British Airways Bans Crucifix

[question everything]

British Airways Bans Crucifix

Sun, 15 Oct '06
Employee Suspended For Wearing Christian Symbol

When Nadia Eweida refused to remove a necklace bearing a small crucifix, her employer, British Airways (BA), sent her home for two weeks without pay. The airline's dress code prohibits visible jewelry or other "adornments" while on duty without permission from management.

Eweida, a check-in worker at London's Heathrow, says she is suing BA because other employees are allowed to wear clothing and adornments intended to express their faith... BA's diversity rules permit Sikh employees to wear the traditional bangle, a sort of religious jewelry, and Muslims to pray during work time. Additionally, Muslims and Hindus may wear traditional head wear such as hijabs and turbans.

(snip)

In a letter to Eweida's lawyer, BA chief executive Willie Walsh says Eweida has not been disciplined, only sent home for refusing to comply with a reasonable request. He added, "We have previously made changes to our uniform policy to accommodate requests, after a detailed evaluation process including Health and Safety assessment to incorporate the wearing of Sikh bangles." The case is currently pending in a UK court.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?contentBlockId=76f71c5f-8b7c-495e-9d9d-e5adeedf1493

[MADem]

1. She has a legitimate beef. BA are a bunch of fucking idiots.

Jeez, why not hand the insane right wing "X" tians yet another reason to display high dudgeon and extreme affront? The request from them WAS unreasonable given the work climate and permissions afforded to other employees.

Ya can't make fish a one and flesh a the otha....it's either all religious trinkets and displays are a-OK, or NONE are.

[cboy4]

2. Believe me, I'm no big supporter of Christian symbolism because

I feel there are so many Christian hypocrites when it comes to practicing that faith.

Having said that, I see nothing at all wrong with this employee wearing her necklace, just as I would see nothing wrong with a Jewish employee wearing a Star of David necklace.

It's a free country.

The bottom line is there has to be a uniform policy one way or another. It's unfair to pick and choose acceptable religious "adornments."

[varkam]

3. The only difference I can see

is that perhaps the other religious adornments are requirements of the faith whereas the cross is not. Having said that, I still think BA is being silly about it. I see nothing wrong if someone wants to wear whatever religious symbol they want to work.

[Evoman]

4. I don't see the big deal with allowing her to wear the cross BUT

I don't see why its a big deal for her if her employers asked her to take it off. Why not just take it off and leave the whole thing alone? Is she afraid that if she doesn't wear it for 8 hours a day, Jesus might kill her?

[hogwyld]

5. It's all a bunch of bullsh*t

Sounds like she's just looking for a way to sue and retire. I agree with you, she should have just taken the thing off and all would have been fine. you made me laugh though with the visual of Jesus killing her with a crucifix.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. She was not ordered to remove the cross, just to make it non-visible

I.e., she could have avoided the situation if she had tucked it in to her shirt. That is very difficult to do with a turban or bracelet. I expect that a Jewish employee, wearing a Star of David necklace, would have been given the same instructions.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

6. what part of uniform don't you understand?

If you are unable to go work without your costume jewlery - seek alternate employment.

The same should go for those of other religions. Your in the first world in the 21st century - start acting like it.