Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Fielding
IMHO, more likely.
If the extreme scenario you put forward for discussion occurred, it would be relatively easy to prove there was "something clear and measurable going on", but not quite so easy to prove it against a particular company in relation to a particular applicant - as opposed to proving the existence of a culture within the industry. If a major employer literally took no women applicants over a period it would be easier, but would a major employer in fact discriminating against women applicants be that transparent, or more subtle?
Doing the minimum to comply with the letter of the law is very different from complying with the spirit of the legislation. Which is a company more likely to do now?
BA has actively recruited women pilots for some years, doing more than than the law requires.
Is the Starmer decision likely to encourage other employers to adopt a 'positive action' policy, or make them wary that they will increase the risk of such demands/problems if they do?
Legislation has an important role to play, but the objective desired by those in favour of it isn't really achieved unless and until it becomes natural and normal - rather than an 'issue' to be considered out of fear of falling foul of the law.
Whatever the merits of Mrs Starmer's claim in law, the overwhelming majority of views expressed in both threads on this topic have ranged from unsympathetic to irritation that she managed to win what was widely regarded as a totally unmeritorious claim on the facts. And those are on a pilots' website.
Is it likely potential employers will adopt a more sanguine approach than pilots? Or, seeing a claim which few appear to think had any merit on the facts succeed in law, will they be worried that the risk of something similar happening to them would increase pro rata with an increase in the number of women employed?
Mrs Starmer achieved what she wanted - a better deal for herself. However, IMHO, her success has put the interests of other women pilots back a few years - at least until the memory of her win isn't quite so "red hot" in potential employers' minds.
"I would finally like to ask again a question I asked some pages ago which never received a reply. Would an employer, holding an application from a female pilot in one hand and a newspaper detailing the JS case in the other, be more or less likely now to throw that application in the bin, knowing that the subject is red hot and we are all looking at it very closely indeed?"
If the extreme scenario you put forward for discussion occurred, it would be relatively easy to prove there was "something clear and measurable going on", but not quite so easy to prove it against a particular company in relation to a particular applicant - as opposed to proving the existence of a culture within the industry. If a major employer literally took no women applicants over a period it would be easier, but would a major employer in fact discriminating against women applicants be that transparent, or more subtle?
Doing the minimum to comply with the letter of the law is very different from complying with the spirit of the legislation. Which is a company more likely to do now?
BA has actively recruited women pilots for some years, doing more than than the law requires.
Is the Starmer decision likely to encourage other employers to adopt a 'positive action' policy, or make them wary that they will increase the risk of such demands/problems if they do?
Legislation has an important role to play, but the objective desired by those in favour of it isn't really achieved unless and until it becomes natural and normal - rather than an 'issue' to be considered out of fear of falling foul of the law.
Whatever the merits of Mrs Starmer's claim in law, the overwhelming majority of views expressed in both threads on this topic have ranged from unsympathetic to irritation that she managed to win what was widely regarded as a totally unmeritorious claim on the facts. And those are on a pilots' website.
Is it likely potential employers will adopt a more sanguine approach than pilots? Or, seeing a claim which few appear to think had any merit on the facts succeed in law, will they be worried that the risk of something similar happening to them would increase pro rata with an increase in the number of women employed?
Mrs Starmer achieved what she wanted - a better deal for herself. However, IMHO, her success has put the interests of other women pilots back a few years - at least until the memory of her win isn't quite so "red hot" in potential employers' minds.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 17th May 2005 at 17:01.
FO Janeway,
"let's face it: BA as an employer is no longer the cream of the crop these days. "
As a mere overseas pilot do tell me who is.
I thought the rest of your contribution from the heart with a lot of truth in it. Good luck.
"let's face it: BA as an employer is no longer the cream of the crop these days. "
As a mere overseas pilot do tell me who is.
I thought the rest of your contribution from the heart with a lot of truth in it. Good luck.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F.O. Janeaway is being a little simplistic when she says part time means that you only cost the company 50% or 75% of your salary and leave allocation is pro rata. She overlooks the fact that the company will not pay National Insurance pro rata because pilots salaries are way above the maximum cut off for such payments. Similarly training isn't pro rata to the amount you fly nor are the requirements for sim rides. It is possible to go on identifying other areas where the split isn't even. The bottom line is that employing part timers is more expensive overall than having full time staff.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sammy,
I might be wrong, but where I work
CRM (ha,ha)
Fire&Smoke,
LPC/OPC, etc are actually going partly onto your off-time. I don't know the %age, but not all is the "burden"of the company.
Yes: you're right. A parttimer will the company cost a little more.
NI contributions, eh? A HUGE chunk in the big picture.....
I'm sure it'll be offset by mindless rostering, incompetent day-to-day crewing and wasted taxirides.
Let's face it: the airlines try to squeeze every single last drop out of us, we are undercrewed, tired. Many of us sat in the cockpit, doors closed, ready to go just to state: **it, I can hardly keep my eyes open! And he offloaded himself!
What would you rather have? An utterly p***ed off, overstretched workforce or a happy bunch, some of'em part-timers?
I'm digressing.
BusyB
All is always relative from a different perspective. I doubt I have to tell you this.
If one's a wannabe you fly naked for food, and you think you've just died and gone to heaven. I know: I've been there.
If you have a family to support, you have say 4500hrs of Jettime under your belt, your kids are at school and you bought your house 7 years ago, then moving to London for BA Airbus at LHR, where you will work your **se off because there aren't enough pilots to cover the timetable, for the money and the now inadequate pension, and being threatened by your newish boss if the **it hits the fan for whatever reason, does NOT appeal.
Check out the jobsection in the Guardian or Telegraph or even the daily mail: 40, 50 or even 90Grand is not that high any longer.
How much does the average house cost?
For the job we do, the responsibility for people's lives we carry it's not enough any longer, compared to some council officer counting how many recycling bins he has to replace this week.
What other job do you personally have to fork out 60Grand for? Never mind the lost income during traning.
The airlines are taking the mick with MCC course, typeratings, bonds. They can only do that because we let them.
yet, another issue.
BusyB, I'm not gonna tell you which airline is the best to work for. Because I don't know. It depends on your own circumstances.
The only thing I know is: Once a whole workforce of one company is looking for another job and leaves in droves, there must be something wrong.
The companies WILL have to take heed and WILL have to offer pt to their people, never mind the reason, because a happy workforce costs less than a ***ed-off one.
edited to incl answer to BusyB
I might be wrong, but where I work
CRM (ha,ha)
Fire&Smoke,
LPC/OPC, etc are actually going partly onto your off-time. I don't know the %age, but not all is the "burden"of the company.
Yes: you're right. A parttimer will the company cost a little more.
NI contributions, eh? A HUGE chunk in the big picture.....
I'm sure it'll be offset by mindless rostering, incompetent day-to-day crewing and wasted taxirides.
Let's face it: the airlines try to squeeze every single last drop out of us, we are undercrewed, tired. Many of us sat in the cockpit, doors closed, ready to go just to state: **it, I can hardly keep my eyes open! And he offloaded himself!
What would you rather have? An utterly p***ed off, overstretched workforce or a happy bunch, some of'em part-timers?
I'm digressing.
BusyB
All is always relative from a different perspective. I doubt I have to tell you this.
If one's a wannabe you fly naked for food, and you think you've just died and gone to heaven. I know: I've been there.
If you have a family to support, you have say 4500hrs of Jettime under your belt, your kids are at school and you bought your house 7 years ago, then moving to London for BA Airbus at LHR, where you will work your **se off because there aren't enough pilots to cover the timetable, for the money and the now inadequate pension, and being threatened by your newish boss if the **it hits the fan for whatever reason, does NOT appeal.
Check out the jobsection in the Guardian or Telegraph or even the daily mail: 40, 50 or even 90Grand is not that high any longer.
How much does the average house cost?
For the job we do, the responsibility for people's lives we carry it's not enough any longer, compared to some council officer counting how many recycling bins he has to replace this week.
What other job do you personally have to fork out 60Grand for? Never mind the lost income during traning.
The airlines are taking the mick with MCC course, typeratings, bonds. They can only do that because we let them.
yet, another issue.
BusyB, I'm not gonna tell you which airline is the best to work for. Because I don't know. It depends on your own circumstances.
The only thing I know is: Once a whole workforce of one company is looking for another job and leaves in droves, there must be something wrong.
The companies WILL have to take heed and WILL have to offer pt to their people, never mind the reason, because a happy workforce costs less than a ***ed-off one.
edited to incl answer to BusyB
Last edited by FO Janeway; 18th May 2005 at 07:32.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FO Janeway
Can't resist the opportunity for a lawyers' free kick. My LLB cost around $A40,000. My academic equivalent of articles cost $A7,000. On the McDonalds exchange rate, that's about £47,000. I had minimal income for 3½ years whilst a full time student. After admission, I took any legal work on offer, often for less than cost or legal aid rates. Some time later, business has picked up, but only after working long hours seven days per week and guaranteeing my house to the Bank. I’m only as good as my last win – and bad news travels fast!
Sorry, working your butt off is not the sole prerogative of pilots!
What other job do you personally have to fork out 60Grand for? Never mind the lost income during traning.
Sorry, working your butt off is not the sole prerogative of pilots!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your eye is not as good as your name implies, Argus.
where exactly did I say that working your butt off was the sole.... etc,etc?
what my rant was really about was that our work is not honoured by the airlines anymore, compared to other professions.
How many actual lives depend on your professionalism each day?
I'm not interested in starting a slanging match to then be -predictably- accused of having a chip on my shoulder, bladeblah.
Heard it all before, at the end of the day: we ARE at the sharp end.
Argus, my rant was about our industry, I'm sure there is a Professional Lawyers Rumour Network.
where exactly did I say that working your butt off was the sole.... etc,etc?
what my rant was really about was that our work is not honoured by the airlines anymore, compared to other professions.
How many actual lives depend on your professionalism each day?
I'm not interested in starting a slanging match to then be -predictably- accused of having a chip on my shoulder, bladeblah.
Heard it all before, at the end of the day: we ARE at the sharp end.
Argus, my rant was about our industry, I'm sure there is a Professional Lawyers Rumour Network.
FO Janeway,
I wasn't casting aspersions as I'm sure you realise, but I do think you're a bit too close to your problems to see them clearly. Possibly can't see the woods for the tree.
Best of Luck.
I wasn't casting aspersions as I'm sure you realise, but I do think you're a bit too close to your problems to see them clearly. Possibly can't see the woods for the tree.
Best of Luck.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
"let's face it: BA as an employer is no longer the cream of the crop these days. "
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FO Janeway
The real issue here is flight safety. With great respect, you deviated from the thread theme by inviting a comparison of other jobs. I merely responded to your invitation.
The real issue here is flight safety. With great respect, you deviated from the thread theme by inviting a comparison of other jobs. I merely responded to your invitation.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh, brakedwell,
here it is:
10th of May 2005, 16:06
Argus, I think that's exactly what : "I'm digressing" means.
BusyB,
I didn't think in the slightest you were casting aspersions, until you accuse me of not seeing the wood for the trees.
remember chaps: I'm just a woman: A completely hysterical, illogically reasoning postmenstruating quotafiller. Hence I'm flattered that anyone is even attempting to answer my posts.
joke aside:
It boils down to this: We and that means everyone, not just pilots (Argus) should argue for better working conditions, not begrudging each other, trying to drag each other down: well, if I can't have it, why should anyone else? That's the wrong attitude and it plays into managements hands. If somebody wants to go pt, well, if they can afford it: Good luck to them!
I sincerely hope you can see my point.
Balpa are fighting for this case so everyone can benefit from its outcome, it is unfortunate the pc card had to be pulled, but in the long run it will pave the way for more pt work in the pilot workforce.
Unfortunately, it's a fact that it HAS put back the lady pilot's cause by at least a decade.
here it is:
10th of May 2005, 16:06
Argus, I think that's exactly what : "I'm digressing" means.
BusyB,
I didn't think in the slightest you were casting aspersions, until you accuse me of not seeing the wood for the trees.
remember chaps: I'm just a woman: A completely hysterical, illogically reasoning postmenstruating quotafiller. Hence I'm flattered that anyone is even attempting to answer my posts.
joke aside:
It boils down to this: We and that means everyone, not just pilots (Argus) should argue for better working conditions, not begrudging each other, trying to drag each other down: well, if I can't have it, why should anyone else? That's the wrong attitude and it plays into managements hands. If somebody wants to go pt, well, if they can afford it: Good luck to them!
I sincerely hope you can see my point.
Balpa are fighting for this case so everyone can benefit from its outcome, it is unfortunate the pc card had to be pulled, but in the long run it will pave the way for more pt work in the pilot workforce.
Unfortunately, it's a fact that it HAS put back the lady pilot's cause by at least a decade.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: hkg
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it may be argued that it is every woman's right to have children I do not believe that it is every woman's (or man's) right to be a pilot. With any profession invariably there comes commitment and often sacrifice. If one cannot or will not give that commitment or make that sacrifice then do something else. It should not be for others to subsidise one's lifestyle choice!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does anyone know if Mrs S. took the 50% contract ? It would be a real waste of BALPA members contributions if they fought the case only to have her maintain the status quo because she may be better off financially.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Independent
Ruling on mother's hours will ground female pilots, warns BA's chief executive -
The newly knighted chief executive of British Airways has warned that a sex-discrimination case won by one of the company's pilots will deter airlines from taking on female flight crew. Sir Rod Eddington, who is also the Government's most senior adviser on transport, told The Independent that his airline would fight the judgment "all the way" to the European court.........
Ruling on mother's hours will ground female pilots, warns BA's chief executive -
The newly knighted chief executive of British Airways has warned that a sex-discrimination case won by one of the company's pilots will deter airlines from taking on female flight crew. Sir Rod Eddington, who is also the Government's most senior adviser on transport, told The Independent that his airline would fight the judgment "all the way" to the European court.........
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surprise at all. The "Starmer Syndrome" I suggested would soon shut Manager's doors to women pilots is about to happen I fear. The airline's will not tolerate it, and I while perhaps Jessica Starmer MAY have won the battle (we'll see what happens at the tribunal appeal) I reckon she has lost the war - for herself and her fellow women. Let us hope not but who would take a bet on it?
You cannot make an airline employ women.
You cannot make an airline employ women.