Flying high...
Or not, as was the case of Jessica Starmer, 26, from Wareham in Dorset, England. A pilot, who in the last year became pregnant.
Jessica is claiming indirect sex discrimination against British Airways because they will not allow her to work 50% part-time.
Instead, they have offered her only 75% part-time working hours.
Jessica told a tribunal that British Airways "family-unfriendly working practices" reinforced male-dominated traditions.
Anyway, she won her case and to be honest, I'm not sure if this is the right thing or not.
On the one hand, being a pilot is a demanding job. If you're a woman, then chances are, you've seen off enough of the male-orientated practices to get where you are, so well done!
But on the other hand, to go and get such a prestigious job and then decide to start a family seems to me that Jessica really doesn't have a clear grasp of her priorities.
Which means more to her and her husband? Children or the job she says she loves?
She told the hearing: "BA's lack of accommodation for working mothers works to exclude females from its pilots and to reinforce, rather than reform, the traditional male dominance in its workforce."
But then what does she expect? Being an pilot of an aircraft isn't like working on a supermarket checkout. I'm sure there's a great volume of technical knowledge that she needs to keep abreast of, which working part-time would, in all likelihood, hamper.
I'd say that in her line of work, she can either be a really good mother or a really good pilot, but not both.
Now, the situation for British Airways is much clearer; any less than 75% part-time working hours for such a junior pilot as Jessica means that she is unlikely to accrue the required flying hours needed to fulfill the basic safety requirements of being a pilot.
After all, lives depend on the likes of Jessica being able to do her job properly .. there's no road side assistance in the air.
"In April last year she was given a more detailed response which cited a range of reasons, including the impact on reserve pilots covering for colleagues unable to do their shifts.
The first officer also told the tribunal that BA said her request represented a health and safety risk because she was a junior pilot."
However, it seems that British Airways didn't do themselves any favours; "... [Jessica] told the hearing she found it incredible no one had asked about her experience at any time during her application."
Being inarticulate isn't the failure of the rules & regulations as laid down by British Airways, but more the fault of those interviewing her for the job.
Discrimination is a way of life and as I said earlier, for Jessica to have got where she has, she's likely to have trodden on a lot of male faces getting to where she is.
So in the minds of men who work all of their lives for such a coveted position, to see a woman seemingly squander the opportunity, it isn't hard to see a motive for discrimination, should there be one.
When all is said and done, in this case, I really would have to find in the favour of British Airways, even if there was a possibility that someone behind the scenes was pulling strings to make things difficult for Jessica.
The safety of the lives of hundreds of people is more important than the needs of the individual...
posted by Wayne Smallman at Monday, April 25, 2005
15 Comments:
'Which means more to her and her husband? Children or the job she says she loves?'
I have to take issue with you here honey. How can you possibly ask anyone - male or female - to choose between their children and their careers? Of course the kids come first. But this isn't the 1700s. Women even have the right to vote these days, you know, let alone, outrageous as it sounds, have children and simultaneously maintain a life beyond the kitchen sink.
Perhaps you think that women in high powered positions shouldn't have kids? Or that their professional lives be over the minute they give birth. They should all take up part time tedious work and simply be content in the knowledge that they may be stacking shelves but actually they're fully qualified airline pilots/lawyers etc.
Anyone can stack a shelf. But given the brain drain that is already well underway in this country I would have thought BA would want to hang on to as many qualified pilots as possible. It doesn't sound unreasonable to me to incorporate a bit of work/life balance for a new mother.
That's enough from me - all that writing has made my pretty little head dizzy ;)
This isn't any antique way of thinking, I'd ask myself exactly the same question.
And there's certainly to sexist slant. If you think so, you've not read through what I've said.
There's much more to this than one woman fighting the big bad British Airways.
Some years ago, when I got my first job in Leeds, I had to ask myself a similar question, the result of which being I finished with my then girlfriend.
Because of the hours involved, I could either be good at my job, or be a good boyfriend. Not booth.
"Perhaps you think that women in high powered positions shouldn't have kids?"
To a degree, yes. And exactly the same could be said of any single father in the same position.
You can only do so much with your time, both you and I know this only too well.
If I had kids, there's just no way could I continue with my job.
I'd have to fold my business and work for someone else.
"Anyone can stack a shelf. But given the brain drain that is already well underway in this country I would have thought BA would want to hang on to as many qualified pilots as possible"
But what about the safety of the passengers?
That's the big issue, here.
While Jessica revels in her recent victory, she's not gaining the hours she needs to become a more qualified pilot.
There are times when these little individual victories come at the expense of everyone else...
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here mate. As far as I'm aware having children is not a registerable disability. Why would Jessica be any less capable a pilot because she's no longer working full time? Society used to believe women's wombs were in the heads but I think that's been disproved of late ;)
That aside, there are many registered pilots who fly only in their spare time and have probably clocked up fewer air miles than she has. Are they any more reliable because they haven't given birth?
I really hope to have children one day, and although I agree that my priorities will change to an extent once I do, I don't see why I can't maintain an adult life of my own as well.
Despite what I say sometimes about my job, I thrive on doing something which requires intelligence, responsibility, drive and creativity - and I think I'd go stir crazy without that kind of mental stimulation - not ideal for the family unit to have a mad mom kicking her heels all day!
You see what you're doing?
Pregnant woman + big company = injustice.
Not always the case.
You have to set aside all pre-conceived ideas about the outcome of this and look at the problem objectively.
It's easy to see the little guy as the victim. But the more I look at this, the more I see someone who is cynically exploiting the insane political correctness that inevitably explodes around such situations.
You'll find few people prepared the champion the cause of the little guy than me, so don't think that I'm some oafish bloke striking the woman down.
The facts are simple: she is junior pilot, she needs the hours behind her before she can qualify for the 50% part-time working hours.
It's that simple.
She knows this and I'd like to bet my penny to your pound that she knows she's wrong, too.
As another example of what happens when someone throws themselves into what they do, consider Jane Tomlinson.
What she has achieved is almost inconceivable by any standards.
There can't be more than a handful or so people alive who have done what she has.
But by her own admission, she did so at the expense of her family.
And the same applies to her brother who's been there with her every step of the way.
Oh, and one last thing .. Jessica is expecting a second child.
Presumably, she'll be wanting less the 50% part-time working hours...
My argument isn't really with BA - it's with the rationale that mothers (and fathers) can't (or rather shouldn't) also be professionals. It's hardly a new concept. HR policies on job sharing, flexible working etc have been around for years, as BA knows very well.
I sympathise with your point of view to an extent though - my dad runs his own SME too and gets hit massively by legislations that a big company can swallow more easily but makes life very difficult for him. But he is also a family man - and has managed, successfully in my opinion, to do well in both of those worlds for 27 (argh) years and counting.
"My argument isn't really with BA - it's with the rationale that mothers (and fathers) can't (or rather shouldn't) also be professionals."
C'mon, you know me better than that, surely?
And I'm not going to fall out with you!
There's nothing to stop people from being professionals. It's really down to the individual.
While my sister isn't a professional, she's a mother of seven [no, we're not catholic] and she holds down a part-time job.
She could work more hours, but it's the getting there that's the problem for her.
If I had kids, like any good parent, I'd have to put them first, and that inevitably means something in your work life has to give, irrespective of your vocation.
Let's not forget that what Jessica has achieved is pretty bloody amazing.
I mean, she's navigated her way through and risen up a very male-dominated career ladder. All at the tender age of twenty-six .. a year younger than yourself, Zu.
... And, err .. a few years younger than me.
I think she's done great, but what she's doing could well only serve to piss away all of the good will and respect she's worked so hard for...
Your sister is a mother of seven? Blimey - no wonder you're in no rush to start a family!
One of the sad things for me if / when I decide to start a family is the lack of surprise.
I've been an uncle since I was ten years old, so there's precious little I don't know about kids.
I'm now an uncle to ten kids, ranging in age from Brad who's four to to the eldest, Jack who I go out drinking with.
That said, I've seen plenty of examples of how not to deal with kids, so there's a good chance I'll miss out on most of the new parent silliness...
sounds to me like you'll make a great dad :)
As most of the brood of my three sister will attest, I am that weird uncle...
oh. well in that case you'll be an embarrassing dad!
let's just hope your kids don't get the 'weird' gene... ;)
Is this one tough :))
Well I couldnt understand the technical part. (Yes you did explain)
But if that was all that was to it, then why did she win her case?
So where do I stand (for a reason beyond comprehension, i feel a need to take a stand:D)
1.Agree with you, safety of passengers important and primary.
2.Agree with pilot "BA's lack of accommodation for working mothers works to exclude females from its pilots and to reinforce, rather than reform, the traditional male dominance in its workforce."
3. But re.the hours, well better minds then mine has decided in her favour.
All I can say is, if i had been on that panel committee or whatever, I wouldnt have thought of it as just a woman vs insensitive society/corporate issue.
Just because she is a woman doesnt mean, all her demands are reasonable and at the same time, it doesnt mean BA need not make reasonable provisions.
And ultimately its about passenger safety.
Individual rights and corporate profits in that order.
Hmmm btw I think you could have perhaps phrased it differently:)
I still feel that because she's a woman, she's very much aware of the obstacles the being a woman presents, not just in this industry, but in any industry where a professional qualification is sought.
And because she's aware of these obstacles, she's chosen to cynically exploit the political correctness of todays courts knowing that they could only ever find in her favour, or face a barrage of protests from the slanted media and / or various minority pressure groups.
And given that she's having a second child, I think she's totally laughing in peoples' faces.
She's using the rule of the law to break the spirit of the law...
Well there are many who exploit the rules to suit their advantage.
I wouldnt ok it just because she is a woman, at the same time,lets not forget that many (not all) men wouldnt mind taking advantage of the rules if it favoured them, too.
Integrity has nothing to do with gender.
So lets be cynical and face it:)
Women are neither devils nor goddessess, just humans
PS : Many other women would suffer due to this too. Just like some men face prejudice for faults of other men, women too could have to deal with panels which wouldnt want to seem cowardly and give in to her, even when she is right.
Men have things so easy, it's untrue.
I'd hate to be a woman simply because so many things are stacked against you.
Clearly, things aren't all that fair.
Like I said earlier, what this woman has achieved is without doubt, pretty bloody amazing!
She's set an important precedent for all woman.
However, what she's doing now could well be undoing all of that good and making things that little bit harder for woman to follow in her footsteps.
Men are often quite simplistic in their view of woman.
By and large, if men see a woman striving for success, then she must be a lesbian.
If she's got kids and is still striving for personal success, she's a shit mother.
Of course, these aren't anywhere near the truth, but that is the measure of the mind of the average man.
And that is a measure of what a woman is up against should she choose to better herself.
Not for me the life of a woman. I'm a guy, I like things easy!
Post a Comment
<< Home