Crosses on Chains to be allowed by BA

[Darth Rotor]

I suppose it is anti-Christian, in some views, to oppose special treatment for Christians.

Smell the irony, monkey dumpling.

I'd suggest to you that baggage handlers and stewards/stewardesses, have significantly different OSHA standards for industrial safety. As a supervisor, I'd be able to stop baggage handlers from wearing any chains based on an OSHA (or similar British Industrial Safety statute) whereas for a stewardess, I'd not be able to do so.

Details do matter, in the work environment.

As BAE stewardi are in company uniform, however, I'd suggest that the only "jewelry" allowed to show would be the little wings on the lapels, hand rings and earrings (non dangly, single, single stud only) and all necklaces of any sort be worn underneath the blouse/shirt, tat's must not be visible in uniform. However, my decades of military service bias me in that direction, as that is how uniform regs were and are written. Perhaps I utterly fail the "objective" PoV necessary to deal with the need to ascribe to the "It's All About Me" attitude of the day.

*David Spade voice*

Who signs your paycheck?

DR

 

[TragicMonkey]

Smell the irony, monkey dumpling.

I'd suggest to you that baggage handlers and stewards/stewardesses, have significantly different OSHA standards for industrial safety. As a supervisor, I'd be able to stop baggage handlers from wearing any chains based on an OSHA (or similar British Industrial Safety statute) whereas for a stewardess, I'd not be able to do so.

And I'd probably do likewise. However, that is not what BA did. Perhaps they felt a uniform uniform policy would be a better idea. Or perhaps there are union rules that affect such matters. In any case, exempting certain employees based on their religion seems unfair, whether it applies to stewardesses or pilots or the people who scrape dead birds from the jet intakes.

Details do matter, in the work environment.

Since I'm not in charge of that particular airline, it seems out of place to lecture me on their policy decisions.

As BAE stewardi are in company uniform, however, I'd suggest that the only "jewelry" allowed to show would be the little wings on the lapels, hand rings and earrings (non dangly, single, single stud only) and all necklaces of any sort be worn underneath the blouse/shirt, tat's must not be visible in uniform. However, my decades of military service bias me in that direction, as that is how uniform regs were and are written.

I'm sure many airlines will be fascinated to hear your ideas.

Perhaps I utterly fail the "objective" PoV necessary to deal with the need to ascribe to the "It's All About Me" attitude of the day.

*David Spade voice*

Who signs your paycheck?

DR

I'm not sure what you mean by any of these statements.

 

[bigred]

In the U.S., most of the ones who actually put Jesus-fish decorations on their cars do NOT, in fact, believe in Evolution.

The majority of Christians, who don't have a problem with Evolution, also tend not to advertise their religious convictions on their car bumpers.

Being of (I assume) a more scientific mind, you have evidence for this right?

 

[bigred]

The matter began because BA decided on safety grounds to disallow jewelry such as necklaces. Complaints arose because some felt that excemption should be made for religious necklaces on the grounds that religious headgear and bracelets were permitted. Of course those things aren't necklaces, but BA's attempted compromise of allowing cross lapel pins wasn't acceptable. Hence the current news story.

The irony will arise when someone handling baggage (which was what they were worried about) gets decapitated because their religious necklace gets sucked into a machine or something. When that happens, their families will sue BA for millions and win, of course, since they didn't prevent a safety hazard.




I'm equally against all religion, actually. Especially when people decide to use their religion as an excuse to break the rules everyone else is expected to follow. I suppose it is anti-Christian, in some views, to oppose special treatment for Christians.

Fair enough on all counts, thx for the explanations.

I see the safety thing (I guess - what equipment is so hazardous that a decapitation or even nasty injury is greatly increased by wearing necklaces?), but rather than make extra allowances, how about banning all "religious stuff" including turbans/etc. Oh well.

 

[bigred]

That fact that you think my post makes your point indicates how deep your delusion runs.

Believe that if it makes you happy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sure many airlines will be fascinated to hear your ideas.

I'm not sure what you mean by any of these statements.

1. Most US airlines have policies in that vein.

2. On the David Spade bit, it was a play on "What's in your wallet" ads from Capital One. The idea was to focus on "whoever writes your paycheck sets uniform policy." Your observation on union push back and influence on standards in the workplace was well placed. Most airline unions are pro professionalism. It makes them look good at the negotiating table.

DR