So really the uniform thing isn’t even the big problem you have within the workplace. I can certainly understand you not wanting to wear the uniform since it doesn’t seem to serve any tangible purpose. Do think about what battles you want to fight. Do you want to waste energy fighting something that’s inconsequntial in the long run and do nothing about the greater evils?
Marc
As it happens, I happen to know the story of the IBM Suit. It so happened, in the early days of IBM Mainframes, there was a site visit by the president to a bank.
He had a meeting, he had lunch, he was riding down in the elevator with the president of the bank, and there was another guy riding with them. Plaid pants, striped shirt, hawaiian tie. IBM President said, after he left, “You let a man dressed like that be seen by your customers?” Bank President replies, “That was our IBM Service Rep.”
And thus, the introduction of the Grey Flannel Suit.
That’s your right, but why is wearing a polo shirt any worse than being asked to show up at a certain time, or wear an ID tag, or work in a cubicle, or provide original receipts for every expense you charge, or do any number of mundane tasks, or any of the other inconveniences of work?
I mean, what I would like to do is not go to work at all, stay home and pursue my own personal interests and get paid for it. If I could just find a job ad that read “Wanted: Someone to stay home and play video games, write short stories, and play softball, and we will mail you checks” I’d apply immediately. I find everything about work inconvenient. The entire point is that they GIVE YOU MONEY in return for you putting up with the inconvenience of doing all that shit. If it’s a big enough concern, you can opt to decline employment there… but why is a friggin’ shirt a cause for special concern?
I stopped caring about the style of clothes I wear around the time I was seventeen years old. That’s for kids.
I think you should tell boss lady that you’ll wear the shirt, provided you don’t have to wear pants.
Of course I’m a bit of a smart-ass…
Okay. Given the “many different colors and styles” available for these shirts, and given that you can apparently continue to wear whatever slacks and shoes you want to wear, this really boils down to the fact that you don’t want to wear a shirt with the company logo until your immediate boss makes you.
I’ve dealt with wishy-washy bosses before myself, so I understand how frustrating it can be to have someone who doesn’t live up to the manager part of their title. But in you own words,
This is someone who tries to make your working environment as pleasant as possible, notwithstanding inane directives from the higher-ups. But you are going to take out your frustration about wearing something with a company logo out on this woman because you can’t get back at higher management?
I’m very sorry, but holding your own over issues of creativity and individuality should involve material issues concerning how you get your job accomplished, not over whether or not you have to wear a logo. You are willing to sacrifice your good will with this boss (and perhaps her higher-ups as well, once your intransigence is noted) over something that frankly is remarkably petty. Good luck when it comes to negotiating future salary increases and benefits. You would be surprised at the sorts of things that stick in people’s minds as they are considering whether to bump your paycheck up a notch or two.
Alternatively, you could look for another job, but I suspect giving “didn’t want to wear a company logo” as a reason for leaving will not endear you to a lot of prospective employers. Else you can start your own business as a consultant, and wear what you please.
BTW, I say all of these things as someone who has worked for various corporate settings, been in academia and now work with friends in a fledgling company of our own. My spirit has “not been broken” in the slightest. :rolleyes: I do understand very well, though, how not to cut off my nose to spite my face.
Gotta call bullshit on the OP. If there actually were a uniform of some sort involved, I’d be sympathetic. If he were being forced (or even “encouraged”) to wear a blue polo shirt just like everyone else’s blue polo shirt, I’d mourn with him the loss of individuality.
But there isn’t, and he’s not. The shirtS (that’s a BIG S, folks, as in PLURAL) come in various colors and styles. What Boyo Jim is screamin’ about is a LOGO. Somehow, wearing an ID badge is OK, but a logo is a violation of his personhood. Whatever.
AS IF?? Jeezus, who’d’a’thunk! A corporation that works toward a common goal! People working with you being called “colleagues”! How demeaning! I know I get pretty upset when my intellectual inferiors (like my boss) start treating me as an equal.
I get the impression that our OP correctly analyzes the purpose of the logo: to encourage a sense of teamwork. I also sense that our OP doesn’t WANT a sense of teamwork: he is [german accent] the steppenwolf, alone and free; he answers to no one, serves no one – this thing he calls his “job” is a calling, and he and he alone decides how it will be done! He thinks to himself, “I am no ‘colleague,’ no ‘coworker,’ no ‘teammate’; I’m not, I’m not, I’m not!”[/german accent].
OK, I exaggerate, and the TQM does sound fucked up (and I speak as Chair of my ASQ section). But it does sound as if Boyo dislikes the idea of “being in harness” with other employees, and resents any effort by management to remind him of his true status.
Who’s job is it to determine what is a legitimate need? If you want to avoid having every individual worker determine that on his/her own, then you need management to decide. In this particular case, management has decided that it was so important to have workers wear the logo that they are willing to pony up the money to buy the shirts from a vast selection of colors and styles the employees can choose from.
My old office (I work from home now) had a rule of no blue jeans, no sneakers, no shorts, no t-shirts, that sort of thing. If somebody decided that dresscode didn’t matter, they’d be told to go home, end of story. His company decided, from the top, that a dresscode (including logo) was necessary. Boyo Jim, obviously, doesn’t think it’s necessary, but (pardon my french) who the fuck is he? On the one side we have a person who has been put in charge of running a whole hospital, on the other, we have a guy who’s good at plugging electronic equipment together.
Perhaps it’s not really necessary for Boyo himself to wear a logo, but it’s very necessary for the other staff to do so, and would look pretty stupid if he’s the only logoless worker.
Damn you, Sunfish! (Damn you, Nametag, for not typing faster)
Some of them are related to the business mission, and some aren’t. The idea that simply because I’m getting paid I am obligated to do any inane thing my employer tells me to do properly belongs in the past. If I don’t want to wear a company shirt, I’ll try to not do it, and if I’m forced to I’ll find another job. YMMV.
Do you care about looking like shit? I’m not comfortable in polo shirts, nor do I look good in them. I’d be miserable having to wear one for 40 hours or more per week and I wouldn’t.
It’s okay, Nametag - great minds, and all that. 
So, if the logo is the issue, and there’s a logo on his ID badge (I could be wrong, but I’ll bet I’m not), a shirt with the logo seems pretty redundant, doesn’t it?
Stupid crap for the sake of stupid crap.
Stop being an ass. If you’re going to intentionally misinterpret points, why the fuck are you here? An exercise in being an irritating little bitch?
Of course, by your own irritating little bitchy post, the word “colleagues” is obviously bullshit, since the logos are to remind him of his “real” status.
-Joe, gets his shit straight before being a flaming jackass
Man, this is so good, I wanna print it out and nail it to the forehead of most of the management and administrators I’ve ever had to deal with.
My job requires me to “dress professionally.” There are no guidelines; it’s a matter of judgment. I comply with this by wearing dress shoes, dress slacks, and a dress shirt to work. If things are particularly formal, I’ll even wear a tie, although I hate the things. After all, I knew this was a professional position when I applied.
If my job required me to wear specific shoes, specific slacks, specific shirts, jackets, and ties, then that would go beyond “dressing professionally.” That would be a “uniform.” Ask any Catholic school kid.
So… what purpose does a “uniform” serve? Let’s kick it around a little.
TEAMBUILDING. It enforces the concept of “team” among the employees. It also serves as a ranking kind of thing, same as in the military. Settles the pecking order in a clearly visual fashion, and identifies the worker to peers, subordinates, superiors, and customers in a clear manner.
CONVENIENCE. Again, it identifies “employee” to the customers. Furthermore, it saves management the trouble of having to hammer out a dress code… rather than trusting the employee to know how to dress on the job, they simply issue a uniform or dictate a specific style. Simple, no?
COMPANY MAN. There are those who would say that it clearly delineates to the wearer that you are a Company Person on Company Time while you’re wearing that outfit. When you take the outfit off, then you’re your own person. Until then, you’re REPRESENTING THE COMPANY, and don’t you forget it!
REPRESSION. There are those who would say that in addition to all the above, uniforms rob employees of their individuality, and make them more pliant. Furthermore, it’s easier for management to regard them as interchangeable drones when they all look alike.
VALIDATION. Sometimes, such things arise from administrators needing to validate their jobs; when the quarterly report is read, someone can stand tall when his name is listed as the manager behind the new Uniform Drive. Hey, looka ME, boss! I’m no log in the woodpile! I actually DID some’pin this quarter! On my own initiative, and EVERYTHING!
So:
Whither uniform?
Why is the boss in question so hot for these logo shirts? Which of the reasons given above is relevant in this situation?
TEAMBUILDING: I can understand the reasoning. Then again, I’m not wild about uniforms – I’m a forty-year-old professional, myself, and I don’t much care for being classed in the same category with a McDonald’s fry cook, thank you. (no disrespect intended for fast food fry cooks; used to be one, in fact, long ago). I might tolerate it, if it was a condition of my employment, and I knew this when I signed the papers. I would likely resent it if it were imposed on me after several years on the job.
CONVENIENCE: Pffft. If it makes you that crazy, gimme a nametag. I don’t much like nametags, either, but they’re better than uniforms. As to dress codes: durnit, you hired me for my judgment. Now you’re telling me you don’t trust me to dress professionally and appropriately?
COMPANY MAN: I can understand this attitude, as well. But, these days, I’m a professional. You hired me for my knowledge, my judgment, my acumen. Why, then, are you advertising to all and sundry that you do not trust your employees’ judgment?
REPRESSION: Screw that. There are other jobs.
VALIDATION: Management’s lack of things to do should not be the problem of the people who actually get the work done.
…so, yeah, I’m frankly kind of there with Boyo Jim. If you want an Organization Man, a rubber stamp, a cipher in a uniform, you don’t want me. You want a cog. If cogdom is more important to the company than a solid employee who will put his skills and knowledge and judgment to work for the Company, and get the job done, and then some… well, I know where the door is; this sort of thinking is generally representative of Management Rot, anyway, and often presages even more boneheaded decisions on the part of the Powers That Be, to my experience.
If I thought the boss actually gave a damn about morale, or about specific employees, I’d talk to the boss. I’d point out how I’m a solid employee, get my job done, great performance reviews, and why do you want to treat me like a damn fry cook? Why do you dump dirt on me like this? How have I failed you and the Company, that you offer me insult in this manner?
Bosses operate in a certain psychological mindset. Boss’s first thought is going to be, this employee has a bad attitude. This is bad. **Boyo Jim ** does not want the boss thinking along these lines.
My job would be to change it to This employee’s morale is going to suffer if I ram this friggin’ shirt down his throat. Is that worth achieving whatever goal I hoped to achieve with the shirts in the first place? And what goal, precisely, DID I wish to achieve with the fraggin’ shirts?
Unless Boyo Jim is serving customers/patients, I see no need to wear a uniform to work. And in this case, a technical person setting up electronics wouldn’t really have customers.
I work in a insurance company, with a hospital division. When my company put out dress code standards several years ago, they had to create a ton of rules over such things as:
A) how long a skirt must be to be appropriate, B)what kinds of shirts are appropriate (no t-shirts or sweatshirts), C)when jeans could be worn, D)what kinds of shoes could be worn,
Cheesesteak, Please don’t misunderstand me, I do get that for a business to work there needs to be some centralized structure wherein policy is set and then implemented. I am not suggesting that we switch to a consensus model. I don’t think that our economy could survive that.
Where I think the problem comes in is when a policy is obviously stupid, or when the employees are not given the reason behind the policy. This is not to say that employees should get to second-guess every policy, but there must exist some happy medium where employees are at least told why they are doing something in clear language that is not riddled with obvious doublespeak.
Unless Boyo Jim is serving customers/patients, I see no need to wear a uniform to work. And in this case, a technical person setting up electronics wouldn’t really have customers.
I work in a insurance company, with a hospital division. When my company put out dress code standards several years ago, they had to create a ton of rules over such things as:
A) how long a skirt must be to be appropriate,
B) what kinds of shirts are appropriate (no t-shirts or sweatshirts),
C) Hi Opal!!
D) when jeans could be worn,
E) what kinds of shoes could be worn,
F) which company shirts could be worn.
There are different policies for this for each of the 3 unions, and another policy for the professional non-union & management staff. By laying out a dress code, the company has caused more headaches for itself than they ever had before.
If these and other policies are related to the business mission, (and some aren’t), I understand it. But many of the rules are seemingly designed to waste management time. Those of us behind the scenes don’t ever meet the patients. I work in an office 5 miles from the closest clinic. Why does my dress code matter?
Of course. But instead, a lot of managers will indulge their egos, or miss the point of why they have the goddamn job of manager in the first place, by pushing back to get their way.
It’s ironic and a little demoralizing. The amount of money, productivity, and opportunity that a large company can “invisibly” lose from a few well-placed, incompetent managers so far exceeds what might be lost from people taking 2-hour lunches, or wearing jeans and t-shirts instead of dumbassed suits or uniforms, that it boggles the mind.
Managers are obviously multipliers, and they often get to multiply their inadequacies and wrongheadedness through an organization. Yet, most companies (and managers) just pop underlings into management positions not because of inate ability or aptitude or a desire to really manage, but because it’s time for a promotion.
To sum of a rant I posted elsewhere a few months ago, a company who demands pointless things that restricts an employee’s comfort and happiness is a company that is not interested in being better than the competition.
Why the fuck should he wear a company shirt at work? What’s the point? I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument (aside from safety and sanitation) for denying employees their own way of dressing (or piercing, or hair coloring…).
I hate to break it to you but you are just a function. If you decide to be the piston who won’t fire then you can easily be replaced.
I hate idiot managers as much as anyone, if not more, but there are certain things that are just accepted as part of “having a job”. Among those things are:
-Show up and leave when you are supposed to
-Do your job
-Wear the corporate dress code (whether it’s a suit, a blue shirt and khakis, a logo golf shirt or a chicken suit)
-Don’t steal
And in return for these inconveniences, you will recieve a paycheck every 2 weeks.
You know why companies have dress codes and uniforms? Because it is a place of BUSINESS. It’s not a flop house. People come from outside and they see what looks like a bunch of hippies and homeless people and people that look like they just came from the gym/beach/skate park and they wonder if maybe the company will take the same level of pride in their work as they do in their appearance.
Besides, it’s not like middle managers make policy anyhow. Half the time they are just enforcing some ruling that some executive read in a McKinsey report or HBR and thought might be nice.
Ya - just like all those well-dressed, professional folks at the big brokerage houses a few years back who were handing out BS stock ratings, and all the while dressed in nice suits so that no one would suspect. :rolleyes: Yeah - there were wearing suits in a PLACE OF BUSINESS! They weren’t from a flop house! And I’m sure the brokerages were taking a lot of pride in the work of these nattily-suited pros.
Besides, your argument is full of hyperbole. No one was talking about dressing like hippies and homeless people.
While I understand the thrust of your post, in my particular case this is not true. The company that I happen to work for hired me as a person, because of the skills that I have and my personality. Innovation is valued and encouraged. In short, I was hired to be me. Not to fill some slot.
This was not a mistake. While, if push came to shove, I would work as a good little worker bee to support my family, I seek out employers who value my distinctiveness (in spite of what my username might suggest). Further, and I say this with careful consideration, I would not be easily replaced. Doing so would do real harm to my company.
More to the point, I will again state that I have no problem what so ever with companies setting policy. I just wish that we could get over the managing by buzzword school of thought. Employment is a two way street. Although it seems all too often forgotten, employers need worker. True, there are plenty of workers to go around, but replacing employees is expensive. It seems to me that a little mutual respect would help the equation.