Do employers have a right to impose a dress code...

[Traitorfish]

To those would support relatively strict dress codes but make exceptions for religious attire, would it be demanded that the wearer be very sincerely religious, or would s/he also be permitted to wear it as an expression of cultural identity despite a limited religious commitment? And if so, should that extend to other such expressions, e.g. should I be permitted to wear a kilt and sporran to work? If not, then how is the distinction drawn? (This is a sincere question, for the record, not just me trying to be clever.)

 

[Flying Pig]

To those would support relatively strict dress codes but make exceptions for religious attire, would it be demanded that the wearer be very sincerely religious, or would s/he also be permitted to wear it as an expression of cultural identity despite a limited religious commitment? And if so, should that extend to other such expressions, e.g. should I be permitted to wear a kilt and sporran to work? If not, then how is the distinction drawn? (This is a sincere question, for the record, not just me trying to be clever.)

We say 'nobody should be discriminated against because of factors which do not affect their work'. If you just like to wear a kilt, tough - there's no Scotsman who would say that to be without his kilt is sinful - but if you feel unable to remove your turban, then to ban turbans is to ban people whose religion demands that they wear them. Viewed from another light, if we didn't stop people doing this 'indirect' discrimination, it would be impossible to ban direct discrimination.

 

[Traitorfish]

How do you know if a given individual feels a sincere religious obligation to wear a particular garment, though? Should a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf as an expression of cultural identity rather than of religion be prohibited from wearing it?

 

[Lillefix]

there's no Scotsman who would say that to be without his kilt is sinful

But if a person insists he can't work without his kilt, you have to take his word for it, right. Anything else would be discrimination.

Would you let this guy wear his required headgear?

 

[BasketCase]

Employers already have that angle handled.

"Sorry, Connor, we have to let you go."
"Ye cinna do that, ya mangy cur--I have a right to wear me kilt--"
"It's not the kilt, it's the budget."

 

[The_J]

To those would support relatively strict dress codes but make exceptions for religious attire, would it be demanded that the wearer be very sincerely religious, or would s/he also be permitted to wear it as an expression of cultural identity despite a limited religious commitment? And if so, should that extend to other such expressions, e.g. should I be permitted to wear a kilt and sporran to work? If not, then how is the distinction drawn? (This is a sincere question, for the record, not just me trying to be clever.)

Should then probably seen in the cultural context of the home country.
I mean in India Sikhs sure go to work with a turban, but does a normal scotsman go to work in a kilt?

 

[Traitorfish]

Should then probably seen in the cultural context of the home country.
I mean in India Sikhs sure go to work with a turban, but does a normal scotsman go to work in a kilt?

Wouldn't that imply that, for example, an Albanian Muslim woman could be prohibited from wearing the headscarf, because it's not common among Albanians?

 

[The_J]

uuhh...er...maybe "cultural background" would have been better than home country, else that would give some pretty...awful situtations for people who fled from their home country due to persecution.

 

[Silurian]

To those would support relatively strict dress codes but make exceptions for religious attire, would it be demanded that the wearer be very sincerely religious, or would s/he also be permitted to wear it as an expression of cultural identity despite a limited religious commitment? And if so, should that extend to other such expressions, e.g. should I be permitted to wear a kilt and sporran to work? If not, then how is the distinction drawn? (This is a sincere question, for the record, not just me trying to be clever.)

Well if women were permitted to wear skirts or dresses then I cannot see a reason to object.

You would have to wear underwear though if there was any chance of flashing.

 

[DaveShack]

Yes, employers do have a right to impose a dress code, within reason. My employer forbids going barefoot for example. Any employee in a client-facing role must conform to the client's general expectations of people in their profession, which is anything from a full suit for some clients to khakis and comfortable shirt or even shorts for others; equivalent for women. I believe we have complete freedom on religious apparel and accessories, within the limits of local laws and norms.

 

[Pacioli]

Any employee in a client-facing role must conform to the client's general expectations of people in their profession...

Agreed.

 

[civ_king]

Yes, employers do have a right to impose a dress code, within reason. My employer forbids going barefoot for example. Any employee in a client-facing role must conform to the client's general expectations of people in their profession, which is anything from a full suit for some clients to khakis and comfortable shirt or even shorts for others; equivalent for women. I believe we have complete freedom on religious apparel and accessories, within the limits of local laws and norms.

I assume by equivalent that means women can wear skirt/dress of suitable length in addition to pantsuits and heels are restrained with a maximum height?

 

[Quintillus]

Liberals who think that people should be allowed to wear what they want have a problem of where to draw the line, too. I don't have a satisfactory answer to that, incidentally - I think that people should be allowed to wear casual clothes to work, but I think that there ought to be a line nonetheless. Is that because I'm prejudiced against, for example, juggaloes or nudists? I don't know, but I do know that this is problematic for my ideology.

Well, Mise, I have some good news for you. I work at a place without a dress code most of the time, and to date, I've never seen someone come to work in the nude, or even in really sleazy attire. So, it seems that the human race still has a sense of dignity, after all.

Socialization probably does have something to do with it, but even so, it's reassuring.

Despite that, I think employers do have a right to set a dress code should they so choose. Most employers will be sensible - my last employer's dress code was reasonable, and my current employer's dress code for business trips is as well. I do think that religious garments such as turbans should be respected. I don't think it should be illegal to require everyone to wear pink shirts and yellow bow ties, though. If a new employer did that, they'd have a hard time recruiting anyone to work for them unless they were extremely quirky. If a large employer did that, probably no one would follow the rule, and it would just be a joke whenever a new employee started to see if they showed up in a pink shirt and yellow bow tie the first day.

And it is a trade-off. Firms with strict dress codes probably lose potential employees who love their mustaches, and Best Buy probably has lower quality tech support because they require their geek squad to drive around in hideous-looking Beetles. On the other hand, in some professions, the "professionalism" conveyed by the dress code probably does significantly affect business.

 

[civ_king]

Well, Mise, I have some good news for you. I work at a place without a dress code most of the time, and to date, I've never seen someone come to work in the nude, or even in really sleazy attire. So, it seems that the human race still has a sense of dignity, after all.

Socialization probably does have something to do with it, but even so, it's reassuring.

Despite that, I think employers do have a right to set a dress code should they so choose. Most employers will be sensible - my last employer's dress code was reasonable, and my current employer's dress code for business trips is as well. I do think that religious garments such as turbans should be respected. I don't think it should be illegal to require everyone to wear pink shirts and yellow bow ties, though. If a new employer did that, they'd have a hard time recruiting anyone to work for them unless they were extremely quirky. If a large employer did that, probably no one would follow the rule, and it would just be a joke whenever a new employee started to see if they showed up in a pink shirt and yellow bow tie the first day.

And it is a trade-off. Firms with strict dress codes probably lose potential employees who love their mustaches, and Best Buy probably has lower quality tech support because they require their geek squad to drive around in hideous-looking Beetles. On the other hand, in some professions, the "professionalism" conveyed by the dress code probably does significantly affect business.

How would you feel if an engineer you hired/contracted came in dressed up like she was going clubbing?

 

[uppi]

How would you feel if an engineer you hired/contracted came in dressed up like she was going clubbing?

Wait until she gets tired of being hit on by most of her (male) colleagues.

 

[Traitorfish]

How would you feel if an engineer you hired/contracted came in dressed up like she was going clubbing?

Like a normal person was going out clubbing, or like an engineer was going out clubbing?

 

[Lillefix]

Like a normal person was going out clubbing, or like an engineer was going out clubbing?

Or perhaps like we Norwegians dress, when we go out clubbing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How would you feel if an engineer you hired/contracted came in dressed up like she was going clubbing?

When I was working in Atlanta back in the 70s, a Manhattan client sent one of their clerks down for training. While she was walking from her motel to a restaurant to eat one night, she got a lot of wolf whistles from men who thought she was a prostitute. She was wearing the same clothes she wore to Wall Street every single day.

 

[kramerfan86]

Oh they have the right, but sometimes it gets a little comical how strict some get at the end of the day. At the end of the day the main concern should be if the person can get a job done well. If a guy looks like a barbarian but can fix anything in the office Ill take him over some clear cut nitwit who wastes entire days and never gets things properly repaired.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

Oh they have the right, but sometimes it gets a little comical how strict some get at the end of the day. At the end of the day the main concern should be if the person can get a job done well. If a guy looks like a barbarian but can fix anything in the office Ill take him over some clear cut nitwit who wastes entire days and never gets things properly repaired.

You'd think that's how it works, but more often than not, that hard worker will not dress as a barbarian because his attitude will address his appearance just as much as his work ethic (though there are exceptions).

I've always believed that a dress code should fit in with the company's mission. Example, if a store sells golf supplies, I don't really see a problem with polo shirts over ties, but it's not my store.

We keep a pretty strict dress code at work for plain clothes. I think it's too strict at middle levels, but it's a little deal. Every 2 or 3 years, we get people from one facility or another starting up letters and such for changes in grooming standards (it's always the same, allowing beards). The hair length and mustache only policies, I have to admit, I agree with. It actually is a security measure in order to keep staff and inmates looking as different as possible.