Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[The Good Michael]

In Asia, women are fired often for being overweight if they work with customers and if they are too efficient.It is important for women to be fairly equal to each other, and one not prettier (by whatever yardstick is being used), nor better at the job. The fear is that the better (again, by the yardstick of the boss) woman will create disharmony because the others will be jealous and become bitter. This is in the case of a relatively similar staff with similar duties. The boss almost always takes whomever he decides as the most attractive as his secretary, and HR has no say in such things.

Mike

[Errata]

In that scenario all he has to do is go to the laser guy and pay to have the letter "e" removed. Then it looks like an ironic fashion statement.

that's effing brilliant!

[Rubyretro]

I read this story in the paper. There was a list printed of the different shops
which had dress codes which also included makeup and even hairstyles
and colour hair dye. The Harrods dress code stipulates diamond or pearl stud earrings as well as full warpaint.

Shops are selling an image, as well as goods, and they have a right to ask their staff to promote that image.

If this woman wants to work in Harrods then she ought to comply. If the shop wrote in it's dress code "'paper bags will be worn on heads at all times",
then she ought to wear a paper bag too.

As for the cost -men could argue that they have to buy razors, shaving cream and aftershave, and women don't. Harrods give a discount to the staff
so the makeup is cheaper. Besides which a budget mascara -say- probably
costs less than a glass of wine in the pub, and would last a month or more.

[caz]

...looking a high class prostitute is not a requirement of the job.this is unique to Harrods, we are not talking a little bit of make up but the full works.This costs a lot of money and time. Men are not subject the the same rules, that is SEXIST.

I think you are getting muddled Miss M. What is truly SEXIST is your own implication that a woman wearing full make-up looks like a prostitute.

How very dare you? I never go out without a good lick of woad, yet I have never been asked how much I charge. Must be doing something wrong.

Love,

Caz
X

PS to Errata: how come you fork out 8 bucks a year for make up if you never wear it?? I am often seen in the full works but I don't need to spend that much more than your 8 bucks a year for it. I am pretty sure my face would be considerably more offensive to people without the bit of effort I put in.

[caz]

All hell would break loose if employers could not set down dress codes that differentiated between men and women. They'd have men wearing frocks, lippy and high heels, and would not be able to do a thing about it.

Now there's a thought for dress-down Friday...

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

PS to Errata: how come you fork out 8 bucks a year for make up if you never wear it?? I am often seen in the full works but I don't need to spend that much more than your 8 bucks a year for it.

I'm in a lot of weddings, for which it only seems polite to slap something on my face. And invariably I go to my makeup bag and find dried out lipstick, or rock solid mascara and I have to run out to the drugstore real quick to buy a replacement. So 8 dollars a years seems about right.

[Limehouse]

I read this story in the paper. There was a list printed of the different shops
which had dress codes which also included makeup and even hairstyles
and colour hair dye. The Harrods dress code stipulates diamond or pearl stud earrings as well as full warpaint.

Shops are selling an image, as well as goods, and they have a right to ask their staff to promote that image.

If this woman wants to work in Harrods then she ought to comply. If the shop wrote in it's dress code "'paper bags will be worn on heads at all times",
then she ought to wear a paper bag too.

As for the cost -men could argue that they have to buy razors, shaving cream and aftershave, and women don't. Harrods give a discount to the staff
so the makeup is cheaper. Besides which a budget mascara -say- probably
costs less than a glass of wine in the pub, and would last a month or more.

A month? I've got mascara that is older than my daughter! (She's 22)

To be fair - this woman worked at the store without make-up for four years without anyone even noticing never mind running screaming for cover at the sight of her. If women wearing full make-up is that important to Harrods I would have though they'd have noticed sooner.

I was given a voucher for Harrods last Christmas as part of a hotel deal. Quite frankly the place is not the tasteful emporium it used to be. Particularly - the shrine to Diana and Dodi - which is frightful

[Errata]

I read this story in the paper. There was a list printed of the different shops
which had dress codes which also included makeup and even hairstyles
and colour hair dye. The Harrods dress code stipulates diamond or pearl stud earrings as well as full warpaint.

Shops are selling an image, as well as goods, and they have a right to ask their staff to promote that image.

If this woman wants to work in Harrods then she ought to comply. If the shop wrote in it's dress code "'paper bags will be worn on heads at all times",
then she ought to wear a paper bag too.

As for the cost -men could argue that they have to buy razors, shaving cream and aftershave, and women don't. Harrods give a discount to the staff
so the makeup is cheaper. Besides which a budget mascara -say- probably
costs less than a glass of wine in the pub, and would last a month or more.

Women do have to buy razors and shaving cream...

I don't have a problem with a dress code. I have a problem with women being held to a different dress code than men. And there are hundreds of thousands of stores throughout the world that don't require anything of the women that they don't require of the men, and their images are sterling. Any number of restaurants require their waitstaff to wear ties, but that applies to both men and women.

In the US this would be a no brainer. You are not required to comply with rules that violate the conditions of an equal opportunity workplace. We got rid of the requirement to wear a dress or skirt to work a while ago. This would be no different.

[Ally]

I'm in a lot of weddings, for which it only seems polite to slap something on my face. And invariably I go to my makeup bag and find dried out lipstick, or rock solid mascara and I have to run out to the drugstore real quick to buy a replacement. So 8 dollars a years seems about right.

Totally confused. If you consider it "polite" to wear makeup at a wedding, why would it be considered wrong for companies to have a similar standard of "polite" presentation for the people who represent their companies?

[DirectorDave]

I don't have a problem with a dress code. I have a problem with women being held to a different dress code than men.

Classic stuff.........so how does that work then? We just pretend gender does not exist?

Women and men are not the same.....come to peace with that and I'm sure the world will make more sense.

[The Good Michael]

I have to wear a tie and dress slacks. Sometimes I have to wear a suit. Women have, typically, a greater choice of what they may wear in professional settings. It kind of evens out, I think.

Mike

[Errata]

Classic stuff.........so how does that work then? We just pretend gender does not exist?

Women and men are not the same.....come to peace with that and I'm sure the world will make more sense.

No, we are not the same. And I'm at one with that concept. I have no confusion in that regard.

First of all, If my company requires me to wear a business suit for a professional appearance, I can easily accomplish that wearing a pants suit and flats. I do not have to wear a skirt and heels. Asking men and women to wear business suits is fine. Asking women to wear skirts or dresses (barring certain performance based work) is not fine.

It's very simple really. An employer cannot ask that black employees adhere to one standard, and white employees another. He cannot (in most states) ask gay employees to conform to a different standard than straight employees. And you cannot ask women to conform to a different standard than men.

Men and women are not the same, but it isn't the Victorian Era anymore. If the Secretary of State, the highest diplomat we have can do her job in a pantsuit, I can sell people watches in one. We haven't been limited to skirts and dresses outside of white tie events for 50 years now. Why pretend we have?

Almost every place I have worked has asked me to cover my tattoos. I'm fine with that. They do not want visible tattoos. Clearly, those without body art are way ahead of me on this one. I have to put a little more thought into it. All they are asking is that I conform to the standard.

Ask me to conform to a standard, and I will do that. Tell me to look professional and I will. Tell me to wear a business suit and I will. Tell me to wear a skirt (especially in the jobs I've had) and you can graciously go to hell. Unless of course the men have to wear skirts as well.

Any woman can look professional without makeup. I will wear it to a wedding, because they already got me in the lime green horror of dress, I might as well give the bride what she wants. Not all women CAN wear makeup. Not all women firstly know how to apply it in a way that doesn't make them look like an alien clown hooker, but many women have allergies and cannot wear most kinds of makeup. Is it fair they get fired?

I live in a right to fire state, so they can fire you for even the most blatantly illegal of reasons as long as they aren't dumb enough to tell you why. But I have been fired for not dressing sexy enough, I got transferred once because my breasts were too big, I've been fired for being Jewish, and I got fired being too smart. But despite the fact that I do not wear heels, makeup or skirts to work in prestigious jewelry houses, mall stores, galleries or an office I have never been fired for being too casual, or for being unprofessional.

So clearly it can be accomplished. Without the skirts, heels, and full make-up.

[cappuccina]

...there; I've solved everything...Everyone, both men and women, need to dress like this guy does for work...

If you add ballet flats or flats as the shoe of choice, everyone will be able to get around equally as well....the dress and shawl look quite comfortable too...

[Ally]

Actually an employer can tell you what to wear, including skirts and dresses and there is nothing illegal about it. An employer has the right to dictate their dress code, and your choice is, adhere to it, or don't choose to work there.

And the fact that you are willing to give the bride what she wants, but not your employer, is proof that you agree that people who are running the show should have their wishes met, you just want to define the categories to your liking of who gets to dictate attire. I would say the person paying you money to perform a task has more rights to determine the parameters of the task than a bride does, since usually you are the one paying out for the "privilege".

But the fact is, in the United States and apparently the UK too, an employer can absolutely dictate anything they wish in dress code, including skirts on women. My choice is not to work anywhere that I don't agree with the dress code.

It's not sexist. It's a basic bottom line: the people who cut the checks have the right to have their employees dress any way they wish. And as for it being fair to fire people who don't want to or can't adhere to the dress code, sure it's fair. Is it fair for someone to accept a job knowing they cannot conform or meet the standards the employer requires? They shouldn't accept a job in the first place if they can't meet the requirements of the job.

I don't particularly like skirts and dresses nor do I like suits. So I don't choose to work places that such attire is required. I also never chose to work at a strip club nor Hooters because I didn't particularly care for the wardrobe requirements. If Hooters can dictate what you don't wear, obviously anyone can dictate what you will, including makeup and a skirt. It has nothing to do with whether you can do the job in pants, it's about how the owner sees their business image. Business people get to decide how their business appears to the clientele. If I want to work somewhere that requires such attire, I can suck it up like a big girl and decide which is more important: the job I want, or my personal sense of fashion.

[DirectorDave]

No, we are not the same. And I'm at one with that concept. I have no confusion in that regard.

First of all, If my company requires me to wear a business suit for a professional appearance, I can easily accomplish that wearing a pants suit and flats. I do not have to wear a skirt and heels. Asking men and women to wear business suits is fine. Asking women to wear skirts or dresses (barring certain performance based work) is not fine.

It's very simple really. An employer cannot ask that black employees adhere to one standard, and white employees another. He cannot (in most states) ask gay employees to conform to a different standard than straight employees. And you cannot ask women to conform to a different standard than men.

Cough, cough. Employers can be female too. The racism/homophobic comparison? Purile.

Men and women are not the same, but it isn't the Victorian Era anymore. If the Secretary of State, the highest diplomat we have can do her job in a pantsuit, I can sell people watches in one. We haven't been limited to skirts and dresses outside of white tie events for 50 years now. Why pretend we have?

Almost every place I have worked has asked me to cover my tattoos. I'm fine with that. They do not want visible tattoos. Clearly, those without body art are way ahead of me on this one. I have to put a little more thought into it. All they are asking is that I conform to the standard.

Ask me to conform to a standard, and I will do that. Tell me to look professional and I will. Tell me to wear a business suit and I will. Tell me to wear a skirt (especially in the jobs I've had) and you can graciously go to hell. Unless of course the men have to wear skirts as well.

Perhaps being secretary of State for the US entititles you to have a bit more choice than someone working behind a counter in a (albeit a very upmarket) shop?

Any woman can look professional without makeup. I will wear it to a wedding, because they already got me in the lime green horror of dress, I might as well give the bride what she wants. Not all women CAN wear makeup. Not all women firstly know how to apply it in a way that doesn't make them look like an alien clown hooker, but many women have allergies and cannot wear most kinds of makeup. Is it fair they get fired?

If she had a genuine makeup allergy there would be a case for her.

I live in a right to fire state, so they can fire you for even the most blatantly illegal of reasons as long as they aren't dumb enough to tell you why. But I have been fired for not dressing sexy enough, I got transferred once because my breasts were too big, I've been fired for being Jewish, and I got fired being too smart. But despite the fact that I do not wear heels, makeup or skirts to work in prestigious jewelry houses, mall stores, galleries or an office I have never been fired for being too casual, or for being unprofessional.

So clearly it can be accomplished. Without the skirts, heels, and full make-up.

I'm sure the Prime minister could do an equally good job wether clean shaven or with 2 days stubble.......but I think the daily razor comes with the job. (With one notable exception)

If Harrods demanded no makeup from female employees and one insisted on wearing it......would be the exactly the same thing.

I know you might not want to believe this and it might blow your image of the "Big bad male Boss demanding his girls look like dolly birds" out the water........but I bet the makeup rule was made by a woman.