BA suspend two CC due to alleged "fat shaming" bullying claims
This isn’t a case of a random member of the public finding a historical offhand social media comment and reporting it to an employer. This is two BA employees making comments about another BA employee, in front of other BA employees, who have reported it to BA. At this point they’ve been suspended - not sacked - which doesn’t seem unreasonable. As someone said above, BA have a responsibility to safeguard all their employees, they can hardly ignore it.
The following 14 users liked this post by Stan Shunpike:
We should not just roll with this oblique thinking.
FYI my 1st wife MSRIP and my present were born in the Orient ; I asked my wife would she consider it a Slur to be called Oriental (I think it sounds much better than Asian) she typed Slur and Oriental into an App and shook her head, which in her country means no!
Here I am a foreigner first, a Westerner, a European, a Brit; being white skinned is a plus; if you don't believe that, take a look at the many cosmetics for many whitening creams available in the Far East!
Calling a Japanese person a Nip is considered a slur, yet it is an abbreviation for their countries name Nippon, just same as I am a Brit !
Need a new word for African?
I recall years ago, when a CC member did not meet the strict criteria, they were transferred to ground jobs which they could do very well in
We live in a world of binary opinion. These days, if you don't agree with me, then you must be against me.... and there are a long queue of folks waiting at the gate ready to be offended, so they can have 15 minutes of free publicity to further some issue that is close to their heart. BA's first priority is avoiding reputational damage. Whilst they have a duty of care towards an employee, that consideration lies a long way down the list after Reputation, Profit and paying Dividends.
Companies are obliged by the law to have policies to protect the employee from harm. If someone gets bullied or marginalised by colleagues then BA is required to act. Such behaviour even or ill-considered postings on social media can be considered as bringing the company into disrepute, no matter if they on the company's time or not. Both qualify as gross misconduct, potentially leading to instant dismissal.
When you sign an employment contract, take care to note what rights you might be signing away, like the right to free speech for instance!
Companies are obliged by the law to have policies to protect the employee from harm. If someone gets bullied or marginalised by colleagues then BA is required to act. Such behaviour even or ill-considered postings on social media can be considered as bringing the company into disrepute, no matter if they on the company's time or not. Both qualify as gross misconduct, potentially leading to instant dismissal.
When you sign an employment contract, take care to note what rights you might be signing away, like the right to free speech for instance!
The following users liked this post:
In the old days it was one person's word against the other. Very hard to prove who said what when nothing is written down. Now with social media, and this is the thing, it is all on the record. All of it and people have just made HRs job, and the courts job, easier. Have you read 1984? Well it is now 20 years ago and is actually a history text.
I'm pretty sure that BA has assessed that not acting would be more damaging, and I think they're probably right.
Increasingly, the consensus view in the US and Western Europe is that speech that is hurtful, that offends others, is impermissible and, in many cases, punishable. Large businesses that cater to general populations are always exquisitely sensitive to to the attitudes of those populations.
Those of us who are . . . umm . . . more mature may have difficulty accepting the rather rigid and narrow views about what is and isn't permissible to say, even in private, that are prevalent among the younger generations that corporate marketers are most anxious to please.
Increasingly, the consensus view in the US and Western Europe is that speech that is hurtful, that offends others, is impermissible and, in many cases, punishable. Large businesses that cater to general populations are always exquisitely sensitive to to the attitudes of those populations.
Those of us who are . . . umm . . . more mature may have difficulty accepting the rather rigid and narrow views about what is and isn't permissible to say, even in private, that are prevalent among the younger generations that corporate marketers are most anxious to please.
I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. You have somehow lost 20 years. 1984 was 40 years ago. On a more positive note, you may already qualify for a free bus pass.
I'm pretty sure that BA has assessed that not acting would be more damaging, and I think they're probably right.
Increasingly, the consensus view in the US and Western Europe is that speech that is hurtful, that offends others, is impermissible and, in many cases, punishable. Large businesses that cater to general populations are always exquisitely sensitive to to the attitudes of those populations.
Those of us who are . . . umm . . . more mature may have difficulty accepting the rather rigid and narrow views about what is and isn't permissible to say, even in private, that are prevalent among the younger generations that corporate marketers are most anxious to please.
Increasingly, the consensus view in the US and Western Europe is that speech that is hurtful, that offends others, is impermissible and, in many cases, punishable. Large businesses that cater to general populations are always exquisitely sensitive to to the attitudes of those populations.
Those of us who are . . . umm . . . more mature may have difficulty accepting the rather rigid and narrow views about what is and isn't permissible to say, even in private, that are prevalent among the younger generations that corporate marketers are most anxious to please.
I don't disagree with you. It's a disturbing, and rather creepy, social environment we live in these days.
The same group is also replete with those who cannot deal with criticism (even well justified criticism) or adversity, preferring to make a career of jumping on the "I'm offended/bullied!" bandwagon. Nothing useful comes from this constantly whining and scarily huge portion of society.
There's a Haggis farm near me run by a couple of fat lasses in their spare time. They donate all of their profits to the East Anglian Mountain Rescue, and the Dairy Farmers Hardship Fund to help combat the effects of the rise in Veganism. There's good in all shapes and sizes.
The following 3 users liked this post by Flyingmac:
Never say or post anything on social media that you couldn’t live with if it appears on the cover of “Time” magazine or is plastered on the National News as the headline story with your name in CAPS and the “Talking Heads” babbling away with concerned looks on their faces.
Even emails can be dangerous….some folks just luv to stir the pot by forwarding something to the wrong person.
Even emails can be dangerous….some folks just luv to stir the pot by forwarding something to the wrong person.
The following 2 users liked this post by SWBKCB:
Back in the day, the CC stayed safely in an hotel separate from the flight deck. Seems incredibly sensible to me. Worked real well.
The following users liked this post:
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
If the conversation happened in the back galley on a flight then it would be reasonable to say “ that’s not appropriate, we don’t pay you to insult your work mates, we are suspending you while we decide if you’re suitable to wear the BA uniform” .
But….how far does a companies authority reach? They are not Officers of the law so can they poke their noses into the pub? The lounge? How about the bedroom? When it starts to feel ‘business as usual’ to take action over private group chat comments about someone’s weight, will it be just a small stretch to take action over someone’s comments on Ukraine or Israel, also in a private chat?
Maybe? Maybe not?
Im all for being kind, polite, and respectful but if someone chooses not to be, and they are not representing a company at the time , then a disparate group of suits doesn’t have the authority to discipline them, that’s a job for the Police. For the law of the land, not managers who probably have their own questionable social practices.
But….how far does a companies authority reach? They are not Officers of the law so can they poke their noses into the pub? The lounge? How about the bedroom? When it starts to feel ‘business as usual’ to take action over private group chat comments about someone’s weight, will it be just a small stretch to take action over someone’s comments on Ukraine or Israel, also in a private chat?
Maybe? Maybe not?
Im all for being kind, polite, and respectful but if someone chooses not to be, and they are not representing a company at the time , then a disparate group of suits doesn’t have the authority to discipline them, that’s a job for the Police. For the law of the land, not managers who probably have their own questionable social practices.
The following 4 users liked this post by framer:
Thread Starter
Was the WhatsApp group where all of this happened on company (ie BA) IT supplied IT equipment or on personal equipment?
(May have already been confirmed one way or the other, I am not sure)
If it was going on using the BA supplied equipment then BA do have more reason to investigate it (in a similar way that the Met police investigated WhatsApp groups following the Couzens arrest for murder where groups of other serving police officers were chatting with him about their inappropriate behaviour etc)
(May have already been confirmed one way or the other, I am not sure)
If it was going on using the BA supplied equipment then BA do have more reason to investigate it (in a similar way that the Met police investigated WhatsApp groups following the Couzens arrest for murder where groups of other serving police officers were chatting with him about their inappropriate behaviour etc)
The following users liked this post: