Sacked For Being A Christian



davidmc said:
Why doesn't she have a cross embroidered on all of her uniforms :confused: The wearing of chains is inadvisable @ machinery.

Dave - exactly.

There is a debate in the media here at the moment concerning religious symbols and the wish of people (from many religions) to be seen to be wearing their respective symbols.
This entire debate is premised on the old "free speech" punchbag.

On one side you've got the "ban 'em all, regardless" brigade who don't want any person to wear a religious symbol. They claim to adhere to free speech.
Then you have the "it's my right to wear whatever symbol I choose" brigade who are claiming that their right is also...... free speech!

In the BA case, the lady isn't being prevented from wearing a cross - it's just that she's prevented from wearing a cross around her neck.
It goes against health and safety regulations for her to wear one round her exposed neck.
Of course, she's free to wear a cross embroidered on her clothing or under her blouse or wherever.

I can't help thinking that the lady in question is gullible - to be honest.
 
David, we agree only on one thing: It's acceptable for a company to legislate against religious insignia of every faith.
That means, B.A. must ban all turbans, veils, crucifixes, ceremonial swords and burkhas.
That's fine by me.
Theoretically you could hide a weapon in a turban and attempt to hijack an aircraft. You could use a Sikh ceremonial dagger as a weapon too.
The chances of a miniscule cross (and I mean miniscule) being used as a weapon are minimal if not zilch.
This woman had been wearing the cross for 7 years at B.A.


davidmc said:
Why doesn't she have a cross embroidered on all of her uniforms :confused: The wearing of chains is inadvisable @ machinery.
 
"In the BA case, the lady isn't being prevented from wearing a cross - it's just that she's prevented from wearing a cross around her neck."|

Correction. She was allowed to wear the cross around her neck so let's be specifically clear. I read the case very carefully.
I repeat: She was allowed to wear the cross round her neck.
What she wasn't allowed to do was show the cross to the public and was ordered to hide the cross underneath her uniform. Either that, or she could wear the cross but work away from the public view.
She refused to comply on the grounds she saw B.A. bending over backwards to accommodate her co-workers who may have held different beliefs.
The outcome is this: B.A. has been well and truly "whupped" and made to back down. Literally thousands of letters poured into B.A. offices and the boycott was threatening to hit the airline hard.
So, B.A. lost this struggle and bit off more than they could chew.



limerickman said:
Dave - exactly.

There is a debate in the media here at the moment concerning religious symbols and the wish of people (from many religions) to be seen to be wearing their respective symbols.
This entire debate is premised on the old "free speech" punchbag.

On one side you've got the "ban 'em all, regardless" brigade who don't want any person to wear a religious symbol. They claim to adhere to free speech.
Then you have the "it's my right to wear whatever symbol I choose" brigade who are claiming that their right is also...... free speech!

In the BA case, the lady isn't being prevented from wearing a cross - it's just that she's prevented from wearing a cross around her neck.
It goes against health and safety regulations for her to wear one round her exposed neck.
Of course, she's free to wear a cross embroidered on her clothing or under her blouse or wherever.

I can't help thinking that the lady in question is gullible - to be honest.
 
Carrera said:
David, we agree only on one thing: It's acceptable for a company to legislate against religious insignia of every faith.
That means, B.A. must ban all turbans, veils, crucifixes, ceremonial swords and burkhas.
That's fine by me.
Theoretically you could hide a weapon in a turban and attempt to hijack an aircraft. You could use a Sikh ceremonial dagger as a weapon too.
The chances of a miniscule cross (and I mean miniscule) being used as a weapon are minimal if not zilch.
This woman had been wearing the cross for 7 years at B.A.

Under health and safety regulations - the lady cannot wear a cross around her exposed neck.
Health and safety is the issue.
Not religious symbols.
The tribunal found in BA's favour (for the umpteenth time).

BA never stated that the lady was being prevented from wearing her cross on the basis of "attempted hijacking" - as you put it.
 
Carrera said:
"In the BA case, the lady isn't being prevented from wearing a cross - it's just that she's prevented from wearing a cross around her neck."|

Correction. She was allowed to wear the cross around her neck so let's be specifically clear. I read the case very carefully.
I repeat: She was allowed to wear the cross round her neck.
What she wasn't allowed to do was show the cross to the public and was ordered to hide the cross underneath her uniform. Either that, or she could wear the cross but work away from the public view.
She refused to comply on the grounds she saw B.A. bending over backwards to accommodate her co-workers who may have held different beliefs.
The outcome is this: B.A. has been well and truly "whupped" and made to back down. Literally thousands of letters poured into B.A. offices and the boycott was threatening to hit the airline hard.
So, B.A. lost this struggle and bit off more than they could chew.

Correction.

Your title for this thread - Sacked For Being A Christian - is incorrect.
The lady in question wasn't sacked - she was suspended .
Suspended on full pay.
So you haven't read the case carefully.

Secondly, you failed to mention that this case had gone to arbitration - to omit this fact is incorrect also.
Again, you failed to read the case carefully.

Third - you failed to mention that the arbitration heard the lady's case for discrimination against her employer.
You failed to mention that the arbitration panel did not find in favour of the lady and that the arbitration panel supported BA's stance in the matter.
 
Lim, take it easy. :rolleyes:
Lim, the tribunal is neither here nor there. The tribunal has been over-ruled by public opinion. ;)
Lim, B.A. has backed down and now has to rewrite all the rules. :D
Lim, there never was a health and safety issue - that was an excuse. :rolleyes:
Lim, B.A. has lost and the case is closed. :p :p
Lim, it feels good to see B.A. eat humble pie. :p


limerickman said:
Under health and safety regulations - the lady cannot wear a cross around her exposed neck.
Health and safety is the issue.
Not religious symbols.
The tribunal found in BA's favour (for the umpteenth time).

BA never stated that the lady was being prevented from wearing her cross on the basis of "attempted hijacking" - as you put it.
 
"You failed to mention that the arbitration panel did not find in favour of the lady and that the arbitration panel supported BA's stance in the matter."

It's not a give she's going back yet till she gets what her lawyer wants. Maybe there will be compensation claims but we'll have to see.


limerickman said:
Correction.

Your title for this thread - Sacked For Being A Christian - is incorrect.
The lady in question wasn't sacked - she was suspended .
Suspended on full pay.
So you haven't read the case carefully.

Secondly, you failed to mention that this case had gone to arbitration - to omit this fact is incorrect also.
Again, you failed to read the case carefully.

Third - you failed to mention that the arbitration heard the lady's case for discrimination against her employer.
You failed to mention that the arbitration panel did not find in favour of the lady and that the arbitration panel supported BA's stance in the matter.
 
Carrera said:
Lim, take it easy. :rolleyes:
Lim, the tribunal is neither here nor there. The tribunal has been over-ruled by public opinion. ;)
Lim, B.A. has backed down and now has to rewrite all the rules. :D
Lim, there never was a health and safety issue - that was an excuse. :rolleyes:
Lim, B.A. has lost and the case is closed. :p :p
Lim, it feels good to see B.A. eat humble pie. :p

The tribunal's finding is binding.
If the lady's case had any merit - the tribunal would have upheld her case for discrimination against BA.
So to say the tribunals not here or there - is incorrect.

If you'd read the case (as you claim) - you'd know this.
 
Carrera said:
"You failed to mention that the arbitration panel did not find in favour of the lady and that the arbitration panel supported BA's stance in the matter."

It's not a give she's going back yet till she gets what her lawyer wants. Maybe there will be compensation claims but we'll have to see.

Compensation would have been adjudicated at the Tribunal.

The fact that she lost her case - means that there is no compensation in this matter.

In fact, it is the lady who should be compensating BA - after all she was suspended on full pay while not rendering work!
 
Carrera said:
Lim, take it easy. :rolleyes:
Lim, the tribunal is neither here nor there. The tribunal has been over-ruled by public opinion. ;)
Mob Rule - How good is that? I take it that all of said public have read the transcripts of the tribunal? Of course they have - they are such a well-informed bunch.
Carrera said:
Lim, B.A. has backed down and now has to rewrite all the rules. :D
More fool them.
Carrera said:
Lim, there never was a health and safety issue - that was an excuse. :rolleyes:
Not according to BM, who appears to have had slightly more coalface experience than you, or your judiciary public are likely to have had.
Carrera said:
Lim, B.A. has lost and the case is closed. :p :p
Is it? I thought the case was heard in an industrial tribunal. Is that the one you're talking about?
Carrera said:
Lim, it feels good to see B.A. eat humble pie. :p
Does it, even if they back down for commercial reasons, and renege on their Duty of Care to their employees? Does that mean that anyone working in the check-in area who gets injured by jewelry being caught in a conveyor is now on their own when it comes to medical expenses and sick pay etc?
 
Carrera said:
...Lim, there never was a health and safety issue - that was an excuse. :rolleyes:
Incidentally, I used to work on conveyor lines on a shiploading facility at an Iron Ore Mine in Western Australia. We were allowed to wear rags over our heads (under our hard hats - the conveyors ran underground as they passed through the hills), as long as the ends were tucked inside our shirt collars. We were allowed to wear jewelry, as long as it was not exposed.
I don't recall anyone feeling discriminated against by this. I didn't have any jewelry to not wear exposed - perhaps I should put in a claim for being unfairly left out? Arise, ye Public, we're off to fight a battle in the Colonies, and do bring the Daily Mail with you, so we can truly know what is right and what is wrong...
 
Carrera said:
"You failed to mention that the arbitration panel did not find in favour of the lady and that the arbitration panel supported BA's stance in the matter."

It's not a give she's going back yet till she gets what her lawyer wants. Maybe there will be compensation claims but we'll have to see.
Court "findings" do not always necessarily equate to "justice". Oftentimes they merely indicate who had the better attorney. Along this line, majoritarian or "public" beliefs don't always conform to reality. Case in point-powerful people once believed that the sun revolved @ the earth & non-adherents to this belief were held strictly to account (Galileo summoned to the ecclesiastical authorities & hence forced to renounce his solar-centric views under penalty of ostracism).
Turbans & ceremonial items aren't necessarily entirely religious in their foundations. Some are more based on cultural customs. A "cross" denotes one thing (aside from gclark8's post which indicated, rightly, that it denoted "a method of execution") & one thing only-religion.
I await your well-reasoned & factually-verified response.
 
davidmc said:
Court "findings" do not always necessarily equate to "justice". Oftentimes they merely indicate who had the better attorney...
Correct, although industrial arbitration (in Australia, anyway) tends to be a little less affected by the star-lawyer turn. I don't have any experience with such tribunals in the UK, so such a comparison is supposition.
davidmc said:
Along this line, majoritarian or "public" beliefs don't always conform to reality...
...often forming their collective beliefs from information that is erroneous, or incomplete. Many people seem unable, or unwilling, to view objectively information delivered by the various news media. This works both ways, but public opinion is not necessarily fair opinion.
davidmc said:
...Case in point-powerful people once believed that the sun revolved @ the earth & non-adherents to this belief were held strictly to account (Galileo summoned to the ecclesiastical authorities & hence forced to renounce his solar-centric views under penalty of ostracism)...
Acknowledged. We know not where our ignorance lies.
davidmc said:
...Turbans & ceremonial items aren't necessarily entirely religious in their foundations. Some are more based on cultural customs. A "cross" denotes one thing (aside from gclark8's post which indicated, rightly, that it denoted "a method of execution") & one thing only-religion...
I'd beg to differ on that one. Carrera, himself, brought up about someone he knew wearing a Cross, but not being Christian (Ref. Post #48). There are plenty of people who have such adornments without associating themselves with the root belief - they just like the aeshetics of the symbol.
davidmc said:
I await your well-reasoned & factually-verified response.
Alas, I have failed miserably - All I managed to come up with was an opinion. The only "fact" I could put forward was to refer to Carrera's message on this thread with regards to non-Christians wearing Crosses (and, I confess, my source was unreliable). I guess I don't pass muster on this response. Can I try again?
 
EoinC said:
...often forming their collective beliefs from information that is erroneous, or incomplete. Many people seem unable, or unwilling, to view objectively information delivered by the various news media. This works both ways, but public opinion is not necessarily fair opinion.
Much like my country's Legislature was given, some might say, dubious information as relates to future executive branch enterprises.
I'd beg to differ on that one. Carrera, himself, brought up about someone he knew wearing a Cross, but not being Christian (Ref. Post #48). There are plenty of people who have such adornments without associating themselves with the root belief - they just like the aesthetics of the symbol.
This is true. I forgot about the aesthetics people place on symbol's. The Chinese have venerated a swastika albeit facing a different direction. See:
The swastika is an ancient religious symbol dating back 3000 years. In the Buddhist tradition of India, the swastika is referred to as "The Seal
on Buddha's Heart". In Japanese and Chinese Buddhism, a swastika often
appears on the chest of images of Gautama Buddha.
Alas, I have failed miserably - All I managed to come up with was an opinion. The only "fact" I could put forward was to refer to Carrera's message on this thread with regards to non-Christians wearing Crosses (and, I confess, my source was unreliable). I guess I don't pass muster on this response. Can I try again?
Au contraire. Most illuminating.
 
I think if you visit the WW2 graves in Europe, you'll find a lot of your fellow Americans who died fighting for your freedom, David. My freedom as well, for that matter. These people were often buried under the sign of a cross.
Naturally, these American and European soldiers who were buried under a cross weren't Holy Rollers by any standard. Very many weren't Christians at all but the cross has somehow become a cultural symbol.
War heroes were often awarded a cross for bravery in combat. They were hardly Holy Rollers either.
I think maybe I'm being misunderstood. I already gave permission for my own body to be used for science and organ donation when I die so I won't be buried under a cross so to speak. However, I can see the cultural significance of the symbol of the cross outside of Christianity.
I don't see why the symbol should be considered shameful when many war heroes were decorated by it. I don't accept B.A.'s excuse that this was a health and safety matter.
This is why so many people got angry. I think if you imagine B.A. was flooded by letters over this incident because we're all religious, you haven't quite grasped the point I've been trying to get across.
There were those who were angry because of the religious issue and others who were annoyed because the customs and belies of immigrants were once again given priority above all else.



davidmc said:
Court "findings" do not always necessarily equate to "justice". Oftentimes they merely indicate who had the better attorney. Along this line, majoritarian or "public" beliefs don't always conform to reality. Case in point-powerful people once believed that the sun revolved @ the earth & non-adherents to this belief were held strictly to account (Galileo summoned to the ecclesiastical authorities & hence forced to renounce his solar-centric views under penalty of ostracism).
Turbans & ceremonial items aren't necessarily entirely religious in their foundations. Some are more based on cultural customs. A "cross" denotes one thing (aside from gclark8's post which indicated, rightly, that it denoted "a method of execution") & one thing only-religion.
I await your well-reasoned & factually-verified response.
 
Lim, the tribunal that was conducted over the Iraq war and the so-called dodgy dossier that overstated the claim Saddam had WMD absolved the Government of any wrongdoing.
That's what the Tribunal had to say but you and I know that the said dossier was a fabrication lifted off an internet student dissertation.
The B.A. Tribunal also excused B.A. of discrimination.
Do you always agree with what rubber stamp tribunals have to say?

limerickman said:
The tribunal's finding is binding.
If the lady's case had any merit - the tribunal would have upheld her case for discrimination against BA.
So to say the tribunals not here or there - is incorrect.

If you'd read the case (as you claim) - you'd know this.
 
Now, just to prove there are other people out there who share my view, here are a few comments I found on website discussions of the topic. Please note, folks, many of the people who got annoyed aren't Christians.
P.S. I left out John Rambo who would no doubt have been told to take his medals off when flying with B.A. :D :D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)"Can you imagine an airline worker being removed from her job in an Arab country for wearing a Muslim symbol. Of course not. It’s time the “silent majority” of the great British public sent a strong message to this idiot, Willie Walsh (BA CEO). Reverse this insane decision or face a massive boycott."

(2)"Since we have opened up new markets for my company in the USA since April this year, I would say that myself and my staff are making on average, 5 return flights a month with BA. This will definitely no longer be happening and we will start using a new carrier. I was christened but I am not a practising Christian, but I feel it offends Christians in a Christian country. If other faiths are allowed to wear religious items, regardless of whether they
are impractical to hide, then a small cross should be no problem. I really do think that BA will come to regret this ridiculous decision in the long run."

(3)"This matter reflects the overall arrogance of BA: the unprovable claim to be the World’s Favourite Airline, World Traveller seats with minimum room, outrageous prices on tickets bought outside the UK and now a holier-than-thou and inconsistent attitude towards employees. They deserve to lose as many customers as possible to friendlier airlines."

(4)"I don’t expect much from this announcement. Their past form is that they will tough it out until the last minute.In the meantime I hope that people who feel strongly about this will contact BA."
 
Carrera said:
Now, just to prove there are other people out there who share my view, ...
etc, etc.
Carrera, let's return to the basics:
Starting point - Carrera claims (as per this Thread) that a BA employee was "Sacked for being a Christian".
1) She was not sacked, she was stood down. There is a difference.
2) She was not stood down for being a Christian. BA, doubtless, have many 1,000's of Christians amongst their employees. She was stood down for wearing exposed jewelry around her neck (against the rules for her position), and refusing to comply with her rules. Most employment positions have rules. If they are unfair, there are usually formal avenues for addressing this. She does not appear to have attempted to utilise these avenues. In most Companies, when the rules are not adhered to, the employee is informed of what the transgression is, and what he / she must do to comply with the rules. If the employee refuses to comply with the rules, then continuing, as such, in that position is untenable. Where I come from, people get sacked for that. She is fortunate in working for a Company that is willing (whether forced to, or not) to retain her in a stand-down position until resolution is achieved.
3) The rule relates to wearing exposed jewelry around the neck. It does not discriminate between Crosses, Stars, Crescents or Cheeseburgers. It distinguishes between exposed jewelry and unexposed jewelry. It would be discrimination if a person in the same position were allowed to wear an exposed Star of David, but not a Crucifix but, as you know, this is not the case.
You displayed more discrimination in referring to her as middle-aged (as if that had some kind of bearing on the case), than BA did in applying the rules that relate to the position. Are we supposed to view someone's actions differently because they are middle-aged?
We're still waiting for you to retract the claim made in the title of your thread - She wasn't sacked, was she? That is just sensationalising an issue through dispersal of erroneous information, rather like the Daily Mail.
 
Carrera said:
Lim, the tribunal that was conducted over the Iraq war and the so-called dodgy dossier that overstated the claim Saddam had WMD absolved the Government of any wrongdoing.
That's what the Tribunal had to say but you and I know that the said dossier was a fabrication lifted off an internet student dissertation.
The B.A. Tribunal also excused B.A. of discrimination.
Do you always agree with what rubber stamp tribunals have to say?


You're reaching again.

The employment appeals tribunal convened in the case of BA, arbitrates on many different cases per week.
No doubt you think all those cases are "fixed" as well.
The lady in question was represented by counsel - and she lost her case.
Hard as it is for you to accept - thems the facts.