If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It is not up to BA to worry which religions have traditionals cloth garments and which don't. If Christianity had an equivalent to the turban Christian employees would be allowed to wear it.
But at the end of the day BA objects to all exposed jewellery, religious or not. Mentions of other religions' cloth garments are irrelevant to the rule in question and an attempt to play the religion card.
As to implying that mentioning other religions' identifying symbols as playing the religious card; that is a canard meant to end discussion in one's own favour. Including other religions and what they can or cannot wear while in uniform is fundamental to this issue and therefore this discussion. The question is; was the employee discriminated against because she was wearing a Christian symbol; cross or crucifix? In order to determine if she was discriminated against based on the religion signified by the cross or crucifix as she claims, then one( or certainly the legal system) has to determine and discuss how BA treats other employees of other religions wearing items identifying their religion.
Oh, and to save time, no I am not religious nor affiliated with any religion. I gave up that opiate 30 years ago after leaving the seminary.
As someone that has always been required to wear a uniform it has been my experience that a significant number of people bend or ignore certain aspect of rules with regard to the wearing of uniforms ( and many other things too).
It has also been my experience as an NCO, shop steward and union leader that there is always more to these events involving minor infractions that result in disciplinary proceedings ending up in an an explosion than from the initial cursory report.
If assigned to investigate this incident, after interviewing the subject and getting an understanding of their side of the issue; I would research the complaint or complainant. It is not unknown for a person to make a complaint against someone on ostensibly reasonable grounds only to find out that the person and often times supervisor had a grudge or dislike for the subject of the complaint. They wait until they see the subject commit what is usually a minor infraction ( as we all make them) then they strike. Of course people with this mindset do not stop with one issue, they continue to find fault / errors in their target and even engage others albeit unknowingly in their scheme. Therefore, the supervisor's bona fides have to be verified.
The next thing that I would determine (in this case) is whether the wearing of jewellery and / or religious items has become custom and practise. I think I would be most probably correct at guessing that many of the tens of thousands of employees at BA do not follow the dress code as strictly as you imply. Of course they will keep their heads down and curtail their activities during this storm but there will be evidence that they have done so and they will continue to do so once the storm dies down.
The most important question to be answered is whether she was; as she claims; discriminated against for wearing the cross or crucifix. Yes, you do point out that BA has a dress policy which reportedly dose not allow the wearing of exposed jewellery while wearing the uniform However, if the supervisor that started the disciplinary proceedings against the staff member did so because she did not like the symbology and / or has ignored others wearing the same type of item, then there is likely a case of discrimination. If that is the case then BA will also be liable (irrespective of it's dress code) as the supervisor is covered by the corporate veil
From here
From the horses mouth, so to speak. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with it being a cross, it's about being an item of jewellery, the open wearing of which contradicts their dress code. If she doesn't like the dress code why doesn't she piss off and work in a chip shop ?
This has only entered the media circus because of the recent teacher/veil incident and because she's some money grabbing bitch (hence suing BA) out for herself. It is easier for a camel to go through.............................
Telling in the spokeswoman's statement is that she said "an appeal was due to be heard next week". "An appeal" An appeal of what? A suspension? Perhaps the staff member was suspended as originally reported, however, in light of her decision to seek legal opinion and possibly pursue legal action, BA thought the better of it and decided to postpone the suspension until they could determine if there was any merit in the employee's charge.
I am fairly certain that this lady's legal counsel has already advised her that she is unlikely to receive much if any financial compensation if her suit against BA was to proceed and be successful The remedy in a successful discrimination case is usually based on correcting the discriminatory behaviour. Financial awards are made for damages. The damages in this case would most likely be limited to loss of pay during a period of suspension. Unlike the United States and increasingly Canada the UK is not a very litigious society so UK courts seldom award punitive damages. When they do they are pitiable.
If the vast majority of workers since the industrial revolution had just accepted whatever pay and conditions of service the employer demanded / imposed or gave up to beat some clothes on some rocks by the river the pay, conditions and protections for employees would either not exist or they would be stuck back similar to what they were a couple of centuries ago. If a person believes themselves to be wronged then they have a right to use the system that has evolved though the sacrifice and hard work of those who have gone before.
Not so much as to trying to justify and support the claim that BA has it in for Christians- which it doesn't.
Official BA policy: no jewellery to be allowed of any kind, be inch-thick 9 carat chains or pendants of any kind, shape or form.
No anti-Christian conspiracy here (despite what the woman might claim).
Answer: No.
The law then will find out that BA doesn't allow jewellery of any other religious denomination, and thankfully this sorry affair will be put to rest.
But who needs punitive damages when the S*n and the Daily Hatemail will be waving their chequebooks at the woman the second the trial is over, and regardless of the outcome?
“Any person working for BA is allowed to wear certain cloth garments representative of their religion.”
“It is not up to BA to worry which religions have traditionals cloth garments and which don't. If Christianity had an equivalent to the turban Christian employees would be allowed to wear it.”
Therefore I posited a perfectly reasonable question based on the statements. However, I will restate my question to make it more succinct:
Could BA not foresee that by allowing staff to wear religious accoutrements from minority religions that their employees that are adherents to the country's majority religion would probably expect equivalent consideration? To not have considered the possible ramifications of implementing such a policy demonstrates very poor judgement and / or management.
Again. No conspiracy was suggested.
I suspect that the news media will not be waving any chequebooks at this lady if the matter goes to trial. Ostensibly, they already have and published her story. The only thing that will interest them from a trial will be if there is widespread discrimination within BA.
How the hell am i supposed to get BA's p.o.v. ?
Oh grow up. This has nothing to do with pay and conditions and the covering up of jewellery is not an unreasonable request. This is about some stupid old bint, jumping on the 'religion card' bandwagon to either screw some money out of her employer and/or make a name for herself.
I'd go on but i'm bored now so i'm gonna go play with me kittens
And no, they're not wearing crosses
They will be waving chequebooks after the trial has finished.
Do not underestimate the willingness of the right wing tabloid press to push their agendas at every given opportunity. I certainly can see a front page interview in the Mail on Sunday with the headline "DISCRIMINATED IN HER OWN COUNTRY" or "WHY DOES BA HATE CHRISTIANITY?" in the not too distant future
Why should she?
It is religious discrimination, end of. That BA allow a social garment like the habib to be worn, but not a religious symbol of this country, is obscene. Aladdin is only arguing against it because he's got a pathological hatred of Catholics.
Yes, she is being discriminated against for being a Christian, by the national carrier of a supposedly Christian country. But the Muslims and Sikhs are free to wear what they want.
No, I don't hate or even dislike Catholics Kermit so do kindly stop making false accusations against me. I profoundly dislike organised religion but I have no problem whatsoever with adults being religious so long as they do not try to rule how others should live their lives. This is something I've stated repeteadly here and I'm getting rather tired of it now.
Why? Are Muslims and Sikhs allowed to display jewellery?
No, she's not being discriminated against for being Christian. If anything, she's being discriminated against for being a jewellery wearer. Perhaps you should start a pressure group demanding equality between jewellery wearers and non-wearers, but let's not pretend there is a discrimination against any particular religion.
No members of any religion are allowed to wear jewellery. Therefore, there is no discrimination against any one religious group.
I think it comes down to the definition of jewellery.
"A cross is not jewellery if you're a Catholic."
"Yes it is"
"No it's not."
Also, there's nowhere in the Quaran or other texts that says one must wear these garments, it's a cultural thing yet they're still allowed to wear them. That's the crux of the matter.
For this woman it is a religious symbol, it depends on whether you accept that viewpoint or not.
The Muslims get to wear attire for social grounds (they're not even religious garments) but this woman is denied it. Typical BA, I suppose.
Employees are allowed to wear cloth garments of religious significance. It's not up to BA to worry about which religious denominations might be left out because that particular faith does not have a distinctive cloth garment to wear.
Incidentally, what makes you say 'Typical BA'? Do you know of any incidents of religious persecution by that bunch of renowed evil anti-Christians?
Didn't you know BA stands for Belezebub's Alliance?
No, they joined with Mephistopheles Incorporated so now it's Amalgamated
"After a meeting with her bosses she was offered a choice of suspension on paid leave, which she feared would be an admission that she had done something wrong, or unpaid leave pending disciplinary action."
and
"Miss Eweida, of Twickenham, who works on the check-in desk at Heathrow Terminal 4 said she was effectively "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to conceal the cross on a necklace."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/16/nfaith116.xml
"Horse's Mouth": I think I misunderstood you because you misspoke. I thought you meant to say "I read a statement made by a spokesperson for BA." The definition of "The Horses Mouth" http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/from+the+horse's+mouth.html does not encompass spokespersons. As I said, spokespeople are rarely involved in an incident and therefore have no intimate knowledge of the incident or actrs. Yes, I agree that the spokeswoman for BA is a source for their side of the story, but she is not "The Horses Mouth".
I also believe you missed the point that I was making in regard to the 'unionised workers', collective agreements, policy and procedures and pay and conditions of service. Perhaps you did not understand because you have not been employed, or not a member of a union, or not actively involved in union activities and processes.
People that are employed work within a contract. Individuals and management personnel usually sign an Personal Employment Contract. People that work for larger organizations or in certain industries usually belong to a union. The union represents the workers in negotiations with management. It would be too onerous for a lot of companies to sign Personal Employment Contracts with all their workers and negotiate with each individually on the multitude of issues that arise in day to day business. Also, the management could persuade individuals to accept poorer contract conditions than others doing the same job. Notwithstanding the complexity of trying to keep control of all the contracts and variances within them. Therefore, both management and workers benefit from the presence of the union. The employment contract that the union signs on behalf of its' members with the management is called a "Collective Agreement". The "Collective Agreement" defines the pay and conditions of service, and determines the procedures and policies that will be invoked should there be a dispute regarding pay and benefits, conditions of service, management rules and regulations as they pertain to unionised employees and most importantly if disciplinary procedures are conducted or workers are fired. What we call the “Workig Conditions”.
The point I was making is that this lady is represented by a trades union. If she disagrees with any issue covered by the "Collective Agreement" then her union must by law represent her. The lady believes BA's policy regarding the wearing of religious jewellery is defective and also discriminatory. The union represents her on both issues as her disagreement is with a policy covered by the "Collective Agreement" and one of the main functions of unions nowadays is to ensure that members are not discriminated against.
"She is now considering legal action on the grounds of religious discrimination and is being backed by her union, the Transport and General Workers Union."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/16/nfaith116.xml
Unfortunately , as often happens with the Fourth Estate they do not provide of the conduct of this matter. She will be represented by the union in any disciplinary or termination proceedings. The union will also negotiate with BA over their policy in regard to religious identification / wearing of non uniform / issued items. The lady also has the right to seek redress through civil and criminal law. As it happens I was a Shop Steward with TGWU and while I was there employees were provided legal counsel from union resources to represent them in discrimination cases. The union of which I am president also provides lawyers to represent members once the "Grievance Procedures" have been exhausted or are not appropriate.
Finally, I think you might also have a misunderstanding of how the “right wing press” as you call them would react in event of findings of discrimination against BA. The right wing press is pro business and seldom glories in the failures of businesses. They are after all dependent on businesses for much of their revenue through their advertising. The left wing media are more likely to cover a story about immigration as they believe themselves to be shoulder to shoulder with the individual(s) against the big bad businesses. As I said already, this lady won't receive much if any financial recompense, even if she is terminated. If she was fired and a court found that the firing arose from her being discriminated against; what is termed “Constructive Dismissal”; they would probably only award her the pay she would have received at BA until a reasonable time for her to find new employment. To receive Punitive Damages she would have to prove that BA acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and vindictively. Believe me that is harder to prove than a conspiracy case.
She IS allowed to wear it, but she must keep it covered
why is that so hard for u to understand?
surely its in her contract that she is not allowed to wear jewellery? in which case, she hasnt got a leg to stand on
Discrimination:
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
Might I suggest that if you have difficulty understanding religious discrimination and specifically indirect discrimination or do not know the law in regard to religious discrimination that you review:
Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) Regulations 2003
Yes! It is the UK Regulations, although I hasten to add that the Canadian Federal and Provincial Equality Acts have the same import.
The following excerpts are probably the most relevant.
http://www.diversiton.com/workplace/employment-equality/overview.asp
Discriminate indirectly against anyone. Indirect discrimination occurs where a person applies a criterion, provision or practice equally but people of a particular religion or belief are disadvantaged because they are not able or less able to satisfy the requirements of particular criterion, provision or practice. This will be unlawful unless it can be objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
http://www.diversiton.com/workplace/applying%2Dregulations/
However employers should consider whether their policies, systems, rules and procedures directly or indirectly discriminate against staff of particular religions and beliefs, and if so whether reasonable changes might be made.
http://www.diversiton.com/workplace/applying%2Dregulations/jewellery.asp
For example Sikhs wear a metal bracelet, Hindu women wear a necklace (which is placed around their neck during their wedding ceremony and is therefore, very symbolic). An organisation’s policy on the wearing of jewellery or having tattoos or other markings should be as flexible as possible. Unjustifiable policies may constitute indirect discrimination
I counter, why don't you understand that BA's may have a policy that says she can wear "the offending item" as long as it is hidden under clothing; however, the policy can be illegal if it can be demonstrated that it indirectly disciminates against a persons religious beliefs as proscribed in the Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) Regulations 2003.
For those that have difficulty understanding the union's involvement, grievance proceedure and other remedies that I described they might want to visit
http://www.diversiton.com/workplace/individual/5steps.asp
Well that's alright then :rolleyes:
The point still stands that members of other religions are freely allowed to wear their religious and cultural attire in public as part of their uniform, and this woman is not. Because BA are scared of the Muslims but Catholics are seen as fair game.
It is a religious symbol, it is not "jewellery". It is as important a symbol as the veil or the turban, so why are they allowed but the crucifx not? One rule for all is all I want; I'd happily see the whole lot banned.
I hope she wins a huge pot of cash from BA.
Oh, and on a side note, if you want to get smart with me, don't go and ruin it by using the English of a semi-literate moron
the crucifix IS allowed
it has to be covered though because as well as being a religious symbol it is also a piece of JEWELLERY as it is a cross ON a NECKLACE, its a bit hard to cover a turban/veil dont you think?
get off ur high horse for once eh?
Again, please explain how it is possible to wear a hijab/turban without it showing...
Tell me about it. For someone who comes across as quite intelligent, he seems to debase to name calling/slagging off quite frequently.
It's the politics/debate forum not the grammatical forum.
It's one of the things that really fucks me off with the cunts in here. They can't come back with a sound, reasoned argument against what you've said, ergo continue the debate, but have to make themselves look complete cunts by picking up on the way you say/spell what you post. No wonder so many people don't bother with this forum. Shame really as some interesting stuff is discussed in here.
they're gonna ban jewlery because it's 'common' it's slang and it's visible.
It's not possible (to my knowledge anyway) to cover something like that.