Change for Ages - New UK law
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change for Ages - New UK law
According to the Age Discrimination Act 2006, which comes into effect in October, it is highly likely that seniority and LIFO lists will be considered indirectly discriminative. Apparently the only way round it is for the company to prove in a court of law that there was no other way to select pilots for fleet changes, detachments, promotions and the numerous other opportunities open to us as flight crew and I think we all know that is not the case.
So here is a scary thought. If a pilot has the necessary experience, that pilot could join one of the larger airlines, wait for the next round of promotions and insist they are put forward for selection. If they are refused it could be taken to tribunal and the employee would get legal aid for it. Oh and as far as I am aware, the compensation is uncapped.
Could free the market up a bit.
So here is a scary thought. If a pilot has the necessary experience, that pilot could join one of the larger airlines, wait for the next round of promotions and insist they are put forward for selection. If they are refused it could be taken to tribunal and the employee would get legal aid for it. Oh and as far as I am aware, the compensation is uncapped.
Could free the market up a bit.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: W England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We must be the only trade where experience cannot be taken with one when applying for a new job..........Were I a senior solicitor moving to a new company would I be expected to do my "articles" again?
Is it right that every new employee starts again form the bottom, no matter what the airline's need for experienced pilots is?
Honestly, I don't get it.
Is it right that every new employee starts again form the bottom, no matter what the airline's need for experienced pilots is?
Honestly, I don't get it.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Seoul
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Bealzebub. Having now taken the trouble to read that Statutory Instrument, I'm even more convinced that not only is Seniority based promotion shortly to become illegal, but it is an utterly inappropriate way to select pilots to command the aircraft.
That is the sort of opinion expressed by someone so blinkered that they cannot comprehend the basic fact that some are more suitable to be Captains than others. Just because you joined an airline before another, does not give you a 'right' to promotion.
Not to mention work allocation, leave, etc.
Has anyone approached a decent specialist employment lawyer? Perhaps we could start a class action against airlines that continue to discriminate in this way?
Although having spoken to the training management within my particular airline, they'd love to promote on merit, but it's the luddites that want to protect their 'right' to commands.
Anyone interested in getting together to ensure that we are promoted in accordance with the intended legislation?
That is the sort of opinion expressed by someone so blinkered that they cannot comprehend the basic fact that some are more suitable to be Captains than others. Just because you joined an airline before another, does not give you a 'right' to promotion.
Not to mention work allocation, leave, etc.
Has anyone approached a decent specialist employment lawyer? Perhaps we could start a class action against airlines that continue to discriminate in this way?
Although having spoken to the training management within my particular airline, they'd love to promote on merit, but it's the luddites that want to protect their 'right' to commands.
Anyone interested in getting together to ensure that we are promoted in accordance with the intended legislation?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mini mums,
whatever your beliefs the legislation is unlikely to enshrine them unless you cite a particular part of it ?
Seniority doesn't ensure one person is any more capable of a command than another person. What it does do is to provide an orderly queue for the consideration for promotion. Although neither seniority nor subjective merit based systems are really relevant to this particular topic, any long term loyalty,reward etc. is subject to an exemption by virtue of paragraph 32 of the legislation :
Where B's length of service exceeds 5 years, it must reasonably appear to A that the way in which he uses the criterion of length of service, in relation to the award in respect of which B is put at a disadvantage, fulfils a business need of his undertaking (for example, by encouraging the loyalty or motivation, or rewarding the experience, of some or all of his workers).
Blinkers aside
, there are a great many indeed the majority of pilots who may be suitable for command. Where seniority systems are in effect there are regularly convened Command assesment boards who decide who is suitable for being put forward for a command assesment as and when their seniority places them at that point in the queue. This is unlikely to change unless an individual employer refuses to fairly consider a candidate based on their age.
You need to differentiate between the right to promotion (which doesn't really exist) with the right to be considered for promotion ( which is what happens in either system).
I suppose you could start any action you like but the discrimination must be real and unlawful, not simply something that you would like it to be. Again which particular part of this instrument do you feel supports your contention ?
whatever your beliefs the legislation is unlikely to enshrine them unless you cite a particular part of it ?
Seniority doesn't ensure one person is any more capable of a command than another person. What it does do is to provide an orderly queue for the consideration for promotion. Although neither seniority nor subjective merit based systems are really relevant to this particular topic, any long term loyalty,reward etc. is subject to an exemption by virtue of paragraph 32 of the legislation :
Where B's length of service exceeds 5 years, it must reasonably appear to A that the way in which he uses the criterion of length of service, in relation to the award in respect of which B is put at a disadvantage, fulfils a business need of his undertaking (for example, by encouraging the loyalty or motivation, or rewarding the experience, of some or all of his workers).
Blinkers aside
, there are a great many indeed the majority of pilots who may be suitable for command. Where seniority systems are in effect there are regularly convened Command assesment boards who decide who is suitable for being put forward for a command assesment as and when their seniority places them at that point in the queue. This is unlikely to change unless an individual employer refuses to fairly consider a candidate based on their age.You need to differentiate between the right to promotion (which doesn't really exist) with the right to be considered for promotion ( which is what happens in either system).
I suppose you could start any action you like but the discrimination must be real and unlawful, not simply something that you would like it to be. Again which particular part of this instrument do you feel supports your contention ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub,
The paragraph you have quoted is actually being used to argue the case for reducing increments and has very little to do with selection for opportunities.
There are no test cases for age discrimination yet but rest assured, they will come and there will be massive penalties for those companies that have chosen to ignore the legislation or put it on the back burner, as many have decided to do already.
Seniority is indirectly discriminative that, I'm afraid, is a cold fact as most of the people at the top of a seniority list are generally older than those at the bottom. It is therefore up to your company to prove there is no other way to carry out a fair selection and only then could they try to get an objective justification.
Lets not forget that this does not only affect command prospects, it also affects basing (if your company has more than one), fleet change, roster patterns and redundancy.
The paragraph you have quoted is actually being used to argue the case for reducing increments and has very little to do with selection for opportunities.
There are no test cases for age discrimination yet but rest assured, they will come and there will be massive penalties for those companies that have chosen to ignore the legislation or put it on the back burner, as many have decided to do already.
Seniority is indirectly discriminative that, I'm afraid, is a cold fact as most of the people at the top of a seniority list are generally older than those at the bottom. It is therefore up to your company to prove there is no other way to carry out a fair selection and only then could they try to get an objective justification.
Lets not forget that this does not only affect command prospects, it also affects basing (if your company has more than one), fleet change, roster patterns and redundancy.
Last edited by Veethree; 22nd Jul 2006 at 19:17.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a guess I would say that employers will state a set of loyalty and experienced based minimum requirements to be considered for command assessment which will neatly dovetail with seniority, be it official or otherwise, so, "Pilot A" arriving in a company with thousands of hours and years of experience will still have to do five years as an FO and by that time their "seniority" may have them in the promotion zone anyway.
Companies tend to avoid employing people who are classified as 'over-experienced' for the job, but they could always take "Pilot A"on as a direct entry captain as to employ him as an FO would be to discriminate against him compared to the other company captains who have the same or less experience! Unfortunately the FOs can't cry 'discriminatory foul' as they are not on equal terms by virtue of experience with "Pilot A" - indeed their only saviour would be a seniority system!
At the end of the day the companies will promote who they want to and legal action by employees will simply mark them for life in what is still a comparatively small industry.
Companies tend to avoid employing people who are classified as 'over-experienced' for the job, but they could always take "Pilot A"on as a direct entry captain as to employ him as an FO would be to discriminate against him compared to the other company captains who have the same or less experience! Unfortunately the FOs can't cry 'discriminatory foul' as they are not on equal terms by virtue of experience with "Pilot A" - indeed their only saviour would be a seniority system!
At the end of the day the companies will promote who they want to and legal action by employees will simply mark them for life in what is still a comparatively small industry.
