Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[prowling cat]

Hello everyone,
Back here after more than a year, will take things quietly in a nice social thread, and just say I'm happy that my job allows for frumpiness (not mandatory, of course, I do work in Italy) but I do realise that in some contexts make up for women could be considered as essential as tie and jacket are for men. High heels are another matter. They can be painful and lead to diminished productivity.
But actually expecting someone to put a huge amount of make up on might be excessive.
Then again, I know women who wouldn't dream of exiting their house without what to me would seem theatrical greasepaint (no judgement, I'm trying to convey the actual physical texture of the stuff as I would feel it on the skin, not implying they look bad, they don't).
So all it boils down to is how much is considered too much or too little. I still find it very strange that this employee was actually requested to start making up after so many years, perhaps other workers grumbled against what seemed like a privilege?
I don't often wear make up to work, but I do have my eyebrows tidied (plucked) and I do have facials. Does this make me a hypocrite?

Pointless post, perhaps, but I'm getting back in practice.
Cheers

[Sister Hyde]

Yeah I read half the thread (got 2 weeks to catch up) anyway I am in the case where it states in my contract that I must wear make up every day at work, so yes i guess this woman was aware of the rule but it's not very normal that they started to bug her about it 4 years later, it's not fair, and in some job let's tell the truth, a lot of employers try to take advantage of these rules to try to make us look like hookers!! eventhough it deprives me of 20 minutes extra sleep in the morning and eventhough I hate it, I do make the effort of wearing a bit of mascara every day. right before holidays my boss walks by (surprise visit) and tells me "Oh Camille, a nice red lipstick and a nice thick black line above the eyes, a bit of blush and that would be perfect" I was already annoyed enough and sure I like a bit of lipstick every now and then, it sure is nice for going out for wild parties every now and then, but these are not professional circumstances, now at work, I'm supposed to be a "stewardess", and just like this woman I assume it means you have to be pretty but it has to stay very discreet and natural (in my case it even says "discreet make up obligatory"), so I didn't bother to give her a piece of my mind about it I told her "I signed for "stewardess"....not "bunny"" (and i'll never understand why she keeps trying cause it must be the 10th time she comes and bug me and it mist be the 10th time I answer the exact same thing). If you sign, then comply to the rules, but it's not a reason for the employers to try to push it (and damn here we know they wanna try to push it cause they know all these old businessmen looooove lurking and spending more time when they can rince their eyes)

[Red Zeppelin]

I have worked in London department stores such as Liberty and apart from the girls who sell cosmetics if you are neat and tidy and follow the dress code, looking a high class prostitute is not a requirement of the job.

Didn't bother to read much more of this thread after this point. That's one hell of a bitchy comment.

When I look at the ladies in the cosmetic departments of stores I certainly do not think they look like "high class prostitutes". I simply think they look pretty, wonderfully feminine and that they clearly take care of their appearance.

But hey I'm just a bloke so what do I know.

[Robert]

It looks as though the anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory.

[Errata]

Hello Michael,

Unfortunately, all discrimination is not created equal. You would have to show that it falls into the category of gender discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, racial discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation. The examples I gave do not fall into one of those catgegories. Therefore, if you attempted to bring a lawsuit, it would be immediately dismissed.

c.d.

And not all states believe in discrimination based on sexual orientation. Here it is perfectly alright to for someone for being gay. *sigh*

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Unfortunately, all discrimination is not created equal. You would have to show that it falls into the category of gender discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, racial discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation. The examples I gave do not fall into one of those catgegories. Therefore, if you attempted to bring a lawsuit, it would be immediately dismissed.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

Just to be clear, here in the U.S., an employer can fire you for ANY reason or NO reason at all. He can fire you if he does not like the tie you wear or the perfume you wear or the way you part your hair. He can fire you because you support a sports team that he does not like. Or he can simply fire you giving no reason at all. As long as there is no discrimination involved, you have no recourse.

But everything you mentioned is discrimination. Not liking something is discrimination. It isn't quite that simple either. Anyone can attempt to bring a case to court. What that means is that you still won't have your job, but you can at least get some money to get you started over again if discrimination can be shown, or if the company pays you off.

Mike

[johns]

Seems a trifle unfair.

Glad I'm not employed in the USA.

[c.d.]

Just to be clear, here in the U.S., an employer can fire you for ANY reason or NO reason at all. He can fire you if he does not like the tie you wear or the perfume you wear or the way you part your hair. He can fire you because you support a sports team that he does not like. Or he can simply fire you giving no reason at all. As long as there is no discrimination involved, you have no recourse.

c.d.

[Rubyretro]

Is it okay to dismiss someone for objecting to wear something that would make their job more dangerous?

Health and Safety laws exist, and they definately err on the side of caution.

I would make a rendezvous with a local Health and Safety inspector and expose the problem and find out where I stood first. I would say that I prefered not to say where I worked to give the Boss the opportunity to put things right, if infact there was a genuine problem, but I'd agree to come back if nothing was done. I'd try to get something in writing or ask permission to tape the meeting.

I'd then make a rendezvous with my superiors and expose the problem very
reasonably and as unaggressively as possible -and able to quote the appropriate laws.

[Errata]

Is it okay to dismiss someone for objecting to wear something that would make their job more dangerous?

[The Good Michael]

If the person has no head, but can do the job in the kitchen would he have to wear a hat?

Mike

[Rubyretro]

If the requirement is to wear a hat in the kitchen, then he should wear a hat
in the kitchen.

His thoughts as to whether it's pointless or not are immaterial.

If you make an exception to the rules in one case, then other employees will start digging up reasons why it would be pointless for them to wear a hat
too -or they'll start pointing to other rules as being pointless and not want to abide by them either.

Obviously, if the Boss wants things to run smoothly, he makes rules for a general reason, and the Staff follow the rules. Full stop.

There are usually Staff Meetings, when the personel are invited to give their opinion on how the business could be run better -and that's the time to question 'pointless' rules.

[johns]

Just to throw this into the mix...

Let us say that a guy who is totally bald got a job working in a food preperation area... either a factory or a kitchen or wherever.

And let's say that it was a company requirement that he should wear a hairnet or hat of some description. I believe nearly all such environments require items like these to be worn.

Would he have to?
Would there be any point?
If he refused to wear it because he thought it was pointless (or whatever reason), would it be perfectly ok to dismiss him?

Do any of you know if such a situation has arisen?

[Robert]

Hi Limehouse

But the police aren't a private business. If a Government or local council agency deliberately refuses to employ the best person for the job, then they're letting the citizens down. If a PLC deliberately refuses to employ the best person, they're letting the shareholders down. If a private business refuses to employ the best person, then the owner is letting himself down. The first and second cases shouldn't happen, out of duty to the citizens/shareholders. If the third case happens, all you can say is that the owner is eccentric. However as it's his business, he should be allowed to employ whomever he likes.