This was originally going to be my response to this thread, until I realized how far I’d strayed from GQ territory.
I’m pretty clean cut looking now, except a little bit of facial hair. I used to have hair down to my waist, though, and my dad commented on more than one occasion that he thought it would make it hard for me to find a job. My answer was always “Any place that would discriminate against me for the way I look isn’t somewhere I’d want to work (unless it was a choice between that and starvation).” I still feel that way.
Do employers have a legal right to enforce a certain dress code? I suppose they do. But that doesn’t make it any less bigoted to treat people differently because they have long hair or an earring. As far as I’m concerned, justifying this discrimination by saying “We need to be concerned about the appearance of the company” is no more defensible than if they lived in a racist community and responded to it by forcing all their black employees to paint their faces white.(*) The point is, if the general public thinks a person is incompetent, or can’t behave professionally or do professional work, based solely on the fact that this person has an earring or dyes their hair, or has a tattoo, then the general public is wrong and ignorant, just like they’d be wrong and ignorant to think a black person couldn’t do the job as well as a white person. The only generalization you can correctly make about people who wear earrings is “They like wearing earrings.” Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn’t known enough people with earrings to know better (or has prejudged all those people they have met rather than getting to know them). And a company that caters to people’s ignorant and bigoted views just to increase their profit margin is an unethical company.
(*) Please note: I am not in any way attempting to say that discrimination against people who wear earrings is “as bad” as racial discrimination. I can’t even imagine how you’d quantify such a thing, but racial discrimination holds a special place in the spectrum of loathsomeness because of its horrific and violent history. I am saying that I don’t think discrimination based on appearance is “more defensible” – a phrase I chose carefully – and I hope that I have clearly stated the particular commonality between the two in this case that demonstrates this indefensibility.
Tricky one. I think smartness of appearence is way over-rated as an indication of professionalism, and companies that over-emphasise this are pretty stupid. However, I would defend a company’s right to impose a dress code for customer facing staff. You may feel that it’s unethical for a company to pander to people’s prejudices, but the company also has a responsibility to stay in business. If a company is genuinely losing business due to the appearence of its staff, this can lead to redundancies. In that situation, should the company take a moral stand over dress codes when its not in the best interests of thier workers?
And you are more than welcome to that senitment. To a certain extent, I even agree with you. (I would have never applied to Ross Perot’s EDS at the time when he, personally, banned facial hair because I suspect that that was simply the tip of the paternalistic interference in the lives of his employees that I would not enjoy.)
However, let me offer you a slightly different view:
** [ Anecdote Alert! ] **
In the late 1960s (when long hair was a much worse violation of social norms than at any time since), my Dad worked in GM’s Process Development division. One summer, (1969?) he had a student from GMI working in his department. Dad said he was the absolutely sharpest kid who had ever come through and that his skills were superior to most of the senior members of the staff. At the end of the rotation, Dad gave him an outstandingly good review and the kid asked if Dad would consider hiring him after his graduation from GMI. Dad said that he would love to, but that the student would have to get a haircut. Natuarally, the student was upset–and confused that Dad had said nothing about his hair in the review, but would use that as a reason to decline to hire him.
Dad’s response was along the lines of, “Your hair has nothing to do with your competence and I see no reason to include it in my review. If I was hiring only on the basis of skill, I would hire you immediately. However, this department has a specific mission. We design ways for the maufacturing divisions to improve their performance. Often our designs go against established tradition and will cause the current management to resist those designs. We need to sell all of our applications to each division (or sometimes each plant). If I sent you out to Central Foundry to get them to install a new furnace cleaning process, they would take one glance at your hair and not hear a single word you said. Our job is too important to the company to allow our personal attire to interfere with our mission. It is not fair. However, if you want to work with us, you need to be able to help us in all our activities, not just in crunching numbers.”
[ /anecdote alert ]
Some jobs simply require certain accommodations to the people with whom one will interact. I have no trouble with a person choosing to not pursue one of those jobs. But while it may not be “fair” that some jobs do require unnecessary accommodations, as Gus n Spot used to say, “The world is not fair, it’s round, mostly.”
This is an interesting point. I myself have a beard, and sometimes people say this will make life more difficult for me somehow.
Crudely speaking, Western society approves of women with long hair but is cautious about long-haired men. There is a similar custom in allowing women to wear hats indoors.
Um, the big difference about racial discrimination versus dress code is that you can change your dress code.
I am typing this in a tracksuit and wearing scruffy trainers.
If I go to a job interview like that, I won’t get hired.
Now you may feel aggrieved that people won’t look past your appearance and immediately perceive the real you. However this is demonstrably the case.
So employers want receptionists to wear smart clothing and makeup (and that’s just the men!).Salesmen wear suits, not tattoos.
Part of this is clearly justified. If you see someone at work wearing conventional clothing (perhaps a uniform if necessary), you know they put their personal desires temporarily aside for the benefit of the company.
The customer is not distracted from spending their money!
If you are lucky enough to have a backroom job, most employers will hopefully allow you to wear comfortable clothing, provided you get the job done.
If you are dealing with rude customers, do you insult them back?
Of course not. Yet you would be free to do so in your personal life.
The same thing applies to punctuality. On holiday, I get up late. Not so at work.
But it is more defensible. A person’s skin color is something they can’t change (under normal, non-Michael Jackson circumstances). But someone can cut their hair or shave or put on a clean t-shirt. Discrimination is not inherently bad. It serves purpose sometimes (that’s why mating is not random nor should be).
Your argument troubles me because it gives fodder to folks who are tired of hearing about “oppressed minorites”. We shouldn’t discriminate based on people’s religion, race, gender, nationality or perceived/actual sexual identity. But a line has to be drawn somewhere.
However, I can see that there is gray zone here. I support people who do not want to employ the obviously unhygenic. I support discrimination of people who dress provocatively (folks in offensive t-shirts, folks sporting tight, skimpy outfits, folks with purple spiked hair, etc.) But for some reason, I would protest if a woman with an androgenous style was fired from her job, or if a guy with long hair was not hired. Same with people who wear dred locks or braids. I know that sometimes it’s appropriate to have a uniform appearance among employees, but I also think strict dress codes can ruin employee morale.
So I think if one has to have a dress code, it should take into consideration of the individual, within reason.
I too had very long hair at one point. It went about halfway down my back. I also had a very difficult time finding a job. I was like you at that point, tim314 in that I did not want to comprimise my principles for a job. I felt that I would be better off with a job that accepted me for the way I was. However, despite looking everywhere, I couldn’t find that magic fantasy-world job.
My mom’s boyfriend approached me and said the company he worked for needed a technical writer to assist in getting the company updated to ISO2003. I would be hired on as a ‘private contractor’ working over the summer, and while I was officially a technical writer there they would eventually have me do many, many other tasks there. The catch was: The hair had to go. Now my mom’s boyfriend (who is practically my stepdad BTW) knew how resistant I was to cutting my hair. But he presented me with the choice anyway. I gave it some legitimate consideration, and then prompty went to the barber.
To this day I do not regret it. The job there was fantastic, I learned a ton of job skills, the pay was great, coworkers were fun to work with, and the work was easy. It is very possible that I could still have long hair, and ultimately I never would have worked there, nor would I have built up enough savings to keep me afloat until I got hired. Additionally, two part-time jobs I currently am employed at also would have had the same requirements in terms of appearance, though since those jobs were not recommended by an existing employee, chances are I would never have gotten called back after the interview if I had long hair. I have worked at those jobs, by the way, for 2.5 and 3 years respectively (both at the same time).
So I do not think it is bigoted, because their criteria is based on something people can change. Nose rings can be removed, hair can be cut. Most people have the ability to adjust their appearance down to what the employer considers satisfactory.
Though I disagree, I am strongly supportive of anyone who is opposed to changing their own appearance to fit within the dress code. They can call me “sheep” and “conformist” all they want, but I’ll get the lastlaugh when I land the job they couldn’t get due to their unwillingness to follow dress code
*And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you’ll do
So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you*
Even in my line of work (construction/remodel), it still makes sense not to look too far out of the norm. Many people don’t like having “scary” looking people* in their homes.
*I have actually had people tell me that about some fellow remodelers.
Whether it’s right or wrong on the part of people who are making a judgement call, I won’t make a similar judgement call on them. But! It IS something you can change (as long as we are still talking about dress and grooming only).
An employer has a right to insist that his/her employees project a neat, clean and business-like appearance.
I have had a “no jeans” policy at work for years. Also, I do not want my employees to come to work dressed as if they are going clubbing.
Appropriate dress is discussed at employee hiring interviews and if a potential employee wants to wear torn jeans, street thug or skank-ho outfits to work, they need to look for work elsewhere.
Our business should be conducted in a friendly but professional manner. I want the people that come into our office to come in there for business, get it done and move on. This requires a business atmosphere which is best established by having the office and employees apprear business-like.
An aside to your comparison of racism:
Three of my five current employees are African-American females. Two of them choose to wear ethnic outfits and hair styles at times. I have no problem with this, as their apearance is always neat, clean, and not sexually provacative.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate a hot chick in a cool outfit, but there’s a time and place for everything. Some businesses don’t have to meet and greet the public and I can see why they wouldn’t need to be so concerned about dress and appearance. In my situation, dress and appearance are important to the mission.
Years ago I met a guy at a party who owned a car dealership. We got on really well and spent much of the time talking. He asked me whether I had ever thought of a job in sales because he thought I was the kind of guy who could make lots of money. He was keen to take me on as a salesman except I would have to shave off my beard. I asked him why and he said, “No-one knows why it is but buyers don’t trust salemen with beards so I wouldn’t waste customers on one.” So I never had a career as a car salesman but I didn’t begrudge him his right to his opinion.
Years later I read research about why so few politicians have beards - it turns out that people don’t trust them.
To the OP: If I discriminate against somebody because they have a tattoo or a pierced eyebrow or spiky purple hair, am I discriminating based on their appearance or on their behavior? These are all things that the person did to themselves (at least indirectly, in the sense of getting someone else to do something to them), which puts them in a different category from, say, having brown skin or a big nose. I think the real debate is not whether it’s okay to form an opinion of people based on what they have done (including what they have done to their appearance), but over exactly what (if anything) things like long hair, piercings, tattoos, etc. tell you about the person.
What I don’t like about dress codes is that they usually are geared towards prohibiting certain types of apparel, jewelry, or other body adornment when it might be better if the people who make these things up focused more on the whole look. For instance, I’d be more concerned with whether the person is neatly dressed and that their clothes are in good condition, than what the clothes are. If a woman wants to come to work with big hoop earrings but is otherwise appropriately dressed, I don’t see the problem. I feel the same way about jeans; I just can’t see that a pair of dingy old Dockers is more professional than jeans in good condition.
I had bright pink hair for four years during college. I miss it wickedly- it made me happy every day. But I knew it’d have to go (note to companies: old ladies, for some reason, absolutly love seeing people with pink hair). I can’t complain about companies wanting their employees to look business like. People can be very conservative at times and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear about someone not going to an establishment because the staff “looks shady”. I hope one day we reach the point where people are judged by their competence, but I’m not holding my breath.
What I am opposed to is companies- usually in retail- that have excessively strict dress codes. One place I worked at wanted khaki pants…seems easy, right? Well, they could have no more than five pockets and never any cargo pockets. They must have belt loops. They must not be made of denim, and you probably coudln’t get away with a light synthetic material. You could wear shorts on certain months. They could not be a whitish khaki or a deeper khaki. They must be spotless- and the job was a dirty one, and the place employs women who might have the occasional reason to avoid whitish pants. This was not about the cutomer. The customers really don’t care if they spy a dread cargo pocket or shorts in March. Most of the work was behind a counter, anyway. This was about control. They want employees that will do as you say, down to the stupidest detail, and they want these employees to know that when they are on the clock they are not to have individual needs, talents, or thoughts. I am opposed to this sort of thing.
Oh, I am familiar with this mindset. And is it just me, or is it true that often the most “controlling” employers pay the least? Maybe it’s just a coincidence.
I used to work at a fabric store that had a somewhat anal-retentive dress code (at least in some things). They had a thing about “no flat-felled seams in pants.” (This usually is the double-stitching used in jeans and casual trousers.) But it didn’t make sense, because a lot of the ladies (being seamstresses—fabric store, you know) were real clothes horses. They didn’t wear ratty clothes, but they did sometimes wear clothes that had the flat-felled seam.
One woman bitterly complained to me (after being told that she couldn’t wear her beautiful silk paintsuit because it had flat-felled seams), “They won’t let me wear this outfit, but the ladies wearing the $10 cheap polyester slacks are okay! How does this make sense?” It doesn’t. But they enforced the “rules” anyway, even when they were obviously stupid.
I got away with wearing dark dyed denim pants to work, however—I sewed them myself, and didn’t use flat-felled seams!
Depends very much on what the job is and what the dress code is. My agency just recently instituted a dress code. My coworkers heard is was coming before it was issued, thought it was going to require some sort of uniform, and were outraged. What it actually ended up saying ( in about a page of bureaucratese) was
1) Field professional staff should choose clothing with safety and
weapon concealment in mind
2) No sandals
3) No shorts, halters etc.
4)Managerial staff are to wear
male- a suit, or slacks, shirt, tie and jacket
female- dress , skirt or slacks, blouse and jacket, or a suit
The reason for the dress code was, of course, that people were showing up to work dressed for the beach, and management was wearing jeans and golf shirts on a good day.
I don’t know if I really would consider it bigoted to refuse to hire a person because of their chosen appearance, though. It seems to me that people choose their looks to project a certain image - someone who dresses in all black, has multiple facial piercings and bright pink hair is clearly projecting a different image than a woman wearing a suit, silk blouse and pearl earrings. Not better, not worse, just different. The local tattoo/piercing parlor wouldn’t hire the woman in the suit if she wanted to dress that way for work because she’s not projecting the image the business wants to project for itself. She probably wouldn’t be hired even if she agreed to dress differently at work, because the image she’s chosen to project is an indication that she wouldn’t fit in with the culture of the business and it’s customers. The same goes in reverse for the pink-haired, multiple pierced person dressed in black applying to the accounting firm.
Or they had problems at that location or other locations and had to revise their dress code. In my experience I’ve found that most people dress appropriately for whatever environment they’re working in. There’s always a tiny minority without any common sense and that’s who those dress codes are written for. Heck, when I was at CompUSA we had a company meeting where a lot of women complained about being sent home because of their pants even though the pants weren’t specifically banned in the dress code. It was pretty obvious to me that these pants weren’t appropriate office dress but there are always a few who would disagree.
Marc
PS: I know very little about women’s clothing. These pants came down past the knee but well above the ankle. They weren’t particularly offensive just not what someone should wear to an office.
Companies are trying to portray an image. We in the business world call that “branding”. If you work in an Abercrombie & Fitch or J Crew, the store manager certainly has the right to expect you to wear a style that is reflected in the products they sell. If you enjoy wearing pink hair or excessive earings, I might suggest filling out an application at a record store or trendy coffee shop.
You sound surprised. Most places hire you to do a job and do it the way they want it done. I’m not sure where this idea started that the workplace is for “individuality” and “creativity”.
