The issue becomes when the more stringent standard cannot be justified - then the hiring practices but up against the charter for being discriminatory.
True story. AC used to require 20/30 vision uncorrected. Times changed and the US Navy had pilots doing night carrier landings with glasses. AC said that they didn't want people with glasses because their vision might deteriorate prematurely. The expert medical opinion pointed in many cases to the exact opposite. Somebody threatened to sue. AC realised that their old air force doctors 40 year old opinions wouldn't hold up in court so their standard relaxed to 20/100. Voila, now they would take my application. Fast forward another 10 years. Guy has 20/160 vision. Gets rejected. Goes and gets laser eye surgery. Transport says A-Ok. Waits the six months and then gets an unrestricted class 1 medical. Reapplies with 20/20 vision. Doctor says no, we don't accept laser eye surgery. Another court case filed. AC again realises that they can't support their position, the guy is now a 767 F/O.
The point is, if you impose a higher standard with a defensible reason or justification for it, that is acceptable. Examples would be not hiring smokers, alcoholics, people who have already had heart attacks, etc. You can show that there is a really good chance that they will cost you money in terms of medical issues during their career. Using arbitrary, medically indefensible criteria is discrimination. Kudos to the 2 people in the examples above for having the courage to push the point.
Why are people failing their medical with mainline?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
Jaques Strappe
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:34 pm
- Location: YYZ
Sportingrifle
Great post and a very good argument but to play devils' advocate, with that analogy, then anyone applying at Air Canada with an ATPL and CAT 1 medical has a right to sue for not being hired?
I am sure you will agree that the airline has to have the ability to screen its' applicants. Same goes for the sim eval as previously mentioned. Is that discriminatory too? How about the COG test? Is it discrimination against wanna be florists?
I fail to see what US Navy requirements have to do with Air Canada. Different organizations and companies within similar industries have varying requirements. I"m sorry, but I don't buy the Navy story as being the reason why Air Canada amended its' standards. Standards usually get amended with supply and demand as well as a changing demographic. The laser eye thing was such a new technology at the time when Air Canada refused to accept it, but after time, it was accepted. I am sure 50 years from now as medicine progresses, other conditions that are at the moment, taboo, will also become accepted after treatment.
If the company had absolutley no legal standing and was threatened to be sued at every corner, with no apparent requirement for it, don't you think the medical department would have been gone a long time ago?
Great post and a very good argument but to play devils' advocate, with that analogy, then anyone applying at Air Canada with an ATPL and CAT 1 medical has a right to sue for not being hired?
I am sure you will agree that the airline has to have the ability to screen its' applicants. Same goes for the sim eval as previously mentioned. Is that discriminatory too? How about the COG test? Is it discrimination against wanna be florists?
I fail to see what US Navy requirements have to do with Air Canada. Different organizations and companies within similar industries have varying requirements. I"m sorry, but I don't buy the Navy story as being the reason why Air Canada amended its' standards. Standards usually get amended with supply and demand as well as a changing demographic. The laser eye thing was such a new technology at the time when Air Canada refused to accept it, but after time, it was accepted. I am sure 50 years from now as medicine progresses, other conditions that are at the moment, taboo, will also become accepted after treatment.
If the company had absolutley no legal standing and was threatened to be sued at every corner, with no apparent requirement for it, don't you think the medical department would have been gone a long time ago?
Standby for new atis message
-
sportingrifle
- Rank 6
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am
Jaques.....I see your point. I think that we are actually saying the same thing but coming at it from opposite directions.
For clarification. Any time that you have more applicants than positions, you are going to have to discriminate and pick those that you feel will best serve your organization. Examples could be screening out future medical problems, training issues, (cog screen?), fitting in with others in the organization, (interview), and perhaps a propensity to agree to concessions at contract time! - just kidding - sorta.(psyc test?)
The issue in Canada for any employer, is whether the normal expected discrimination in a selection process lacks relevance to the job description and/or discriminates against an entire identifiable group. Lets pick a silly example. AC issues uniforms so we all look alike and are easily identifiable to the public at large. Lets take this a step further and say that to further this legitimate corporate goal, we won't hire anyone with blond hair. They really do stand out. I'm not a lawyer but i think that this could be easily challenged. And even if it stood a charter test, what do we do with the blond clown that dyed his hair?
It's a fine line/balancing act brought about by Candian society and values. As another poster noted, Cathay works under Hong Kong labor law and things are very different. Your wife has to click with managements' wives,, F/A's have to fit into size 4 dresses, and if too many people call in sick, they can just fire 53 pilots at random to make a point. I prefer the Canadian balence to the whole issue which is why I admire the 2 pilots for challenging AC on those 2 issues. Interestingly enough, the courts have prevented discrimination in one instance when an employer might have been able to financially justify the discrimination - namely hiring women pilots.
We pause this post to add a big disclaimer. I am in no way advocating that discrimination against womens careers is ever justified. I am merely pointing out an example of a case where the courts had to strike a balance between 2 legitimate points of view. I will also add that I have thoroughly enjoyed working with all the women whom I have had the pleasure of sharing a flight deck with and look forward to sharing it with many more.
Statistically, many women interupt their careers to have children. This adds to a companies costs in terms of the costs of leaves, training, medical costs, sick calls when the babysitter doesn't show up, etc. There is no doubt that it could be shown that it would be cheaper to staff the airline with all male flight crews. (BTW, where are the poster boys Cathay and Dragon Air on this one?) In this case, the courts have found that while real, an employers rights to chose the most suitable candidate are overshadowed by societys, or more specifically womans, rights to equitable access to employment.
Lastly, my comment about navy carrier pilots was just to illustrate that their flying demands the most visual acuity of just about any flying job in the world. If they aren't experiencing problems with dislodged glasses, glare, color differentiation, etc at 50' off the deck, chances are an airline pilot wouldn't either.
Thanks for the thought provoking counterpoint, see ya on the line.
sportingrifle.
For clarification. Any time that you have more applicants than positions, you are going to have to discriminate and pick those that you feel will best serve your organization. Examples could be screening out future medical problems, training issues, (cog screen?), fitting in with others in the organization, (interview), and perhaps a propensity to agree to concessions at contract time! - just kidding - sorta.(psyc test?)
The issue in Canada for any employer, is whether the normal expected discrimination in a selection process lacks relevance to the job description and/or discriminates against an entire identifiable group. Lets pick a silly example. AC issues uniforms so we all look alike and are easily identifiable to the public at large. Lets take this a step further and say that to further this legitimate corporate goal, we won't hire anyone with blond hair. They really do stand out. I'm not a lawyer but i think that this could be easily challenged. And even if it stood a charter test, what do we do with the blond clown that dyed his hair?
It's a fine line/balancing act brought about by Candian society and values. As another poster noted, Cathay works under Hong Kong labor law and things are very different. Your wife has to click with managements' wives,, F/A's have to fit into size 4 dresses, and if too many people call in sick, they can just fire 53 pilots at random to make a point. I prefer the Canadian balence to the whole issue which is why I admire the 2 pilots for challenging AC on those 2 issues. Interestingly enough, the courts have prevented discrimination in one instance when an employer might have been able to financially justify the discrimination - namely hiring women pilots.
We pause this post to add a big disclaimer. I am in no way advocating that discrimination against womens careers is ever justified. I am merely pointing out an example of a case where the courts had to strike a balance between 2 legitimate points of view. I will also add that I have thoroughly enjoyed working with all the women whom I have had the pleasure of sharing a flight deck with and look forward to sharing it with many more.
Statistically, many women interupt their careers to have children. This adds to a companies costs in terms of the costs of leaves, training, medical costs, sick calls when the babysitter doesn't show up, etc. There is no doubt that it could be shown that it would be cheaper to staff the airline with all male flight crews. (BTW, where are the poster boys Cathay and Dragon Air on this one?) In this case, the courts have found that while real, an employers rights to chose the most suitable candidate are overshadowed by societys, or more specifically womans, rights to equitable access to employment.
Lastly, my comment about navy carrier pilots was just to illustrate that their flying demands the most visual acuity of just about any flying job in the world. If they aren't experiencing problems with dislodged glasses, glare, color differentiation, etc at 50' off the deck, chances are an airline pilot wouldn't either.
Thanks for the thought provoking counterpoint, see ya on the line.
sportingrifle.
-
Jaques Strappe
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:34 pm
- Location: YYZ
Sportingrifle
I do enjoy your posts. Intelligent debate is refreshing around here. I 100% agree with you on the women in aviation part. As you know, British Airways was just taken to task on the exact example you describe by one of their female crew members and logically, lost.
I was thinking today also of the guy who has a two pack a day habit. He may hold a CAT 1 medical by Transport standards but I think the company would have an interest in this persons human factors performance. Imagine what he must be like on the approach after a 13 hour trip to Tokyo!
No doubt, discrimination is a slippery slope and I am sure it will be debated over the years to come. As you elude to, without objections, things won't change. After all, it wasn't that long ago that smoking was allowed on the flight decks, to the dismay of the non smoking pilot!
Cheers, it was good chatting with you
I do enjoy your posts. Intelligent debate is refreshing around here. I 100% agree with you on the women in aviation part. As you know, British Airways was just taken to task on the exact example you describe by one of their female crew members and logically, lost.
I was thinking today also of the guy who has a two pack a day habit. He may hold a CAT 1 medical by Transport standards but I think the company would have an interest in this persons human factors performance. Imagine what he must be like on the approach after a 13 hour trip to Tokyo!
No doubt, discrimination is a slippery slope and I am sure it will be debated over the years to come. As you elude to, without objections, things won't change. After all, it wasn't that long ago that smoking was allowed on the flight decks, to the dismay of the non smoking pilot!
Cheers, it was good chatting with you
Standby for new atis message
I have to agree with a statement made earlier with regards to folks slipping through the cracks....Being awarded the privileges to hold a PPL or CPL or whatever the endorsement is based on a one day, one shot deal. The examiner cannot tell (if from outside the company) whether or not this person is compitent on a consistant basis or not. With this said, there are definately some people that I would not piggy back my way across the country with, but according to thier light blue piece of paper are quite qualified to do so! I agree with the sim testing. But I think it should be a series of tests. We are human, and all have bad days. Now I realize that costs would sky rocket and that its not practical financially, but it makes the most sense.
"Shut up over there"
