Sacked For Being A Christian

[thebirdman]

My understanding of the minimal jewellery requirements for staff at airports has been from a Occupational Health and Safety stand point.

From that stand point I will argue for the Sihk Turban as it keeps the his long hair up and out of the way, and it looks alot less dorkier than a man with a pony tail. The open faced hijab can also be worn in such a way that there are no loose ends. There are many industries that would welcome these cultural head coverings as they would reduce the costs of supplying hairnets. During the second world war turbans had to be made fashionable to encourage women to work safely in factories fore the war effort, enter Camen Maranda. Here in Australia authorities are trying to get us to wear wide brim hats, outside, to attempt to reduce skin cancer.

The cross on the chain is actually starting to push the minimal jewellery rules.

When I worked for Ansett and then the 'Red Rat' (QANTAS), the minimal jewellery rule was limited to a plain watch, a single plain wedding or signet ring, and/or for women, 1 set of small plain ear rings or studs as was also stated by the BA talking head.

I can still remember when the controversy caused when one of my male colleagues wore a single ear stud to work. That one was easily pleaded out, in his favour, on sexual discrimination grounds, but in general the minimal jewelery rules basically remain the same.

From Check-in and specially the ramp area it is a factory like environment. There are conveyor belts, lifting equipment, motor vehicles and all other manner of machinery. As such loose objects have to be kept to a minimum.

Jewellery has a habit falling off or getting caught in machinery. It either fouls up the machinery or can seriously injure the wearer.

 

[Little Jackie]

It appears to me that she was not sacked for being a Christian, but for wearing a chain! The Book is quite clear about obeying those in authority.

 

[thebirdman]

It appears to me that she was not sacked for being a Christian, but for wearing a chain! The Book is quite clear about obeying those in authority.

In a long winded way that is what I was trying to say.

 

[Carrera]

The book is also clear about denial and non-denial seems to me to be a fundamental tenent of the Christian creed. There's a New Testament verse that states those who deny they're Christians will be denied when they supposedly ascend to paradise which is what Christians actually believe will happen in their belief system.
The cross in this case isn't an actual requirement for the faith in question but, on the other hand, it has become a bone of contention linked to witnessing of faith, correct?
As I see it, the woman has been requested not to let other people know she has some connection with Christianity but she's also been told she can keep her job if she works away from the public eye where she's less of an embarrassment?. Isn't that a bit like the early Christians being asked to perform a sacrifice to the Roman Emperor and signing a document to state they renounce their beliefs (on a far smaller scale, granted).
Let me clarify my position. I'm not an atheist and I'm not a Christian (agnostic is the word) although I do have some understanding of Christianity as a historical event. My argument isn't so much about the rights and wrongs of religion but it relates to "discrimination". BA allows other workers to wear religious bangles, beads, veils, turbans and, in some cases, the burkah. When you apply one set of rules to one group and a different set of rules to another group, to my mind, that's discrimination.
They picked an easy target and I'm glad it backfired with all the publicity on Fox News.
I always like to see the underdog fighjt back these days and will basically admire anyone who's prepared to make a stand, same as Muhammad Ali did over Vietnam and his particular beliefs. It's to do with strength of character and not allowing some company or other to walk all over you. It's a small point but it's principle.

It appears to me that she was not sacked for being a Christian, but for wearing a chain! The Book is quite clear about obeying those in authority.

 

[Carrera]

"The Book is quite clear about obeying those in authority."

Hmmmm, so, why did the early Christians refuse to sign a document denying their beliefs and offer incense to the emperor during the persecutions of Decius? This is where I guess you have to be a wee bit careful quoting chapter and verse as there are various interpretations. Couldn't you argue that seeing as those in authority had ordered the early Christians to make that sacrifice, then they should have obeyed the law of the land?
This lady is being asked to deny what she believes in public from her own point of view in the same way as many folks wanted Muhammad Ali to revert to his former name of Cassius Clay which he wouldn't do.

 

[Carrera]

"My understanding of the minimal jewellery requirements for staff at airports has been from a Occupational Health and Safety stand point."

You do make a valid point here but I think this position is a bit too kind and understanding towards B.A.'s position and gives them an easy way out. I'm afraid I suspect there is a clear underlying motive behind this event and I'm not alone in that view, seeing as the Archbishop Of York and several Tories have taken issue with B.A.
I think B.A. are making excuses and they probably see this woman as an embarrassment in the same way as BBC broadcasters had also been asked to remove their tiny crucifixes while on TV. I know there was some debate about that in the BBC but are we to believe the crucifix might get entangled somehow in the mike and give the individual in question an electric shock.

My understanding of the minimal jewellery requirements for staff at airports has been from a Occupational Health and Safety stand point.

From that stand point I will argue for the Sihk Turban as it keeps the his long hair up and out of the way, and it looks alot less dorkier than a man with a pony tail. The open faced hijab can also be worn in such a way that there are no loose ends. There are many industries that would welcome these cultural head coverings as they would reduce the costs of supplying hairnets. During the second world war turbans had to be made fashionable to encourage women to work safely in factories fore the war effort, enter Camen Maranda. Here in Australia authorities are trying to get us to wear wide brim hats, outside, to attempt to reduce skin cancer.

The cross on the chain is actually starting to push the minimal jewellery rules.

When I worked for Ansett and then the 'Red Rat' (QANTAS), the minimal jewellery rule was limited to a plain watch, a single plain wedding or signet ring, and/or for women, 1 set of small plain ear rings or studs as was also stated by the BA talking head.

I can still remember when the controversy caused when one of my male colleagues wore a single ear stud to work. That one was easily pleaded out, in his favour, on sexual discrimination grounds, but in general the minimal jewelery rules basically remain the same.

From Check-in and specially the ramp area it is a factory like environment. There are conveyor belts, lifting equipment, motor vehicles and all other manner of machinery. As such loose objects have to be kept to a minimum.

Jewellery has a habit falling off or getting caught in machinery. It either fouls up the machinery or can seriously injure the wearer.

 

[thebirdman]

I know there was some debate about that in the BBC but are we to believe the crucifix might get entangled somehow in the mike and give the individual in question an electric shock.

When you check your bag in at the airport you are placing your bag on a conveyor belt. In many factories conveyor belts are caged off. But at airport check-in they are open. A colleague got dragged along a conveyor when a diamond cluster from her new engagement ring got caught in the handle of a 32kg suit case. Lucky for my colleague the cluster mount broke away from the rest of the ring.

The number of times that I have had to stop and repair check-in and retrieval conveyor belts or call someone in, because various objects have fallen into them are to numerous to count.

If this woman was working in administation, sales, or anywhere in offices away from the check-in/ramp area of the airport then I would most probably agree with you on discrimination, but this woman was working in the check-in area.

 

[davidmc]

A cross is a method of execution.

Would you condone other religious groups wearing a miniture AK47 rifle or a commecial airliner around their necks?

Agreed. See my Sig.

 

[davidmc]

Limerickman do you or do you not have freedom to wear what you want if you work for British Airways?

Is BA a "private" or "state-owned" enterprise If it is "private" then thay can do as they wish.

 

[limerickman]

Is BA a "private" or "state-owned" enterprise If it is "private" then thay can do as they wish.

BA was privatised in the mid-1980's by Lord John King (bosom buddy of Thatcher).
Prior to that it was State-owned.

 

[11ring]

Well let's see if you have the same attitude after your boss institutes mandatory body cavity searches.

BTW, Limerickman, your similar argument "The employer is free to make make the decision" (not a direct quote i am too lazy) is ****. There is a reason why we have industrial and anti-discrimination legislation. It is becuase when bosses are free to do whatever they want people end exploited, bullied and dead.

People who got sick the above kicked up a stink and now we have a measure of legal protection.

As someone who generally supports a progressive viewpoint you should support these restrictions on employers rights.

And Carrera, your whole OP is less than genuine, as you clearly have little trouble with calls to ban the hijab's.

Is BA a "private" or "state-owned" enterprise If it is "private" then thay can do as they wish.

 

[EoinC]

Carrera - Your Thread title is wantonly erroneous. The employee was not sacked for being a Christian - I would guess that BA have many Christians in their employ. She was stood down for not complying with the Airline's rules on wearing exposed personal jewelry. Had she been wearing a Crescent, a Star of David, or a Ronald McDonald necklace, the same would apply. She joined a Company that has rules. She refuses to comply with those rules.
BA don't care whether she is a Christian or a Zoroastrian, they care about whether she complies with the workplace rules commensurate with that position.
She appealed, and lost the appeal. Them's the breaks.
If I held to a belief that I should walk around naked, and my employer had a requirement for me to keep my family jewels under wraps whilst at work, should I feel wronged when they asked me to comply with such a requirement, it being a component of the position I have signed on for?
If the wearing of exposed personal jewelry is such an integral part of her well-being, it is probably best she find herself a position / vocation where the wearing of exposed personal jewelry is an acceptable practice.

 

[davidmc]

Well let's see if you have the same attitude after your boss institutes mandatory body cavity searches.

People are free to work or not work. Why put the onus on the employer Besides, as indicated b4, there are safety concerns. So, there
As a side-bar, I wouldn't want to be checked in by someone who's religion rewards death. We all know that the "Big Three" (Christianity, Mohammedanism, and Catholicism) religions have this view

 

[Carrera]

This is what B.A. wants people to believe but, really, it doesn't wash. I think I should also point out this specific case is now going to be discussed by the U.N. in Prague as a breach of civil liberties and, while I speak, there is a growing movement to boycott B.A. with many folks switching to Virgin Airlines.
Let me answer your point specifically, though. If it really is the case B.A. has banned a cross the size of a 5 penny coin for reasons of health and safety, how come the BBC were worried about newsreader Fiona Bruce's cross being seen in public? I think you'll find this isn't an isolated incident.
Finally to answer David's point that the firm can do as they please, the point I'm making is this isn't a case of a company policy that has decided not to allow expression of religion for company workers. Had all religious symbols and garments been forbidden and people had been notified by writing during their interview, then I wouldn't be up in arms, so to speak.
Nope, the case is the woman in question has been "discriminated" against the same way as a black guy in fifties America who sees a sign in a cafe that says "Whites Only!"
That's discrimination and a civil liberties issue.

When you check your bag in at the airport you are placing your bag on a conveyor belt. In many factories conveyor belts are caged off. But at airport check-in they are open. A colleague got dragged along a conveyor when a diamond cluster from her new engagement ring got caught in the handle of a 32kg suit case. Lucky for my colleague the cluster mount broke away from the rest of the ring.

The number of times that I have had to stop and repair check-in and retrieval conveyor belts or call someone in, because various objects have fallen into them are to numerous to count.

If this woman was working in administation, sales, or anywhere in offices away from the check-in/ramp area of the airport then I would most probably agree with you on discrimination, but this woman was working in the check-in area.

 

[Carrera]

I'm fairly well aware you have problems with radical Christianity in your country - the last I heard medics were refusing to give a woman who had been raped an abortive medication tablet as it went against their Christian beliefs. Crazy! Then, I'm aware you have militant Christian neo-cons in the U.S.
However, what we have here is a lady who pays her taxes, works for a living, doesn't preach hellfire and brimstone to her co-workers or customers but simply wears a miniscule cross which somehow gives her some peace of mind. She probably never thought anything of it.
The next thing we know, she's facing intimidation, bullying and ordered to cover up while she sees other employees happily wearing specially designed Islamic uniforms which B.A. has taken great pains to provide. She sees other folks wearing beads, bangles and turbans and they're left in peace.
This is what has angered a lot of people. That's why the U.N. has now taken up the case as a discrimination issue.

People are free to work or not work. Why put the onus on the employer Besides, as indicated b4, there are safety concerns. So, there
As a side-bar, I wouldn't want to be checked in by someone who's religion rewards death. We all know that the "Big Three" (Christianity, Mohammedanism, and Catholicism) religions have this view

 

[Carrera]

Just to prove to folks that people with my view aren't a minority, I forward the following letter from a barrister who's probably no more a Christian than I am but defends civil liberties. So far, the only person who agrees me with me on this is Wolfix it seems.
Letter in Daily Telegraph 16 Oct 2006

"Sir – Regarding Miss Nadia Eweida and the attempts by British Airways to stop her wearing her crucifix at work, the legal position is very clear. If female Muslim staff in BA are allowed to wear the hijab, then it is unlawful discrimination for BA to prevent Christian staff from wearing a cross. (Reg 3 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003).
In law, the hijab is a religious symbol just as much as the cross, therefore if Muslim staff are permitted to wear a Muslim religious symbol then Christian staff must also be allowed to wear the Christian religious symbol of the cross.
Because of the international nature of its work I, as a barrister, believe that BA could justifiably prohibit all its staff from wearing any religious symbol. What it cannot do is impose different, and therefore discriminatory, rules on Muslim and Christian staff members.Neil Addison (Author, Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law ), Liverpool"

 

[Carrera]

P.S. Let's put B.A. to the test. How about a non metallic cross that appears to be metallic to the viewer but would break instantly if entangled in any way? I wonder if they would agree to that?
Somehow I doubt it.

 

[limerickman]

Well let's see if you have the same attitude after your boss institutes mandatory body cavity searches.

BTW, Limerickman, your similar argument "The employer is free to make make the decision" (not a direct quote i am too lazy) is ****. There is a reason why we have industrial and anti-discrimination legislation. It is becuase when bosses are free to do whatever they want people end exploited, bullied and dead.

People who got sick the above kicked up a stink and now we have a measure of legal protection.

As someone who generally supports a progressive viewpoint you should support these restrictions on employers rights.

And Carrera, your whole OP is less than genuine, as you clearly have little trouble with calls to ban the hijab's.

11, I do support anti-discriminatory legislation and I support legislation to protect workers rights.
However, most professional companies try to adhere to legislative entitlements for all employees and in this case BA state that their policy (of not allowing the wearing of jewellery aound their employees neck) is across the board and applies to all employees regardless of credd, clour, race (BA have 34,000 employees worldwide).

Of course I support progresive employment legislation to protect workers.
No one would want to go back to the 19th century when human labour had no protection whatsoever and when capitalists were allowed to abuse their workers.

 

[limerickman]

P.S. Let's put B.A. to the test. How about a non metallic cross that appears to be metallic to the viewer but would break instantly if entangled in any way? I wonder if they would agree to that?
Somehow I doubt it.

BA, on Newsnight tonight, stated that the rule is that no adornment (jewellery) is allowed to be worn around an employees neck while in the workplace, if the employees neck is exposed.

Employees are free to wear adornments (jewellery) around ones neck - if the employees neck is not exposed ie. they can wear adornments around their neck if their neck is covered.

A tribunal of employment upheld BA's case.

 

[Carrera]

I think that apart from maybe Wolfix, I'm on my own in this one, I guess. What I'm picking up here, though, is that people are being too kind, too understanding and too willing to "be reasonable".
Where I'm coming from is I don't accept B.A. is being motivated by health and safety. I just don't buy that argument. If it was to do with health and safety, then how come Fiona Bruce has had problems over her cross as a BBC broadcaster?
Here is how I would personally solve this problem with B.A. and put them to the test, as it were. The lady can wear a plastic, foiled cross (the size of a 5p coin) so if, as B.A. claims, it gets tangled up in this conveyor belt it will snap off. Seems reasonable to me.
At any rate, as things stand, my view on the forum appears to be isolated but publically it's a different story. Over 50 MP's are boycotting B.A. and this may well spread to a public boycott of the airline. The case is also to be discussed by the U.N. in Prague and, as I said, I admire anyone who has grit and the determination to be true to their principles.

BA, on Newsnight tonight, stated that the rule is that no adornment (jewellery) is allowed to be worn around an employees neck while in the workplace, and if the employees neck is exposed.

Employees are free to wear adornments (jewellery) around ones neck - if the employees neck is not exposed ie. they can wear adornments around their neck if their neck is covered.

A tribunal of employment upheld BA's case.