kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Well, yes, unfortunately, governments in general seem to be becoming more and more restrictive against the populace... all in the name of _________________ (insert concept)... or, the greater good.
Do employers have a right to impose a dress code...
- Thread starter Mise
- Start date
Unfair dismissal laws are not "restrictive against the populace". Bosses of anything other than very small businesses should not have carte blanche to fire people for any reason. Minor pieces of clothing are certainly on the "not firable" side of things unless it's a safety issue.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
In the military you can wear one, but it nor the necklace can be visible...
The 1st Amendment doesn't cover the actions of private employers. It should be the employer's decision. If the employee doesn't like it, there are plenty of other jobs out there.
I think the conservative/liberal dichtomy is a false one, and one convenient for the use of television politics and advertising. Take environmentalism. How is advocating that people clean up after themselves 'liberal'? I call it responsibility. How is pushing for sustainability liberal? That strikes me as something a fiscally prudent person should approve of. Spending resources that can't be recovered without a thought to the future, which is what we've been doing, is foolishness.
Dress codes and rights are a prickly issue. I for one tend to value professionalism, so I understand why some employers would want their people to dress smartly. Considering how common 'business dress' is, a code requiring it is perfectly normal. There are uniform conventions which make sense, but there are those which don't. If a business owner were to declare that everyone had to wear pink shirts and yellow bowties, however, that would be different: he or she would be forcing his employees to act unconventionally, unusually, and I wouldn't support such a policy. That policy would be rooted more in some enjoyment of power, or petty desire to prove a point, than common sense or professionalism.
In what universe?
Dress codes and rights are a prickly issue. I for one tend to value professionalism, so I understand why some employers would want their people to dress smartly. Considering how common 'business dress' is, a code requiring it is perfectly normal. There are uniform conventions which make sense, but there are those which don't. If a business owner were to declare that everyone had to wear pink shirts and yellow bowties, however, that would be different: he or she would be forcing his employees to act unconventionally, unusually, and I wouldn't support such a policy. That policy would be rooted more in some enjoyment of power, or petty desire to prove a point, than common sense or professionalism.
In what universe?
The one portrayed
Mise
isle of lucy
To me, it seems odd to appeal to "conventions". I mean, if you look at conventional business dress over the past 200 years, it's clear which direction business attire is headed. In 50 years, we won't think twice about leaving for work on Monday morning in the same clothes we wore on Sunday evening. It's hard for me to take seriously any argument that rests on conventions, because what we're trying to establish is what exactly those conventions should be. Simply saying, "we should wear what is currently conventional, and what is currently conventional is what we are all wearing" doesn't convince me. "Conventional dress should be what it already is."
I find these stories usually break along what type of religion is being discriminated against. If it's Christian, left leaning or more liberal slants might say "what's the big deal?" and might miss the bigger picture. Religious conservatives types will cry persecution. If it's a Muslim suing his or her employer, conservatives will be outraged that big government is over-regulating small businesses and destroying the economy and the terrorists have won.
So I don't think it really is about the political underpinnings of employment law, because that requires lots of thinking and challenging often deep-seated opinions. Screw that! It's usually about the much, much easier weather-vane of religion/ethnicity. In that sense I find it totally predictable.
Also FWIW in the US you cannot arbitrarily discriminate against someone because of their religious attire at work.
So I don't think it really is about the political underpinnings of employment law, because that requires lots of thinking and challenging often deep-seated opinions. Screw that! It's usually about the much, much easier weather-vane of religion/ethnicity. In that sense I find it totally predictable.
Also FWIW in the US you cannot arbitrarily discriminate against someone because of their religious attire at work.
I don't find there to be much problem, honestly. I'm fine with a dress-code. No discrimination based off of religion or health, though (except with safety risks). If your religion requires you to wear accessories, then those accessories can either be covered (if available) or not (if cover is not available for that region). Common sense applies.
If chastity requires you have your hair covered, then have it covered. If you have to wear a set of beads, they can go under the shirt. If you've got giant holes pierced into your ears, then feel free to work down the street. If you really thought you could work in a law office with a spider tattoo on your face, then you should probably blame your parents and not me.
If chastity requires you have your hair covered, then have it covered. If you have to wear a set of beads, they can go under the shirt. If you've got giant holes pierced into your ears, then feel free to work down the street. If you really thought you could work in a law office with a spider tattoo on your face, then you should probably blame your parents and not me.
A don't ask, don't tell policy works best. No need to flamboyantly flaunt lifestyle choices while on the clock.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
Apparently in this case, in the name of health and safety. The woman in question was told not to wear dangling jewelry where a patient could grab it.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
For the sake of safety, production, and customer service, I believe that it is the employer's right to impose a dress code. Apart from that, I do not believe that they have a right to impose a standard. However, I also believe that if they do impose a strict dress code, they have the responsibility to either provide the clothing or reimburse employees for it.
EnglishEdward
Deity
If an employer wishes to impose a dress code, it should clearly state so and what that
is in its employment contract when offering the job or promotion in the first place.
The prospective employee can choose to take the job or not.
The concept that the new manager, MD or CEO can simply
unilaterally impose their own dress code upon employees where
a dress code did not previously exist upon existing employees
i.e. breach its ongoing employment contracts is absurd.
However it happens a lot because when jobs are short
managers can bully employees. While this may lead to the
long term demise of the employer; that does not deter the
managers because they can simply move on and screw up again.
is in its employment contract when offering the job or promotion in the first place.
The prospective employee can choose to take the job or not.
The concept that the new manager, MD or CEO can simply
unilaterally impose their own dress code upon employees where
a dress code did not previously exist upon existing employees
i.e. breach its ongoing employment contracts is absurd.
However it happens a lot because when jobs are short
managers can bully employees. While this may lead to the
long term demise of the employer; that does not deter the
managers because they can simply move on and screw up again.
Unfortunately, the theory in my neck of the woods is that new policy is "accepted" by the employee by continuing to work. For example, a company can impose an arbitration system on its employees and by continuing to work, the employee accepts the arbitration agreement. In any future dispute between the employer and the employee, the employee must take his claim to arbitration rather than to court. I would love to see a company try to impose Sharia-based arbitration on its employees. That Texas Supreme Court opinion would be comedy gold.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
We can't even get Luis, one of our animators, to not wear low pants, where you can see his underpants and everything, in an office full of straight males 
Forbid underpants - problem solved.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Dear God no.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
What if you're a member of the "spider tattoo on your face" religion?
