News Flash
Posted by Kent Brocmen on March 12, 2003 at 17:24:19: Previous Next
Hi all - though some might be interested in this,
Just heard on the radio that a guy from where I come from sued his employer as he was fired from his job for repeatedly refusing to wear a tie to work. The guy claimed at court that this was sexually discriminate as the policy did not apply to female staff. And guess what - he won!
It seems to me that if a court of law can appreciate this about an item of clothing, then surely hair can be considered in the same way. Don't ya think?
Anyway – just wanted to share.
Thanks.
Re: News Flash - I saw that on TV
Posted by Mark on March 12, 2003 at 17:48:33: Previous Next
In Reply to: News Flash posted by Kent Brocmen on March 12, 2003 at 17:24:19:
Hi Kent
Yes, I saw that news report on the television last night too - and thought **exactly** the same thing. I too was pleased to hear that he won his case. I think that definitely says something about the way people are starting to think about dress codes.
"It seems to me that if a court of law can appreciate this about an item of clothing, then surely hair can be considered in the same way. Don't ya think?"
I think that a court of law could definitely consider hair in this light. Clothing is removable at the end of the day's work, a haircut isn't reversible overnight.
Just like to add too that on Channel 5 this evening (12th March) one of the news readers who was detailing stuff about the Iraq crisis actually had long-ish hair. It certainly wasn't short and was visible beneath the bottom of his ears - kinda David Beckham style, maybe a little shorter, but not much.
Another step towards equality!
Posted by nWo_Slapnut on March 12, 2003 at 19:12:00: Previous Next
In Reply to: News Flash posted by Kent Brocmen on March 12, 2003 at 17:24:19:
Thanks for the post, Kent Brocman (Broadcasting from Springfield, are you?). I'll try to keep the outcome of that trial in mind the next time I'm challenged about my hair in a working environment.
Re: News Flash
Posted by SixStringThing on March 12, 2003 at 21:59:53: Previous Next
In Reply to: News Flash posted by Kent Brocmen on March 12, 2003 at 17:24:19:
: Hi all - though some might be interested in this,
: Just heard on the radio that a guy from where I come from sued his employer as he was fired from his job for repeatedly refusing to wear a tie to work. The guy claimed at court that this was sexually discriminate as the policy did not apply to female staff. And guess what - he won!
: It seems to me that if a court of law can appreciate this about an item of clothing, then surely hair can be considered in the same way. Don't ya think?
: Anyway – just wanted to share.
: Thanks.
:
I don't get what the big deal is with ties? Why do some people act like it's the end of the world to wear a tie???? I for one do not mind wearing them, in fact I think they look nice. And IMO I think the employer should not have won. If you work for someone, you follow their rules! If you don't like it you leave, it's extremely childish to be the rebel and refuse to follow the dress code... and going to court over it?!?!? My God I'm speechless.
Re: Cloth flaps
Posted by Hair Religion on March 13, 2003 at 00:07:00: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: News Flash posted by SixStringThing on March 12, 2003 at 21:59:53:
Because there are "some" people for every thought, opinion, and position on everything and anything.
In Saudi Arabia all women are required to be completely covered in a specific type of garb due to their religious beliefs. U.S. service women are also required to wear this garb when in public off base. Is this right to require this of them, especially when they don't share their religious beliefs? Should they leave if they have a problem with it even though they were stationed there by the armed services and have no real say in the matter?
Granted it's a different country and a different situation but it is about required types of clothing...clothing, not the basic lack of it but a specific style of dress.
If your employer was a Sikh and required you to wear a turban for his religious piece of mind, would you?
I often wondered just who came up with it and how the cloth flap called the tie came into being and then became the norm for a certain level of dress. Mind you that there are a number of different styles of cloth flaps that serve no purpose whatsoever but if you tried to wear some of them you would most likely find that the employer would allow only one or maybe two personally preferred styles.
This sort of matter catches the attention of longhairs because if you can require such reasonless things like wearing ties of employees then you can of course require that they keep their hair length to whatever short or shorter length you feel like they should. Is it your body or theirs and why does the rule apply to just males and not females also (be it ties or hair length)?
The question isn't why fight the requirement but rather why is it required?
Re: Cloth flaps
Posted by Nick on March 13, 2003 at 20:23:45: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Cloth flaps posted by Hair Religion on March 13, 2003 at 00:07:00:
: I often wondered just who came up with it and how the cloth flap called the tie came into being and then became the norm for a certain level of dress.
Didn't it originate in the middle ages as a form of
protection against arrows and other weapons?
I seem to recall something to that effect.
I've come accross companies where women can have long hair
but men have to have their short. Then there were companies where
women could were shorts, but men can't. Or the women could wear jeans but the men couldn't. Women didn't have to wear ties but men
did.
Re: Cloth flaps
Posted by Walsall85 on March 17, 2003 at 04:21:20: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Cloth flaps posted by Nick on March 13, 2003 at 20:23:45:
Ties are dangerous and unnecessary. They can strangle you especially if it gets caught in something. At my school a few years ago during a Design and Technology lesson a pupil got his tie caught in some machinery and it would have killed him had it not been for the quick thinking of his teacher. Ties don't make you look any smarter. They're just a nuisance in my opinion.
I was a victim of dress code sexism
Posted by Gollan on March 13, 2003 at 00:17:13: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: News Flash posted by SixStringThing on March 12, 2003 at 21:59:53:
: If you work for someone, you follow their rules! If you don't like it you leave...
I used to feel this way, especially having spent nine years in the army (where we had a rule that women could carry umbrellas but not men). Then I went to work for a company that didn't have any particular dress code, just "professional". In the summer the women in the office used to wear shorts and very short skirts, almost as if they were having a short skirt contest. One hot August Friday I wore dress shorts instead of dress slacks. No meetings, no customer contact but guess what? I was "spoken to" about wearing shorts. It was OK for the women but not me. Why? I'm guessing their legs were nicer. Maybe I should have shaved! Anyway, now I believe that any dress code must be clearly spelled out and equitable to both genders.
Re: News Flash
Posted by Mark Ellott on March 14, 2003 at 14:46:46: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: News Flash posted by SixStringThing on March 12, 2003 at 21:59:53:
: If you work for someone, you follow their rules! If you don't like it you leave, it's extremely childish to be the rebel and refuse to follow the dress code... and going to court over it?!?!? My God I'm speechless.
Not if the rules are unreasonable - and it's about time the narrow-minded were challenged. When Mark Pell took the Wheatley Hotel to the tribunal and won, the proprietor said much the same as you are saying here. However, dress codes must be clearly defined up-front, They must be fair and evenly applied and enforced. And, significantly, if employers want a trouble free life, they should consult with their staff. The Wheatley Hotel didn't do that and it cost them. They were stupid and paid the price. I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
Should we obey rules blindly just because the person paying our salary tells us to?
Er, I haven't for the past twenty years, so I don't plan to start now - the exchange is time and expertise for money, nothing more. They have no other rights over me and get none.
Re: News Flash
Posted by SixStringThing on March 14, 2003 at 17:13:50: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: News Flash posted by Mark Ellott on March 14, 2003 at 14:46:46:
: Not if the rules are unreasonable - and it's about time the narrow-minded were challenged. When Mark Pell took the Wheatley Hotel to the tribunal and won, the proprietor said much the same as you are saying here. However, dress codes must be clearly defined up-front, They must be fair and evenly applied and enforced. And, significantly, if employers want a trouble free life, they should consult with their staff. The Wheatley Hotel didn't do that and it cost them. They were stupid and paid the price. I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
Well I agree to a certain point and if it's unreasonable then something must definately be done. However in this case I fail to see why having to wear a tie is unreasonable? Men have worn ties for many years, it's not as common on women, why? Because that's just the way it is and it is NOT hurting anyone. Like I said earlier, if it's unreasonable by all means stick up for your rights but some people just take this a little too far, not every single thing in life needs to be challenged. It would not have hurt this person to wear a tie, if you want to dress like a slob outside the job fine, but why not make yourself look great when you are at the workplace?
Re: News Flash
Posted by Mark Ellott on March 15, 2003 at 02:09:34: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: News Flash posted by SixStringThing on March 14, 2003 at 17:13:50:
Why is it unreasonable? Simple - because it is imposing the employer's prejudice on an employee for no good reason. Turn the question around, what is unreasonable about not wearing a tie? And, given that no such imposition is placed on women, it becomes sex discrimination. That is unreasonable. The sex discrimination act isn't that explicit though. Which is why these kinds of judgements have to happen. They are a good thing because they give people like us the opportunity to stand up for our rights instead of being bullied into conformity. This judgement is good for anyone who defies convention or is in some way different to the norm.
Convention is merely the unwillingness of the majority to think for themselves.
Re: News Flash
Posted by Nick on March 15, 2003 at 17:38:35: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: News Flash posted by SixStringThing on March 12, 2003 at 21:59:53:
: I don't get what the big deal is with ties? Why do some people act like it's the end of the world to wear a tie???? I for one do not mind wearing them, in fact I think they look nice. And IMO I think the employer should not have won. If you work for someone, you follow their rules! If you don't like it you leave, it's extremely childish to be the rebel and refuse to follow the dress code... and going to court over it?!?!? My God I'm speechless.
What is the big deal? I hate wearing suits and ties. If you
want to wear one, that is your right. I just choose to not wear
one.
If you give in and wear a tie what is next? They'll tell you
to cut your hair "it's only hair" is what they will say. Been there, done that.
Re: News Flash
Posted by SixStringThing on March 15, 2003 at 18:31:20: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: News Flash posted by Nick on March 15, 2003 at 17:38:35:
: If you give in and wear a tie what is next? They'll tell you
: to cut your hair "it's only hair" is what they will say. Been there, done that.
I just don't see the "giving in" part... I think ties look great. I'm 17 so I don't work at a an office or some corporate setting yet but once I do I will most certainly wear a tie even if I am not asked to, I want to present the best image I can. If women don't wear one, that's fine with me, they have been mostly worn by men so it seems almost natural. I used to attend a private school where males had to wear ties and girls didn't, I was a bit younger so I did think wearing ties was "lame" but even then I understood it was no big deal. You mostly see the cases of people who try way too hard to be like everyone else, which is not a good thing. But there there are also people who put too much effort into trying not to fit in and constantly challenge every insignificant belief, which is just as bad IMO.
Re: News Flash
Posted by Mark Ellott on March 16, 2003 at 03:19:16: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: News Flash posted by SixStringThing on March 15, 2003 at 18:31:20:
If you like wearing a tie, that's fine. I wear one too, through choice, and that's fine, too. But - and it's a big but - employers will attempt to impose their own bigotry on their employees if given the opportunity. They are perfectly entitled to expect cleanliness and tidyness. That's as far as it goes. Not wearing a tie doesn't make you a slob - it just depends on your deportment. Some folk look complete slobs in full suit and tie, yet are never challenged about it, while others can wear an open-neck shirt and look smart and get criticised. Convention is not logical nor is it reasonable and therefore deserves to be vigorously challenged.
I agree with Nick, give them an inch, they'll take a parsec. Give it time, you too will experience corporate bigotry and will understand why some people will resist even apparently petty impositions.
Re: News Flash
Posted by CaTiger on March 12, 2003 at 23:59:32: Previous Next
In Reply to: News Flash posted by Kent Brocmen on March 12, 2003 at 17:24:19:
You didn't really say in what state this happened. I agree, it's a step in the right direction. I hope the employer got hung. Your hair is a physical part of your body, and NOBODY has the right to infringe on your personal being.
Where...
Posted by FITMUS on March 13, 2003 at 10:56:33: Previous Next
In Reply to: News Flash posted by Kent Brocmen on March 12, 2003 at 17:24:19:
...did this happen?
Re: Where...
Posted by Kent on March 14, 2003 at 08:33:51: Previous Next
In Reply to: Where... posted by FITMUS on March 13, 2003 at 10:56:33:
: ...did this happen?
The U.K.
Re: News Flash
Posted by Mark Ellott on March 14, 2003 at 14:34:36: Previous Next
In Reply to: News Flash posted by Kent Brocmen on March 12, 2003 at 17:24:19:
I'm presuming that the Owen v PGA precedent applied here - Judy Owen successfully sued the PGA because they refused to allow her to wear trousers at work. Previously, Schmit v Austicks bookshops applied whereby the employer claimed that women wearing trousers was akin to a man wearing a Tee shirt and therefore unacceptable - or, as you say, unprofessional. The world has moved on and such attitudes are no longer applicable - as the Owen case proves. Add to this the Human rights act - in particular, article 10 which makes it clear that the employer must have an extremely good justification for demanding restrictive dress codes in order to impose on an individual's freedom of expression - and you can expect more of these judgements. Presuming employers maintain their current exemplary level of stupidity in such matters.
If any employer told me to get my hair cut (which they have) - I'd take them to the tribunal if I had to (I didn't, they backed off). No one, but no one, tells me to cut my hair and expect me to obey. As for a tie - I wear one at work, but I am pleased at this judgement - it makes life simpler for us in the long run. Another precedent in our favour is always a good thing...