Is this Real I wonder ?. . .or Stirring . . .

[Phil Perry]

'Australian flight crews told to 'minimise manterruptions' and avoid saying country was 'settled' by British'

 

"Australian airline Qantas was accused of operating a “corporate thought police” after advising staff to avoid using terms such as husband, wife, mum and dad - and to describe the arrival of the British in the late 1700s as an invasion or occupation rather than a settlement.

 

In an information pack sent to staff as part of the airline’s Spirit of Inclusion month, employees were provided with a list of potentially offensive terms and were told to “minimise manterruptions”, in which men at the workplace “interrupt and speak over women”.

 

“Always using the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ can reinforce the idea that people are always in heterosexual relationships,” the pack says.

 

“In the same way, always referring to ‘mum and dad’ can make many families feel excluded — both same-sex couples and single-parent families… Words like ‘love’, ‘honey’ or ‘darling’, even when used as terms of endearment, often offend. In the workplace, it is best to avoid these sorts of words.”........"

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk...

 

 

[octave]

I don't really see the problem with a company suggesting how it's employees address its customers. I imagine that it is based on research into what customers think. As a business why would you want to offend anyone? In my business I used to refer to mixed gender groups as "guys" until it was pointed out to me that the group was mostly female, now I tend to say "folks" So what is wrong with me using the language that my customers prefer. I am not being a social warrior I am merely responding to what my customers want.

 

Recently I was in Bunnings, there was a middle-aged man pushing a woman in a wheelchair, an employee suggested to the man that his wife might like a particular product. The man pushing the wheelchair angrily said, she is not my wife, she is my mother!

 

I know this kind of story is the kind of thing that makes more conservative people go crazy but of course, they have to move as society changes.if they want to maintain their customer base.

 

 

[old man emu]

“Manterruptions,” a newly coined term, is not to be confused with the critically poignant term “mansplaining” — though both are of the same origin: overbearing men.

 

The idiotic notion that only men can interrupt women because women are perfect angels and never do anything wrong. This serves no purpose except to be completely sexist towards men in every way possible.

 

Woman: the wage gap is real becau--

 

Man: Actually women have been paid equal since 1963

 

Woman: MANTERRUPTION!!!!! THIS IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT ( Citation - Urban Dictionary: manterruption )

 

It would appear that this word is another product of the the country that preaches Truth, Justice and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agreed with Octave was almost everyone forms opinions on stereotypes and not individials.Every Muslim a terrorist? Every Jew or Scot consumed with thrift and money? Every Irishman willing to fit ejector seats in helicopters? Every Aussie male tanned, blonde and svelt ala the Bondi vet? Philadelphia - the city of brotherhood love? You get the idea. I learned from experience to be careful about how to embrace stangers. I asked someone with an obvious American accent where they were from in America. The response a terse - Montreaux - and it is not in America!

 

Re mainterruption - the first time I heard of it was on this thread. I have no idea now what it means as quite often, at least where I work, women frequently interrupt and talk over the men - maybe it's the only way they can get ahead - or maybe the UK is more progressive than Aus [edit] and the USA?

 

 

[Bruce]

Political correctness can go too far and do real harm. For example, it is politically correct to demand a gender balance in the fire departments. I can only hope that it is a big and heavy but politically correct person who is unconscious and needs carrying out the burning building but there is only only a small woman to do the job.

 

This is not fanciful. I know first-hand of a girl who was having a non-violent mental episode but the ambulance would not come because they only had an all-female crew on duty and they had a policy that " mental cases" needed at least one male crew because of his strength.

 

 

[willedoo]

Every Irishman willing to fit ejector seats in helicopters?

Sounds like a bad idea Jerry, if done the wrong way. At least the Russians designed their helicopter ejection seats to egress in a downward direction.

 

Every Aussie male tanned, blonde and svelt ala the Bondi vet?

Not this one. Bald and fat.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I don't really see the problem with a company suggesting how it's employees address its customers. I imagine that it is based on research into what customers think. As a business why would you want to offend anyone? In my business I used to refer to mixed gender groups as "guys" until it was pointed out to me that the group was mostly female, now I tend to say "folks" So what is wrong with me using the language that my customers prefer. I am not being a social warrior I am merely responding to what my customers want.

Recently I was in Bunnings, there was a middle-aged man pushing a woman in a wheelchair, an employee suggested to the man that his wife might like a particular product. The man pushing the wheelchair angrily said, she is not my wife, she is my mother!

 

I know this kind of story is the kind of thing that makes more conservative people go crazy but of course, they have to move as society changes.if they want to maintain their customer base.

Your first paragraph I would term as common courtesy and commonsense OT. I too have Run / Managed businesses where contact with Joe public was a regular affair. I cannot recall ever being taken to task for any figure of speech which I used to address any of these people. I find that Good manners works very well. However, if Societal changes over time mean that I have to walk on eggs for fear of 'Mis-Gendering' someone,. . .or worse 'Assuming their Gender' . . .then I would cease dealing directly with anyone as the safest option. I would imagine that in the case of the Qantas directive; that airline flight crews and cabin staff would have proven their ability to deal courteously with passengers, or they would have been 'filtered' out of the job. So, is this kind of directive meant to prepare the poor workers for the task of correctly indentifying all of the two dozen or so 'Genders' that the MSM now seems to be pushing I wonder ?. . .or is it simply the Dumbing Down of commonsense by stating the obvious . . . .

 

The English language is a wonderful thing,. . .it would be a terrible shame if we are forced into abreviating it to short grunts to prevent any possibility of Offence being TAKEN emphasis on taken as it is very difficult to 'GIVE' offence unless a deliberate act.

 

During the nine flights I have taken courtesy of Qantas,. . .I always found them highly professional and courteous. If anyone has had bad experiences flying with QA, then I'm sorry to hear that. I'd choose them over BA any time.

 

Kind regards. . . Phil.

 

 

[octave]

Your first paragraph I would term as common courtesy and commonsense OT. I too have Run / Managed businesses where contact with Joe public was a regular affair. I cannot recall ever being taken to task for any figure of speech which I used to address any of these people. I find that Good manners works very well. However, if Societal changes over time mean that I have to walk on eggs for fear of 'Mis-Gendering' someone,. . .or worse 'Assuming their Gender' . . .then I would cease dealing directly with anyone as the safest option. I would imagine that in the case of the Qantas directive; that airline flight crews and cabin staff would have proven their ability to deal courteously with passengers, or they would have been 'filtered' out of the job. So, is this kind of directive meant to prepare the poor workers for the task of correctly indentifying all of the two dozen or so 'Genders' that the MSM now seems to be pushing I wonder ?. . .or is it simply the Dumbing Down of commonsense by stating the obvious . . . .

The English language is a wonderful thing,. . .it would be a terrible shame if we are forced into abreviating it to short grunts to prevent any possibility of Offence being TAKEN emphasis on taken as it is very difficult to 'GIVE' offence unless a deliberate act.

 

During the nine flights I have taken courtesy of Qantas,. . .I always found them highly professional and courteous. If anyone has had bad experiences flying with QA, then I'm sorry to hear that. I'd choose them over BA any time.

 

Kind regards. . . Phil.

Hi Phil,

 

I have almost no free time in the next 24 houirs but I wanted to answer this so if it seems terse it is only lack of time.

 

In the story, it says that qantas is ADVISING to use certain language but in this post, you refer to it as a DIRECTIVE. It seems reasonable to me to suggest better ways of addressing their customers I am assuming it is not a sacking offense not to. Also these things get exagerated. It is not necesaarily that people will be angry and offended but rather will feel like they have received better service

 

Example. As you may know 9i am a music teacher. Recently I took on a new student, a man in his early 60s. He is from overseas and is only here for 3 months. He is a great guy and I really like teaching him. Whils making small talk I enquired as to whether traveling alone. I guess a few years ago I might have said "are you travelling with your wife"? (he was wearing a wedding ring) But, being good at my job I asked if he was travelling with his partner, turns out he has a sa,me sex partner. Now had I said wife I can garauntee that he would not of being offended or complained about me but it may have been slightly uncomfortable for him and pretty embarrasing for me too. If I was in charge of employing other teachers I would "ADVISE' them to use language that will make the customer feel at ease. I feel I dealt with this customer in a rational and caring way, this is why I keep my customers

 

I don't believe this is some kiind cultural war it is just bussiness.

 

OK got to go, wish I could spell and grammar check, also have more points to make but no time

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Sounds like a bad idea Jerry, if done the wrong way. At least the Russians designed their helicopter ejection seats to egress in a downward direction.

The old joke - hear about the latest Irish Invention - Ejector seats in helicopters...

 

Not this one. Bald and fat.

I have found my long, lost twin brother:roflmao:

 

 

[old man emu]

I recently had to reply by email to a matter that had legal implications. A woman had sent the original email, and had signed it off using her given and family name. I was in a quandary when it came to deciding on a salutation for my email. Although I had spoken to her by phone, I had never met or been introduced to her, so I could not use the usual guides to her marital status (ie look for a wedding ring). The correspondence had to have a professional tone, so for that reason I couldn't use her given name. So I was wondering which form to use - Miss, Ms, or Mrs.

 

I wish that I had been dealing with a man. Even a man who is as camp as a row of tents is addressed as Mr.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The English language changes over time - much more, I'd hazard a guess, than most other European languages.

 

I have a feeling that "articles" like the one in the OP are often confected by some of an overly conservative bent, in order to arouse the ire of people who may be feeling that political correctness has gone too far. Social media is 99% bullsh*t and 1% taken out of context.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I recently had to reply by email to a matter that had legal implications. A woman had sent the original email, and had signed it off using her given and family name. I was in a quandary when it came to deciding on a salutation for my email. Although I had spoken to her by phone, I had never met or been introduced to her, so I could not use the usual guides to her marital status (ie look for a wedding ring). The correspondence had to have a professional tone, so for that reason I couldn't use her given name. So I was wondering which form to use - Miss, Ms, or Mrs.

I wish that I had been dealing with a man. Even a man who is as camp as a row of tents is addressed as Mr.

Just use Ms. I only use that as a salutation these days (even for some men )

 

 

[octave]

I recently had to reply by email to a matter that had legal implications. A woman had sent the original email, and had signed it off using her given and family name. I was in a quandary when it came to deciding on a salutation for my email. Although I had spoken to her by phone, I had never met or been introduced to her, so I could not use the usual guides to her marital status (ie look for a wedding ring). The correspondence had to have a professional tone, so for that reason I couldn't use her given name. So I was wondering which form to use - Miss, Ms, or Mrs.

I wish that I had been dealing with a man. Even a man who is as camp as a row of tents is addressed as Mr.

Easy, I would use Ms. It is interesting that traditionally the language has developed to indicate whether a woman is married or single, I guess whether she is available or not.We never really use the term master for a single man. This is why the term Ms developed.

 

 

[nomadpete]

On the subject of 'offense' :

 

We often forget that everyone has the option whether to 'take offense' or not.

 

It is a choice available to the recipient.

 

Whether the offenders words were intended to offend, or not. We choose whether to allow the words sting, or to reject the offense. It doesn't have to escalate into conflict.

 

I do feel that we are seeing the results of the current expectation that all people will be protected at all times, from all kinds of risk.

 

This is a cultural 'dumbing down' inasmuch as our populace has become dependant upon government for all aspects of our wellbeing (our safety and now even our feelings). There is now an expectation that all things around us can be expected to be controlled. By our legislators.

 

This ultimately has resulted in loss of individual freedoms caused by the well intentioned but clumsy over regulation that grows all around us.

 

We are losing the freedom to accept responsibility for our own safety.

 

In the old world of my youth, if I was offended by something it was up to me to address the issue (if I felt it should be resolved). But if I decided to ignore a hurtful comment or incorrect assumption, there was no offense taken. Now we expect a regulator to protect us from such trivial things.

 

But in the end, no amount of legislated cotton wool we wrap ourselves in, can provide 100% protection. It just creates more easily hurt people.

 

 

[octave]

On the subject of 'offense' :

We often forget that everyone has the option whether to 'take offense' or not.

 

It is a choice available to the recipient.

 

Whether the offenders words were intended to offend, or not. We choose whether to allow the words sting, or to reject the offense. It doesn't have to escalate into conflict.

 

I do feel that we are seeing the results of the current expectation that all people will be protected at all times, from all kinds of risk.

 

This is a cultural 'dumbing down' inasmuch as our populace has become dependant upon government for all aspects of our wellbeing (our safety and now even our feelings). There is now an expectation that all things around us can be expected to be controlled. By our legislators.

 

This ultimately has resulted in loss of individual freedoms caused by the well intentioned but clumsy over regulation that grows all around us.

 

We are losing the freedom to accept responsibility for our own safety.

 

In the old world of my youth, if I was offended by something it was up to me to address the issue (if I felt it should be resolved). But if I decided to ignore a hurtful comment or incorrect assumption, there was no offense taken. Now we expect a regulator to protect us from such trivial things.

 

But in the end, no amount of legislated cotton wool we wrap ourselves in, can provide 100% protection. It just creates more easily hurt people.

What legislation? We were talking about how a business interacts with its customers. Except at the extreme end there is no requirement for you to using any particular language. If someone refers my partner as a girl this is not a matter for the law to address but she will assume this person is a little out of touch with modern life

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Hi Phil,I have almost no free time in the next 24 houirs but I wanted to answer this so if it seems terse it is only lack of time.

 

In the story, it says that qantas is ADVISING to use certain language but in this post, you refer to it as a DIRECTIVE. It seems reasonable to me to suggest better ways of addressing their customers I am assuming it is not a sacking offense not to. Also these things get exagerated. It is not necesaarily that people will be angry and offended but rather will feel like they have received better service

 

Example. As you may know 9i am a music teacher. Recently I took on a new student, a man in his early 60s. He is from overseas and is only here for 3 months. He is a great guy and I really like teaching him. Whils making small talk I enquired as to whether traveling alone. I guess a few years ago I might have said "are you travelling with your wife"? (he was wearing a wedding ring) But, being good at my job I asked if he was travelling with his partner, turns out he has a sa,me sex partner. Now had I said wife I can garauntee that he would not of being offended or complained about me but it may have been slightly uncomfortable for him and pretty embarrasing for me too. If I was in charge of employing other teachers I would "ADVISE' them to use language that will make the customer feel at ease. I feel I dealt with this customer in a rational and caring way, this is why I keep my customers

 

I don't believe this is some kiind cultural war it is just bussiness.

 

OK got to go, wish I could spell and grammar check, also have more points to make but no time

Fair play Octave,. . but my basic point still stands AFAIAC. I would never ( And have never ) do A Grammar Nazi job on anyone . . .. . . I'm far more interested in the point being made, rather than the syntax used to make it. . .

 

Cheers..

 

Phil. . . .we just might have to agree to disagree ( a bit ). . . .

 

 

[octave]

Fair play Octave,. . but my basic point still stands AFAIAC. I would never ( And have never ) do A Grammar Nazi job on anyone . . .. . . I'm far more interested in the point being made, rather than the syntax used to make it. . .

Cheers..

 

Phil. . . .we just might have to agree to disagree ( a bit ). . . .

My point was these things are often portrayed as you must use this terminplogu or else. Every business has its pwn style, for example you cant walk around bunnimgs without almost every employee saying hello, it is obviously company policy. I guess their market research suggest itis good for business. We surely all have worked in jobs where we are expected to talk and behave in a particular manner.

 

 

[old man emu]

It's a hangover from my life as a constable, but I often address women as "madam" or "ma'am", even if they are obviously much younger than I. That's if I'm in face-to-face, of course. Written correspondence is different.

 

And have you even noticed the look of confusion on a younger woman's face if you open a door and stand back to let them through first? Are they tossing up between acknowledging the courtesy, or yelling at you that they quite capable of opening a door and that they don't need some man to do it for them.

 

 

[coljones]

Hi Phil,I have almost no free time in the next 24 houirs but I wanted to answer this so if it seems terse it is only lack of time.

 

In the story, it says that qantas is ADVISING to use certain language but in this post, you refer to it as a DIRECTIVE. It seems reasonable to me to suggest better ways of addressing their customers I am assuming it is not a sacking offense not to. Also these things get exagerated. It is not necesaarily that people will be angry and offended but rather will feel like they have received better service

 

Example. As you may know 9i am a music teacher. Recently I took on a new student, a man in his early 60s. He is from overseas and is only here for 3 months. He is a great guy and I really like teaching him. Whils making small talk I enquired as to whether traveling alone. I guess a few years ago I might have said "are you travelling with your wife"? (he was wearing a wedding ring) But, being good at my job I asked if he was travelling with his partner, turns out he has a sa,me sex partner. Now had I said wife I can garauntee that he would not of being offended or complained about me but it may have been slightly uncomfortable for him and pretty embarrasing for me too. If I was in charge of employing other teachers I would "ADVISE' them to use language that will make the customer feel at ease. I feel I dealt with this customer in a rational and caring way, this is why I keep my customers

 

I don't believe this is some kiind cultural war it is just bussiness.

 

OK got to go, wish I could spell and grammar check, also have more points to make but no time

Your question could also have been "are you travelling alone or with someone?"

 

 

[nomadpete]

Octave, perhaps I should have said 'legislators and other rule makers'.

 

Although the op was quoting an advisory document, I would expect it to probably become the equivalent to a condition of employment.

 

In my last employment we had similar types of 'advisory' instructions. For instance they used the anti-discrimination and sexual discrimination LAWS to dismiss an employee who used offensive language in a location where a female overheard him. He was not aware of her presence. She was out of sight but not out of earshot. The guideline was broken, and an unforeseen 'offense' had occurred. She chose to be offended by an eavesdropped conversation that did not involve her.

 

So a lot seems to depend upon the interpretation and application of existing laws that restrict speech and behaviour.

 

 

[coljones]

Octave, perhaps I should have said 'legislators and other rule makers'.Although the op was quoting an advisory document, I would expect it to probably become the equivalent to a condition of employment.

 

In my last employment we had similar types of 'advisory' instructions. For instance they used the anti-discrimination and sexual discrimination LAWS to dismiss an employee who used offensive language in a location where a female overheard him. He was not aware of her presence. She was out of sight but not out of earshot. The guideline was broken, and an unforeseen 'offense' had occurred. She chose to be offended by an eavesdropped conversation that did not involve her.

 

So a lot seems to depend upon the interpretation and application of existing laws that restrict speech and behaviour.

Was she eavesdropping or merely in earshot? If your mother was in the next room she might be very offended by the discussion and language and wash your mouth out.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Maybe so, Col. But my point is that there are laws about causing offense. And they can be applied even in a situation that many of us consider unlikely (some would say unfair). These laws mean that we must modify our behaviour to always believe that a easily offended person is listening to us at all times, wherever we go. The workplace I mentioned was a all male industrial place where all others present saw no offence. The complainant was visiting unannounced.

 

Just bite your tongue if you accidentally hit your thumb with a hammer!

 

 

[old man emu]

Phil thinks that the second paragraph in #20 is funny. I was being deadly serious.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I will still open doors for women (and men when I am first at the door and they are close by) and stand by and let them through first. I can't say I have noticed anyone in a vexing question on whether or not to thank or berate me. I rarely look at their faces long enough to exchange smiles. I can imagine there are a few out there that would berate, but in my experience in both Aus and here, it's perceived as politeness rather than chivalry.

 

@octave - for many years now, sales assistants have been trained to say hello rather than can I help you. More often than not, the former invokes a positive response ("Hello") and probably more often than not the latter invokes a negative response ("No thanks, I'm fine"). The latter is percevied to close the opportunity to sell something.

 

 

[octave]

Octave, perhaps I should have said 'legislators and other rule makers'.Although the op was quoting an advisory document, I would expect it to probably become the equivalent to a condition of employment.

 

In my last employment we had similar types of 'advisory' instructions. For instance they used the anti-discrimination and sexual discrimination LAWS to dismiss an employee who used offensive language in a location where a female overheard him. He was not aware of her presence. She was out of sight but not out of earshot. The guideline was broken, and an unforeseen 'offense' had occurred. She chose to be offended by an eavesdropped conversation that did not involve her.

 

So a lot seems to depend upon the interpretation and application of existing laws that restrict speech and behaviour.

I would be very interested to know the full facts of this case because I do think this person would have an excellent case for unfair dismissal. The problem is anyone who is sacked is going to say they were sacked but it wasn't really

 

their fault. It is very hard to find cases where people have been sacked for swearing alone. Can an employee be instantly dismissed for swearing? | Fairwork Online In fact people I know who are employers complain that unfair dismissal laws are to tight and it is even hard to sack an employee who steals from you.

 

Sorry but I do doubt this anecdote (at least as presented here.)

 

Apart from that, this is not what the original post was about. The original post was about an employers right to advise workers on how to carry out their duties.

 

Phil your title to this thread "is it real I wonder or just stirring?" I am really struggling to understand why you think this is outrageous. Any business surely has the right to direct, or in this case, merely advise the people whose wages they pay on how they carry out the service they are providing. For example, when a pilot welcomes you aboard or at the end of the flight say 'they hope you have a pleasant flight" I am sure the pilot would rather say nothing and just get on with but they are advised or more likely directed to say this. The only issue here is does this advice increase or decrease customer satisfaction. If it indeed is detrimental then other airlines who don't do this will have an advantage.

 

In #10 I talked about how I dealt with a particular student. This student is so satisfied that after every lesson they email me and my employer saying how happy they are we seemed to have clicked. This is good for the customer, good for me and importantly good for the owner of the business. My employer did bring this up at a teachers meeting along with the suggestion that it is better not to make assumptions about the customers. Phil do you think the employer offering advice to his employees is wrong or bad?

 

And have you even noticed the look of confusion on a younger woman's face if you open a door and stand back to let them through first? Are they tossing up between acknowledging the courtesy, or yelling at you that they quite capable of opening a door and that they don't need some man to do it for them.

Quite honestly no, I don't believe that ever happens to me. I tend to open doors for most people male or female, at best I will get a warm "thanks" at the worst I get nothing, which is fine, I do it to make myself feel good not for accolades.

 

Just generally I think these stories are designed to further inflame the perpetually outraged socially conservative folks.