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
Boy
In many ways PPRuNe can be a tough forum because there are lots of very informed people about. Harsh it may be, but errors in basic facts don't help credibility when trying to make a point here. It's best to not to react quite so seriously when someone tweaks your tail - particularly when they add a
to show it's done in a friendly way. Only an opinion, offered for you to consider.
In regard to your 'general point', it may not change your view but you may wish to read my summary in response to Ranger One.
You may well be right that the flight safety argument was more powerful than the other arguments - I'm not an airline pilot so I'm not qualified to express a meaningful view.
However, if I was an F/O on the Airbus fleet already working the maximum hours agreed with BALPA, I might not be pleased that Mrs Starmer persuaded the Tribunal to dismiss this ground as "a voluntary agreement between BA and the relevant trade union and no more.”
Similarly, if I was waiting my turn to transfer fleets, I'd be worried about the consequences to me of Mrs Starmer pointing out that BA could alleviate fleet resource difficulties exacerbated by part-time working by refusing pilots' applications to transfer. As the Tribunal said in its judgment: “BA has a practice of allowing pilots to transfer to other fleets when possible. This …. is a matter within BA’s control.”
With BALPA's help, Mrs Starmer undoubtedly achieved a superb result for herself. If the decision survives the appeal process, she's got what she wanted and others with child care difficulties will probably benefit. However, pilots who don't come within the legislation (children under 6, or under 18 if disabled) may well find themselves worse off.
In many ways PPRuNe can be a tough forum because there are lots of very informed people about. Harsh it may be, but errors in basic facts don't help credibility when trying to make a point here. It's best to not to react quite so seriously when someone tweaks your tail - particularly when they add a
to show it's done in a friendly way. Only an opinion, offered for you to consider.In regard to your 'general point', it may not change your view but you may wish to read my summary in response to Ranger One.
You may well be right that the flight safety argument was more powerful than the other arguments - I'm not an airline pilot so I'm not qualified to express a meaningful view.
However, if I was an F/O on the Airbus fleet already working the maximum hours agreed with BALPA, I might not be pleased that Mrs Starmer persuaded the Tribunal to dismiss this ground as "a voluntary agreement between BA and the relevant trade union and no more.”
Similarly, if I was waiting my turn to transfer fleets, I'd be worried about the consequences to me of Mrs Starmer pointing out that BA could alleviate fleet resource difficulties exacerbated by part-time working by refusing pilots' applications to transfer. As the Tribunal said in its judgment: “BA has a practice of allowing pilots to transfer to other fleets when possible. This …. is a matter within BA’s control.”
With BALPA's help, Mrs Starmer undoubtedly achieved a superb result for herself. If the decision survives the appeal process, she's got what she wanted and others with child care difficulties will probably benefit. However, pilots who don't come within the legislation (children under 6, or under 18 if disabled) may well find themselves worse off.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not denying that Mrs Starmer has an equal right to BALPAs services, take a look at the post on this forum about one MR Peter Bush.
Thats the sort of case BALPA should be giving maximum publicity to, regardless of whether he's a member, because it could happen to any of us.
I would be astounded, but in a cynical way, not suprised, if BALPA claim never to have come across the case.
Thats the sort of case BALPA should be giving maximum publicity to, regardless of whether he's a member, because it could happen to any of us.
I would be astounded, but in a cynical way, not suprised, if BALPA claim never to have come across the case.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As ground staff with BA I do not think that BA staff that have endured various cut backs during the last 8 years will in anyway be suprised at the outcome. We would have expected her to get better and far more equal treatment than ground staff.
With regard to this decision surely the 'safety' issue would be a factor in respect of maternity leave which will last for about a year I believe.
Of more concern for the ladies is as a result of this outcome future recruitment might have to be closely looked at in regard of ladies. Although it is has to be equal there is no doubt that the predominantly male recruitment / interview body are going to be more circumspect of potential female employees.
On Jessicas' return to work she will also have to be treated with kid gloves as it is easy for her to feel a victim or harassed by her colleagues or management. As a number of us have said liberation / employment laws will come at a large cost to all of us.
With regard to this decision surely the 'safety' issue would be a factor in respect of maternity leave which will last for about a year I believe.
Of more concern for the ladies is as a result of this outcome future recruitment might have to be closely looked at in regard of ladies. Although it is has to be equal there is no doubt that the predominantly male recruitment / interview body are going to be more circumspect of potential female employees.
On Jessicas' return to work she will also have to be treated with kid gloves as it is easy for her to feel a victim or harassed by her colleagues or management. As a number of us have said liberation / employment laws will come at a large cost to all of us.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with sex discrimination laws and especially those relating to part time working is that the law is such as to allow those who want to take maximum advantage of the law to do so. It is fortunate that most employees, both males and females, play a fair game, do not take “advantage of their rights” and act in a totally responsible manner both to the employer and their colleagues.
Many applications to work part time are from single parents (not those with two good incomes) and others who have an urgent need to work part time.
However, Mrs Starmer has acted within the letter of the law. Most large companies will have advisers etc priming them on how to make a more effective and defensive response to claims re part time work, and a response which might well be to the detriment of the applicant whose application is seen to be more justified than the claim of Mrs Starmer.
Many applications to work part time are from single parents (not those with two good incomes) and others who have an urgent need to work part time.
However, Mrs Starmer has acted within the letter of the law. Most large companies will have advisers etc priming them on how to make a more effective and defensive response to claims re part time work, and a response which might well be to the detriment of the applicant whose application is seen to be more justified than the claim of Mrs Starmer.
Está servira para distraerle.
I think it inconceivable that JS will not allow herself to feel victimized or harassed. Everything I have read about her would indicate, in my opinion, another law case against BA, funded by BALPA, for unfair work place practices.But, if she were to be treated with kid gloves; would that not be discriminatory in itself? Poor old BA.
Bit off topic, but I will include it here because I think it is reflective of the "I have lots of rights but no responsibilities" attitude shown here, as well as the fact it also involves BA.
Evening Standard article
Basically, a mother left her baby behind in London FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER to take a trip to New York (now, you or I would no doubt have had a "trial run" first, staying with parents or similar for a couple of days to make sure everything would be OK, but anyway ...). Baby refused to drink while she was away, so she had to fly back again. She now expects BA and/or her insurance company to pay for this!!!
The one bit of good news for us Brits is the reason she was flying to the States was to attend an immigration interview .....
Evening Standard article
Basically, a mother left her baby behind in London FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER to take a trip to New York (now, you or I would no doubt have had a "trial run" first, staying with parents or similar for a couple of days to make sure everything would be OK, but anyway ...). Baby refused to drink while she was away, so she had to fly back again. She now expects BA and/or her insurance company to pay for this!!!
The one bit of good news for us Brits is the reason she was flying to the States was to attend an immigration interview .....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from sentiments expressed by a couple of recent posters on this thread, allow me to throw a very large rock into the pond - one that will possibly stir up a whole new debate and, I suspect, passions equally as deep as some we've seen already expressed on this and the earlier thread.
Is this case a good illustration for the argument to drop the whole sponsored cadet idea? Does it prove that something a person doesn't pay for him(her)self is not as valued as something a person sweats the proverbial blood to achieve? (I'm reminded of children who inherit money and squander is versus those who earn every penny they possess.)
I'm not for one moment saying a sponsored cadet doesn't work hard to achieve the required standard, but asking, in effect "Is the successful self improver more likely to value his(her) position in an airline than someone who is 'in the system' from Day 1 of his(her) initial training?".
In many other parts of the world, airlines place a high value on a prospective pilot who has done it the hard way, showing commitment by working in sometimes dreadful jobs - usually in dreadful places - building up considerable hours on a wide variety of equipment before he (she) is even considered for employment in an airline. That same applicant has had considerable command experience, (granted, on small aircraft, but that hardly makes any differeence), and has had his (her) share of frights - a very necessary part of the learning curve for any aviator in my opinion. Many cadets might not experiences his (her) first real fright until he (she) has 150, or maybe 450 passengers down the back - and given the reliability of our modern airliners, he (she) may even be the captain by then.
In my current airline, we have a number of pilots who have made it to the left hand seat of a widebody and have never once done a diversion.
When I started in airlines, every pilot on my intake has considerably more hours than Ms Starmer has now, how many years into her employment with BA?
Standing by for the incoming.
Is this case a good illustration for the argument to drop the whole sponsored cadet idea? Does it prove that something a person doesn't pay for him(her)self is not as valued as something a person sweats the proverbial blood to achieve? (I'm reminded of children who inherit money and squander is versus those who earn every penny they possess.)
I'm not for one moment saying a sponsored cadet doesn't work hard to achieve the required standard, but asking, in effect "Is the successful self improver more likely to value his(her) position in an airline than someone who is 'in the system' from Day 1 of his(her) initial training?".
In many other parts of the world, airlines place a high value on a prospective pilot who has done it the hard way, showing commitment by working in sometimes dreadful jobs - usually in dreadful places - building up considerable hours on a wide variety of equipment before he (she) is even considered for employment in an airline. That same applicant has had considerable command experience, (granted, on small aircraft, but that hardly makes any differeence), and has had his (her) share of frights - a very necessary part of the learning curve for any aviator in my opinion. Many cadets might not experiences his (her) first real fright until he (she) has 150, or maybe 450 passengers down the back - and given the reliability of our modern airliners, he (she) may even be the captain by then.
In my current airline, we have a number of pilots who have made it to the left hand seat of a widebody and have never once done a diversion.
When I started in airlines, every pilot on my intake has considerably more hours than Ms Starmer has now, how many years into her employment with BA?
Standing by for the incoming.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's certainly a fair comment. I think the point is that that however you get there, you will still have the same rights irrespective of whether you got there from a cadet scheme or from your own blood, sweat and tears. There will always be those that want to demand more: sometimes with justification, sometimes without.
I take your point, however, though I'm sure Jessica Starmer hasn't been given the free ride that people may think. It will undoubtedly be difficult for her to re-integrate herself back into work given the publicity on her case, and as has been pointed out if she has put others' noses out of joint then she will probably received the cotton-wool treatment.
I take your point, however, though I'm sure Jessica Starmer hasn't been given the free ride that people may think. It will undoubtedly be difficult for her to re-integrate herself back into work given the publicity on her case, and as has been pointed out if she has put others' noses out of joint then she will probably received the cotton-wool treatment.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Near LHR
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know nothing about this case except what I have read in posts here and in the press, so I acknowledge that I may be factually lacking, I’d like to make that clear.
I also have no axe to grind, and am trying to look at this objectively.
I would like to share a true story with you to illustrate just how well off you tin tube drivers are with your T&C’s and your union representation.
A couple of years or so ago, a colleague of mine working for the engineering department of a well known carrier was in a similar set of circumstances to Ms.Starmer, in as far as he and his wife decided to start a family.
His wife died three days after child birth due to complications. Having used all of his annual leave and the two weeks compassionate leave to which he was entitled in order to care for his son and to try and arrange child care for him when he was at work, he applied to come off permanent nights and go onto a more child friendly flexible arrangement. He was refused, on the grounds that child care issues were not the company’s responsibility. He then offered to work twelve hour days to satisfy his contractual requirements. This was again refused, on the grounds that if they let him do it, they’d have to let everybody do it.
His union wouldn’t fight the case on the basis that they thought they couldn’t win on contractual grounds. He couldn’t sue for sexual discrimination (well, he was the wrong sex for a start), nor for constructive dismissal.
Being a man of integrity, he stood by his commitments and his life choice to have a family and resigned in order to take a more stable, less time intensive job whilst looking after his new born son.
Ms. Starmer, on the other hand, has a living partner who is well paid, and has done nothing more that thrown a tantrum and spat her dummy out because she can’t have it her own way. Frankly, to the outsider it stinks of “I’m a pilot, so gimme gimme gimme”. This lack of acquiescence on the part of BA, apparently, is as a result of sexual discrimination. Too right it is – she can do it, my colleague couldn’t. The difference is their respective sexes and places of work. She is a pilot, therefore the world revolves around her, and what’s more BALPA will flex their muscles to make sure everybody else acknowledges it. He was only an engineer, and therefore lower in the food chain than a snake’s belly in a wheel rut.
I hope that Mr. and Mrs Starmer can live with themselves, and that BALPA are proud of their achievement. All this case has done for the non-flight deck rest of the airline world is to reinforce the view that flight crew think they’re a special case and woe betide anybody who thinks otherwise.
For this reason, and this reason alone, most of the under classes in the airline business hope that BA win the appeal. Unless the rest of the pilots out there wish to be grouped along with her, I would recommend that you join us in condemning her actions.
I also have no axe to grind, and am trying to look at this objectively.
I would like to share a true story with you to illustrate just how well off you tin tube drivers are with your T&C’s and your union representation.
A couple of years or so ago, a colleague of mine working for the engineering department of a well known carrier was in a similar set of circumstances to Ms.Starmer, in as far as he and his wife decided to start a family.
His wife died three days after child birth due to complications. Having used all of his annual leave and the two weeks compassionate leave to which he was entitled in order to care for his son and to try and arrange child care for him when he was at work, he applied to come off permanent nights and go onto a more child friendly flexible arrangement. He was refused, on the grounds that child care issues were not the company’s responsibility. He then offered to work twelve hour days to satisfy his contractual requirements. This was again refused, on the grounds that if they let him do it, they’d have to let everybody do it.
His union wouldn’t fight the case on the basis that they thought they couldn’t win on contractual grounds. He couldn’t sue for sexual discrimination (well, he was the wrong sex for a start), nor for constructive dismissal.
Being a man of integrity, he stood by his commitments and his life choice to have a family and resigned in order to take a more stable, less time intensive job whilst looking after his new born son.
Ms. Starmer, on the other hand, has a living partner who is well paid, and has done nothing more that thrown a tantrum and spat her dummy out because she can’t have it her own way. Frankly, to the outsider it stinks of “I’m a pilot, so gimme gimme gimme”. This lack of acquiescence on the part of BA, apparently, is as a result of sexual discrimination. Too right it is – she can do it, my colleague couldn’t. The difference is their respective sexes and places of work. She is a pilot, therefore the world revolves around her, and what’s more BALPA will flex their muscles to make sure everybody else acknowledges it. He was only an engineer, and therefore lower in the food chain than a snake’s belly in a wheel rut.
I hope that Mr. and Mrs Starmer can live with themselves, and that BALPA are proud of their achievement. All this case has done for the non-flight deck rest of the airline world is to reinforce the view that flight crew think they’re a special case and woe betide anybody who thinks otherwise.
For this reason, and this reason alone, most of the under classes in the airline business hope that BA win the appeal. Unless the rest of the pilots out there wish to be grouped along with her, I would recommend that you join us in condemning her actions.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prop jocket
Interesting post, and a very sad story, but isn't it a bit unfair to tar all pilots with the same brush?
If you read the comments on this thread, and the other thread on the same topic (Click here ) you might be surprised by the reactions of pilots to Mrs Starmer's claim and BALPA's role in it.
Interesting post, and a very sad story, but isn't it a bit unfair to tar all pilots with the same brush?
If you read the comments on this thread, and the other thread on the same topic (Click here ) you might be surprised by the reactions of pilots to Mrs Starmer's claim and BALPA's role in it.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Around and about
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prop jocket, would it not be more appropriate to support legislation designed to meet the needs of cases such as you describe? All the more appropriate since in this case the employer and union seem to have been particularly unhelpful. And on it goes ....
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will be cancelling my BALPA membership, as a result of BALPA's role in this case. I think Jessica is completely wrong. I hope she loses her appeal, which I think she will.
I am also very sorry BALPA has wasted so much money on this affair.
I am also very sorry BALPA has wasted so much money on this affair.
Peoples' Champion!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prop jocket,
That too is a dreadful and very sad case, however, as BBT said, the legislation that has come into effect which provided Jessica with the opportunity of PTW is, ironically, the very same legislation that would have offered your friend protection. Can I reiterate though, that it's nothing to do with being a Pilot. As Heliport pointed out, most Pilots appear NOT to have supported Jessica's efforts. . .
Aranmore, Cancelling your BALPA subscription is an extremely courageous move. I only hope that you never find yourself in a position where you would have needed their support which will, of course, be unavailable following your ‘gesture’. . .
BH
That too is a dreadful and very sad case, however, as BBT said, the legislation that has come into effect which provided Jessica with the opportunity of PTW is, ironically, the very same legislation that would have offered your friend protection. Can I reiterate though, that it's nothing to do with being a Pilot. As Heliport pointed out, most Pilots appear NOT to have supported Jessica's efforts. . .
Aranmore, Cancelling your BALPA subscription is an extremely courageous move. I only hope that you never find yourself in a position where you would have needed their support which will, of course, be unavailable following your ‘gesture’. . .
BH
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: london
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well - rant over. Haveahappyday.
Post edited.
If you want to describe people you disagree with as Nazis, find another website to air your rant.
People may have used 'weasel words' in your opinion. We prefer to think of it as courteous discussion on a professional pilots forum. If you'd read through the "turgid" posts more carefully, at least you'd understand what the discussion is really about.
Heliport
For the record: The post was pro Mrs Starmer's claim.
Post edited.
If you want to describe people you disagree with as Nazis, find another website to air your rant.
People may have used 'weasel words' in your opinion. We prefer to think of it as courteous discussion on a professional pilots forum. If you'd read through the "turgid" posts more carefully, at least you'd understand what the discussion is really about.
Heliport
For the record: The post was pro Mrs Starmer's claim.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Near LHR
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having reread my previous ( admittedly hastily scribed post ) I'm suitably embarrassed by the apparent tone of it. Apologies to one and all if the tone caused offence to anybody.
Just to clarify a few points, those of us in the dirty trades who have jumped through some if not all of the hoops you guys had to negotiate to get where you are today hold you in high esteem. We know how difficult it is to get there. There are a few out there who think you have it easy and have everything thrown at you at the cost of others, but I'm happy to say they are few and far between in reality.
I related the true story of my colleague to illustrate that, as George Orwell put it, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
Ms. Starmer would be heeding wise counsel if she was to wipe that smug "I've won" look off her face if she has any desire for a future career. I'm comforted to see the strength of opinion against what she did, too.
The colleague whose story I related earlier, just as a matter of interest, had 2,500 hours total time, 2,300 of it as P1, with turbine time that he'd paid for himself, a multi rating and an IR. He did it for fun.
Just to clarify a few points, those of us in the dirty trades who have jumped through some if not all of the hoops you guys had to negotiate to get where you are today hold you in high esteem. We know how difficult it is to get there. There are a few out there who think you have it easy and have everything thrown at you at the cost of others, but I'm happy to say they are few and far between in reality.
I related the true story of my colleague to illustrate that, as George Orwell put it, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
Ms. Starmer would be heeding wise counsel if she was to wipe that smug "I've won" look off her face if she has any desire for a future career. I'm comforted to see the strength of opinion against what she did, too.
The colleague whose story I related earlier, just as a matter of interest, had 2,500 hours total time, 2,300 of it as P1, with turbine time that he'd paid for himself, a multi rating and an IR. He did it for fun.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prop jocket:
<double-take>
Two WEEKS??!! And this was only a couple of years ago you say?
Even here in the USA, either of those circumstances (birth of child, death of spouse) would have entitled him to three MONTHS leave(1), by law, under the Family and Medical Leave Act. I'm astonished and surprised to find UK law less socially-conscious.
(1) Admittedly the FMLA leave would be unpaid - employer under no obligation to provide paid leave - but employee would be entitled to return to same job as before after the three months.
R1
...the two weeks compassionate leave to which he was entitled...
Two WEEKS??!! And this was only a couple of years ago you say?
Even here in the USA, either of those circumstances (birth of child, death of spouse) would have entitled him to three MONTHS leave(1), by law, under the Family and Medical Leave Act. I'm astonished and surprised to find UK law less socially-conscious.
(1) Admittedly the FMLA leave would be unpaid - employer under no obligation to provide paid leave - but employee would be entitled to return to same job as before after the three months.
R1
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of you who believe that the CAA's silence on the safety of 50% rosters justifies the practise, might like to re-consider their position after consultation with: CAA Paper 2004/10, Flight Crew Reliance on Automation, Simon Wood.
I thoroughly support a position of increased training beyond the legal minimum for modern commercial pilots who are obliged to interact with increasingly complex systems via a flightdeck interface.
23 days since my last sector...
I thoroughly support a position of increased training beyond the legal minimum for modern commercial pilots who are obliged to interact with increasingly complex systems via a flightdeck interface.
23 days since my last sector...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read all the posts, so apologies if it's been mentioned before............
Don't all BA crew sign a contract that says they won't go to the press about anything?? Hasn't she therefore breached her contract by going to the press, and perhaps once this is all over will be fired for that reason??
Don't all BA crew sign a contract that says they won't go to the press about anything?? Hasn't she therefore breached her contract by going to the press, and perhaps once this is all over will be fired for that reason??
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point - BA crew are told during their training that they are not allowed to discuss company issues with the media.
They are also told to be discreet at all times when involved with sensitive issues and people of importance and celebrity status.
They are also told to be discreet at all times when involved with sensitive issues and people of importance and celebrity status.
Last edited by Anti-ice; 6th May 2005 at 19:01.
Plastic PPRuNer
Hmmm... I've been following this discussion with some interest because we have recently had an analogous situation. Female surgical trainee (nice lass) with well-off husband (and full time maid) gets pregnant half-way through her training. Everyone very nice about it but it did mean that our small department was one person short for 6/12. When she came back, due to child-care and breast-feeding demands she really was only working at 70% capacity. Now, with the kiddie bigger, she's often late because she has to get the child off to nursery school and early because she has to pick her up afterwards. Everyone is very nice about it mind, but I can't help observing that none of the male trainees with small kids had anything like the same concessions made. I certainly didn't with young Tom.
I guess surgery is a bit like flying, in that first you have to build up a basis of experience (after graduation) and then keep your skills honed by regular exercise.
As for the future, our lass has unequivocally stated that she doesn't ever intend to work full-time after graduating. Was choosing her over a man who would have worked full-time after training fair? I trust that she will gain and retain her proficiency, but I can't see her ever attaining the skill-level of a full-timer, simply because she will always be behind in experience.
There's no doubt that a woman who want to have a family and a career has a difficult juggling act - it's no coincidence that most of the top woman surgeons who I work with are childless. I don't think that it's a matter of prejudice these days (apart from a few idiots), but more a matter of biological facts that are essentially unsurmountable. The GMC (our governing body) is currently frantic because so few women end up as full-time surgeons (they view this as a distinctly un-PC failure and an indictment of themselves) whereas it actually just reflects the realities of the situation. Women know that the job isn't really compatible with raising kids.
For the life of me I can't see an easy answer to this vexing situation and realistically, I don't think there is one. I have sympathy for our lass and for Ms Starmer - both had rights granted to them in law, fought for them and won. Was it fair? Is the law fair? Is life fair? I dunno. And I don't know whether I'll be brave enough to appoint another woman who is likely to have children during her training.
I guess surgery is a bit like flying, in that first you have to build up a basis of experience (after graduation) and then keep your skills honed by regular exercise.
As for the future, our lass has unequivocally stated that she doesn't ever intend to work full-time after graduating. Was choosing her over a man who would have worked full-time after training fair? I trust that she will gain and retain her proficiency, but I can't see her ever attaining the skill-level of a full-timer, simply because she will always be behind in experience.
There's no doubt that a woman who want to have a family and a career has a difficult juggling act - it's no coincidence that most of the top woman surgeons who I work with are childless. I don't think that it's a matter of prejudice these days (apart from a few idiots), but more a matter of biological facts that are essentially unsurmountable. The GMC (our governing body) is currently frantic because so few women end up as full-time surgeons (they view this as a distinctly un-PC failure and an indictment of themselves) whereas it actually just reflects the realities of the situation. Women know that the job isn't really compatible with raising kids.
For the life of me I can't see an easy answer to this vexing situation and realistically, I don't think there is one. I have sympathy for our lass and for Ms Starmer - both had rights granted to them in law, fought for them and won. Was it fair? Is the law fair? Is life fair? I dunno. And I don't know whether I'll be brave enough to appoint another woman who is likely to have children during her training.