BA has announced that it has changed its rules regarding [tag]religious[/tag] items its staff can wear.
As with many [tag]rules[/tag] and [tag]law[/tag]s, problems only appeared because they were far too specific.
English law has the benefit of the word ‘reasonable’, allowing sensible flexible rules.
Had their rules simply said “non-uniform [tag]cultural[/tag] and religious [tag]jewellery[/tag] and attire should be kept to a reasonable minimum”, they could later point to that and say “we feel that what you’re wearing is in breach of these employment requirements” to whomsoever they thought necessary.
By singling out groups they were bound to create inconsistent treatment, or in other words: negative [tag]discrimination[/tag].
They could even simplify their rule even further to “staff must wear the uniform as it is specified, any deviation should be within reason” – eliminating the references to [tag]religion[/tag] and culture all together, thus avoiding the inflammatory issues.
I feel that the underlying issue here is that people are finally sticking up for the majority.
I may be being cynical, but it is convenient that this announcement was made during the current [tag]Celebrity Big Brother[/tag] ‘racism’ scandal, thus not being the un-PC story de jour.
Leave a Reply