China Airlines' Height Rules for Stewies a Problem?

Legal Legal - Work
1

Now I’ve seen it all:

[quote]A Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) official accused Taiwan’s leading air carrier of “discriminatory” practices because the airline imposes height requirements on flight attendants.

Lai Shu-li, a section chief with the CLA's Employment and Vocational Training Administration, said China Airlines (CAL) violates the Employment Service Act by requiring female applicants to be at least 160 centimeters tall and males at least 170 cm. 

Lai said the height requirements violate the act's Article 5, which stipulates that requirements about a job seeker's appearance, including height and weight, are discriminatory and illegal. "CAL could face fines between NT$300,000 (US$9,350) and NT$1.5 million for that violation," Lai noted.

…
CAL spokesman Bruce Chen said height requirements are imperative in the profession.

Citing the flight attendant training manual published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, Chen said flight attendants must be tall enough to reach overhead bins and compartments containing safety and emergency gear that are usually 200 centimeters from the cabin floor. "Height requirements are not exclusive regulations of CAL, " Chen said.

[/quote]
From CNA

Lovely, can’t rule on labor issues that affect human rights, bt on international industry standards her ethey come. sigh

2

brilliant!

so my wife and her friend (both female in their late twenties) were job hunting for 3 months and in EVERY interview (totaling over 20 different companies) they were asked when they plan to have children and that the company would not be able to keep them if they did want children

the above practice continues, but established safety and practical requirments (legally allowed exceptions) are bought into the public

… icon got it right, it only really deserves one word…

sign

3

[quote=“Icon”]Now I’ve seen it all:

[quote]A Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) official accused Taiwan’s leading air carrier of “discriminatory” practices because the airline imposes height requirements on flight attendants.

Lai Shu-li, a section chief with the CLA's Employment and Vocational Training Administration, said China Airlines (CAL) violates the Employment Service Act by requiring female applicants to be at least 160 centimeters tall and males at least 170 cm. 

Lai said the height requirements violate the act's Article 5, which stipulates that requirements about a job seeker's appearance, including height and weight, are discriminatory and illegal. "CAL could face fines between NT$300,000 (US$9,350) and NT$1.5 million for that violation," Lai noted.

…
CAL spokesman Bruce Chen said height requirements are imperative in the profession.

Citing the flight attendant training manual published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, Chen said flight attendants must be tall enough to reach overhead bins and compartments containing safety and emergency gear that are usually 200 centimeters from the cabin floor. "Height requirements are not exclusive regulations of CAL, " Chen said.

[/quote]
From CNA

Lovely, can’t rule on labor issues that affect human rights, bt on international industry standards her ethey come. sigh[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re talking about (again!). The CLA is the body that’s accusing CAL.
It’s CAL that’s ignoring the industry standards, not the CLA.
And how does this reflect on the CLA being “unable” to rule on human rights issues? Which issues are you referring to, exactly? And how is the CLA “unable” to rule on them?

4

Though CAL may sometimes ignore industry standards, this is not one of them. There are certain international safety regulations regarding height for cabin crew members. It is more or less a worldwide accepted standard.

In this case, the CLA guy is, as far as my non-Native English speaker reading skills allow me to understand, dissapproving CAL’s “setting” height standards -which it is actually just following an international convention on the matter. Hence, such accusation is not sustained nor sustainable.

Standard test for cabin crew worldwide is for you to reach into the overhead bin and touch the end. It means if you are too tall, you are not accepted into the program, not just too short. Both cases would be too dangerous. So this “limitation” is actually set to protect workers.

Human rights issues are those mentioned by Itakitez, where CLA’s input would be highly valuable.

5

Then its a problem for the Executive Yuan, surely, rather than the CLA, which is merely pointing out the law here. The problem is not with the CLA, its with the law.
As for ikatez’ friends, how many of those 20 companies did they report to the CLA? What was the CLA’s response?

6

[quote=“sandman”]Then its a problem for the Executive Yuan, surely, rather than the CLA, which is merely pointing out the law here. The problem is not with the CLA, its with the law.
As for ikatez’ friends, how many of those 20 companies did they report to the CLA? What was the CLA’s response?[/quote]

Why a matter for the Executive Yuan? Surely they would know about this international regulation which has been applied for the 50 years CAL has been flying? The law must have a provision regarding safety issues as part of job requirements. Me thinks the official in question might not be aware of this fact.

As to what has been CLA’s response to what unfortunately we’ve seen almost as an industry standard, well, that is really a good question that should be researched on more carefully.

7

[quote=“sandman”]Then its a problem for the Executive Yuan, surely, rather than the CLA, which is merely pointing out the law here. The problem is not with the CLA, its with the law.
As for ikatez’ friends, how many of those 20 companies did they report to the CLA? What was the CLA’s response?[/quote]

actually I did tell them to do so, but yes zero were reported, even the one where a third friend introduced the Mrs. and the VP later told that same friend that she wanted to hire the Mrs. but she was concerned that she would want babies, even though in interview she asked this and it is not our plan - the other single girl that was hired quit 2 months later…

I guess there needs to be some form of advertising campaign telling women and girls it is in their interest to complain since they will all continue suffering the consequences if they don’t

8

Then surely CAL will simply appeal any fine, pointing out the relevant clauses in the law and all will be well.

9

[quote=“itakitez”][quote=“sandman”]Then its a problem for the Executive Yuan, surely, rather than the CLA, which is merely pointing out the law here. The problem is not with the CLA, its with the law.
As for ikatez’ friends, how many of those 20 companies did they report to the CLA? What was the CLA’s response?[/quote]

actually I did tell them to do so, but yes zero were reported, even the one where a third friend introduced the Mrs. and the VP later told that same friend that she wanted to hire the Mrs. but she was concerned that she would want babies, even though in interview she asked this and it is not our plan - the other single girl that was hired quit 2 months later…

I guess there needs to be some form of advertising campaign telling women and girls it is in their interest to complain since they will all continue suffering the consequences if they don’t[/quote]

Now, is there any existing regulation that backs this up? I mean, such as in the US, wher eyou cannot ask about age, marriage, religion, political persuasion, etc.? I am not sure there is much to help in legal terms, but I can be wrong. I think there were some amendments recently on this regard. So, there should be a recourse.

Now, just because this exists legally, it does not mean it is possible to do so. First of all, there is way too much competition, too few open positions. Then, salaries are already quite low, but laobans’ want them lower. Hence, if anyone complains, thsi person will be labelled as a troublemaker, and have even less of a chance to get a job, any job, not just this particular job. Workers are caught between a rock and a hard place.

the one sthat should be on teh receiving end of a campain should be the laobans. From the case Itakitez mentions, it is as if they thought there was nothing wrong with that discrimination. It is an industry standard. And this “standard” is actually making Taiwan less competitive and their business less productive, but they cannot see it, as that is the way it’s been done for eons before and as far as they care, that’s the way it’s going to be.

10

Wait a sec, why is CLA complaining about height standards when there’s a wayyyyyyyyy more obvious discrimination taking place - sex (only women for the main cabin crew), and looks (only reasonably attractive, no fatties, no oldies, no downright uglies). Try checking out the Trans Asia hiring days - they do it like twice a year at Songshan Terminal 2 - you’ll see a train of 300+girls, all skinny young miniskirted things - queued up from the entrance doors up the escalator and into the offices.

Height? What a joke, that’s not the problem. Yeah I like lookin’ at mildly attractive to outright sex kittens on my flight, but I’ve had plenty of good flights with excellent attendants on KLM and they’re all 40 or 50+, some gay men, etc.

Some rich kid’s daughter probably got rejected on height (or that was the excuse they used to boot her ugly ass) and the father complained to a friend on the CLA or in the yuan, and now you got this silliness.

11

[quote=“Icon”]Though CAL may sometimes ignore industry standards, this is not one of them. There are certain international safety regulations regarding height for cabin crew members. It is more or less a worldwide accepted standard.
[/quote]

If it’s for safety, why aren’t the requirements the same for both men and women?

12

Arm span, I guess. (and what I am sure to be a typo, but yes, the requirements are different, that I recall, and can look up later)

EDIT:
or it may be that they just want the guys to look good…

13

[quote=“Icon”]Now I’ve seen it all:

From CNA

Lovely, can’t rule on labor issues that affect human rights, bt on international industry standards her ethey come. sigh[/quote]

Icon, is there a link to the original story?

14

My friend’s wife is a trolley dolly for Cathay and can’t be more than 5 foot nothing. No way in HELL could she reach into the back of an overhead locker. :laughing:

15

My friend’s wife is a trolley dolly for Cathay and can’t be more than 5 foot nothing. No way in HELL could she reach into the back of an overhead locker. :laughing:[/quote]

Then it’s her life on the line…

From Cabincrew.com:

[quote]Height

Most flight attendants are between 5’2" and 5’9" tall. Outside of this normal range, certain airlines have minimum and maximum height requirements.

A very short person may have difficulty reaching the overhead compartments in an airplane, which are typically between 6’ and 6’10" inches high. Some airlines have no minimum height requirement, but do require you to pass a reach test. The reach test is nothing more than a demonstration of your ability to reach all the necessary components inside an airplane’s cabin.

You can perform a reach test on your own. Simply grab a tape measure, measure out a distance of 6’10" from the floor, and mark it on the wall. If you can reach the mark in bare feet, chances are you will pass any airline’s reach test.

If you find you do not meet the minimum height requirement for any of the major airlines, do not let this discourage you. You can always apply to be a flight attendant for a commuter airline; commuter aircraft are much smaller, making height less critical.

Conversely, if you are a little on the tall side, most major airlines’ maximum height requirement is right around 6’2". If you are taller than 6’2", keep in mind that you will be working in small galleys and may find it difficult to work 8-hour days in such a cramped environment.

[/quote]
cabincrewjobs.com/flight-attendant-ten.html

16

And as to the “pretty” side:

cabincrewjobs.com/flight-att … tions.html

Emphasis on “strict”.

17

[quote=“TwoTongues”][quote=“Icon”]Now I’ve seen it all:

From CNA

Lovely, can’t rule on labor issues that affect human rights, bt on international industry standards her ethey come. sigh[/quote]

Icon, is there a link to the original story?[/quote]

focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_ … &Type=aSOC

18

Thanks for the link.

http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?ID=201005170038&Type=aSOC

What kind of shitty ass publication is Focus Taiwan that their editor or whoever let them use “centimeters” and “cm” in the same sentence?

19

I do that SOP. :blush:

20

Well, seems there was a “logical reason” so CI was fined:

[quote]China Airlines (CAL), one of Taiwan’s biggest airlines, was fined NT$300,000 (US$9,336) by the Taipei city government for discrimination based on physical appearance when recruiting cabin crew. Chen Yeh-shin, chief of the Department of Labor of the Taipei city government, said Friday that the airline took out advertisements April 22 in local newspapers and on its website to recruit cabin crew.

In the advertisements, CAL restricted the prospective female flight attendants to a minimum 160 cm in height and males to a minimum of 170 cm.

The advertisements came to the attention of the Department of Labor, which launched an investigation the following day out of concern that the advertisements constituted discrimination based on appearance, which is banned under the law.

(Aha! moment)

The airline argued that the height requirement is in line with International Civil Aviation Organization rules, which says cabin crew should be tall enough to open and close the overhead compartments and to reach the security equipment.

However, CAL altered the requirement, stipulating instead that candidates should simply be able to reach the overhead compartment while standing in bare feet.

There was no mention, however, of the discrepancy in the height requirements for men and women.

The Employment Discrimination Appraisal Commission determined Thursday that the company should be fined on the grounds that the restriction constitutes discrimination based on appearance.

“Instead of laying down the height requirement, the airline should simply have explained what height is preferable for cabin crew work, and the airline did not withdraw its advertisement,” Chen said in explanation of the reasons behind the decision.
[/quote]
chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/nati … -fined.htm

Seems they just chanhged the law and there is supposed to be enforcement, at least in ads, that you cannot ask for people of a certain age, height, or other physical features.

[quote]The airline would not violate the act by demanding interviewees to touch the overhead compartments as a requirement. Setting up a height requirement and denying some people the opportunity to apply for the positions is discrimination,” he said yesterday.

The company had defended the requirement by saying the crew had to be tall enough to reach the compartments.

Chen said the company would be given 30 days to file an appeal.

Yesterday’s case made the company the first airline to be fined for setting up a height requirement for flight attendants since the act was amended in 2007 to ban requirements concerning birthplace, height, weight, appearance and age.

The department yesterday also fined Seasons Hotel Group NT$100,000 for firing a middle-aged female worker in May last year for wearing glasses.
[/quote]
taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003475844

Now that’s a different story. You can discriminate, just don’t put it in writing. :smiley: (
just kidding
)