Sacked for refusing to walk behind men

[swl]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6169989.ece

A Stewardess was ordered to wear a black robe and walk behind men whenever she flew into Saudi Arabia. She refused and was sacked. An employment tribunal backed the airline. The tribunal said it was "proportionate" and not unreasonable to conform to other cultures.

What do the women here think? Is being ordered to be publicly subservient to men "reasonable"?

[motorist]

And they completely change over to our cultures when they come to our countries, do they?

[swl]

I think this is an example of people being offended on other's behalf. It is not the law for women to dress or behave this way in Saudi. Western women are expected to dress conservatively, which I think is fair enough. If doing something is going to offend others unnecessarily, it's just rude and ignorant to provoke them. BMI have adopted a safety-first policy to avoid causing offence where none would have been caused anyway.

[housesparrow]

The key probably lies here: " In the employment tribunal decision over Ashton’s case it was ruled there was no evidence that women would regard BMI’s requirements on wearing the abaya, or walking behind men, as “placing them under any disadvantage”. Ashton’s case was dismissed. "

Riotgrrrl's knowledge of discrimination law will be better than mine, but this suggests that someone has to prove that a rule disadvantaged them in some way to win under the discrimination laws. I would have thought these rules did.... I'm surprised at the tribunal's decision.

[riotgrrl]

Housey, I didn't 'do' employment law. I've got no insight into it whatsoever. Sorry.

[stephan]

I think this is an example of people being offended on other's behalf

I agree-all too often we are told this and that when it`s not true

Just as an aside when I was a lowly civil servant I wrote a paper on the issues of ethnic minorities and recruitment-it was vetted by several `elders` and members of the Affro -Caribean community and deemed to be

`A very good summation of what we feel`

But I quoted someone who was black and he used the word `coloured`-I got roasted for using `coloured`--I don`t mis quote-that would be arrogant-who was I to put the `accepted` form into someone else`s mouth?

[Flatypus]

Looks like a case of being more Catholic than the Pope (who I see prominent on that page too). They might have had a right to sack her for refusing the job. There is a lot to be said for issuing cultural advice because Saudi trouble can be very big trouble, and that can apply to men as well as women. But demanding the abiya is as ridiculous as expecting men to change into traditional robes. The issue of walking behind men could be a misunderstanding that walking with men might risk accusations of immorality. They'd be better sticking to single sex groups. Though why anybody, especially female, should actually want to walk around in Arabia is somethig of a mystery. They probably won't be able to afford anything and there's any number of obscure regulations and just plain dangers arising from the absurd Puritanism to fall foul of.

[everso]

Her letter of dismissal said it was “proportionate” to ask female employees to walk behind men out of respect for Saudi culture. BMI has also defended its decision to require female staff to wear abayas.

I think that BMI should have given female staff the option of whether to fly to Saudi and it was wrong of them to insist they act the part of subservient Muslim women, especially since it isn't strictly necessary in Saudi culture for women to dress in an abaya and walk behind men. If BMI had any feeling for its female staff it would have made sure that all flights to Saudi were covered by male colleagues only if they were at all worried about Saudi sensibilities.

Whatever the culture, if it demeans women in the eyes of our culture then they shouldn't be required to go.

[Flatypus]

I suppose that if they refused to run women there, somebody would complain of discrimination. There certainly should be advice covering how to behave if you don't want to get beaten up or arrested or both in a lot of places, not all of them obvious. Singapore is one where you need to be very careful about littering or public kissing I think. (And for men, don't pick Swedish streetwalkers up).

I don't suppose Arabia gets many visitors apart from the Hajj and I don't know whether women perform that or not. I think they have some version of their own. Even so, they are perfectly well aware that most Moslem women no more wear Arab robes than do men, though it's becoming fashionable to cover the hair. The whole thing looks like one big bodge-up because BMI top brass hasn't a clue.

[trubble]

I don't understand the case brought and ruling at all.

If BMI had done as you suggest, everso, then a woman probably could win a tribunal case so I can't believe that's the answer.


I would agree with Stephan and swl that BMI management are borrowing troubles and getting it wrong - it's a pity that the tribunal seems to be supporting them but I doubt the tribunal has an option to tell BMI the obvious: to look at its policies again.

Wearing a veil getting on and off an aeroplane is not new and not disadvantageous in particular. Separating female and male staff while they get on and off a plane is irritating and could be demeaning, could cause problems if there already exists a sexism problem in the crew, but in general it's just a nod to another culture and I'm sure it's no big deal for anyone.

The abaya is the part that's just too far. Perhaps the tribunal can only rule on very tight and precise circumstances - proving this is sexism would hard because technically BMI are not being sexist - both sexes are being asked to confirm eqally to the country's rules as perceived by BMI.

The fight must surely be in the BMI's reading of the rules, not sexism.

[housesparrow]

Anyone who complains about popping on a headscarf and covering up arms and legs is just making a fuss for the sake of it .

I don't agree with anyone being made to wear a veil, Trubble - largely because I think not being able to see someone's face is a security risk in itself. Neither am I convinced that walking behind men isn't a disadvantage either; I suppose it depends how long she is expected to keep it up.

Piffle, I think Everso was suggesting women should opt out of Saudi, not be barred from going, but I'm sure this would lead to a good case of discrimination from men! I do know someone who used to spend Ramadan flying from Pakinstan and back and it was something no cabin crew would ever volunteeer for.....

[everso]

Apr 27, 2009 0:05:19 GMT trubble said:

I don't understand the case brought and ruling at all.

If BMI had done as you suggest, everso, then a woman probably could win a tribunal case so I can't believe that's the answer.


I would agree with Stephan and swl that BMI management are borrowing troubles and getting it wrong - it's a pity that the tribunal seems to be supporting them but I doubt the tribunal has an option to tell BMI the obvious: to look at its policies again.

Wearing a veil getting on and off an aeroplane is not new and not disadvantageous in particular. Separating female and male staff while they get on and off a plane is irritating and could be demeaning, could cause problems if there already exists a sexism problem in the crew, but in general it's just a nod to another culture and I'm sure it's no big deal for anyone.

The abaya is the part that's just too far. Perhaps the tribunal can only rule on very tight and precise circumstances - proving this is sexism would hard because technically BMI are not being sexist - both sexes are being asked to confirm eqally to the country's rules as perceived by BMI.

The fight must surely be in the BMI's reading of the rules, not sexism.

Trubbs, I didn't mean that BMI should not allow women to go to Saudi. I meant that the women should be given the option of whether or not they go. If they don't mind donning the abaya and walking several paces behind the men, then that's fine. Let them go. If, however, they object to this demeaning paraphernalia then they shouldn't have to risk losing their job by refusing to kowtow.

I certainly wouldn't put up with this nod to another culture. If people from the West decide to visit or live in the Middle East any rules and regulations that those countries impose on visitors should be adhered to. However, I think it's completely wrong for a UK based company to enforce those rules and regulations (if they are indeed such) on somebody whose work contract is with them and who works from the UK.

[everso]

Apr 27, 2009 6:44:23 GMT housesparrow said:

Anyone who complains about popping on a headscarf and covering up arms and legs is just making a fuss for the sake of it .

I don't agree with anyone being made to wear a veil, Trubble - largely because I think not being able to see someone's face is a security risk in itself. Neither am I convinced that walking behind men isn't a disadvantage either; I suppose it depends how long she is expected to keep it up.

Piffle, I think Everso was suggesting women should opt out of Saudi, not be barred from going, but I'm sure this would lead to a good case of discrimination from men! I do know someone who used to spend Ramadan flying from Pakinstan and back and it was something no cabin crew would ever volunteeer for.....

I don't see why. They're not being required to wear the abaya or walk several paces behind the women.

[everso]

Apr 27, 2009 0:05:19 GMT trubble said:

I don't understand the case brought and ruling at all.

If BMI had done as you suggest, everso, then a woman probably could win a tribunal case so I can't believe that's the answer.


I would agree with Stephan and swl that BMI management are borrowing troubles and getting it wrong - it's a pity that the tribunal seems to be supporting them but I doubt the tribunal has an option to tell BMI the obvious: to look at its policies again.

Wearing a veil getting on and off an aeroplane is not new and not disadvantageous in particular. Separating female and male staff while they get on and off a plane is irritating and could be demeaning, could cause problems if there already exists a sexism problem in the crew, but in general it's just a nod to another culture and I'm sure it's no big deal for anyone.

The abaya is the part that's just too far. Perhaps the tribunal can only rule on very tight and precise circumstances - proving this is sexism would hard because technically BMI are not being sexist - both sexes are being asked to confirm eqally to the country's rules as perceived by BMI.

The fight must surely be in the BMI's reading of the rules, not sexism.

I read the Times on Line article and I didn't see any rules that the men had to conform to. As I understood it, the women were the ones that had to do the conforming.

I think the decision made by the tribunal was absolutely disgraceful.

[Flatypus]

Looks like a veil wasn't in question. What they may have done is to issue a simple directive that to avoid all possible pitfalls, women would be safest to stick to the abaya and to walk some way behind men so they won't risk accusations of improper fraternising with them. It would be more practical in crowded streets for the men to clear the way than for the women to go first. Whatevre their intentions, they seem to have made a complete dog's dinner of it.

[housesparrow]

Piffle, if all the firm did was issue guidance rather than an instruction, then the tribunal was quite right to find in its favour. It didn't read that way from the article though.

Everso, from the Telegraph article here! it appears that the stewardess was given the option of transferring onto short-haul flights at a pay cut, but declined. I don't blame her because she wasn't paid much to start with!

[Flatypus]

Possibly they thought that if it were only advisory then some fool would ignore it. I think they were wway out of line and probably stupidly counter-productive. The Saudis know perfectly welll that their customs are near unique. If they spot a woman in an abaya acting out of line they are likely to assume she is one of theirs or at least a European Muslim who knows the ropes. If she's dressed like the rest of the world they know perfectly well she is foreign and if she does step out of line they are much more likely to warn her to stop it than to arrest her first and sort it out later.

[everso]

Apr 27, 2009 17:02:45 GMT housesparrow said:

Piffle, if all the firm did was issue guidance rather than an instruction, then the tribunal was quite right to find in its favour. It didn't read that way from the article though.

Everso, from the Telegraph article here! it appears that the stewardess was given the option of transferring onto short-haul flights at a pay cut, but declined. I don't blame her because she wasn't paid much to start with!

Yes, it was in the Times on line article too.

It didn't seem like 'guidance' was issued. More like an order.