temps many times. Each person should be judged as an individual. Boo hoo Branson; I though you would have learnt by now. Its his loss ladies. Do what women do best, tell eachother, I say destroy; call Oprah. Do you have her down under? Or the Aussie version.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cart_elevator...
you are entitled to your opinion as are others. There is only one person on this site (that has identified themselves) as having ANY facts relating to this case. (note I wrote the word ANY). All anyone else has is second hand information passed on by the media, a 'friend who was there' or a 'mate of mine'.
Most of the arguments (for both sides) have some sort of rational thinking behind them, however... when you start throwing in little comments such as
to add weighting to your argument you tend to lose any credability to your argument.
just my "opinion"
you are entitled to your opinion as are others. There is only one person on this site (that has identified themselves) as having ANY facts relating to this case. (note I wrote the word ANY). All anyone else has is second hand information passed on by the media, a 'friend who was there' or a 'mate of mine'.
Most of the arguments (for both sides) have some sort of rational thinking behind them, however... when you start throwing in little comments such as
'young-dumb-and-pretty'
just my "opinion"
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry this may have been said before but dont have time to read the 50plus post on this thread.
Virgin Blue has been in operation for 5yrs now and has had I presume thousands of Cabin Crew applicants, I find it hard to believe that not one applicant over the age of 36 has been suitable in this time.
Age discrimination for sure..Not only for the AN8 but for every older applicant who took the time to apply... Shame on you VB..
Virgin Blue has been in operation for 5yrs now and has had I presume thousands of Cabin Crew applicants, I find it hard to believe that not one applicant over the age of 36 has been suitable in this time.
Age discrimination for sure..Not only for the AN8 but for every older applicant who took the time to apply... Shame on you VB..
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are plenty of ex AN CC and techies at Virgin Blue that could and would vouch for any one of us
5 out of the 8 of us had been re employed or are about to be with airlines
As I read in press, Virgin Blue said they were considering appealling. I wonder if Ray will have you back on if you lose, should they choose to appeal ofcourse. I am neither for or against either party, but having followed this case in the press (whatever value that can be given) and read the rather contradictory judgement (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/q...T/2005/28.html) I still think there is a longer road to walk yet.
As they say, it ain't over until the FAT lady sings
Hope the fat lady doesn't sue me!
Last edited by flugenluft; 20th Oct 2005 at 05:29.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Qld Aust
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont like the umpires decision do we Flugenluft. More likely 5 out of the 8 were chosen on their abilities which is more the the Aero Club that has 737's has done since its inception.
Easy to make your derogatory remarks about some that would not vouch for them. certainly in a company as large as AN was not everyone is is going to be ready to say nice things about everyone else in the company but I can tell you that of that group you would not find a better and more experienced group of f/as if you tried. If VB wish to appeal that is their right under the law and if thay want to air even more dirty linen let them go. Love the way their spokespersons have a memory lapse every time they are asked to give the numbers of over 35 F/As they have. I guess to act dumb (which they do well) is better than tell the real story. Good on you ladies. this is not just about VB and its blatent discrimination but about all older workers being shafted by companies that think that they are above the law of the land.
Easy to make your derogatory remarks about some that would not vouch for them. certainly in a company as large as AN was not everyone is is going to be ready to say nice things about everyone else in the company but I can tell you that of that group you would not find a better and more experienced group of f/as if you tried. If VB wish to appeal that is their right under the law and if thay want to air even more dirty linen let them go. Love the way their spokespersons have a memory lapse every time they are asked to give the numbers of over 35 F/As they have. I guess to act dumb (which they do well) is better than tell the real story. Good on you ladies. this is not just about VB and its blatent discrimination but about all older workers being shafted by companies that think that they are above the law of the land.
