Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[Rubyretro]

The thing is -there isn't a choice between employing someone competent to do a job and someone one conforming to a dress code.

There are so many people applying for jobs that it is possible to choose an employee who is experienced, motivated, punctual and polite -and will also look as the employer wants.

There's no either/or debate to have.

Someone looking for staff (and I've employed staff several times in my life)
will obviously lay down their requirements in the job description. When the prospective employees turn up for interviews, I would say that one makes a judgement based on appearance within seconds of a person walking through the door. It's inevitable that you are more 'forgiving' towards a prospective
employee whose appearance you like, and it's really hard for someone who doesn't make an immediately favourable impression to overcome their initial impact.

It's obvious that someone looking for a job should try to conform to the 'house' image. However, it's totally unfair to come to the interview looking as if you fit in, and then revert gradually to something else (I suspect that this is the case with this woman) -the employer is bound to feel 'had'.

On the other hand, if the employee is brilliant and gifted at their job and reverts gradually to their natural style , then no employer will sack them
just because of that.

So I would guess that the woman in this case
a) appeared in full make up at the interview -in effect tricking them
b) lost her motivation for the job over the 4 years and stopped making an effort image wise
c) her lack of motivation also showed in her failing ability to make money for the company
d) the company knew that they could easily employ someone who would
have fresh enthusiasm and sell better
e) she saw an opportunity to further sting the company by threatening/taking them to a tribunal

It's important that this woman should lose her case, because whilst Harrods might be able to afford to pay her off, people like her have small businesses
over a barrel and cases like this can cause them to go under. A Business must be able to employ whomsoever they like. This debate isn't really about make-up/uniform at all -it's about failing motivation and blackmail as a means to exit a job that you no longer want.

[johns]

The local council told me (in a very vague and roundabout way) to get my hair cut else I "may" lose my taxi badge.

I got my hair cut... I didn't want to but I valued my job above my long hair.

All my customers thought it was terrible that they had told me to get my hair cut and some of my more elderly customers quite liked my long hair.

We also have to be clean shaven and wear "smart casual" clothes with no shorts or football shirts allowed. All of this is fine by me.

I wouldn't mind (I'd even welcome it) if they stipulated some kind of uniform. Although I think a suit would be going too far.

Either a shirt, tie and trousers or collared t-shirt with company logo on it and trousers would be about right for a taxi driver.

[Ally]

Hi Ally - I don't have time to address all of your points but I think I have made clear that I think requiring someone to wear make up when the wearing of it is not necessary to the actual job (selling electrical stuiff for example) is unreasonable. That is my definition. I take'unreasonable' to mean applying conditions an an employee that are irrelevant to the actual job.

So you are opposed to all uniforms as well then? They are irrelevant to any actual job.

Concerning dreadlocks - they are fine in some jobs as long as they are clean and tidy. However - in catering or medical services or similar they should be covered for hygiene reasons.

Short hair on men? Unreasonable to require?

I keep saying - people should be presentable according to the needs of the job.

And yet you cannot seem to define what is required to the needs of a job.
Suits aren't "required" for any job. Why should a lawyer have to wear a robe or wig or a suit for that matter? Is it an actual need of the job? Why not shorts and flip flops? You don't need to dress nice to argue a point.

Why should society be organised so that people can earn a living? Well it's good for people to be able to work. It's good for the economy and it's personally good because it provides the basics of life like a roof over your head and food on your plate. It is also good for mental health and for all sorts of other reasons.

I asked why should an employer conform to the expectations of its employees, rather than the other way around.

I understand you are cherry picking what you wish to respond to, but you are avoiding answering directly in favor of non-answers.

[Limehouse]

Why precisely should society be organized so? Why should an employer conform to fit employees rather than the other way around? Define "unreasonable".

You keep using this word. What precisely is unreasonable about makeup or hair requirements? Where precisely do you draw the line at reasonable? Is it unreasonable for a store to require that a man has short hair? No dreadlocks? No greasy pomade? Where exactly do you draw the reasonable line and why do you get to be the one to draw it?

Cop out. You keep saying it's unreasonable, so prove your case. Why is it unreasonable? Why can they expect you to wear a scratchy uniform made of polyester in an unattractive shade of orange with a stupid orange hat, Or a blue suit with an ugly scarf, and that's reasonable, but make up is unreasonable?



Yes it is.


A choice. The individual can stay home where it is familiar. They don't have to take a risk. Every time an employer hires someone, they are taking a risk. A risk that the person won't steal, insult customers, embarrass themselves. The individual can choose to stay home and not risk, an employer has to roll the dice and gamble. And if an employee considers themselves too damn special to fall in line with the company dress code, then clearly that employee is a poor risk. They lack the ability to follow directions, they lack the ability to put aside their own ego for the sake of the employer for the duration of their working hours, in short, they are not qualified to do a good job and therefore should be fired.



Ahh... I see. And you apparently consider rebellion, refusal and stubborn intransigency to be a good attitude. Interesting.

Hi Ally - I don't have time to address all of your points but I think I have made clear that I think requiring someone to wear make up when the wearing of it is not necessary to the actual job (selling electrical stuiff for example) is unreasonable. That is my definition. I take'unreasonable' to mean applying conditions an an employee that are irrelevant to the actual job.

Concerning dreadlocks - they are fine in some jobs as long as they are clean and tidy. However - in catering or medical services or similar they should be covered for hygiene reasons.

I keep saying - people should be presentable according to the needs of the job.

Why should society be organised so that people can earn a living? Well it's good for people to be able to work. It's good for the economy and it's personally good because it provides the basics of life like a roof over your head and food on your plate. It is also good for mental health and for all sorts of other reasons.

[Limehouse]

Since employers are in business to make money, I wonder why anyone would believe that an employer would "discriminate" against someone on grounds of race, gender, whatever. Is an employer going to say "This person is the best for the job. Unfortunately I don't like blacks/women/gays/red-headed people and so I am going to lose money by picking someone else"?

That is exactly what used to happen Robert. A colleague of mine is a British born Asian. His father came to Britain in the 1960s from Pakistan and applied to join the police force. He was actually told that the force 'does not employ people of colour'. A bit different nowadays!

Sometimes it is necessary to discriminate on the basis of religion. For example - some faith schoools will only employ people of that faith (and sometimes select gender also) to teach their girls or their boys or a community organisation may need to employ someone from a particular faith to serve the needs of a group in that community.

[Robert]

Since employers are in business to make money, I wonder why anyone would believe that an employer would "discriminate" against someone on grounds of race, gender, whatever. Is an employer going to say "This person is the best for the job. Unfortunately I don't like blacks/women/gays/red-headed people and so I am going to lose money by picking someone else"?

[Ally]

What I mean is that society should be organised so that everyone has access to employment that is suited to their abilities and talents and experiences and that employers should not be able to make unreasonable conditions that discriminate against people.

Why precisely should society be organized so? Why should an employer conform to fit employees rather than the other way around? Define "unreasonable".

Surely it is better for society that people have employment and contribute rather than be excluded because of unreasonable discriminations?

You keep using this word. What precisely is unreasonable about makeup or hair requirements? Where precisely do you draw the line at reasonable? Is it unreasonable for a store to require that a man has short hair? No dreadlocks? No greasy pomade? Where exactly do you draw the reasonable line and why do you get to be the one to draw it?

Now - as to who decides what's reasonable - that's up to legislation - not the individual requiring employment.

Cop out. You keep saying it's unreasonable, so prove your case. Why is it unreasonable? Why can they expect you to wear a scratchy uniform made of polyester in an unattractive shade of orange with a stupid orange hat, Or a blue suit with an ugly scarf, and that's reasonable, but make up is unreasonable?

As you say - employment is a two way contract but it is not just the employer or organisation taking a risk.

Yes it is.

An applicant may have given up another job or moved to a new area or even country to take up the job.

A choice. The individual can stay home where it is familiar. They don't have to take a risk. Every time an employer hires someone, they are taking a risk. A risk that the person won't steal, insult customers, embarrass themselves. The individual can choose to stay home and not risk, an employer has to roll the dice and gamble. And if an employee considers themselves too damn special to fall in line with the company dress code, then clearly that employee is a poor risk. They lack the ability to follow directions, they lack the ability to put aside their own ego for the sake of the employer for the duration of their working hours, in short, they are not qualified to do a good job and therefore should be fired.

I have emphasised that people should be suitably qualified and present themselves well and display a good attitude and this would certainly include good manners - not swearing etc.

Ahh... I see. And you apparently consider rebellion, refusal and stubborn intransigency to be a good attitude. Interesting.

[Limehouse]

What I mean is that society should be organised so that everyone has access to employment that is suited to their abilities and talents and experiences and that employers should not be able to make unreasonable conditions that discriminate against people.

Surely it is better for society that people have employment and contribute rather than be excluded because of unreasonable discriminations?

Limehouse - you probably won't be surprised if I strongly disagree.

Before saying anything else, I must make it clear that I am NOT in favour of discrimination on grounds of religion, gender, sexual preference, colour and so on.

But I DO strongly o believe that employers should be able to make explicit requirements that can impact on their operations - appearance (in reasonable ways) especially dress but also visible tattoos, piercings etc, ; literacy, numeracy, speech (clarity, fluency etc) and language, swearing, bad manners, inability to conduct themselves in the appropriate environment. Some of these might be caught up in qualifications (which I see as being a slightly different issue).

For instance, if I was running a shop in the UK aimed at an up-market clientele, then I would want to be able to reject applicants for a job who had spider-webs tattooed on their face, dreadlocks, spoke with an uninelligible "Scouse/Geordie/Mancunian/Cockney/foreign" accent, came to the interview in jogging pants and trainers, or a suit but with the tie loose, and could not add up or spell accurately. I wouldn't care whether the individual was unemployed and that should not, IMHO be a consideration. (I also believe that employers should be able to determine that some disabled people would not be right for their business.

Impressions are important and can affect whether a potential customer does business with your firm or not. A recent report concluded that spelling/grammatical mistakes on websites can lose up to 50% of business because possible buyers conclude the poor quality as indicative of the firm as a whole.

Parents and kids at school have to recognise, painfully if need be, that paying attention, reinforcing disciplines at home (numeracy, encouraging reading, being smart in dress, having good manners, knowing how to behave) and making the best of their education is ESSENTIAL.

There should be no assumption that a job is guaranteed, or a right - that in my experience simply creates a culture of not having to care.

I am at heart a pragmatist rather than chanting some liturgy of the socially "proper" - most of which is garbage peddled by those who feel themselves excluded - usually for reasons of their own making.

Now disagree

Phil

Hi Phil - are you surprised to learn I agree with some of what you have written?

I have emphasised that people should be suitably qualified and present themselves well and display a good attitude and this would certainly include good manners - not swearing etc.

Regarding tattoos and piercings - this is something a person has infliucted on themselves and they should be aware when they do so that this will affect employment. Facial tattoos and numerous piercings are unsightly and unhealthy and an employer has a right to reject a person on this basis IF the appearance of the person affects the reputation of the employer in terms of the face to face contact the empoloyee has with clients.

However - an employer requiring an employee to inflect upon themselves a fully made up appearance is unreasonable if the person is selling CDs and DVDs etc as was the case in question.

Concerning accents - it is perfectly possible for someone to speak formally in a north western accent (say Liverpool and the surrounding area). In fact - formal speech is possible in any regional accent and as long as a person can be understood and they should not be discriminated against on the grounds on their accent.

I repeat - employment should be based on talent and attitude and reasdonable demands concerning appearance.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Julie

[Phil H]

What I mean is that society should be organised so that everyone has access to employment that is suited to their abilities and talents and experiences and that employers should not be able to make unreasonable conditions that discriminate against people.

Surely it is better for society that people have employment and contribute rather than be excluded because of unreasonable discriminations?

Limehouse - you probably won't be surprised if I strongly disagree.

Before saying anything else, I must make it clear that I am NOT in favour of discrimination on grounds of religion, gender, sexual preference, colour and so on.

But I DO strongly o believe that employers should be able to make explicit requirements that can impact on their operations - appearance (in reasonable ways) especially dress but also visible tattoos, piercings etc, ; literacy, numeracy, speech (clarity, fluency etc) and language, swearing, bad manners, inability to conduct themselves in the appropriate environment. Some of these might be caught up in qualifications (which I see as being a slightly different issue).

For instance, if I was running a shop in the UK aimed at an up-market clientele, then I would want to be able to reject applicants for a job who had spider-webs tattooed on their face, dreadlocks, spoke with an uninelligible "Scouse/Geordie/Mancunian/Cockney/foreign" accent, came to the interview in jogging pants and trainers, or a suit but with the tie loose, and could not add up or spell accurately. I wouldn't care whether the individual was unemployed and that should not, IMHO be a consideration. (I also believe that employers should be able to determine that some disabled people would not be right for their business.

Impressions are important and can affect whether a potential customer does business with your firm or not. A recent report concluded that spelling/grammatical mistakes on websites can lose up to 50% of business because possible buyers conclude the poor quality as indicative of the firm as a whole.

Parents and kids at school have to recognise, painfully if need be, that paying attention, reinforcing disciplines at home (numeracy, encouraging reading, being smart in dress, having good manners, knowing how to behave) and making the best of their education is ESSENTIAL.

There should be no assumption that a job is guaranteed, or a right - that in my experience simply creates a culture of not having to care.

I am at heart a pragmatist rather than chanting some liturgy of the socially "proper" - most of which is garbage peddled by those who feel themselves excluded - usually for reasons of their own making.

Now disagree

Phil

[Limehouse]

There is nothing in the world that can be considered a "right" that requires someone else to sacrifice or risk to provide you with. Your rights cannot come at the expense of others. Someone has to pay for those people to have paid employment. Therefore, it is not a right. It is a mutually agreed upon condition, and the person who is doing the paying gets to determine the limits of the conditions. If a person who is doing a job has the 'right' to employment, then it holds equally true that the person paying for the job to be done, has the right to have it done up to THEIR standards. Rights do not come at the expense of someone else's

OK - let me explain myslef a little more clearly. I don't mean that anyone can just stroll up to an employer and demand employment or force anyone to employ them. What I mean is that society should be organised so that everyone has access to employment that is suited to their abilities and talents and experiences and that employers should not be able to make unreasonable conditions that discriminate against people.

Surely it is better for society that people have employment and contribute rather than be excluded because of unreasonable discriminations?

Now - as to who decides what's reasonable - that's up to legislation - not the individual requiring employment.

As you say - employment is a two way contract but it is not just the employer or organisation taking a risk. An applicant may have given up another job or moved to a new area or even country to take up the job. An employer is not just extending a hand and offering a job with no prospect of receiving anything in return. An employee is offering their talent and sklills and expertise. They should also be offering a clean and tidy appearance and a good attitude but in most cases it is unreasonable to extend conditions of employment to actual facial decoration.

But this is just my view.

[Errata]

I am fine with the Heimlich, though, again, I'd probably not choose to administer it if there was someone else there, as I've never really been instructed in it beyond TV (a reputable teacher if ever there was).

I swear to god, My dad was at this big JAMA conference dinner with 300 other doctors of all disciplines, when a guy started choking, and the sous chef had to come running out to perform the heimlich. Everyone else just panicked. It was a sad day for the profession.

[Ally]

Freak accidents are about the only kind of CPR that does work and the only reason there's about a 5% success as opposed to 0 percent.

I am fine with the Heimlich, though, again, I'd probably not choose to administer it if there was someone else there, as I've never really been instructed in it beyond TV (a reputable teacher if ever there was).

[Errata]

As for the rest....Actually I am not so arrogant to presume that my life is worth saving. Chances are, if I am ever in a position where I need CPR, I wouldn't want to be saved. CPR, despite what the TV would have you believe is not a cure all and survival rate without side effects is extremely low.

So chances are, if you ever do need CPR, your quality of life is going to be crap thereafter or you are going to die regardless. So what's the point?

I had CPR once, and to be fair, nothing crapped out afterwards that wasn't crapped out before... well a cracked rib, but that got me out of flying to a family wedding, so I was kinda grateful for it. Although I kinda died as a freak accident, so it wasn't like I had a heart attack or anything.

Personally, I don't have a problem with reasonable suicide, so I'll probably save someone assuming they want to be saved, and trust them to do away with themselves afterward if they choose. But there's no way I'm doing it without a 911 operator talking me through it.

Where are you on the heimlich?

[Ally]

What try? Your inability to read does not necessitate me trying anything.

As for the rest....Actually I am not so arrogant to presume that my life is worth saving. Chances are, if I am ever in a position where I need CPR, I wouldn't want to be saved. CPR, despite what the TV would have you believe is not a cure all and survival rate without side effects is extremely low.

So chances are, if you ever do need CPR, your quality of life is going to be crap thereafter or you are going to die regardless. So what's the point?

[cappuccina]

...nice try, Ally....

Hopefully, you won't run into someone with your attitude when you need emergency assistance.