UK: Policewomen get £35k over big guns

... and they are both small dudes, with small hands. Same thing happens to them. They go to some kind of employment tribunal complaining discrimination based on stature and frame size, etc.

The tribunal laughs so hard they barf all over the guys, and then laugh at them as they try to mop bureaucrat-generated barf off themselves.

Yep, yep, yep...

I actually think the woman have a fair complaint. I don't know why the department didn't remedy the situation when it was first brought up. The article also says the women's protective gear did not fit correctly. IMO, proper protective gear is a basic employee right.

If you want women in these jobs, your going to have to accommodate for them. Everyone who handles a gun should have a proper fitting gun!

And women are on average smaller than men and hands and wrists are a smaller proportion to their body compared to men and much weaker joints and ligaments, etc. So this issue of grip, reaching to pull the trigger and racking the slide are more likely going to effect small women compared to small men. But regardles of gender an employer has a responsibility to give their employees proper equipment and ensure safety especially in a dangerous job. And men and women should have equal oppurtunity for advancement and not be hindered because of such a petty issue that could have been easily resolved.

Kris,

I almost agree... But there might be extenuating circumstances.

For example, the force might have a contract with the gun manufacturer on purchasing a set number and type. There might be issues (and additional costs) concerning gun storage, training, cleaning and retireing the firearm. These issues might have been farmed out to consulting firms and any changes in gun use might have ramifications. For all we know the issuance of a new type of gun might now have consequences with additional training which might not be afordable.

Notwithstanding those issues, we can move on to the other arguments of the plaintiffs: the gun rests are too high and the helmets are too big. Adjusting those issue could then have deleterious impact on men and/or ALSO involve farming out to new manufacturers.

And what then is the added cost of doing this? After a department spends all this money, what happens if the female officers quit to raise families? Who will absorb the cost of all this?

And I have not even brought up the cost of testing and documenting the discharage of a weapon. Is there paperwork that can be used by civil servants on how to assess the discharge? What is the cost of procuring such information?

And is there any cost now in altering the rule for small men? Do they have a right to sue? Who will absorb that cost? Will people agree to higher taxes for that?

Again, assuming there is no added cost, then much of my arguments are void. But we do know this. We only know the department has appealed. So maybe there is a reason.

Finally, and as a last and distinct issue... Assuming the above points are not the case, then I might agree. But there are then other isseus. Physicality is one measure of a person; emotional states are another. Men tend to be bigger and more physical; women are smaller and empathetic. So if funds are to be spent on mitigating physical differences, should not funds also be spent on mitigating empathetic differenes? And if that is the case, then additional funds must be spent to ensure men participate in teaching and nursing (and by this, I mean funds above and beyond what are already needed -- and, unfortunately, not spent in equal balance to the sciences -- to recruit men to those disicplines). Funds should be spent not only on recruiting men to nursing, but additional funds should be spent to teach and train empathy. But can we afford all this?

Might it not be wise, in these difficult economic times for all, to let nature play a role in diminishing training costs?

Finally, is there an end to this? I do not have eyesight that is 20 over 70 vision. So I could not have been an pilot astronaut (although I could have become a mission specialist had I known that would change -- still, the dream was "pilot"). I remember, when I was 10, running to the roof of my Bronx apartment, hoping to watch the ascent of Neil Armstrong (my parents entertained this delusion). But then I cried for weeks knowing I did not have the physical attributes. I did not sue. (But perhaps, today, a boy or girl can sue to cover the cost of lasik?) I now hold a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and teach a course in flight dynamics - I accepted certain limitations and found a way to overcome them.

Again, if it is just a simple gun to replace and there is no cost and are no consequences -- I would agree with you.

"If you want women in these jobs,"

I would figure they want competent officers in these jobs. If those women are physically incapable of performing the tasks required for their duties, it is actually discriminatory to grant them special privileges rather than terminating them and hiring someone actually capable of performing the job. The fact is, they shouldn't have been hired in the first place if they could not perform their duties. And doing so would be no more discriminatory than rejecting a man with dwarfism from being a fireman, or rejecting a man with Down syndrome from being a manager of a bank. People aren't built equally.

I'm all for holding both men and women to the same standard. Have a standard for skill as well as for safety (all applicants must meet requirements for safety equipment to fit correctly). If a person doesn't meet the standard, then they don't get the job. If this means that more women will not be able to get these dangerous jobs, then don't complain about women not being in dangerous jobs. and also don't fault a woman for not taking a job she may be able to pass on a given day, but would be at a disadvantage for safety or promotion compared to a man.

Thomas, you do bring up valid points, and I am usually the one arguing those things especially when it comes to women in the military, fire departments and other dangerous jobs. However I just think it is very unlikely that those issues apply in this situation - your examples of how a smaller gun would impact things seem exaggerated. The Glock 17 is a difficult gun for woman and the Glock 19 is the same gun only smaller, it is what many female police officers use in the United States. It takes the same ammo and accessories will fit on both the 17 and the 19, cleaning and storing are non-issues. In the USA many departments let officers choose their own gun within a select choice for the sake of proper fit and comfort. And since none of those issues you mention are factors for our police departments, it's hard for me to believe they would be factors for this police department.

There's a difference between discriminating against people for employment and setting physical standards for the sake of efficiency, cost and safety of comrades. If they really could not easily get the proper equipment for the women I would agree with you guys, but to me it doesn't sound like the women were asking for anything special or custom. The guns do come in a smaller size, and it sounds like the shooting barricades were built of wood on their own premises, this would be easy and cheap to alter or make a seperate one for shorter officers. The only thing I am unsure of is the safety equipment, other articles indicate it was helmets and kneepads that were too big. I don't know how specialized the safety equipment is or how small the women were that it would be difficult to order them the proper size. It should be a policy that all safety equipment fit properly for employment. Figure out what sizes are practical and fair to offer employees and if an applicant does not fit within those sizes, then the job shouldn't be available for them. (However it would be discriminatory if the company was ordering a XXL sizes for large men, but denied the petite women a XS size)

As long as decisions are based on practicality and not discrimination I am fine with it. So far I have not seen any evidence that it was impractical to offer the women the proper sized equipment or that the women were incapable of the skills needed for the job. I may change my mind if I am presented with evidence which indicates the women's helmet sizes andknee pads would have had to been specially made for them.

http://www.civilnuclearpolicefederation.org.uk/pubs/140212.htm

> " The tribunal heard that the grips could have been adjusted but, trainers failed to change them, while still expecting the [female] officers to control and accurately fire the weapon."

> "In her statement to the tribunal, Victoria Wheatley explained that she could not reach the trigger if she held the firearm correctly and asked on several occasions for a smaller and more suitable grip."

[grips are about $30 available at any gun store. so the women were not even asking for the smaller gun model, just a grip attachment]

>"A wooden barricade designed to replicate cover and offer a resting place for the Glock firearm was another piece of equipment which could not be used by the two officers, as the barricade was built for an officer of average male height, offering support only for those much taller. The tribunal found there was no justification for this."

So the barricade was a *replica* for cover. I assume it was only used for the annual drills and not for real circumstances. The wording confuses me a little, but I assume by "resting place for firearm" this is where the shooter braces the gun against while shooting. Sounds easy and cheap to make accommodations for shorter officers by either modifying a portion of the existing barricade or constructing another one.

So the gun/grip and the barricade seem like small fixes that would have had a big impact for the women. The only thing I am unsure of is the safety equipment. I have no idea how specialized the helmets and kneepads are and if they were worn daily or just for the drills. Unless the proper size helmet and kneepads had to be custom made at an impractical price, I am not sure why they weren't purchased for the women. Proper fitting safety equipment for a dangerous job seems like it should be mandatory for an employer to provide.