Female RAF Recruits Compensation

Printable View

24-11-2013, 05:08 PM
AgnesIO

Female RAF Recruits Compensation

Female RAF recruits paid compensation for marching injuries

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25078544

Quote:

Three female RAF recruits are to be paid compensation for injuries reportedly suffered while marching alongside male colleagues.They claimed parading alongside taller male recruits caused them to over-stride and develop spinal and pelvic injuries, the Mail on Sunday reported.
It is understood they will receive £100,000 from the MoD.
The MoD said the RAF had now reviewed its recruit training practices to mitigate against the risk.
The women told the Mail on Sunday they had extended their strides to 30in (76cm) over several weeks while undergoing basic training.
RAF official policy now states female recruits should not be expected to extend the length of their strides beyond 27in (69cm).
The paper reported that lawyers for one of the recruits claimed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had accused the three of exaggerating their symptoms during the five-year legal battle.
As well as marching in step with male colleagues at RAF Halton, in Buckinghamshire, the recruits claimed that carrying the same heavy packs as males had also contributed to their injuries, the paper reported.

Absolutely outrageous that these muppets have been given compensation. It really angers me when people claim for things like this; the whole "sexism is fine.. when it suits us". I understand that if you are short you may struggle to march at the same distances; but this applies to short men too (who, may I point out, are likely to be present in the RAF).

The piece that REALLY amazes me is that they received compensation due to the weight of the bags. Now, I am sorry - ladies - however, if you are not capable to do the job at hand YOU SHOULD NOT JOIN IN THE FIRST PLACE. Let me create a scenario. Here we are, in a war zone - should the men have to carry heavier bags, because a female cannot cope? I have nothing against women in the army, but I am sorry - if a certain individual is not capable at doing the job at hand, they should not be there.

I am totally against sexism. But please, the sexism argument has to either be applied all the time, or never - people CANNOT pick and choose when they wish to use it.
24-11-2013, 05:15 PM
Futz

that's pretty ridiculous

literally you can get compensation for anything nowerdays, worlds full of ******* scrubs
24-11-2013, 06:00 PM
dbgtz

Whenever something like this is mentioned I just think of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERwzqvs7vvU

Either way it is stupid but it's not likely to change anytime soon.
24-11-2013, 06:10 PM
AgnesIO

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbgtz

Whenever something like this is mentioned I just think of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERwzqvs7vvU

Either way it is stupid but it's not likely to change anytime soon.

Lol, that video does make some good points. The thing is, females CAN be in jobs that require physical standards if they are strong enough to do them - just like how a man should also be strong enough to meet them. If a male fire fighter needs to be able to run one mile, so should a female. If the male fails, they should not be a fire fighter. If a female fails, she should ALSO not be a fire fighter.

As a side note, that show is evidently the "Crystal Maze" NOT "Fort Boyard" haha
24-11-2013, 11:49 PM
-:Undertaker:-

This is why sexism *is* rational because the sexes simply aren't the same and it's irrational to pretend they are not. The RAF isn't the only institution that has fallen victim to sexism - Police forces and Fire departments have purposely and knowingly lowered their height and strength restrictions as to accomodate more women to meet government quotas - simply to comply with equality laws we now have people in jobs that aren't strong enough or tall enough to carry them out and it's ridiculous.

But that's the fault with equality itself - we aren't all equal, so let's stop pretending.
24-11-2013, 11:55 PM
AgnesIO

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

This is why sexism *is* rational because the sexes simply aren't the same and it's irrational to pretend they are not. The RAF isn't the only institution that has fallen victim to sexism - Police forces and Fire departments have purposely and knowingly lowered their height and strength restrictions as to accomodate more women to meet government quotas - simply to comply with equality laws we now have people in jobs that aren't strong enough or tall enough to carry them out and it's ridiculous.

But that's the fault with equality itself - we aren't all equal, so let's stop pretending.

I totally 100% agree with you on the bold bit. Actually, I agree with the entire post; but the last bit is SO true.

It is ludicrous to think that decisions are made that potentially risk public safety, simply to please some feminists (or minority groups or anyone else...)
25-11-2013, 12:14 AM
CrazyLemurs

That video made some acceptable points, and I wasn't going to comment until I heard at the end: "greater efforts"
In no way does someone's ability at something show their effort. I'm absolutely crap at tennis but I still try extremely hard to, whilst on the other hand some people try very little at something and still achieve a lot.

Plus also a bit more on topic: okay so if we keep the levels needed to get in to these critical careers as they were previously (i.e. more suited to men) then what are we going to change? Surely not all industries and occupations would want to make these rules, so how do we decide which don't and which do?
25-11-2013, 12:23 AM
Kardan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Payasam

Lol, that video does make some good points. The thing is, females CAN be in jobs that require physical standards if they are strong enough to do them - just like how a man should also be strong enough to meet them. If a male fire fighter needs to be able to run one mile, so should a female. If the male fails, they should not be a fire fighter. If a female fails, she should ALSO not be a fire fighter.

As a side note, that show is evidently the "Crystal Maze" NOT "Fort Boyard" haha

Not sure if you're joking, but it is Fort Boyard. In the crystal maze, you collect crystals, not keys. And you're in a maze, not a fort :P

Back on to the topic though, stories like these remind me of this meme:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XTU75uQ9Pg...ghts+women.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyLemurs

That video made some acceptable points, and I wasn't going to comment until I heard at the end: "greater efforts"
In no way does someone's ability at something show their effort. I'm absolutely crap at tennis but I still try extremely hard to, whilst on the other hand some people try very little at something and still achieve a lot.

Plus also a bit more on topic: okay so if we keep the levels needed to get in to these critical careers as they were previously (i.e. more suited to men) then what are we going to change? Surely not all industries and occupations would want to make these rules, so how do we decide which don't and which do?

But you're not being paid to be a top level Tennis player. Women (and likewise men) should not be paid the same as someone that is less able, even if they put in the same amount of effort.
25-11-2013, 12:26 AM
CrazyLemurs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kardan

Not sure if you're joking, but it is Fort Boyard. In the crystal maze, you collect crystals, not keys. And you're in a maze, not a fort :P

Back on to the topic though, stories like these remind me of this meme:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XTU75uQ9Pg...ghts+women.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

But you're not being paid to be a top level Tennis player. Women (and likewise men) should not be paid the same as someone that is less able, even if they put in the same amount of effort.

Then what kind of margin is someone paid less to? Would it depend on your skill level, so everyone not up to scratch is individually assessed to determine how much pay they should get?

I'm currently on my iPhone if you are seeing this message. Pretend like you care xx
25-11-2013, 12:30 AM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyLemurs

Plus also a bit more on topic: okay so if we keep the levels needed to get in to these critical careers as they were previously (i.e. more suited to men) then what are we going to change? Surely not all industries and occupations would want to make these rules, so how do we decide which don't and which do?

Nobody used to make those rules apart from those that needed them, and they were state occupations anyway - the Police service, the Fire service.

It used to work, it doesn't now. Sometimes I find the size of Police officers (both female AND male) utterly laughable now as some are literally tiny - how are they supposed to intimitate would-be offenders or even catch them? They can't.

It's just like you wouldn't apply equality laws to bouncer would you? because it'd be ridiculous to.
25-11-2013, 12:32 AM
Kardan

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyLemurs

Then what kind of margin is someone paid less to? Would it depend on your skill level, so everyone not up to scratch is individually assessed to determine how much pay they should get?

I'm currently on my iPhone if you are seeing this message. Pretend like you care xx

It's quite clear that it's a case by case basis. You can't just say 'Oh, because you're female, you're paid £5k less a year than that male' even if the female is some bulky woman that is much better at being a firefighter than a scrawny guy.

Personally, I would hire the people most skilled for the job then pay them initially all the same wage. (Fluctuations here and there for cost of living etc.) People that show increased effort etc. can have bonuses. But it depends on the situation, if the government is hiring female firefighters to meet quotas, that's ridiculous, why are we hiring less able people if we have more able people that are unemployed?

Also, it depends on the actual job and how you rate performance. How do you rate a firefighters performance? How many people they save? Or how many lives they don't save? And do you rate it on the firefighter themselves, or the people they are saving? Likewise with police officers, do you rate themselves, or the people they catch? It changes on each situation, like I believe teachers should not be rated purely based on results of students.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Nobody used to make those rules apart from those that needed them, and they were state occupations anyway - the Police service, the Fire service.

It used to work, it doesn't now. Sometimes I find the size of Police officers (both female AND male) utterly laughable now as some are literally tiny - how are they supposed to intimitate would-be offenders or even catch them? They can't.

It's just like you wouldn't apply equality laws to bouncer would you? because it'd be ridiculous to.

One of the Police officers that has our village as his primary focus area, let's just say he's a tad large. I mean, I'm sure he's a great guy, and he's great at some aspects of his job, but I'm sure even I could outrun him. Whilst I can see how people can start going on a discrimination rant, it only make sense to have the most suitable people in these lines of work.