Woman Fired For Not Wearing Makeup To Work

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Robert]

Hi Limehouse

But the police aren't a private business. If a Government or local council agency deliberately refuses to employ the best person for the job, then they're letting the citizens down. If a PLC deliberately refuses to employ the best person, they're letting the shareholders down. If a private business refuses to employ the best person, then the owner is letting himself down. The first and second cases shouldn't happen, out of duty to the citizens/shareholders. If the third case happens, all you can say is that the owner is eccentric. However as it's his business, he should be allowed to employ whomever he likes.

[johns]

Just to throw this into the mix...

Let us say that a guy who is totally bald got a job working in a food preperation area... either a factory or a kitchen or wherever.

And let's say that it was a company requirement that he should wear a hairnet or hat of some description. I believe nearly all such environments require items like these to be worn.

Would he have to?
Would there be any point?
If he refused to wear it because he thought it was pointless (or whatever reason), would it be perfectly ok to dismiss him?

Do any of you know if such a situation has arisen?

[Rubyretro]

If the requirement is to wear a hat in the kitchen, then he should wear a hat
in the kitchen.

His thoughts as to whether it's pointless or not are immaterial.

If you make an exception to the rules in one case, then other employees will start digging up reasons why it would be pointless for them to wear a hat
too -or they'll start pointing to other rules as being pointless and not want to abide by them either.

Obviously, if the Boss wants things to run smoothly, he makes rules for a general reason, and the Staff follow the rules. Full stop.

There are usually Staff Meetings, when the personel are invited to give their opinion on how the business could be run better -and that's the time to question 'pointless' rules.

[The Good Michael]

If the person has no head, but can do the job in the kitchen would he have to wear a hat?

Mike

[Errata]

Is it okay to dismiss someone for objecting to wear something that would make their job more dangerous?

[Rubyretro]

Is it okay to dismiss someone for objecting to wear something that would make their job more dangerous?

Health and Safety laws exist, and they definately err on the side of caution.

I would make a rendezvous with a local Health and Safety inspector and expose the problem and find out where I stood first. I would say that I prefered not to say where I worked to give the Boss the opportunity to put things right, if infact there was a genuine problem, but I'd agree to come back if nothing was done. I'd try to get something in writing or ask permission to tape the meeting.

I'd then make a rendezvous with my superiors and expose the problem very
reasonably and as unaggressively as possible -and able to quote the appropriate laws.

[c.d.]

Just to be clear, here in the U.S., an employer can fire you for ANY reason or NO reason at all. He can fire you if he does not like the tie you wear or the perfume you wear or the way you part your hair. He can fire you because you support a sports team that he does not like. Or he can simply fire you giving no reason at all. As long as there is no discrimination involved, you have no recourse.

c.d.

[johns]

Seems a trifle unfair.

Glad I'm not employed in the USA.

[The Good Michael]

Just to be clear, here in the U.S., an employer can fire you for ANY reason or NO reason at all. He can fire you if he does not like the tie you wear or the perfume you wear or the way you part your hair. He can fire you because you support a sports team that he does not like. Or he can simply fire you giving no reason at all. As long as there is no discrimination involved, you have no recourse.

But everything you mentioned is discrimination. Not liking something is discrimination. It isn't quite that simple either. Anyone can attempt to bring a case to court. What that means is that you still won't have your job, but you can at least get some money to get you started over again if discrimination can be shown, or if the company pays you off.

Mike

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Unfortunately, all discrimination is not created equal. You would have to show that it falls into the category of gender discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, racial discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation. The examples I gave do not fall into one of those catgegories. Therefore, if you attempted to bring a lawsuit, it would be immediately dismissed.

c.d.

[Errata]

Hello Michael,

Unfortunately, all discrimination is not created equal. You would have to show that it falls into the category of gender discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, racial discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation. The examples I gave do not fall into one of those catgegories. Therefore, if you attempted to bring a lawsuit, it would be immediately dismissed.

c.d.

And not all states believe in discrimination based on sexual orientation. Here it is perfectly alright to for someone for being gay. *sigh*