Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[Ally]

Nope. Still wouldn't do it. The germ thing is glib and an easy reason, but the other reasons are a lot more layered and complex. Basically, it all comes down to risk-reward analysis for me. And usually neither the reward nor the risk are worth it to me. Now honestly, if a random five year old gets fished out of the drink chances are, my risk-analysis will go to hell and I'll perform CPR regardless, but if a 350 lb dude clutches chest and goes toes up in front of me, I'll let nature take its course.

[Errata]

I didn't say I wouldn't render aid to anyone whose entire medical history I didn't know.

I said, I wouldn't render aid to anyone I didn't know.

You know you can tear a hole in a plastic bag, or use a toilet paper roll if you would like to render aid in a non spit swapping kinda way. They used to make these little baggie like things you could use, but someone inhaled one and predictably, sued.

[Ally]

I didn't say I wouldn't render aid to anyone whose entire medical history I didn't know.

I said, I wouldn't render aid to anyone I didn't know.

[cappuccina]

No, you don't really know your students. You have no idea what is actually going on with their families healthwise. With the advent of HIPAA, you could have all kinds of health things going on that parents do not have to or will not disclose.

[Ally]

I think one can assume I know my students. I am guessing critical thinking wasn't taught in your school?

[cappuccina]

I would never perform CPR on anyone I didn't know. There's no way I am locking lips with someone who could be infested with god knows what.

So you would let one of your students just die in front of you, then? Nice.

[Ally]

This is totally a detour, and I apologise. Ignore this if you wish.
.....

According to your above statement, you could come down either way on this. And either way is fine, I'm just curious how you would prioritize a situation like that. Which side you think has the most rights I guess.

I don't really know what you are asking or what you are talking about. There is no state law (in any state) that I know of that requires someone to perform CPR. You are, I believe, speaking of two general concepts both "duty to render aid" and "duty to rescue". Neither are legal obligations to innocent passerby, they apply to people involved in some activity that has caused aid to be needed. Which is not to say someone couldn't sue you if you failed to, but people can sue you for having your trees too high and obstructing their view and that's not exactly illegal.

I am not sure what rights you are talking about, in regards to both sides having the most rights. Both sides of what? Do I think the person dying has more rights than the person who chooses not to risk dying? No. They have equal rights and no one is required to risk their life to save another. No one is required to render aid, if they choose not to. I would never perform CPR on anyone I didn't know. There's no way I am locking lips with someone who could be infested with god knows what.

[Errata]

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.

This is totally a detour, and I apologise. Ignore this if you wish.

This prompts me to as what you think about good samaritan laws? Some states have it where you can't be sued for trying to help someone, but some states have it that you cannot NOT try to help someone. Like you can't just walk by an accident if no one else is on the scene, or you can't not attempt lifesaving measures. You don't have to leap into a burning building, but you can't refuse to perform mouth to mouth.

According to your above statement, you could come down either way on this. And either way is fine, I'm just curious how you would prioritize a situation like that. Which side you think has the most rights I guess.

[Errata]

Well lots of us on here love your mental energy Errata and I am damn sure your boyfriend thinks you are gorgeous!

I don't want to give the impression that I was angry in my last post. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine that people are expected to respond in some way to being teased, however good natured it may be. I always thought that if I wasn't going to apologize for what I said, then just ignoring it seems the thing to do. But if someone seems to want a response anyway, I'll give them one. It's just likely not going to be what they were expecting.

I'm not offended or hurt. Just, what am I supposed to say to something like that? It's like when you ask someone "how are you?" and then they actually tell you instead of just saying "fine". It kind of makes you think that asking a question when you aren't actually interested in the answer might not be a good idea. But we all do it anyway.

For the record, I also don't know how to answer the question "Just who do you think you are?". So if you ask that one, I'll probably just tell you who I think I am. Fair warning

[Ally]

No - I clarified that it is a right by stating:

[B]In my view - paid employment is a basic human right.

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

[Stephen Thomas]

Well lots of us on here love your mental energy Errata and I am damn sure your boyfriend thinks you are gorgeous!

Yes. Norma. Errata seems to be a rather special person.

[Limehouse]

Why precisely is "paid employment" a basic human right? Someone has to take the risk and put up the money to provide you with that "right". Uh...no.

Paid employment is not a basic right. That's saying that no matter what, how bad, how sloppy someone is required to give you a job and pay you, no matter how badly you do it.

IF you believe it's a right, I can only assume that you are a business owner who is employing 40-50 people to provide them what you consider their rights, and allowing them to do whatever, because it is their right.

yeah...right.

No - I clarified that it is a right by stating:

In my view - paid employment is a basic human right. No one is doing you a favour by employing you if you have the talent and experience to do the job well. It's not about considering myself above those standards - I just think they stink.

So - yes - it is a basic human right. Everyone should have the right to earn a living as long as they are willing to learn to do the job to a good standard. How they look - as long as they are clean and tidy etc - how they look facially - should not matter in a modern civilised world.

Just my view.

[miss marple]

Ally, One of my ex students, a very beautiful girl, who wore make up, budding actress, got a temp job in Harrods, first she had to been inspected personally by Al Fayed who she found a bit creepy and was horrified by the amount of slap she was required to wear on top of her normal amount, There is a culture in Harrods where the girls can end up looking like high class call girls.
I were make up,a small amount, I chose to, but no one orders me to wear it and it has no effect on how I work, but if someone is doing their job well, and the Hmv girl was commended for her work, ordering her to wear a huge amount of make up that is not relevant to her job, while the males do not is sexist.

Cheers Miss Marple

[Ally]

Why precisely is "paid employment" a basic human right? Someone has to take the risk and put up the money to provide you with that "right". Uh...no.

Paid employment is not a basic right. That's saying that no matter what, how bad, how sloppy someone is required to give you a job and pay you, no matter how badly you do it.

IF you believe it's a right, I can only assume that you are a business owner who is employing 40-50 people to provide them what you consider their rights, and allowing them to do whatever, because it is their right.

yeah...right.

[Limehouse]

And it is my view that, in this day in age, if you are lucky enough to be offered a job and all they require is that you put on some paint and dress according to their standards, you should feel lucky to be employed and not turn your nose up at a reasonable request because you feel you are above their standards or that you get to define what is "reasonable" when it comes to a dress code.

Everyone should be clean and tidy and respectable if they work with the public. That is more than reasonable. However - beyond those requirements people should be employed for their talent and their experience - not their looks.

In my view - paid employment is a basic human right. No one is doing you a favour by employing you if you have the talent and experience to do the job well. It's not about considering myself above those standards - I just think they stink.

There are some exceptions - for example if you are selling make up or perfume or some related merchandise.