Just as I was opening Firefox to make this blog entry, I received the junk mail quoted below.
Have you ever thought that the only thing stopping you from a a great job and better pay was a few letters behind your name?
The advertiser offers me the opportunity to receive verifiable genuine degrees in two weeks with no study required. I don't need that. It's the letters already behind my name that are stopping me now.
I have verified with another employer that while he thinks I'm wonderful, I'm not getting a job there because I'm bright, educated, female, and have a goodly accumulation of flight hours. If I'm good enough for Air Canada, I'm not acceptable anywhere else. It's a bit like the discrimination suffered by an over-fifty who has been laid off. Nothign wrong with me, per se, just that I'm not the best choice for an employer protecting an investment.
The twist is, that people who really should know these things are continuing to tell me that Air Canada will take me from where I am right now. "Look, Aviatrix. Air Canada doesn't give a toss for 2000 hours flying a King Air around. They want smart, professional people with no bad habits whom they can train exactly to their standards. You fit." They are describing the fantasy world inhabited by deluded student pilots. It's not believable. I should probably take everything but high school off my resume. Then I can wear too much makeup and carry a pack of cigarettes (Air Canada won't hire smokers) to meet my next prospective employer.
But what if these people are right? I'll just pretend they are for a while.
Do it! And report back... please!!
Hi, just wondering how AC won't hire smokers.... is this a known policy or a general observation by the pilot community in Canada??
I ask because if it is a policy, I'm guessing the law over there is different. Here to hire or not hire someone because they smoke would be illegal due Australia's anti-discrimination laws.
But I suppose if AC can say it's a health/safety concern and give a good reason for it I suppose they can get away with it... (I'm assuming it's because there'd likely be less sick leave/problems related to health in non-smoking pilots? Or is it because non-smokers have a lower risk of hypoxia??)
Very interested to hear about this. Thanks =)
Good luck. You can do it.
I assumed the smoking prohibition was to do with the cost of paying long term disability on people who get cancer, but the hypoxia idea is a good one, too.
Or it could just be another arbitrary bar to reduce their applicant pool.
Hmm yes, anything to make cutting applicants easier I suppose (I'm just surprised Qantas haven't started on that yet!!) ;)
Post a Comment