ChatterBank0 min ago
Is this a sexual discrimination case?
21 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/25ss4z6
How do some women continue to be granted compensation on numerous grounds?
Here we have a serving female Chief Petty Officer, who doesn't go to sea, and the Navy who obviously wants a Warrant Officer who can serve at sea.
But because the Navy only wants to promote someone that can serve at sea, she sues the Navy for by-passing her promotion.
Obviously the cash strapped Navy have found it necessary to pay Warrant Officer rates for a person to do a particular job, and if that means they must have sea going experience, then that should be enough.
How do some women continue to be granted compensation on numerous grounds?
Here we have a serving female Chief Petty Officer, who doesn't go to sea, and the Navy who obviously wants a Warrant Officer who can serve at sea.
But because the Navy only wants to promote someone that can serve at sea, she sues the Navy for by-passing her promotion.
Obviously the cash strapped Navy have found it necessary to pay Warrant Officer rates for a person to do a particular job, and if that means they must have sea going experience, then that should be enough.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
No, no, no, no, this won't open the floodgates as the article suggests, most women in the Forces know their place, but now and again you'll get a money grasping one like this who has a hissy fit in the name of "equality" - truth be known she'd probably run a mile if her going to sea was going to involve anything more dangerous than bobbing around on the waves?
Not quite "jobs for the boys" is it?
Not quite "jobs for the boys" is it?
I don't think you read the article properly.
///The legal dilemma facing the navy harks back to 1993 when Wrens were given the option to serve on ships.
At the time, around 70 per cent of women opted to retain their non-seagoing status and were assured this lack of experience would not affect career prospects.///
Since non-seagoing status is not supposed to have any effect on promotion prospects, the lady was perfectly entitled to apply for the promotion, and if it was refused because of her status (which appears to be the case), she had every right to claim discrimination.
///The legal dilemma facing the navy harks back to 1993 when Wrens were given the option to serve on ships.
At the time, around 70 per cent of women opted to retain their non-seagoing status and were assured this lack of experience would not affect career prospects.///
Since non-seagoing status is not supposed to have any effect on promotion prospects, the lady was perfectly entitled to apply for the promotion, and if it was refused because of her status (which appears to be the case), she had every right to claim discrimination.
Oh, Huderon................:o(
Why do you have to spoil this thread with your bloomin' voice of reason.?
You're really not entering into the spirit of the thing................
We want jerking-knees, talk of PC run mad, unequal equality, an imbalance of favouritism with women having an unfair advantage, etc, etc.
I hope you think deeply on this matter before posting again on AOG's thread !! ;o)
Why do you have to spoil this thread with your bloomin' voice of reason.?
You're really not entering into the spirit of the thing................
We want jerking-knees, talk of PC run mad, unequal equality, an imbalance of favouritism with women having an unfair advantage, etc, etc.
I hope you think deeply on this matter before posting again on AOG's thread !! ;o)
I was just going to say that eyethenkyew. What a cheek the woman has, I would have thought they would have sorted that anomoly out before this came up. The Navy could only say, "Well tough, we are looking for a sea-going Warrant Officer, you do not fit the criteria. Promotions for the non-seagoing Officers are not viable at the moment". I hate opportunists like that, I hope they send her off to sea in the Titanic #ll.
There has always been discrimination in the services . Not just sexual discrimination .
If you are married you get married accomodation which may be necessary but that means you are excused certain duties such as guard duties which is one of the biggest chores. Similarly if you suffer from flat feet which means you can't wear boots therefore you are excused all activities requiring boots . I can remember being in units where ¾ of the personnel were married or were excused normal duties for various reasons. Which meant if you were single and healthy you were the first to be singled out for any unpleasant task or posting. . As for the women they had their own quarters which had to be guarded by the same single healthy male soldiers. It's some years since I was in the army so things may have changed. but not from what I have heard.
If you are married you get married accomodation which may be necessary but that means you are excused certain duties such as guard duties which is one of the biggest chores. Similarly if you suffer from flat feet which means you can't wear boots therefore you are excused all activities requiring boots . I can remember being in units where ¾ of the personnel were married or were excused normal duties for various reasons. Which meant if you were single and healthy you were the first to be singled out for any unpleasant task or posting. . As for the women they had their own quarters which had to be guarded by the same single healthy male soldiers. It's some years since I was in the army so things may have changed. but not from what I have heard.
Dear Huderon,
'Being reasonable' is always to be desired..........it's just that it does so spoil the intentional slant and bias AOG prefers to maintain throughout his numerous threads.
I mean, if we all went round getting our facts correct, not-jumping to conclusions and thinking before we posted where would it all end..............?
Yours, etc.
:o)
'Being reasonable' is always to be desired..........it's just that it does so spoil the intentional slant and bias AOG prefers to maintain throughout his numerous threads.
I mean, if we all went round getting our facts correct, not-jumping to conclusions and thinking before we posted where would it all end..............?
Yours, etc.
:o)
Ah, jackthehat so we meet again, and once again you cannot help yourself from having the usual dig at me.
I think that Huderon and yourself, have really not thought this one out, askyourgran has obviously cottoned on to what I am getting at.
The Navy particularly wants a Warrant Officer to serve at sea, so they promote a lesser rank who is able to serve at sea. Just because this Chief Petty Officer who has signed to be non-seagoing, is bypassed in this instance, does not mean she has been bypassed for promotion for ever, she just has to wait until they require a non seagoing Warrant Officer.
Obviously in the past her non seagoing status hasn't prevented her for gaining promotion or she wouldn't now be a Chief Petty Officer.
I think that Huderon and yourself, have really not thought this one out, askyourgran has obviously cottoned on to what I am getting at.
The Navy particularly wants a Warrant Officer to serve at sea, so they promote a lesser rank who is able to serve at sea. Just because this Chief Petty Officer who has signed to be non-seagoing, is bypassed in this instance, does not mean she has been bypassed for promotion for ever, she just has to wait until they require a non seagoing Warrant Officer.
Obviously in the past her non seagoing status hasn't prevented her for gaining promotion or she wouldn't now be a Chief Petty Officer.
I don't think that I did miss the point. If the RN wants all Warrant Officers to serve at sea, it follows that a non-seagoing CPO cannot be promoted to Warrant Officer. Since women can elect to have non-seagoiing status with the expectation that it will not have any effect on their prospects for promotion, to deny the lady promotion because the RN wants all Warrant Officers to be seagoing discriminates against those women who have chosen non-seagoing status.
Huderon
/// I don't think that I did miss the point. If the RN wants all Warrant Officers to serve at sea, ///
I am not saying the Royal Navy wants ALL Warrant Officers to serve at sea, I am saying they just had need for only ONE at the time.
Say for example, in the future a vacancy comes up for a 'land locked' Warrant Officer, then there is nothing to say that this particular CPO would be promoted, given she fits the criteria.
In this case would a female sea-going CPO, start suing the Navy because she has been overlooked?.
/// I don't think that I did miss the point. If the RN wants all Warrant Officers to serve at sea, ///
I am not saying the Royal Navy wants ALL Warrant Officers to serve at sea, I am saying they just had need for only ONE at the time.
Say for example, in the future a vacancy comes up for a 'land locked' Warrant Officer, then there is nothing to say that this particular CPO would be promoted, given she fits the criteria.
In this case would a female sea-going CPO, start suing the Navy because she has been overlooked?.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Film, Media & TV13 mins ago
