Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[Errata]

I will say that I am repulsed by servers with an eyebrow ring. Not because of the piercing per se, but because most people with brow rings walk around with the piercing in some stage of infection or another. Makes me gag.

[cappuccina]

...actually, Ally you are wrong. Being naked and dirty violates medical health codes, public health sanitation codes, and medical regulations (Federal and State) surrounding all medical and food-related workers in the United States....with the exception of the naked servers at your local "Dangle Bar and Grill" type of place who still theoretically have to be clean...I don't quite know how they get around that...except they are serving the food rather than cooking it, I guess...

A surgeon refusing to do a proper "wash-up" before and after doing a surgical procedure would be fired, for example.

[Ally]

What are codes but more rules slapped on people to keep them from exploring the beauty of one's natural state. Codes of any sort are oppressive restrictive and idiotic! And as long as a surgeon washes his or her hands, their armpits can be as foul as they want them.

[cappuccina]

[babybird67]

Who cares if you offend people? If you believe it's your god given right to smell and be naked, then shouldn't you have the right? Clothes and deodorant are just as much of add ons as make up and jewelry. There is absolutely no difference between them.

There is a difference. There are laws against wandering around naked, there is no law making not wearing make-up in public illegal. Wearing make-up also does not make one more hygienic than not, so there is a difference. Clothes are necessary so you don't break the law, make-up is not. Washing is necessary for health reasons, again make-up is not, in fact the reverse may be true in some cases.

That's your opinion. Your personal opinion. Some people think women without make-up is not attractive, and that's their personal opinion.

Exactly. Personal opinion. The person running the store is employing you to sell things to members of the public...some of whom will think women without make-up are more attractive, some of whom will think women with make-up are more attractive. So making a decision one way or the other will attract some customers more, and others not. That's why there is a difference. Nobody wants to be served in a store by someone who is naked or smells. I am little surprised you find it difficult to see the distinction between those things.

And if that is the personal opinion of the person running they store, they have the right to insist that their employees present themselves attractively--by their definition, not yours.

As I said, that's their right. And as I said, it's my opinion that they are wrong.

Doesn't make it wrong either.

In my opinion, it does.

[babybird67]

What are codes but more rules slapped on people to keep them from exploring the beauty of one's natural state. Codes of any sort are oppressive restrictive and idiotic! And as long as a surgeon washes his or her hands, their armpits can be as foul as they want them.

HUh? Now I am really confused.

So you support the ' oppressive and idiotic' codes and rules of employers who wish to STOP women having their faces in their 'natural state' because they're allowed to prevent their workers from 'exploring the beauty' of their natural state, yet you are against laws which protect other people from having other people's nakedness and stink thrust at them because those rules are oppressive?

LOL!

I think you need to rethink that through a little bit Ally.

[Ally]

Wearing make-up also does not make one more hygienic than not, so there is a difference.

Wearing deodorant doesn't make you more hygienic either, it just makes you smell better. In short, it's an enhancement just like makeup.

Clothes are necessary so you don't break the law, make-up is not.

Ah I got it. So the government that you pay to provide can make up rules "the law" that you believe we are obligated to follow, but companies who pay their own employees are not allowed to make up their own rules that you are obligated to follow. Interesting take on how you view where restrictions are fair. On what rational basis does the government get to determine that I am required to spend money on clothes? Where is the rationale? It's not improving on my natural state. There's no logical basis for clothing, so why does the government get to force me to wear clothing, lest I go to jail, but a company can't say that if they are going to pay me to do a job, I must wear makeup? Neither one is necessary.

I am little surprised you find it difficult to see the distinction between those things.

I am a little surprised you don't get the distinction that "in my house, I make the rules". Whether you agree with the rules or not. If I tell you you can't smoke in my house, you can't smoke. Even if you think it's proper. Even if you think I should allow it. Even if some people would think my house is better if they were allowed to smoke. He who owns the house, makes the rules. If you don't like it, don't go to that house. Don't choose to work in that house. Find some place that better suits your notions.

I think you need to rethink that through a little bit Ally.

And I think you need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you read it.

[DirectorDave]

Of course employers can be female too. I didn't suggest otherwise.

Sexism goes with racism and homophobia. I'm so sorry if you don't see it that way. And I assume you meant "puerile". Careful with those big words now.

If you want to turns this into a spelling B SP? then this could turn into a mismatch

No, I think the choice is the same. When I see pantsuits on the rack at the store, they don't have a big sign over them that says "Professional only on women who earn 175K a year". Professional attire is professional attire.

Look I'm a bloke......I had to google "pantsuits" to know what the hell you were blethering on about. What is acceptable dress for whatever job they are doing is an issue for women......but once it has been agreed stop moaning about it.

Actually I had assumed that rule was either made by or enforced by a woman. I don't have an image of some leering male boss. I'm not even saying that makeup is inappropriate to the venue. I'm saying that having different requirements for male employees and female employees is an inequality. For both males and females.

Yeah but it seems that this is one of these rare occasions where men are better applying common sense than women.

What you don't seem to understand is that this woman did NOT agree to Harrod's makeup code. She worked for a subcontractor who did not have that rule. She worked for them for four years. This woman was told to adhere to a rule that was not a condition of her employment, or be fired. So they were not trying to force her to adhere to her employment contract, they were trying to force her to do something that was not a condition of her employment. And she refused. And it doesn't matter how appropriate the request might be, if it isn't a condition of employment, then you can't threaten to fire someone for not doing it.

Not to mention it's kind of offensive for someone to tell you that you need to wear makeup when you aren't required to. I mean, someone comes up and says that to me they get an automatic "go to hell".

I understand all that but if a subcontractor is working out of Harrods then they must live up to that stores standards yes?

Having seen a photo of the young lady in question she looks perfectly presentable to me.......but I have not and never will shop in harrods so I'm not sure my opinion really matters.

[babybird67]

Wearing deodorant doesn't make you more hygienic either, it just makes you smell better. In short, it's an enhancement just like makeup.

WHo mentioned deoderant?

Ah I got it. So the government that you pay to provide can make up rules "the law" that you believe we are obligated to follow, but companies who pay their own employees are not allowed to make up their own rules that you are obligated to follow.

Well, twice now I have said that they have the right to, but I still don't think that particular rule is right/moral/ethical, but if you want to take issue with things I haven't said, then that's your choice.

Interesting take on how you view where restrictions are fair.

If you don't understand it I will try to explain it better.

In my view, employers can have rules about what their employees wear and how they behave at work. These should be based on fair and rational principles and what does or does not prevent the employees doing their job. Thus, they can make a rule that employees should be clothed, for health and safety and decency reasons. That makes sense to me.

Similarly asking people to wash (not use deoderant which I didn't mention but just to make that clear for you) makes sense again for health and safety in the workplace and because nobody likes sitting next to people who smell...it would have an effect on work.

Somebody not wearing make up has zero effect in these ways. A person can do their job with or without make up on. There is no rational or fair reason for an employer to force an employee to wear make up.

Rules should always be about what is fair and rational. If you follow your logic through to its conclusion you will have to support employers not employing people on the basis of race or gender if you truly believe if somebody pays you for doing a job they get the right to choose exactly who does it and how it is done. There is legislation to enforce employers not to impose arbitrary and unreasonable choices on their workforce (no blacks, no women). To my way of thinking, and this is purely my opinion as always, the wearing of make up is an arbitrary choice on the part of the employer with no rational basis behind it. He (generic) is imposing his arbitrary preferences not only on his workforce but on his customers, maybe half of which disagree with his choices.

That's not fair or logical to me. And that's why I see a huge difference between clothing/washing and accessorising.

On what rational basis does the government get to determine that I am required to spend money on clothes? Where is the rationale? It's not improving on my natural state.

Um, it's decency. Not wandering around naked in front of children etc. Now you can argue society should all go naturist if you want. But again there are health and safety issues when people are cooking for us etc and have exposed skin next to the searing heat of the kitchen etc etc. There are distinctions and like I said I am surprised you can't seem to see them.

There's no logical basis for clothing,

Yes there is, see above.

Neither one is necessary.

We will have to agree to disagree then, as I have demonstrated above why I see a difference. If you don't, that's fine.

I am a little surprised you don't get the distinction that "in my house, I make the rules".

I'd be surprised too if that was the case, however this is the third time (or is it the fourth) that I have said they have the right to set the rules in their contracts. I still have the right to think the particular rules they have set are unfair. And that's where employment legislation comes in. To make sure the arbitrary choices of people who employ other people aren't unfair or unreasonable.

And the Government have been chosen to be the Houseowner for the duration of their term of Government, so they have the right to make the laws for the 'house' we live in during that time, and we get the choice to fire them if they start doing things we disagree with. The difference seems to be they don't make arbitrary ones so much as employers do.

And I think you need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you read it.

Ah that explains it. You still seem to be arguing for the natural state of people who don't want to wear clothes though, and that Government has no right and is oppressive to stop you celebrating your natural state, but that people should completely hide the natural state of their faces...women only, unless the rule applied to men working in Harrods too?

What about ugly men that sell things? Can we dispense with the lippy and just hand them all a paper bag?

[Hatchett]

Hello All,

I have radical views on dress codes. I don't believe in them.

But if they are to be introduced I believe that they should be negotiated through the Union, or if there is not a Union then with the workforce, where the need is explained, views are sought, and then agreement is reached.

I do not believe that an employer has the right to just introduce them.

On this issue of make up, surely the issue here is that this rule is seemingly only applied to women, not to men. In view of that then surelly this rule is disciminatory to women, and is Indirect Sex Discrimination.

Best wishes.

[Ally]

In my view, employers can have rules about what their employees wear and how they behave at work. These should be based on fair and rational principles and what does or does not prevent the employees doing their job. Thus, they can make a rule that employees should be clothed, for health and safety and decency reasons. That makes sense to me.

Being naked is not unhealthy, nor is it unsafe. And who defines "decent"?

Once again, you are putting your OWN personal standards on what you consider to be fair. It is completely healthy and safe for someone to cell CDs butt naked. And as for "decent", there is no objective, logical criteria for what is "decent". That is a subjective, emotional standard. There is no "sense" involved. So what makes sense for you, is in fact, senseless.

Similarly asking people to wash (not use deoderant which I didn't mention but just to make that clear for you) makes sense again for health and safety in the workplace and because nobody likes sitting next to people who smell...it would have an effect on work.

Funny. Lots of people in the world don't wear deodorant and have no problem sittting next to other people not wearing deodorant. And it is deodorant, make no mistake that prevents people from smelling. It has nothing to do with washing. You can wash five times a day and still smell. It's not like deodorant is predominant in the majority of the world. It isn't. So once again, you are putting your own criteria on what "everyone" accepts. You are wrong. You are putting your own value system on what you believe is "right" for employers to require. In addition, again, as long as ones hands are washed, sanitary issues don't come in. So a person could have an entirely filthy body and as long as their hands are washed, basic sanitary needs are met. But of course you are employing your own ideas of what constitutes healthy and sanitary.

Rules should always be about what is fair and rational.

And as I have pointed out there is no fair or rational reason to require clothing. Clothes are not necessary. Neither is makeup.

If you follow your logic through to its conclusion you will have to support employers not employing people on the basis of race or gender if you truly believe if somebody pays you for doing a job they get the right to choose exactly who does it and how it is done.

No, there is a clear distinction. A black person can't turn white. A black person can however put on lip gloss. It is entirely logical to require your employees to dress according to standards that you deem appropriate. It is not logical to expect someone to change race. Changing clothes however can be accomplished by everyone. If it is something that is within the means of a person to control, then it is fair to expect that an employee control it. We are talking about personal choice. And the choices of the employer overrides the choice of the employee.

He (generic) is imposing his arbitrary preferences not only on his workforce but on his customers, maybe half of which disagree with his choices.

Everything is arbitrary when it comes to dress codes. Hem length, uniforms, color, every single thing involved in a dress code is arbitrary. Whether someone disagrees or not is irrelevant. All dress codes are arbitrary. So if you believe that a person can require their employees to wear a uniform or dress "neatly" then they can also arbitrarily decide that the uniform will include make up.

Um, it's decency. Not wandering around naked in front of children etc.
Now you can argue society should all go naturist if you want.

Once again, you are imposing your arbitrary conceptions of decency on the populace. That's as arbitrary as make up.

There are distinctions and like I said I am surprised you can't seem to see them.

I can see them, you can't. You are just hypocritical in what you believe is acceptable restrictions.

I still have the right to think the particular rules they have set are unfair. And that's where employment legislation comes in. To make sure the arbitrary choices of people who employ other people aren't unfair or unreasonable.

Wasn't there a poll done lately that said the reason British employers prefer to higher immigrants is because British folk consider themselves to uppity and too overcome with their rights to actually work? Apparently, British people believe they are so damn awesome they don't have to abide by anyone's rule, not even the bosses. They bleat too much about what's unfair and unreasonable. You know what I think is unfair and unreasonable? People who think they have the right to money, but the person giving them the money has no rights whatsoever.

The difference seems to be they don't make arbitrary ones so much as employers do.

That is quite possibly the most hilarious thing you've ever said. The government doesn't make as many arbitrary decisions as employers? I don't even have the time to list all the arbitrary crap that governors impose on people.

[The Good Michael]

Here's the funny thing: Employers DO decide what one can and cannot wear, and that does include make-up, hair color, and tattoos and piercings. They don't tell you you can't smoke and drink. They don't bother with your homelife (unless it somehow disparages the company). They don't (except in Korea) tell you where you have to bank, or what time to go to bed, or to stop already with the human sacrifice. Be thankful that I'm not the boss. I'd not allow smokers or heavy drinkers (by my definition). I would ensure that everyone was at a reasonable weight, and that they had (at my expense) access to some sort of fitness center and went there 4 times a week. Why would I do this? Because people are so stupid and unconcerned with their own health and appearance that they don't even go in for check-ups and balk at simple things like looking tidy. I would want my people (if they were good workers) to represent my company well and to stand out above others. If they don't like my rules, they can go elsewhere. In the case of physically challenged employees, I will help them to represent my company well.

Mike

[babybird67]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jul/01/harrods-dress-code-sales-assistant

[The Good Michael]

Thanks for posting that. It shows that the rules were broken. Noncompliance is normally a dismissal.

Mike

[babybird67]

Being naked is not unhealthy, nor is it unsafe. And who defines "decent"?

It is unsafe to be naked when you are cooking hot things. The law defines decent.

Once again, you are putting your OWN personal standards on what you consider to be fair. It is completely healthy and safe for someone to cell CDs butt naked. And as for "decent", there is no objective, logical criteria for what is "decent". That is a subjective, emotional standard. There is no "sense" involved. So what makes sense for you, is in fact, senseless.

No, it's the law, so there must be some kind of consensus about what is and is not decent, or there would not be an offence of public indecency.

Funny. Lots of people in the world don't wear deodorant and have no problem sittting next to other people not wearing deodorant. And it is deodorant, make no mistake that prevents people from smelling. It has nothing to do with washing. You can wash five times a day and still smell. It's not like deodorant is predominant in the majority of the world. It isn't. So once again, you are putting your own criteria on what "everyone" accepts. You are wrong. You are putting your own value system on what you believe is "right" for employers to require. In addition, again, as long as ones hands are washed, sanitary issues don't come in. So a person could have an entirely filthy body and as long as their hands are washed, basic sanitary needs are met. But of course you are employing your own ideas of what constitutes healthy and sanitary.

I'm not discussing deoderant, you are the one bringing that in for some reason. People can or can't wear deoderant, I don't care. As long as they are clean and I don't have to sit next to someone who smells which would impact on me doing my job. Whether the person next to me is or is not wearing make up has no effect on my ability to do my job, or they to do theirs.

And as I have pointed out there is no fair or rational reason to require clothing. Clothes are not necessary. Neither is makeup.

Again, clothes are necessary. The law says so. Health and safety laws say so. So you are incorrect. There are no laws or health and safety issues regarding make up.

No, there is a clear distinction. A black person can't turn white. A black person can however put on lip gloss. It is entirely logical to require your employees to dress according to standards that you deem appropriate. It is not logical to expect someone to change race. Changing clothes however can be accomplished by everyone. If it is something that is within the means of a person to control, then it is fair to expect that an employee control it. We are talking about personal choice. And the choices of the employer overrides the choice of the employee.

Not if it breaks employment legislation on fairness and equality at work.

Everything is arbitrary when it comes to dress codes. Hem length, uniforms, color, every single thing involved in a dress code is arbitrary. Whether someone disagrees or not is irrelevant. All dress codes are arbitrary. So if you believe that a person can require their employees to wear a uniform or dress "neatly" then they can also arbitrarily decide that the uniform will include make up.

I am getting tired of repeating myself, but I will say it again. I am not saying they can't decide those things. I don't have to accept they are imposing right/ethical/moral rules, and I prefer a world/employers whose rules are fair and equitable. Also I believe they should comply with employment regulations, and I don't think this one does.

Once again, you are imposing your arbitrary conceptions of decency on the populace. That's as arbitrary as make up.

Once again, it is LAW. Not my arbitrary choice.

I can see them, you can't.

You can see them now? Sorry, I just thought you had been arguing for a number of posts there were no differences. Wish you would make your mind up.

You are just hypocritical in what you believe is acceptable restrictions.

Nope. My position is perfectly consistent and reasonable.

Wasn't there a poll done lately that said the reason British employers prefer to higher immigrants is because British folk consider themselves to uppity and too overcome with their rights to actually work? Apparently, British people believe they are so damn awesome they don't have to abide by anyone's rule, not even the bosses.

Oh yes? I didn't see that one.

They bleat too much about what's unfair and unreasonable. You know what I think is unfair and unreasonable? People who think they have the right to money, but the person giving them the money has no rights whatsoever.

No rights whatsoever? LOL! What universe do you live in? Employers have plenty of rights. They also have responsibilities, and those include treating their workforce with fairness and equity. Imposing a rule on women only to wear full make up is not fair or equitable. I earn my money by going to work and doing a good job for my employer. I do my job some days without make up, some days with it. I don't do a better job when I am in make up. It has no bearing on my ability to do my job. It is not therefore fair to be a requirement of work.

That is quite possibly the most hilarious thing you've ever said. The government doesn't make as many arbitrary decisions as employers? I don't even have the time to list all the arbitrary crap that governors impose on people.

Have they required all the female citizens to wear make up? No, didn't think so. I wonder why.