Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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

[Ally]

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.

[Robert]

"But could a firm refuse to employ someone with dreadlocks; or a shaven head (if so could they decline to employ someone bald and what is the difference)? Should they be able to?"

The scenario to avoid is when a skinhead has "HATE" tattooed on his head while a teenager. Two or three years later he grows his hair and gets a job in an office. Twenty or so years down the line, he becomes office manager. Unfortunately his hair starts to recede....

[Steadmund Brand]

Actually, just so I'm not considered sexist..... Brava Ally!!

[Steadmund Brand]

Bravo Ally!!

[Ally]

Interesting thread on sexism and dress. Especially since apparently women who wear full make up look like "high class prostitutes". So nice to see people sticking up for women like that.

[c.d.]

Well I can't speak for British law but under American law she would have no case that I can think of.

We are dealing with the Golden Rule here -- Them with the gold make the rules. It might be unfair. It might be sexist. But the question is was the store within their legal rights to take the action that they did.

c.d.

[Limehouse]

She was working for Hmv concesssion in Harrods. HMV employees in their shops are not required to cover their faces in slap.
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.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.so why are they not obliged to wear full make up everyday too. they are not too gorgeous in their natural state.
Miss Marple

Bravo Miss Marple - I toally agree with every word and would like t add two points:

1. Whether it is a condition of employment or not it is an unreasonable condition.
2. She was allowed to work for four years without this requirement being enforced. It was therefore very unfair and unreasonable to suddenly expect her to comply.

Such conditions of employment belong in the past.

[Errata]

I always thought that any dress code should apply equally to men and women. I had a job where I was required to wear heels. I can't walk in heels. I successfully argued that it was sexist for men to have the language "dress shoes" in their dress code, and women to have "High heels" (the place I worked for got bought out and the dress code changed. Otherwise I would not have taken the job unless I had no choice)

The other factor in this is that is that of cost. My sister wears makeup. She spends about 600-800 dollars a year on makeup. I don't wear makeup. I spend maybe 8 bucks a year on makeup. And god forbid you have sensitive skin or any allergies, because that ratchets up the cost for makeup to about 2000 bucks a year. Dress flats cost 40-70 dollars. High heels cost 60-130 dollars. And you have to buy high end heels if you want to be able to stand in them all day and still be able to walk around. Men have to buy no makeup, and their dress shoes cost 40-80 dollars.

It is discrimination to demand a different standard of dress for women than for men. And I have absolutely no problem with both sexes having to wear "dress shoes". But unless men have to wear heels, they cannot demand a woman wear heels. And unless a man has to wear makeup, they cannot demand a woman wear makeup. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it surprises me that they didn't see that earlier.

[miss marple]

She was working for Hmv concesssion in Harrods. HMV employees in their shops are not required to cover their faces in slap.
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.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.so why are they not obliged to wear full make up everyday too. they are not too gorgeous in their natural state.
Miss Marple

[tji]

Hi all

In all fairness to Harrod's, I believe she was aware of this rule (not sure if it is in the contract) before she took the job, if she didn't want to wear makeup - she should not have taken the job. How many don't people want to wear suits or work uniforms, but they do because it is a requirement of that firm.

Tj

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

You are correct in that the woman resigned as opposed to being fired. However, had she not resigned she would have been fired so I suppose it is six of one and half dozen of the other.

I am not familiar with British employment law but here in the U.S. workers have very few rights. An employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all.

The woman was aware of the job requirements before she accepted the position so I can’t really see where she has any case. If the store allowed some women to go without makeup that might be a different story.

A dress code refers to an employee’s appearance and thus that would include makeup. I don’t really see where this equates with sexism. Men could argue that they are required to wear uncomfortable neckties and the women are not.

In short, I don’t see where she has a case against the store.

c.d.