I understand (though I don’t always agree with) the idea of a corporation wanting to protect its public image, and enforcing a dress code, but where should the lines be drawn? For example, should the length of a man’s hair be a legal reason for a company to refuse employment? Further, should a company have the legal right to ask a man to cut his hair after he is employed by them? If a woman can wear her hair long, doesn’t it constitute sexual discrimination to deny a man that right also? What about cases where a man has his hair long for religious reasons?
A corporation should have the right to say whom should and should not work for them, and this criteria is up to them to establish.
It saddens me that this statement allows an establishment to not hire someone, say, because they are black or not a Christian (to use a few examples which have come up in various discussions I’ve had), but I prefer that to the alternative of people being told they HAVE to hire someone.
Call me nutty, but I like to think that places who won’t hire perfectly good people because of things which I find offensive or at least a bit frivilous will suffer because of this.
A prominent Chick Fil-A’ franchise made national news a few months ago with their policy of not hiring males with long hair, or anyone male or female with piercings, hair dyed in “unnatural” colors, and/or tattoos.
I made my opinion known by never eating there again.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, five days, 19 hours, 21 minutes and 37 seconds.
5112 cigarettes not smoked, saving $639.03.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 18 hours, 0 minutes.[/sub]
My personal opinion - a company should have the right to establish hiring rules that do not discriminate without a valid reason. The valid reasons are, of course, the tricky part to determine, and depend on laws and/or the social environment.
For example, it is perfectly legal for a man to walk around in a swimsuit, but I would agree that a company could be justified in demanding of a male employee that he not wear a swimsuit at work, since the general consensus in today’s society is that swimsuits are not work attire, and most people will agree that this is not a sufficient violation of an individual’s rights to warrant safeguards protecting the freedom to wear a swimsuit.
On the other hand, if a company had a rule saying, e.g., the female law clerks at the office are required to wear a dress and makeup, but cannot wear a pantsuit, the rule would seem to me to be ridiculous and discriminatory, and I would not support the right of the company to have such a rule. Women nowadays commonly forego makeup and skirts.
Therefore I would argue that the dress code rules a company should be allowed to enforce would be rules that mirror society at large. That’s a wishy-washy answer, but the best one I can come up with on the spur of the moment. Maybe someone else will come up with a better solution?
This came up recently in Wisconsin. The coroner of some city, Milwaukee I think, had a rule that all the men had to wear suits and ties. The men complained, as when you are working with corpses the tie tends to dip down, that it was sexuall discrimination since the women were not required. The coroner retaliated by making women wear suits and ties. Anyway, I’m not sure how it ended up, but I think that they workers won.
Everyday that I hear discussions like this I’m glad I live in the Bay Area. I could show up to a job interview in sweats and with a bone through my nose, most people wouldn’t blink twice.
Some dress codes make sense, but they must be applied to all employees regardless of sex. You let the women wear dresses? Let the men wear em. You make the men cut their hair? Better make the women do it too. You want the women to shave their pits? Either make a rule that you can’t wear tank tops, or forget about it.
The law usually employed against discrimination in hiring practices is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended. This is a Federal law. Is it even Constitutional for the Federal government to pass laws regulating private businesses that don’t engage in interstate commerce?
I agree with Arnold, and would like to add that a company has the right to ensure the most amount of profits possible. If an employee’s appearance detracts from his ability to do his job adequately (suppose he needs to work with the public a lot, and he dresses in drag, or something), then I have no qualms with a company putting limits on what their employee’s can and can’t do.
I don’t think companies should be able to discriminate based on race, creed, religion or sexual identity. And you should not have to degrade yourself to get a paycheck.
But standards regarding personal attire and grooming are appropriate. If my company decides I should wear a tie (which they are considering), then by golly, I’m going tie shopping. If I apply to a new company, and they require buzz cuts and a clean shaven face, then I can choose to apply elsewhere or go the local barber shop.
I am there to do a job, but also to represent them to customers and the community. That should give them a say in how I am to present myself.