First female bus driver sacked for being 'too short'

[Imnobody4]

Speaking as a 5ft women this is outrageous, straight out of 'Invisible Women'

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsmanchester/manchester-depots-first-female-bus-driver-sacked-for-being-too-short/ar-AARrc9o?ocid=uxbndlbing

So last month, when Tracey was given her notice, it was a devastating blow.

The reason, claims Unite the union, is that since the operator has repositioned its wing mirrors, 5ft Tracey is too short to use them at the same time as reaching the pedals.

Last month, Unite claims, bosses ruled that Tracey no longer had the 'capability' to safely drive their buses and offered her an alternative role at the company, but for less hours and pay.

Tracey declined and was given 12 weeks' notice, a decision she is now appealing.

There's a petition which quite a lot of men seem to be signing.
www.megaphone.org.uk/petitions/support-the-1st-female-bus-driver-at-queens-road-she-deserves-better?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1638221320&share=1ee9f7a7-05be-406a-b667-62c729f4f6f7

It is. And again, it was her employers not the bus manufacturer who made that change

She said the firm began replacing broken ‘branch’ mirrors to the side of the windscreen with side mirrors, around two years ago... [and] she’d have to lean around a pillar on the cab assault screen to see the mirror, meaning her feet lifted off the pedals.

@RedToothBrush

Its clear cut indirect sex discrimination isn't it?

Her ability isn't in doubt. Its her physical attributes which are mainly a result of her being female.

What % of men are 5ft? What % of women are 5ft? Why are they buying buses designed for the physical attributes of men only?

It's exactly that. And they aren't off the hook even if a 5' male driver were also affected.

Thanks OP. Signed. They redesign their buses so women can't drive them and then sack her. Appalling

She was sacked for being 5ft not for being a woman . Clearly wrong to sack her.

She was sacked for being 5ft not for being a woman

More women than men are 5ft so this disproportionately affects women

@TheBitchOfTheVicar

I wouldn't want to be the passenger on the bus when the driver can't reach the pedal or see the mirrors it's basic safety

[quote rwalker]@TheBitchOfTheVicar

I wouldn't want to be the passenger on the bus when the driver can't reach the pedal or see the mirrors it's basic safety[/quote]
So tell the bus company that. They are the ones who chose a cheap fix that meant women, all women, the class/cohort of women, would be disproportionately affected by the change.

It's shit like this that many, many women have campaigned against so we women now can have some hope of a fair, equitable system.

Attitudes like yours show a certain disadain, or ignorance, of the issues behind this.

Thankfully the law doesn't have your blindspot, on this issue. For 34 years her driving was exemplary. Once the changes started her employer made sure her rota accommodated the changes. They are fully aware of what they have done and must have hoped she'd take a cut in pay and be grateful to still have any job at all.

THAT isn't good enough!

[quote rwalker]@TheBitchOfTheVicar

I wouldn't want to be the passenger on the bus when the driver can't reach the pedal or see the mirrors it's basic safety[/quote]
Yet she was sucessful in preforming her job for more than 30 years.
She also could have continued to do so until the company removed safety equipment and replaced it with sub-standard equipment.

The company responded to the notification of a H&S problem by getting rid of the person who informed them of the problem.

I would not want to be the passenger on the bus when the driver/ cleaner / mechanic / etc thinks losing their job is the reward for notifying their company of H&S issues.

To be honest it's no worse than most sports cars not being able to fit a 6ft 4 man in them. Perhaps I should sue Mazda for the poor design for their MX-5. Those of us outside the normal sizes encounter these problems.

@Mouseonmychair

To be honest it's no worse than most sports cars not being able to fit a 6ft 4 man in them. Perhaps I should sue Mazda for the poor design for their MX-5. Those of us outside the normal sizes encounter these problems.

Except those cars weren't fine for 34 years and then modified to make it impossible for some women to carry on driving them - one employee in particular.

There is a glaringly obvious difference between the two situations!

Does not being able to drive an MX5 prevent you from making your living in the way you have done for 34 years?

@BusBusBus

I know more about bus manufacturing than i would like. Certainly buses are currently designed taking into account both men and women and take into account the 5th to 95th centile of both men and women in terms of height and weight of the country of sale. There are more regulations including women in the design than say private cars. So this seems a very odd decision to do this as i think 5ft is slightly above the 5th centile.

That makes it even worse.

Signed.

Signed. As a woman of 5ft1 who has to put up with a load of crap in a world designed by men, this case angers me.
I hope she wipes the floor with them.

Some real bright sparks must have come up with this redesign...!

To be honest it's no worse than most sports cars not being able to fit a 6ft 4 man in them.

Of course it’s worse, don’t be preposterous. This is about her ability to make a living, not about your chosen hobby. And she’s not “outside the normal sizes.” Over 5% of women are 5’0. The equivalent of your 99th centile height would be a woman of 4’10.

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

Does not being able to drive an MX5 prevent you from making your living in the way you have done for 34 years?

That's along, long reach.

Why?

[quote rwalker]@TheBitchOfTheVicar

I wouldn't want to be the passenger on the bus when the driver can't reach the pedal or see the mirrors it's basic safety[/quote]
Well quite, so why did the bus company do such a shit redesign?

(And it’s not the same as sports cars, whoever said that, because those are usually consumer pr

Oops posted too soon

You get the point though

But if she can't drive the bus safely, are you all suggesting that her rights are put before safety? Really?

That's along, long reach.

Why?

What?

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

That's along, long reach.

Why?

What?

Sorry, misquoted, misread and misunderstood

@Almostmenopausal

But if she can't drive the bus safely, are you all suggesting that her rights are put before safety? Really?

Bloody hell! THAT is why such crap happens isn't it? Such a lack of critical thinking, even when the article and many posts have already spelled it out.

Her employer has caused the issue.

The mirrors that come as standard with the buses are fine.

The employer has chosen to modify the mirrors therefore causing the problem.

Unless there is a very specific, otherwise unfixable issue that require the new mirrors, and as all of the buses started with the standard ones and some still have them, that's unlikely, they have casued the problem and have treated her unfairly by dint of not having made a better decision and then offering her a demotion when she pointed it out!

Think it through. The ramifications of not challenging this could be so far reaching it would make zero hour contracts look like heaven!

Signed.

Some dumb as fuck comments on this thread. Think about your own jobs, and suppose some wholly avoidable situation was introduced by your employer that rendered your job impossible for you and people like you. Would you be happy with other people glibly commenting that your entire career being whipped away from you is the same as not being able to do some hobby? Or blaming you for a safety situation created, not by your performance, but these wholly avoidable adjustments?

@Almostmenopausal

But if she can't drive the bus safely, are you all suggesting that her rights are put before safety? Really?

Is it ethical to create any condition which prevents the employee from carrying out the duties listed in the employment contract?

If it is ethical, should there be any limit placed on how far the employer can go to prevent the employee from carrying out the duties?
Should the State legislate for this or opt for a free market capitalism model.

If it is not ethical, what limit should be put in place to limit employer's who prevent the employee from carrying out the duties?

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/indirect-discrimination/

Who does the practice, policy or rule affect?
The practice, policy or rule applies to a certain group of people in the same way regardless of who they are. For example, you could have a rule that all employees in a shop must work on Saturdays. This is a neutral rule which affects everyone in the shop. This group is called the pool for comparison.

Within this group, some people with a particular protected characteristic may be put at a particular disadvantage by the rule. For example, if you’re Jewish and observe the Sabbath, you can’t work on Saturdays. It doesn’t matter that there aren’t any other Jewish people who work in the same shop. It can still be indirect discrimination if something would normally disadvantage people sharing your characteristic.

Are other people disadvantaged?
You need to show that people who share your protected characteristic are also disadvantaged, but that the other people in the group to whom the practice, policy or rule applies aren’t.

How do you show disadvantage?
Sometimes, you can rely on common knowledge to show how some people are disadvantaged. For example, it’s common knowledge that Sunday is a day of worship for Christians. So a rule forcing staff to work on Sundays would put Christians at a particular disadvantage.

Sometimes, you may need to use statistics to show how people are disadvantaged by the policy, practice or rule. At other times, it may be necessary to use the help of an expert.

When might it not be indirect discrimination?
Indirect discrimination can sometimes be lawful. The Equality Act says it’s not indirect discrimination if the person applying the practice, policy or rule, can show there’s a good enough reason for it. They would need to be able to prove this in court, if necessary. This is known in legal terms as objective justification.

So i think if 100% of the men in the same job don't have a problem and the statistical % of the general population of males who are 5ft are vanishingly small compared to only 1 woman being affected by the policy change but women being reasonably common at that height, theres a clear case to answer.

It then comes down to whether the company has made reasonable adjustments or offered suitable alternative work.

Have they?

Offering an office job for lower pay certainly doesn't seem to cut it...