Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real World
Hansof
In your wonderful world why do all the pilots at BA not ask for 50% work. BA could then employ another whole workforce and just think of all those commands!! That would be a great bonus for all the out of work pilots and wannabees.
Problem is the real world has commercial realities.
Why has her husband not requested a reduced roster then he could be a "real" father to his children as well as Jessica being a good mother to her child / children. Perhaps it is the "commercial" aspect.
Cake and eating come to mind.
In your wonderful world why do all the pilots at BA not ask for 50% work. BA could then employ another whole workforce and just think of all those commands!! That would be a great bonus for all the out of work pilots and wannabees.
Problem is the real world has commercial realities.
Why has her husband not requested a reduced roster then he could be a "real" father to his children as well as Jessica being a good mother to her child / children. Perhaps it is the "commercial" aspect.
Cake and eating come to mind.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
electricjetjock
Why doesn't every one ask for 50% ? Why indeed ? We are numbers who turn up to do the job. The rostering programme would need a bigger disk and some more memory - not a big deal.
There may be a lot of benefits that BA offer that would make it uneconomic to allow it for all. I suspect these are being reduced - interesting equations.
The days of company loyalty are gone, largely due to the bean-counters' approach. So we can, if we are able, adjust work to suit us. If there isn't any work then we have a problem...unless we start our own business.
I suspect most people do not want the hassle of working for more than one organisation (if more than one engine is safer, perhaps more than one job is too?), of spending more time away from work on less money even if it is at home. Looking after the children - god forbid.
Jessica wants part-time, her husband doesn't. Or not yet. Good luck to the cake-eaters, I want to be one.
Why doesn't every one ask for 50% ? Why indeed ? We are numbers who turn up to do the job. The rostering programme would need a bigger disk and some more memory - not a big deal.
There may be a lot of benefits that BA offer that would make it uneconomic to allow it for all. I suspect these are being reduced - interesting equations.
The days of company loyalty are gone, largely due to the bean-counters' approach. So we can, if we are able, adjust work to suit us. If there isn't any work then we have a problem...unless we start our own business.
I suspect most people do not want the hassle of working for more than one organisation (if more than one engine is safer, perhaps more than one job is too?), of spending more time away from work on less money even if it is at home. Looking after the children - god forbid.
Jessica wants part-time, her husband doesn't. Or not yet. Good luck to the cake-eaters, I want to be one.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a private pilot and a GP. My wife is also a GP. We each work half time, which equates to two days a week (yeah, I know, life is hard, hey?). If we make a mistake, a patient can die. It's not as dramatic as when an airline pilot makes a mistake, but for the individual the effect is the same.
In our early years as doctors we worked stupid hours, which were unsafe. Junior doctors don't do the same today, quite rightly. However, they do still do a reasonable amount in a short period and it is this intensity of working which consolidates the experience. There is something about doing it a lot in a short time, which is important in the learning curve. You learn more full time in five years than you do half time in ten years and I think the quality of that experience is different.
I don't know the full details of this case, but I think the principle that someone in a profession like yours or mine should work full-time in the early years to be safe and gain the relevant experience is a sound one.
Even though I am a dosser who now works as a doctor a mere two days a week (although I have various other business interests) and my wife is the same, strangely enough we both probably support BA on this one.
QDM
In our early years as doctors we worked stupid hours, which were unsafe. Junior doctors don't do the same today, quite rightly. However, they do still do a reasonable amount in a short period and it is this intensity of working which consolidates the experience. There is something about doing it a lot in a short time, which is important in the learning curve. You learn more full time in five years than you do half time in ten years and I think the quality of that experience is different.
I don't know the full details of this case, but I think the principle that someone in a profession like yours or mine should work full-time in the early years to be safe and gain the relevant experience is a sound one.
Even though I am a dosser who now works as a doctor a mere two days a week (although I have various other business interests) and my wife is the same, strangely enough we both probably support BA on this one.
QDM
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
electricjetjock:
You can be forgiven for missing it, but in these myriad pages of generally Victorian-mill-owner-like rantings, someone has probably volunteered the fact that Capt Starmer (JS's other half) is 75%.
You can be forgiven for missing it, but in these myriad pages of generally Victorian-mill-owner-like rantings, someone has probably volunteered the fact that Capt Starmer (JS's other half) is 75%.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overstress:
You can be forgiven for missing it, but in these myriad pages of generally excellent discussion (accusing people with a different opinion of 'ranting' excepted) it has been mentioned several times that .....
BA offered to help the couple with their alleged childcare difficulties by -
offering to allow Capt Starmer to change from his existing 75% contract to 50% if he wished - ahead of other captains who'd already applied for 50% and were waiting their turn
and
offering Mrs Starmer a 75% contract - ahead of more senior and more experienced FOs who'd already applied for 75% and were waiting their turn.
Both offers were rejected.
You can be forgiven for missing it, but in these myriad pages of generally excellent discussion (accusing people with a different opinion of 'ranting' excepted) it has been mentioned several times that .....
BA offered to help the couple with their alleged childcare difficulties by -
offering to allow Capt Starmer to change from his existing 75% contract to 50% if he wished - ahead of other captains who'd already applied for 50% and were waiting their turn
and
offering Mrs Starmer a 75% contract - ahead of more senior and more experienced FOs who'd already applied for 75% and were waiting their turn.
Both offers were rejected.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGLL
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahead of more senior and more experienced FOs who'd already applied for 75% and were waiting their turn.
What order do FO's or Captains get part time?
Please Heliport tell me who is 'next to be offered part time'?
Its a leading question - there is NO PTWK policy - getting PTWK depends on some manager saying yes you can have it (havent heard that one in a while) or no you cant, or perhaps come back when you have some kids. There is no PTWK list whereby you put your name down and 'wait your turn'. If there was a transparent policy then IMHO we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Sly
I was only summarising what was posted earlier.
I notice you're not saying the offers weren't made by BA.
Do you think they were fair and reasonable offers of a compromise in light of how difficult it is to get PTWK on the fleet?
I was only summarising what was posted earlier.
I notice you're not saying the offers weren't made by BA.
Do you think they were fair and reasonable offers of a compromise in light of how difficult it is to get PTWK on the fleet?
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thanks heliport that's the first 'admonishment' I've had by a moderator since joining this forum in 1997 (despite what it says in my profile). I stand by what I say, I have witnessed a few PPRuNe rants and a lot of the stuff on here (cake, eating, doesn't know she's born, shouldn't live in Dorset etc) qualifies as rant to me. I find your quoting of me rather disappointing and sarcastic. The case was brought by BALPA because they felt that JS was being disadvantaged unfairly by an arbitrary safety argument (rejected by the tribunal). The Starmers were within their rights to reject such an offer as you mention, and to hold out for their preferred option, which the Tribunal and subsequent appeal upheld.
Declaration of interest: I am a male BA pilot who has been part-time for child-care reasons (narrows it down a bit!)
Declaration of interest: I am a male BA pilot who has been part-time for child-care reasons (narrows it down a bit!)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on overstress. Maybe just a touch over-sensitive there.
With respect, it's not correct that BALPA brought the case.
Mrs Starmer chose to take BA to the Employment Tribunal.
She brought the case.
BALPA supported her, and according to previous posts, financed her claim, but that's a different matter.
______________________
For those interested in the next stage:
BA applied to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The EAT refused to give leave to appeal its decision. Nothing significant in that. SOP.
BA was given 56 days in which to apply direct to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. That's a longer period than usual, but takes into account that the Court of Appeal doesn't sit in August and September.
So BA has 56 days (49 remaining) to decide whether to apply for leave to appeal.
There's no automatic right to have an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal. Unless BA can show there are grounds for arguing that the EAT made a mistake of law, the Court of Appeal will not give leave to appeal.
Neither the first appeal (to the EAT) nor the appeal from the EAT to the Court of Appeal (if it goes ahead) is a fresh hearing of the claim. No evidence is heard. It's a 'review' of the previous decision.
Provided (1) the previous tribunal made didn't make a mistake of law and (2) the decision wasn't perverse on the facts, the previous decision is upheld.
In ordinary language, it's much more difficult to get a decision overturned on appeal than it is to win at the first hearing.
With respect, it's not correct that BALPA brought the case.
Mrs Starmer chose to take BA to the Employment Tribunal.
She brought the case.
BALPA supported her, and according to previous posts, financed her claim, but that's a different matter.
______________________
For those interested in the next stage:
BA applied to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The EAT refused to give leave to appeal its decision. Nothing significant in that. SOP.
BA was given 56 days in which to apply direct to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. That's a longer period than usual, but takes into account that the Court of Appeal doesn't sit in August and September.
So BA has 56 days (49 remaining) to decide whether to apply for leave to appeal.
There's no automatic right to have an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal. Unless BA can show there are grounds for arguing that the EAT made a mistake of law, the Court of Appeal will not give leave to appeal.
Neither the first appeal (to the EAT) nor the appeal from the EAT to the Court of Appeal (if it goes ahead) is a fresh hearing of the claim. No evidence is heard. It's a 'review' of the previous decision.
Provided (1) the previous tribunal made didn't make a mistake of law and (2) the decision wasn't perverse on the facts, the previous decision is upheld.
In ordinary language, it's much more difficult to get a decision overturned on appeal than it is to win at the first hearing.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 27th Jul 2005 at 08:27.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will always be the case that sides will be taken. This case is no different and JS is by no means sitting well in the 'for' street. The cynics abound. They believe that JS has taken matters to the extreme by wanting so much and giving so little.
As I said in an earlier post I think the chances of employment for the female flying fraternity will be harder as a result of this selfish action. I cannot see managers on the side of women if they think they will be demanding time off for first one child and then another - and even yet another!
In spite of overstress taking the view that a cliche like 'can't have her cake and eat it' is a rant (how can it be.) That is exactly how she comes across. Greedy is another.
Part time pilots is NOT good. For OBVIOUS reasons. One of them is the reason BA stood up - safety. I agree with them.
As I said in an earlier post I think the chances of employment for the female flying fraternity will be harder as a result of this selfish action. I cannot see managers on the side of women if they think they will be demanding time off for first one child and then another - and even yet another!
In spite of overstress taking the view that a cliche like 'can't have her cake and eat it' is a rant (how can it be.) That is exactly how she comes across. Greedy is another.
Part time pilots is NOT good. For OBVIOUS reasons. One of them is the reason BA stood up - safety. I agree with them.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't visit here often anymore, but here is what I had to say on our Company Forum about the JS case............
Lets not try to cloud this Issue with personal morale opinions on;
- the greater good for Britain of having children due to the declining birth rate.
- where peoples priorities should lie.
- views on a childs maternal upbringing.
- Career vs motherhood.
- whether it helps attain PTWK for all other members.
etc, etc, etc.
Its simple;
- BA were not obeying the law and as a result were discriminating against a BALPA member.
- The BA pilot concerned had the courage and conviction to stand up against her employers for what she believed was right (which is more than I can say for the other 93% of male BA pilots who haven't shown any of the same courage unless it affected them directly............see pay restructuring, NEP Pension or any other countless Issue)
- BALPA provided the member with legal support.
- The BALPA member won her case with the support of our union and legal support.
- They subsequently won the appeal.
What the members moral convictions/reasons for fighting BA in the first place are her business, and not up for our judgement. She certainly doesn't have to come on here either to tell us what her reasons where. It is sufficient for me to know that through BALPA's support a member had their legal rights defended. As for the costs of doing so, I couldn't care less, just as I hope the cost of the Bill wouldn't affect BALPA's decision to defend me if I needed them to one day.
If anything this case might help BALPA's teeth sharpen and give them the confidence that they can say NO and win.
I can only hope the reason some pilots might not support the case is because INDIRECT discrimination is not as well understood as direct discrimination, and people can't get their heads around why a female pilot in BA, (who is more likely than a male to get PTWK in the 1st place), can win a sex.disc case wrt PTWK. But that I hope is down to the nuances of this law and misinformation, and not down to prejudices. It's not about whether something makes sense, it's whether her rights were being violated or not. And they were. Wouldn't you want the same support in a rights violation by BA against you ?
Lets keep the moral opinions to a minimum and let the facts speak for themselves if we want to ever convince the doubters of the virtues of this case.
Congratulations JS and right call BALPA, lets have more of that fighting spirit.
- the greater good for Britain of having children due to the declining birth rate.
- where peoples priorities should lie.
- views on a childs maternal upbringing.
- Career vs motherhood.
- whether it helps attain PTWK for all other members.
etc, etc, etc.
Its simple;
- BA were not obeying the law and as a result were discriminating against a BALPA member.
- The BA pilot concerned had the courage and conviction to stand up against her employers for what she believed was right (which is more than I can say for the other 93% of male BA pilots who haven't shown any of the same courage unless it affected them directly............see pay restructuring, NEP Pension or any other countless Issue)
- BALPA provided the member with legal support.
- The BALPA member won her case with the support of our union and legal support.
- They subsequently won the appeal.
What the members moral convictions/reasons for fighting BA in the first place are her business, and not up for our judgement. She certainly doesn't have to come on here either to tell us what her reasons where. It is sufficient for me to know that through BALPA's support a member had their legal rights defended. As for the costs of doing so, I couldn't care less, just as I hope the cost of the Bill wouldn't affect BALPA's decision to defend me if I needed them to one day.
If anything this case might help BALPA's teeth sharpen and give them the confidence that they can say NO and win.
I can only hope the reason some pilots might not support the case is because INDIRECT discrimination is not as well understood as direct discrimination, and people can't get their heads around why a female pilot in BA, (who is more likely than a male to get PTWK in the 1st place), can win a sex.disc case wrt PTWK. But that I hope is down to the nuances of this law and misinformation, and not down to prejudices. It's not about whether something makes sense, it's whether her rights were being violated or not. And they were. Wouldn't you want the same support in a rights violation by BA against you ?
Lets keep the moral opinions to a minimum and let the facts speak for themselves if we want to ever convince the doubters of the virtues of this case.
Congratulations JS and right call BALPA, lets have more of that fighting spirit.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Jessica-rabbit is going to take an unknown amount time off for an unknown amount of children then work 50% on return and retire at 50 can I have her job in the meantime?.
I'll work 100% and be 100% loyal if you pay my training and wages on time.
I'll work 100% and be 100% loyal if you pay my training and wages on time.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was very generous of airrage to share what he had to say on the company forum, especially as he doesn’t visit here often any more.
Such a pity he doesn’t.
I’d like to have asked him which aspects of the Starmer case (if any) are (in his view) legitimately open to discussion.
Such a pity he doesn’t.
I’d like to have asked him which aspects of the Starmer case (if any) are (in his view) legitimately open to discussion.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi FL,
I think the discussion should revolve focus on whether JS was being discriminated against or not, whether her rights were being infringed upon, and if so, was it right for the union to provide her with legal support. In hindsight it appears she was legally in the right.
If we agree that she was legally in the right, then people here should aim their negative comments at the government who pass such laws, not question the integrity of the person who had to actually battle with her company, simply to get them to comply with the law. By all means question the legitimacy/economics of such laws, but that is not what is generally being commented on here.
I think the discussion should revolve focus on whether JS was being discriminated against or not, whether her rights were being infringed upon, and if so, was it right for the union to provide her with legal support. In hindsight it appears she was legally in the right.
If we agree that she was legally in the right, then people here should aim their negative comments at the government who pass such laws, not question the integrity of the person who had to actually battle with her company, simply to get them to comply with the law. By all means question the legitimacy/economics of such laws, but that is not what is generally being commented on here.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part time pilots is NOT good. For OBVIOUS reasons. One of them is the reason BA stood up - safety. I agree with them.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airrage,
Please clarify for me then that any UK worker, in any indsutry is entitled to demand (and then be given) 50% part-time working regardless of circumstances?
So regardless of whether the person has children (otherwise than would be discrimination against non-parents). Regardless of how long they have been employed and regardless of sex every employee is entitled to work as and when they like?
Surely this would bring industry to an end!
I think the area that has sparked the debate, is not because BA were discriminating but because JS showed a complete lack of compromise.
And as a previous posted stated, if she doesn't want her job...there's a few of us who can be bothered to put the effort in, and would very much like the opportunity!
GQ
Please clarify for me then that any UK worker, in any indsutry is entitled to demand (and then be given) 50% part-time working regardless of circumstances?
So regardless of whether the person has children (otherwise than would be discrimination against non-parents). Regardless of how long they have been employed and regardless of sex every employee is entitled to work as and when they like?
Surely this would bring industry to an end!
I think the area that has sparked the debate, is not because BA were discriminating but because JS showed a complete lack of compromise.
And as a previous posted stated, if she doesn't want her job...there's a few of us who can be bothered to put the effort in, and would very much like the opportunity!
GQ
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GuinnessQueen: I believe we are recruiting, so why not apply? I believe that JS may want to re-apply for full-time in the future, but as I said, we are recruiting.
Capt Fillosan: the arguments for safety have been disproven, I did over 500 hours one year on P-T, approximately double my annual average whilst in the RAF. I never felt 'not current'. So by your argument all of that was unsafe? Also, the 'cake and eating it' - this means what exactly? It's not as if PTWK-ers get paid the same as full-time. You work less, you get paid less. Less cake, in that case. (BTW who buys a cake then doesn't eat it?)
FL: yes I know that JS brought the case, BALPA just represented her, but they had to given that they thought the case was valid and that they had a good chance of winning. Yes I was oversensitive, but I'm not used to mods being provocative, things have gradually changed here over the years.
Phoebe Buffet: see my reply to GuinnessQueen. You don't want JS's job, that's hers, but you're welcome to apply for your own!
There seems to be a problem with some contributors actually coming to terms with the fact that several UK airlines have pilots on P-T contracts, this seems to be viewed as some sort of unsafe heresy which somehow forces all the full-timers to have to work harder. In my case, I applied for PTWK then had to wait 10 months until the establishment was correct on my fleet.
Capt Fillosan: the arguments for safety have been disproven, I did over 500 hours one year on P-T, approximately double my annual average whilst in the RAF. I never felt 'not current'. So by your argument all of that was unsafe? Also, the 'cake and eating it' - this means what exactly? It's not as if PTWK-ers get paid the same as full-time. You work less, you get paid less. Less cake, in that case. (BTW who buys a cake then doesn't eat it?)
FL: yes I know that JS brought the case, BALPA just represented her, but they had to given that they thought the case was valid and that they had a good chance of winning. Yes I was oversensitive, but I'm not used to mods being provocative, things have gradually changed here over the years.
Phoebe Buffet: see my reply to GuinnessQueen. You don't want JS's job, that's hers, but you're welcome to apply for your own!
There seems to be a problem with some contributors actually coming to terms with the fact that several UK airlines have pilots on P-T contracts, this seems to be viewed as some sort of unsafe heresy which somehow forces all the full-timers to have to work harder. In my case, I applied for PTWK then had to wait 10 months until the establishment was correct on my fleet.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guiness Queen
I can't clarify that, nor did I try. But then that is not the legal case for which JS faught and won against BA. You can debate all you want about your opinion of employment law, but JS's case was about INDIRECT SEXUAL discrimination. The court found not only was BA indirectly discriminating against her, but safety was not a legitimate BA defense(as per other comments here), nor was BA's financial ability to offer her PTWK(another false arguement here).
By her lack of compromise I guess you are referring to her inflexibility on not allowing her employer to continue to ignore her rights, and ignore the fact they were breaking current UK employment legislation in the process ? Why should she compromise when, as proven by a UK court of Law twice now, she had every legal right to request what she desired ? Would you allow an employer to prevent you from something you were legally entitled too ?
If anything JS has created more opportunity, for those looking for a job in BA, than existed when she was still Full-time. If you are lucky, this might trigger more PTWK for pilots in BA, thereby creating even more opportunity for those wanting a job in BA. You should celebrate the courts decision.
Airrage,
Please clarify for me then that any UK worker, in any indsutry is entitled to demand (and then be given) 50% part-time working regardless of circumstances?
So regardless of whether the person has children (otherwise than would be discrimination against non-parents). Regardless of how long they have been employed and regardless of sex every employee is entitled to work as and when they like?
Please clarify for me then that any UK worker, in any indsutry is entitled to demand (and then be given) 50% part-time working regardless of circumstances?
So regardless of whether the person has children (otherwise than would be discrimination against non-parents). Regardless of how long they have been employed and regardless of sex every employee is entitled to work as and when they like?
I think the area that has sparked the debate, is not because BA were discriminating but because JS showed a complete lack of compromise.
And as a previous posted stated, if she doesn't want her job...there's a few of us who can be bothered to put the effort in, and would very much like the opportunity!