It's Called "British Airways" Not "Airline Employees For Jesus"
A British Airways employee is told she can't wear her cross over her uniform, and she wigs. David Smith writes for the London Observer that Nadia Eweida plans to sue BA for religious discrimination:
Eweida, from Twickenham, said she had just undergone training on respecting and understanding other people's beliefs with BA when she was asked to remove the crucifix. She said she sought permission to wear it from management, but was refused. After a meeting with her managers in September, she was told in a letter: 'You have been sent home because you have failed to comply with a reasonable request. You were asked to cover up or remove your cross and chain which you refused to do. British Airways uniform standards stipulate that adornments of any kind are not to be worn with the uniform.'A BA spokeswoman emphasised yesterday that Eweida has not been suspended from work, but chose to take unpaid leave. She said that the matter remained under investigation and an appeal was due to be heard this week.
She added: 'British Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. Our uniform policy states that these items can be worn, underneath the uniform. There is no ban. This rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the Christian cross.'
One woman's cross is another woman's Wiccan pentagram! And what's next, handing out wine and wafers with every boarding pass?
Actually, I've seen pictures of it. It was a tiny little cross. Moreover, since Muslim women at BA are allowed to wear headscarves and Sikh men turbans, I don't understand what the big deal is. I have friends who've worked at BA and this is just management reverting to its typically ugly form.
kevin_m at October 18, 2006 3:28 AM
The difference, Kevin, is that the headscarf and turban are religious mandates. There is no Christian sect I'm aware of that requires the display of a crucifix.
Deirdre B. at October 18, 2006 3:40 AM
That's a difference? So were supposed to be more patient who do stuff because their religion tells than to than with people who do it because they want to?
Crid at October 18, 2006 4:02 AM
...WE'RE supposed to be more patient WITH PEOPLE who do....
It's early here....
Crid at October 18, 2006 4:12 AM
Frankly, Crid-- I'm with you on this one.
I think billboarding one's "faith" or whatever you want to call it is crap.
But if a business states "no religious anything" they get slammed with a discrimination suit by weaklings who have to have costumes to suit their beliefs.
Deirdre B. at October 18, 2006 4:46 AM
Exactly. There is a difference but I don't see much of one. In my mind, one imaginary sky god is pretty much like any other imaginary sky god.
In truth, it comes down to the politics on the ground. BA isn't going to risk alienating its largely Asian ground-staff but management doesn't mind slapping around one middle-aged Christian who proves a bit awkward.
kevin_m at October 18, 2006 4:53 AM
The difference, Kevin, is that the headscarf and turban are religious mandates. There is no Christian sect I'm aware of that requires the display of a crucifix.
There now appears to be such a sect, with a membership of one. But the central question is: which should any behaviour, that would otherwise be forbidden, be allowed just because it's someone's religion? As an atheist, I feel short changed. Am I permitted to wear a turban if I'm not a Sikh?
Norman at October 18, 2006 5:36 AM
That's nothing. BA has banned laptops, books and even Snoop Dog. Hell, Snoop is banned from the entire country.
Didn't we have some kind of revolution against the British and there silly English ways? I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!
Hasan at October 18, 2006 7:00 AM
I'm inclined to think that a uniform is a uniform is a uniform. No visible deviations, not even a Bajoran ear cuff.
Melissa at October 18, 2006 7:31 AM
Melissa, I hate you for reminding me of this...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gMVMFwYYFU
Hasan at October 18, 2006 8:00 AM
A uniform is a uniform. But it may have optional elements, eg trousers or skirt or sari, jacket or sweatshirt, peaked cap or turban. Specified BA colours and styles ensure a consistent corporate image. What you don't want to get is a situation where the public can't identify the staff because they have no distinguishing features at all, or begin to look too sloppy, or too individual. They must be cogs but you can do that without losing all flexibility.
Norman at October 18, 2006 8:03 AM
Part of the fun of traveling is seeing and meeting other cultures. I like to see people in saris and turbans, as long as they conduct themselves professionally. This is PC gone nuts, but it's easier than dealing with the .0001% of assholes who are offended.
eric at October 18, 2006 8:36 AM
This isn't about PC gone nuts. This is about future wrongful termination type issues. When a policy is written (like this one that states no jewlery) then they have to enforce it uniformly. If they let this person wear a tiny cross and the next person comes along wearing a pin that says F-U Bush - then they can't fire them. If they do they will be sued for wrongful termination becauset they let the other person wear a cross and it wasn't "fair".
I support BA's write to enforce the dress codes. If the slutty cross wearing ho wants to wear a cross she should work for someone else or keep it under her shirt.
alex the sea turtle at October 18, 2006 10:14 AM
I agree the BA has the right to enforce a dress code, but I betcha Virgin Atlantic doesn't have this same guideline. The difference is stodgy BA vs hip and happenin' Virgin.
And she should probably tuck it in...
eric at October 18, 2006 10:31 AM
If she wants to wear the cross, then it should be according to the policy - under the uniform. But what about the turbans and headscarves? Perhaps because it's mandated by THEIR religion, then it gets to defy the policy? Would any other religious person (regardless of which religion) be more or less offended by a turban or a headscarf or a cross or a pentagram or a swastika? Their all symbols! If you're going to ban religous symbols from a uniform, then picking and choosing which religions are allowed to violate that policy makes it completely redundant. And bias.
Abby at October 18, 2006 10:35 AM
Do we lose all perspective when we become employed? I mean, the employer is paying us for our time to be there & the dress policy or work expectations are (usually) clearly outlined...isn't it then our obligation to provide the skills/abilities to meet the employer's needs (presuming no sweatshop or other fundamental abuse). Work is not the be-all-end-all environment to sustain our personal expressions. Get over it already.
susand at October 18, 2006 11:41 AM
This is all missing the point, the uniform policy says no hanging jewlery, of any form. I'm sure that cross earings or rings would be fine, just like the headscarves etc.
Maria at October 18, 2006 12:35 PM
>>"(British Airways) uniform policy states that these items can be worn, underneath the uniform. This rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the Christian cross."
Every time there's a story about someone being oppressed in this fashion, it usually turns out to be about a reasonable policy like this one.
This was never about the stupid cross, it was about an employee violating a long-standing corporate policy she agreed to when she took the job. But of course, when it shows up in the media, "may be worn underneath the uniform" somehow transforms into "crucifix ban."
Nice to see that the old journalistic adage "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" is alive and well.
Gary S. at October 18, 2006 12:46 PM
Um, never let not actually reading the story get in your way of making a comment about it; for example, this bit:
Amy Alkon at October 18, 2006 12:53 PM
The turban isn't a religious symbol per se -- the long, uncut hair that's tied up inside it is. Take away the turban, Sikhs look like hippies. Better to keep that hair tidy with something that tucks it up, no?
LYT at October 18, 2006 1:27 PM
Sihks wear a turban because their tradition states that they are to combat injustice, and wearing a turban they are instantly recognizable, and can't abstain from action. Which I thought was pretty cool, actually, though I admit I'm stumped re what do do as a flight attendant who isn't supposed to wear religious 'jewelry,' a turban isn't jewelry yes I know...
Cat brother at October 18, 2006 2:02 PM
I worked with a witch a few years back and the same thing came up because we worked at a vet - no hanging jewelry. It gets caught on things you're carrying, and when you lean over into someone's face, it dangles in their face too. She wore a Wiccan pentagram as well as a few other symbols and lots of other girls wore crosses or their boyfriends ring on a necklace and whatnot, but it was under the uniform. And we knew why - because otherwise it gets grabbed at, stuck on stuff, and in general makes you look completely unprofessional when that happens. They probably have a rule about open-toed shoes, messy hair, and hygeine, but you don't see anyone refusing to comply with those. If she wants to wear a cross, fine - but there are reasons they specifically don't allow dangling jewelry. If your turban or headscarf or pentagram gets in my way, I expect you to have the same courtesy and remove it as well.
Abby at October 18, 2006 2:26 PM
Bans on hanging jewelry when working for an airline is common policy. This isn't specific to BA in the least. If this lady doesn't like it, there are plenty of other jobs that don't have said bans where she can work. She's the one making it a religious issue, not BA.
anonimouse at October 18, 2006 3:16 PM
Bans on hanging jewelry when working for an airline is common policy. This isn't specific to BA in the least. If this lady doesn't like it, there are plenty of other jobs that don't have said bans where she can work. She's the one making it a religious issue, not BA.
anonimouse at October 18, 2006 3:17 PM
>>Um, never let not actually reading the story get in your way of making a comment about it; for example, this bit:
Amy, I took "this rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains" to mean "any necklace charm, whether religious-themed or not." Meaning, the company policy is about jewelry in general. Hence, my comment about this affair being presented as a religious issue when it isn't.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what part of my post you're objecting to. I assume your comment was directed at me, since you used similar verbiage.
Gary S. at October 18, 2006 3:48 PM
I've decided gemstones are my new religion and to worship diamonds (or maybe emeralds and rubies). And I intend to wear them to work, as well as to bed.
AAA at October 18, 2006 4:38 PM
I've decided gemstones are my new religion and to worship diamonds (or maybe emeralds and rubies). And I intend to wear them to work, as well as to bed.
AAA at October 18, 2006 4:39 PM
HAHAHAHA-- Oh, thanks for that link, Hasan! And yes, if I get to make company policy, those things are DEFINITELY outlawed in the dress code!
(Er, the nose-ear-chain-thing, not pop stars.)
Melissa at October 18, 2006 7:18 PM
Wow-- thanks for the link to Jane Child!
I'm out of touch with Pop music and I Don't Want To Fall In Love pretty good stuff!
(although it needed a modulation after the bridge)
Deirdre B. at October 19, 2006 5:14 AM
Boy, am I ever COMPLETELY out of touch.
Just looked her up in Wikipedia.
Rats, I missed her.
Deirdre B. at October 19, 2006 5:18 AM
The synth solo on I Don't Want to Fall in Love was excellent. Because she wrote and played it herself, I had hopes that Child was gifted and might make more good music. But she was never heard from again. A chain through the nose is only good for one video on MTV.
Crid at October 19, 2006 5:56 AM
Re Jane Child, all I (mostly) remember is Julie Brown (the redheaded one) asking "Does she blow her nose or flush it?"
Cat brother at October 19, 2006 9:58 AM
Wow, I touched a nerve. 80's MUSIC ROX!!! I LUV WANG CHUNG 4EVER!!11!111!! If the song had modulated, they couldn't have repeated that one note 783 more times. And if you catch me dancing like Elaine on Seinfeld facing a concrete wall while some drunk hobo in a trench coat looks on and masturbates, stab me repeatedly with a splintery stick.
Hasan at October 19, 2006 10:02 AM
Not that I disagree with you, Amy, but it is amusing that BA would stipulate the no crucifix rule (if I've understood them correctly) on sartorial taste grounds. Have you SEEN their uniforms? The ugliest in the skies, and that's saying something.
modestproposal at October 19, 2006 12:51 PM
Not that I disagree with you, Amy, but it is amusing that BA would stipulate the no crucifix rule (if I've understood them correctly) on sartorial taste grounds. Have you SEEN their uniforms? The ugliest in the skies, and that's saying something.
modestproposal at October 19, 2006 1:04 PM
> (although it needed a modulation
> after the bridge)
Goddammit! WHAT DO YOU WANT? Listen to the climactic passage one stanza past the solo! (2:55 on the video.) This echos the intro to Hendrix' "Message of Love" in an incidental yet compelling and important way. How dare you...
...How dare you.
Also, if you google-image "Jane Child", you'll see nothing later than February 1991. I think this means she's responsibly ashamed of the haircut. Fashion will always, always bite you on the ass.
Crid at October 19, 2006 5:06 PM
WHAT DO I WANT?
I want excellence to be fully realized.
I'm not interested in The Hendrix reference. I'm talking about after that chromatic/bridge II thing with the "whoo!" that leads right into the same chorus.
It's too good to grind itself into the dirt. If I can find the time, I'll fix it myself and upload an MP3 for you to hear.
Um, I would let you know about it if I had your e-mail. You've got mine here.
Her website hasn't been updated in 2 years. WTF?!
Deirdre B. at October 19, 2006 6:20 PM
> I'm not interested in The
> Hendrix reference.
The gall. The unmitigated gall. There's a special corner of hell for radio listeners like you. Imagine Orange County without redeeming sea breezes and mountain ranges, but the same shitty media: It's a place like that.
> hasn't been updated in 2
> years. WTF?!
Shame spiral... She's either drunk out of her mind in a Motel Six out by some Canadian freeway watching afternoon television, or she's changed her name to Suzie Youngadult, wearing hats, and pretending it never happened. Over at Seipp's blog today, someone was talking about how the worst, most offensive manuevers in fashion aren't recognized until a decade later, at which point the eye can't excuse them.
We have to trust that gut impulse. I'll never forget the time a rich friend at work invited us to a dinner cruise up the river in downtown Jacksonville. At the appointed hour, my then-wife appeared wearing shoulder pads. She looked like a microscopic linebacker with lipstick. She said "Just wait, I won't be the only one!" And the boat was full of them. But today, all those women are mocked when their daughters look through the photo albums.
Anyway, the mullet is that kind of thing, and Child's was the worst. It was Duran Duran cubed cubed cubed.
Crid at October 19, 2006 6:39 PM
Leave a comment