Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

BA trainee flight attendant sacked for not reapplying lipstick

69 replies

reddaisy · 14/04/2015 23:07

A documentary called A Very British Airline on BBC4 has started tonight and it has been following a new batch of recruits as they are trained to become flight attendants.

A woman has just been sacked for not reapplying her lipstick (which looked fine to me but the filming could have been out of sync I suppose).

A Male Trainer/Manager said: "Jodie was asked on four occasions to reapply lipstick. If a customer had seen Jodie looking the way she was presenting herself it doesn't come across as if she is taking care in her appearance which is a basic standard (for BA)."

Did anyone else see this? I realise this is my second feminism chat post today but the male trainees clearly did not have to wear make-up, I imagine they had to look smart and presentable as well but this decision just smacks of blatant discrimination to me.

OP posts:

ReallyTired · 14/04/2015 23:40

I suppose that Jodie can't take BA to an employment tribunal as she has not been there for two years. I doubt that a company could force an experienced female air hostess to wear make up if they don't force men to wear make up. I don't suppose that any air hostess wants to challenge the rules.

EBearhug · 15/04/2015 00:56

It seems like discrimination to me, but as ReallyTired says, if she's been there less than two years (and as a trainee, I assume she has been,) she has very few rights.

I don't imagine the commentary said anything about it being discriminatory, either.

GibberingFlapdoodle · 15/04/2015 06:52

As a no-make-up afficionado I've wondered about this a few times. I gather the need to wear make-up is written into their contracts. Writes off air hostess as a possible job opening for me!

Like ReallyTired I cannot imagine that enforced make-up would stand up in a legal case. Really shows up the limitations of our laws with respect to private companies. No one chases them even if they are clearly in the wrong: it is left to the private citizen to pursue. And legal pursuit requires wealth and the ability to seek alternative employment.

My husband has just been telling me about IT companies flouting the law too - apparently these 'Like via facebook' buttons everywhere on websites may, allegedly, include some code that enables facebook to track and build profiles on anyone who uses the website, whether they have chosento have a facebook account or not. Clearly illegal if so and who knew about it, and what's going to happen about it? Nothing. Microsoft's whole business case seemed to be based on flouting the laws, paying the fines, carrying on as normal (that's fairly well documented so less hedging).

We live effectively in a lawless society held together solely by public trust, ignorance and impotence. There's a thought for the day.

msrisotto · 15/04/2015 07:05

If it is illegal to discriminate against female job candidates then surely this would also have some legal issues?

hesterton · 15/04/2015 07:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BellsaRinging · 15/04/2015 07:19

I don't think she would have to be employed for 2 years to bring a claim. I'm pretty sure there is no qualifying period in sex and race discrimination cases.

I'm appalled at the requirement to wear make-up. It's just blatant discrimination, and completely unnecessary for the job.

Artandco · 15/04/2015 07:22

But the men also have regulations just not the same. Or they have to make sure their hair is perfectly groomed ( styling products added if needed and reapplied if needed), and they need to be very careful with face hair growth. So that requires daily trimming and styling of beard, or daily keeping clean shaven

scaevola · 15/04/2015 07:23

When it's a big company like this, the regulations will stand up in court because they will have been written in a way that applies just as strictly to both sexes, even if facial make up is worn only by one.

You can find that as depressing as you like. But it's been to court for other employers (Harrods springs to mind), and as long as everyone's appearance/grooming is regulated the employer wins.

BellsaRinging · 15/04/2015 07:27

Yes...but I am sure that the women have the same requirements re:hairstyling. And they also probably have the same requirements re:facial hair growth. I am not being facetious-I presume the requirements for them include having groomed eyebrows and no other visible facial hair. Although I concede that is less onerous than shaving. However, the point is that there is no requirement for the men to put anything on their face.

Callmebrian · 15/04/2015 07:33

Let's face to - you know what you're getting into as an air steward/ess.
You know you nede to slap on a smile and tons of slap. If you don;t like it - it really isn't the job for you!

msrisotto · 15/04/2015 07:43

Callmebrian - true, but does that mean it's ok?

Original poster

reddaisy · 15/04/2015 10:16

Also, she was sacked for not reapplying her lipstick which means presumably she arrived for the day looking presentable. Would a man get fired because of a 5-o'clock shadow at the end of the day?

OP posts:

Original poster

reddaisy · 15/04/2015 10:17

And the women's high-brows all looked HD so again, I assume that is a rule.

OP posts:

SylvaniansAtEase · 15/04/2015 10:33

It's so odd though, because it IS completely out of sync with how most people today would judge what a professional, capable personal presentation style would be: discreet, modern makeup, less overtly styled hair - heavy makeup, especially lipstick, and very 'done' hair looks dated, and by association, a bit hopeless and not very 'finger on the pulse'. I fly a fair bit, sometimes with BA. It DOES feel a bit like stepping back thirty years and the appearance of the cabin crew DOES somehow (to me) convey an air of being out of touch, old fashioned. The only other place you regularly see the visible 'shampoo and set' look along with a truckload of orange foundation and a ton of red lipstick seems to be the matriarchs of the drapery counter in an old-fashioned department store. The first association I make when I see a face literally caked in makeup is 'urgh - mucky'. Not the image they think they're portraying at all, I imagine.

Heels99 · 15/04/2015 10:40

Its a repeat. She had other issues as well as the lipstick though, if I remember right lateness

Heels99 · 15/04/2015 10:45

You don't need two years service to bring a discrimination claim but I imagine their policies are water tight

PuffinsAreFictitious · 15/04/2015 10:45

Thought it was a repeat.

Fairly sure it was discussed back when it was first broadcast. Iirc, the 'other issues' were also a load of bollocks.

Yddraigoldragon · 15/04/2015 10:46

It seems she was asked several times to do it, therefore not obeying direct requests?
So is the issue about the lipstick or that she was not capable or willing to obey instruction?

HermiaDream · 15/04/2015 10:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster

reddaisy · 15/04/2015 11:01

Yes, looks like it was an old episode. But nevertheless, it is still a hugely outdated, sexist policy which is designed to cater to, I imagine, their predominantly wealthy male business class flyers.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jude-hurrell/british-airways-sexism_b_5482575.html Huff Post]

OP posts:

Original poster

reddaisy · 15/04/2015 11:01

Link Fail!

Huff Post

OP posts:

PuffinsAreFictitious · 15/04/2015 11:02

Pretty sure the stewards on airplanes aren't actors. And aren't just their to smile and serve drinks. So, not exactly similar.

Original poster

reddaisy · 15/04/2015 11:09

I also disagree that they are 'playing a part' they are doing a job. I get that they need to be presentable and rules around that help the brand have consistency but not being allowed to wear trousers and being forced to wear lipstick in the workplace is unacceptable in the 21st Century.

Just another reason not to fly BA!

OP posts:

Penfold007 · 15/04/2015 11:11

I flew long haul with BA last week. The entire crew were tidy, efficient and polite but none of the women wore lots of make up or had seriously groomed hair dos. Men were similar but minus lipstick.

Original poster

reddaisy · 15/04/2015 11:13

Careful Penfold, BA might send a few undercover passengers on board that route to do give them some warnings!

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3