An appeal panel of two senior British Airways managers told Nadia Eweida that she will not be able to return to work at Heathrow if she refuses to hide the cross, which is about the size of a five pence piece.
British Airways recognised that 'hiding' was not practical for some religious symbols such as turbans or hijabs.
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, defended the wearing of crosses yesterday in response to British Airways's decision to suspend an employee who insisted on wearing a crucifix necklace.
Said the Archbishop:
"Under British Airways s current reasoning, an employee who turned up to work wearing a three foot long cross must be allowed to wear it, because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical. Yet in Nadia's case a cross of less than three inches is deemed a problem."
Nadia Eweida, 55, a committed Christian, was told by British Airways managers to remove or cover up her small cross. When she refused was sent home on unpaid leave.
A decision on whether the company should change its policy, which does not allow any visible jewellery, is expected in a week's time.
British Airways sent staff home on unpaid leave over cross
Moderator: Latest news team
That cross was not jewellery but as she said herself an expression of her faith. So, wrong decission by BA.
It is typical for these days to renounce the original own ethnic identity and embrace cultures, habbits and religions strange to the western world.
The first time I encountered this was many years ago on a KLM flight where I spoke dutch to the flight attendant and she responded in English. When I asked her in dutch if she was not dutch speaking, she answered in english that she was dutch, but that it was the policy to use english in an international environmant. (as in this forum. )
It is typical for these days to renounce the original own ethnic identity and embrace cultures, habbits and religions strange to the western world.
The first time I encountered this was many years ago on a KLM flight where I spoke dutch to the flight attendant and she responded in English. When I asked her in dutch if she was not dutch speaking, she answered in english that she was dutch, but that it was the policy to use english in an international environmant. (as in this forum. )
I have to agree that for once BA are in the right. I think it is quite clear what company rules are regarding necklaces etc. SHe should have had it under the uniform not over it. If it is to for her christian faith why does she need to share that with the world - it is unnecessary in a work environment. Do I care what her religion is? No.
I don't think BA is right here. I'm not going to comment on the fact that a person showing everyone what they believe in is right or wrong but one rule should apply to all employees. What religion we are talking about doesn't really matter. Either the airline has a policy not to show any religious symbols or they allow it. And that should be the same for crosses, turbans, hijabs or even skulls in some more exotic religions.
True all religious symbols must be banned on the work floor. Passengers and clients do not give a toss whether the airline employee is a muslim, catholic, jew or budhist..the service is what counts..shove the cross between the cleaves, get rid of your hijabs and turbans..and flash us a nice colgate smile..that's what we all want to see..If that is not possible, find a job elsewhere..in Mecca, jerusalem, or the Vatican..
Actually I heard on the radio last night that the issue is not even the fact it was a cross on the necklace. It was the fact it was a necklace over the uniform which is not acceptable. The cross it seems is a smokescreen to cover the fact thta she broke the rules everyone else has to abide by. She is in the wrong, can't accept it and makes a song and dance about it.
The problem with removing hijabs, turbans and everything else in the workplace is far more complicated. You then get EU and UK discrimination law kicking in - as you would in most Western countries. Anti discrimination is something we should all support so not sure how you get round the issue.
This case however - has nowt to do with religion from what i understand - more just breaking the long existing rules and as usual the church takes offence because they have nothing better to do than stir up the emotions of blind followers.
The problem with removing hijabs, turbans and everything else in the workplace is far more complicated. You then get EU and UK discrimination law kicking in - as you would in most Western countries. Anti discrimination is something we should all support so not sure how you get round the issue.
This case however - has nowt to do with religion from what i understand - more just breaking the long existing rules and as usual the church takes offence because they have nothing better to do than stir up the emotions of blind followers.
Indeed..but I do not see why one is discriminated against if one is accepted as an employee, not as a member of a certain religion. In other words, I would not like to see a veiled lady working at check in counter of Bru. The cross will bother less as it is less obvious; nevertheles one has to be fair to all hence all symbols banned. One must not flaunt ones religion on the work place. besides a veiled woman, an observing muslim, is not allowed to deal with males above the age of 9. What next? Veiled women working for BA dealing with female customers only? I think that it is only fair that those hired today should sign a pledge that they will never wear the veil, cross, turban etc.. during working hours. if that is too difficult they should stay home and pray for money, their god will definitely answer.
BBC: Woman loses fight to wear cross
Her British Airways bosses said she could not visibly wear her cross at the check-in counter.
BA said Ms Eweida had been offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross but had refused to take it.
"If it is acceptable to wear a veil, then yes it should be acceptable to wear a cross too" .
It is clear that some airlines have very distinctive uniforms, including veils.
Would that cause a problem on airports, since these locations are considered public.
And how come, a private enterprise wants to impose rules that the authorities do not impose or approve?
"British Airways' own cross to bear"
"the national carrier is going to look exceedingly stupid if it says yes to the veil." writes The DailyTelegraph and quoting BA:
"All employees have obligations to respect and value each other. We promote equality of opportunity and encourage diversity."
And The Daily Telegraph:
Diversity? That is, of course, unless you are Christian.
Would it (BA) have dared to have demanded the removal of a pendant of equal size to the Crescent Moon of Islam or the Star of David?".
Read more in the link.. an editorial of the Australian The Daily Telegraph
The newspaper poses this question:
Does this madness also extend to a ban on the Union Jack, which comprises the crosses of St George, St Patrick and St Andrew, from being displayed on its planes?
On 12 April 1606, a new flag to represent the personal union between England and Scotland was specified in a royal decree, according to which the flag of England (a red cross with a white background, known as St George's Cross) and the flag of Scotland (a white saltire with a blue background, known as the Saltire or Saint Andrew's Cross)
Because Wales had been annexed by Edward I of England in 1282, and since the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 was legally part of the Kingdom of England. (The present-day Flag of Wales and St David's Cross emerged, or re-emerged, in the 20th century: the former based on a Royal badge and the latter on the arms of the Diocese of Saint David's.
What a mistake to make?
BA in a dead end street?
This is not over yet....
Her British Airways bosses said she could not visibly wear her cross at the check-in counter.
BA said Ms Eweida had been offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross but had refused to take it.
"If it is acceptable to wear a veil, then yes it should be acceptable to wear a cross too" .It is clear that some airlines have very distinctive uniforms, including veils.
Would that cause a problem on airports, since these locations are considered public. And how come, a private enterprise wants to impose rules that the authorities do not impose or approve?"British Airways' own cross to bear"
"the national carrier is going to look exceedingly stupid if it says yes to the veil." writes The DailyTelegraph and quoting BA:
"All employees have obligations to respect and value each other. We promote equality of opportunity and encourage diversity."
And The Daily Telegraph:
Diversity? That is, of course, unless you are Christian.
Would it (BA) have dared to have demanded the removal of a pendant of equal size to the Crescent Moon of Islam or the Star of David?".
Read more in the link.. an editorial of the Australian The Daily Telegraph
The newspaper poses this question:
Does this madness also extend to a ban on the Union Jack, which comprises the crosses of St George, St Patrick and St Andrew, from being displayed on its planes?
On 12 April 1606, a new flag to represent the personal union between England and Scotland was specified in a royal decree, according to which the flag of England (a red cross with a white background, known as St George's Cross) and the flag of Scotland (a white saltire with a blue background, known as the Saltire or Saint Andrew's Cross)
Because Wales had been annexed by Edward I of England in 1282, and since the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 was legally part of the Kingdom of England. (The present-day Flag of Wales and St David's Cross emerged, or re-emerged, in the 20th century: the former based on a Royal badge and the latter on the arms of the Diocese of Saint David's.
What a mistake to make?
BA in a dead end street?
This is not over yet....
Crucifixes back at BA....
Money makes the world go round....
BA's CEO Willie Walsh, while not actually saying the policy would change, told Guardian Unlimited* "Our staff has suggested that we allow the wearing of religious symbols as small lapel badges. This will be considered as part of the review".
Why would he say something of that kind?
Because:
One if it share holders discussed the sale its shares in the airline worth nearly $20 million.
Who was that shareholder?
The Church of England
The archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams told reporters he had contacted the church's investment advisory body, the Ethical Investment Advisory Group
A few hours after that bombshell from Williams, BA announced it will review its uniform policy.
Dr. Rowan Williams was in Rome. Was he seeing the Catholic investment advisory body?
Muslim and Hindu BA employees are allowed to wear religious headgear and "bangles."
What does this prove?
Simply that BA is a mean capitalist enterprise that will cave to pressure of any of its main shareholders.
In that capitalist way of thinking, the managers that harm the organisation should be dismissed....
*How the archbishop took on the world's favourite airline - and won
Speaking in Rome yesterday, where he has been seeing the Pope, Dr Williams said that consultations had begun on a possible disinvestment of BA shares. A few hours later, faced with the possible sale of the church's £10.25m shares in British Airways and the lingering possibility of a boycott, the nation's flag carrier suddenly announced a review of its 34-page uniform policy, saying that it had been "unfairly accused" of being anti-Christian.
So far for the BA managerial principles....
The Church of England is the officially established Christian church in England. The spiritual head of the church is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the Primate of All England and Metropolitan. The British monarch (at present, Elizabeth II), has the constitutional title of "Supreme Governor of the Church of England". (So, she must have known about the intentions of Dr Rowan Williams?)
Archbishop of Canterbury comments on British Airways.
BA's CEO Willie Walsh, while not actually saying the policy would change, told Guardian Unlimited* "Our staff has suggested that we allow the wearing of religious symbols as small lapel badges. This will be considered as part of the review".
Why would he say something of that kind?
Because:
One if it share holders discussed the sale its shares in the airline worth nearly $20 million.
Who was that shareholder?
The Church of England
The archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams told reporters he had contacted the church's investment advisory body, the Ethical Investment Advisory Group
A few hours after that bombshell from Williams, BA announced it will review its uniform policy.
Dr. Rowan Williams was in Rome. Was he seeing the Catholic investment advisory body?
Muslim and Hindu BA employees are allowed to wear religious headgear and "bangles."
What does this prove?
Simply that BA is a mean capitalist enterprise that will cave to pressure of any of its main shareholders.
In that capitalist way of thinking, the managers that harm the organisation should be dismissed....
*How the archbishop took on the world's favourite airline - and won
Speaking in Rome yesterday, where he has been seeing the Pope, Dr Williams said that consultations had begun on a possible disinvestment of BA shares. A few hours later, faced with the possible sale of the church's £10.25m shares in British Airways and the lingering possibility of a boycott, the nation's flag carrier suddenly announced a review of its 34-page uniform policy, saying that it had been "unfairly accused" of being anti-Christian.
So far for the BA managerial principles....
The Church of England is the officially established Christian church in England. The spiritual head of the church is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the Primate of All England and Metropolitan. The British monarch (at present, Elizabeth II), has the constitutional title of "Supreme Governor of the Church of England". (So, she must have known about the intentions of Dr Rowan Williams?)
Archbishop of Canterbury comments on British Airways.
BA is crucified.... only a few hours later.
The Sunday Times - Comment
So, now whose side are you on?
Poor BA is crucified for making a stand – and quite right too
and
The Times November 24, 2006
Insensitive BA in a tailspin over religion
People of faith expect not just tolerance, but respect. BA needs to show it.
The Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG), which advises the church's investment bodies, contacted BA shortly after Williams's comments and sent a letter to chief executive Willie Walsh requesting a meeting.
John Reynolds, the EIAG chairman, said: "I think this [shows] that the church does have a voice."
The possible sale of the church's shares in BA and the lingering possibility of a boycott, BA suddenly announced a review of its 34-page uniform policy, saying that it had been "unfairly accused" of being anti-Christian, only a few hours later.
So, now whose side are you on?
Poor BA is crucified for making a stand – and quite right too
and
The Times November 24, 2006
Insensitive BA in a tailspin over religion
People of faith expect not just tolerance, but respect. BA needs to show it.
The Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG), which advises the church's investment bodies, contacted BA shortly after Williams's comments and sent a letter to chief executive Willie Walsh requesting a meeting.
John Reynolds, the EIAG chairman, said: "I think this [shows] that the church does have a voice."
The possible sale of the church's shares in BA and the lingering possibility of a boycott, BA suddenly announced a review of its 34-page uniform policy, saying that it had been "unfairly accused" of being anti-Christian, only a few hours later.
And what about tattoos?
Why not ban all, indeed? And make war.b720 wrote:True all religious symbols must be banned on the work floor. Passengers and clients do not give a toss whether the airline employee is a muslim, catholic, jew or budhist..the service is what counts..shove the cross between the cleaves, get rid of your hijabs and turbans..and flash us a nice colgate smile..that's what we all want to see..If that is not possible, find a job elsewhere..in Mecca, jerusalem, or the Vatican..
Airlines are not air forces.
Passengers pay and want to know were there money is spend for.
That is transparency.
eg, your money into Emirates goes to 'development' in Muslim countries. If you want contribute to that, then fly them with nice colgate smiles.
Although I doubt they will us Colgate...
Did BA have a uniform code just to hide differences? Or was it to make a difference? The British were always specialists of making differences. Between the ones that belong, and the ones that not belong. Like they do in the EU.
Anyway, uniforms were made to hide, to cover personality of individuals, in a way they are a kind of hijabs.
A uniform is a set of standard clothing worn by members of an organisation whilst participating in that organisation's activity, indeed.
And that should just be limited to that organisation's activity, not to what the uniformed is, or thinks, pretends she/he is.
Interesting: DRESS AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF AIR FORCE PERSONNEL
Read also Religious Apparel Waivers Table 2.9.
Also Table 2.6. Clothing/Accessory Standards.
And
1.3. Individuals’ Responsibilities.
1.3.1. To present a professional military image individual will:
1.3.1.1. Procure and maintain all mandatory clothing items.
1.3.1.2. Review and follow local supplements and procedures.
1.3.1.3. Uniforms will be neat, clean, pressed, buttoned, and properly maintained.
1.3.2. Members will not:
1.3.2.1. Stand or walk with hands in pockets of any uniform combination, other than to insert or remove items.
1.3.2.2. Walk in uniform while using cell phones, radios, hands-free headsets unless required in the performance of official duties using a government issued device.
1.3.2.3. Smoke/use smokeless tobaccos, drink, or eat while walking in uniform.
Notice also when one performs well in the US Airforce she/he will receive a CROSS, as there are:
Distinguished Flying Cross
Navy Cross
Dress codes may be enforced by private entities:
* By religious law or tradition
* For employees, pupils/students, etc.
* For customers, e.g. for a disco, nightclub, casino, shop or restaurant
* In special parties; sometimes a specific costume is requested
* As social rules in general
And what about tattoos?
So there is a difference between uniform and dress code.
Dress code belongs to social rules in general.
'Social' meaning in the culture where you live.
Het woord uniform betekent eenvormig. Uniformen behoren meestal bij hiërarchische organisaties.
