Reading this one begins to wonder about the way that political correctness is going, such that someone who is too short to do a job can then sue under gender-discrimination laws (because heightism does not seem to be banned yet) because average heights differ statistically by sex. Wouldn't it have been simpler just to get her a box to stand on? Edited: Spelling Edited again because there was a typo in the Subject!
Well yes, it would make sense to give shorter people a little platform to stand on, or something similar - rather than making height restrictions that excludes a massive section of one's own society.
A platform could be dangerous because it might not provide enough support and the woman might lose her balance. Speaking as someone who has had to spend too much time on ladders about the step that says "do not step above this step." I suppose that when the factory was built, the conveyor belt was designed so that the people who were working in the factory at the time could use it efficiently. Since there are different people now working in the factory, that means the conveyor belt needs to be redesigned. Funny, I was thinking about something similar when I read the thread on urinals the other day. I went to a university that used to be all male. When they started admitting girls, in order for the girls to have enough places to pee, they turned half the urinals on their side so that they could function as toilets.
There's always ways around things like that, I've worked in factories before with conveyors - you get people all shapes and sizes, but exceptionally tall people are a lot rarer than people (mostly women, which is why there is an issue here) under 5 feet four inches. Making such a rule was bound to cause a fuss sooner or later, you can bet the person that thought of it hasn't been anywhere near the shop floor in his (probably is a he) life. Rather than spending money on safety modifications they've looked at some statistics on a sheet of paper showing that some short people have had some accidents, and prosaically thought, 'let's just exclude the short people' without giving it any proper consideration. Why do you think the court ruled in her favour, do you think they are stupid? Do you think they haven't thought of all these things? If they thought Volvo was right they would have won the right to keep their height restrictions. It doesn't sound like they're (Volvo) making too much of a fuss about it either.
... In America, you can't be a runway model if you're under 5 feet 8 inches. Can I sue them for gender discrimination?
Absoultely! We can sue them for the amount of an average supermodel's annual salary. If we win, we can retire the next day and concentrate on our writing careers
I assume a runway model is a catwalk model and not one who gets in the way of aeroplanes. In Britain, I believe you can be a model under 5'8" if you were talent-spotted, like Kate Moss, but in order to apply to a modeling agency, you must be over 5'8". Hence a girl at school once saying to me, "You could be a model; you've got the height..." :roll:
Volvo might not have too big a problem with conforming to the courts requirements, but it set up a precedent. What if this sort of thing happened to a small business? This sort of thing could completely ruin a little business that operates just above the red. Restructuring a business could be quite costly without considering the lawsuit. Next thing you know someone's going to be suing a modeling agency when they weren't hired because they were too ugly. That's one class action suit that I might even think of joining. Stick it too the pretty boys. Damn them and their luck with the ladies.
... I believe this thread is getting to be a serious threat to the modeling industry... (and Buzzfloyd, I hope you "accidentally" spilled something hard-to-remove on that chick's shirt front )
I think that Redneck has a point here about the small businesses. Also, while not thinking that courts are neccesarily "stupid", I don't have a blind faith in government either.
I'm English. I just said, "Thanks." Since she is also English, she heard the sarcasm despite me being deadpan, and apologised. I am in two minds over this one. I am inclined to say that if you don't meet a height restriction, that's just your tough luck. If I was considered too tall for a job, I wouldn't sue. I'd just find a job elsewhere. But then, I intensely dislike litigation culture.
I agree if this is the case where height is an obvious requirement, like being a model, or a jockey. But I don't think you can assume how high the conveyor belt in a factory is going to be. Some factories manage to make their conveyor belts low enough to be able to employ children.
Also there's plenty of other big car manufacturers out there, how come they manage to build cars without excluding short people - the Japanese car manufacturing businesses in Japan would grind to a halt if they had the same height restriction.
Yes, I suppose that is the salient point here. However, it seems reasonable to build machinery at an optimum for a certain height range, based upon the local average. However, I think it would be better to give a warning that this is the case, rather than exclude people who are willing to work with what's there. Nevertheless, I don't think it's worth suing over.
I know, but we're British, we feel that hardly anything at all is worth suing over; if they told us our nose was a millimetre too short we'd just walk off mumbling, even if it was an accident that they caused was the reason our nose was too short. And the local average height thing must surely be the same for SAAB workers? P.S. Don't know why I'm arguing, I love Volvo; our present car is a Volvo and it's my favouritist car I ever had.
I don't see why height should be an "obvious" requirement for a model - short people wear clothes too, and are just as entitled to have "designer" clothes (I have no personal axe to grind* here - I am a fraction over six foot) so why should there be a height requirement? Even for jockeys, height is not the real factor - weight is the significant criterion. As for the production line aspect, there are several possibilities, but all with their drawbacks: 1/ Build the line high enough to accomodate the tallest possible person, and give everyone else a "box to stand on". Drawbacks: cost, and there is so much scope for people to fall off their "boxes" and litigate for heavy damages (if some Health and Safety authority hadn't banned that setup in the first place) 2/ Build the line for an average range of heights, with "boxes" for the short and taking Ben's suggestion of recesses for the tall. Drawbacks: OK, costwise possibly cheaper, but now there is an extra "risk" of holes in the floor for people to fall into - more litigation possibilities. 3/ As above but without the recesses. Drawbacks: The recesses risk has gone, but now there is the problem of tall people doing the job while bending all day, and then sueing because of back strain. 4/ Automate the whole damn production line! Drawbacks: The unions will scream! (And, of course, a lot of people who were just getting on with making a living will be out of a job) 5/ Only employ people who can do the job in a safe and healthy way. Drawbacks: See the original post. So a combination of the "Nanny State" and litigation culture produces a situation where the employers are screwed whatever they do - Tony Blair used a phrase many years ago "joined-up government" - like so many of his promises it seems to have disappeared into the mists of time - but for any government it should be a significant principle - any government which will allow the possibility for litigation if an employer does not work to safe rules (under Health and Safety laws) but also if he/she/it does work to safe rules (under discrimiation laws) is seriously missing the point! *Well, I'm too tall to be a dwarf
with the model thing, the chief requirement for runway/catwalk models is to have a figure similar to that of a coat hanger, so the clothes are more noticeable. Thatùs always the impression I get, at any rate. Though maybe I do have a slight problem with height restrictions, (being under 5'4" myself) it really shouldn't be an official thing unless its for safety reasons.
I wonder if Volvo has any historical records of height related injuries at this plant. Silly rules usually don't pop up without a reason behind them.
It doesn't mean that they have had any such injuries. It could just mean that their lawyers want to prevent problems before they happen.
Silly rules do pop up when lawyers get involved - after all, their income is dependent on confusing the rest of us into needing them - most legistrative bodies involve a lot of lawyers - why do we let them get away with this?
I'm thinking this requirement came to be after a few law suits hit the company due to strain injuries. From the company's point of view, the height requirement was the best way to prevent future lawsuits. It cost Volvo nothing (and rebuilding an entire assembly line isn't exactly an easy or cheap change), and solved the problem of safety by not hiring people for whom the line was not a safe place to work at. I'm quite certain that until this particular lawsuit, no one even thought of gender discrimination in Volvo, at least not in this particular context. Beyond making recesses and boxes, which is an interesting concept until you realize that you'll have to change the amount of said recesses and boxes on a regular basis, because you don't have employees of the same height all the time. Or, they could hire out for people of specific heights when there's an opening in Recess 3 or Box 19, but that just brings us back to square one... Of course, it's possible to to start with recesses everywhere, and sort of add on as needed, but then the floor isn't the most stable thing anymore, and that's not good. I don't like this lawsuit. The basis for it wasn't a good one, and the decision was not a just one. Hey, maybe I should sue the Israeli Air Force because I'm too tall for the cockpit, eh? This is just plain silly.
