This is precisely why my department’s dress code involves easy-to-care for clothing. Cotton polos and jeans are the order of the day, because not a single one of us just sits at a desk.
I guess it’s a matter of being able to judge your particular circumstances. I know a number of people who would continue to wear the clothes, all of whom are exceptionally good at their jobs, and one who is a certified genius. The genius is also “on the spectrum” and would literally see nothing in the slightest amiss with stained clothes. The others are all very good at their jobs and a bit “in your face” about not caring for societies silly conventions.
FWIW I don’t see it as a big deal in the slightest, but can see how an employee’s standards can reflect on the company.
Why the hell would that matter? The poster is talking about morality. Morality doesn’t change based on who you are or what position you are in.
There is a basic moral rule that you do not judge someone by their outside appearance, but instead by the content of their character. Doing otherwise is what we call prejudice.
It’s one thing for the people who say they wouldn’t do it. It’s even fine for the people who think it’s odd to do so. That’s their own standards. But you’ve advocated firing someone because of it. That is a whole other ballgame. You are advocating hurting someone because they look wrong.
You even know that it’s wrong, because you said that you would have to LOOK for a legal way to fire them. In other words, you know that firing them for stained clothes would make you look like a jerk, and might even be prohibited by law. You are deliberately sidestepping the law to hurt someone because they look funny.
I don’t know how in the world you can’t figure out that that’s a moral issue. You’re going on a fishing exposition to figure out how you can fire someone. That’s wrong.
Of course it does. Do you hold a 2 year old to the same level of responsibility for hitting someone that you would hold a grown man to? Do you not expect police to be held to a higher expectation than you or I? Do you not recognize the potential for abuse and the necessary escalation in expectation? Who you are and what position you are in are critical factors in determining just what level of action you are held to.
Yes, the poster is talking about morality; not me. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I’m talking about.
I asked him the questions I did to possibly get a better handle on his outlook, i.e., maybe he is young and not had much actual experience in the workplace and is coming from a rebellious, idealistic mindset, or maybe he’s in IT and relates to the OP’s attitude.
Thanks for the lesson on morality but we’re talking about the business world in this instance. The boss gets to decide how he wants his business to be represented and by extension how the people working for him accomplish that.
The OP didn’t say, “damn, I’ve ruined all my clothes and I don’t know what to do”.
He pretended to be asking us what we would do, hoping we’d all share his opinion. He’s not some poor waif who can afford nothing but rags, he’s clearly stated that he doesn’t give a shit about what people think. I, as the hypothetical boss, wasn’t judging him for being a bad person. I was judging him for being a bad employee.
Being a good employee encompasses a hell of a lot more than one’s allegedly superior skills. If one can’t be arsed to take a modicom of pride in their appearance - and we’re not talking about suits here, we’re talking about noticably stained clothes - then no, I don’t consider them a valuable employee. It shows a lack of interest and respect and as a boss I should have every right to decide who works for me. And his shitty attitude doesn’t help either.
As for the legal aspect, it’s just common sense. I’m not about to be held hostage to some malcontent’s sense of entitlement. That’s how it works. What do you think HR departments are for?
Firing for cause is not some moral issue, and willful refusal to adhere to business standards is cause.
Firing someone who is doing his job well is clearly a moral issue. He says he is following the dress code and that his boss does not care, so why is he a bad employee? Perhaps the company dress code extends to everybody, but his position is one in which he never is seen by a client, for example, so the boss is not concerned. Maybe the boss is happy to have someone doing the job well, and is willing to overlook some superficial bullshit. There is no perfect employee, and to sacrifice someone who is doing valuable work because of an ink stain is idiotic.
So I’m not a “him,” not young, far from idealistic, and definitely not in IT. I would not wear stained clothes at work, unless I was doing physical labor of a clothes-staining nature… Definitely not in an office, where I would reluctantly meet or exceed all standards of dress, including any unwritten standards I discerned from observing the standards followed by the best-dressed examples in the particular work environment. I would prefer to avoid all potential for workplace controversy over such trivia that could detract from my brilliant work performance. I would budget for and divert my free time into acquiring the necessary wardrobe items. What I wouldn’t do is judge the ink stains on other people’s clothes. If my employee was dressed in a way that I felt could cost the business money, like if he met with clients who were likely to judge him and not hire us because of his attire, I would explain that although I personally did not feel that his dress was problematic, unfortunately others may not agree and that the risk of losing business necessitated that he not wear stained clothes. If he chose not to comply in spite of the obvious practical considerations, he is probably not someone who should meet with clients anyway, so I would not use him in that capacity.
Do you have a good “handle” on my outlook now?
I’ve got an even greater" handle" that we’re not sharing in the same conversation. Part of “doing one’s job well” is adhering to company standards, whatever they may be. The alleged excellence of one’s work is not the only factor, no matter how badly you wish it was.
If the OP’s boss doesn’t care, believe me I don’t give a rat’s ass either. He asked a question and I answered, including what would happen if I was his employer. You do realize that I’m not actually his employer and have no power to “hurt” him?
I’m also not sure if you actually know the meaning of the word moral.
It’s pretty simple, really–my personal belief is that a person who cuts corners on the dress code will cut corners elsewhere that I cannot see where he also doesn’t believe it matters. So I disbelieve the initial premise.
The person confused about morality in this conversation is clearly you, and at no point have I implied that you are this guy’s employer.
The guy says his boss does not care. You say that IF YOU were his boss, YOU would care enough to fire him unless he knew how wrong it was to wear ink stains and vowed to correct his errant ways. Proper reasons to fire people relate to morals or competence. In the scenario, the worker’s competence is already established (for the sake of argument… In reality, he may be a terrible worker).
I have known many people who would wear ink-stained clothes, yet would not cut the corners you speak of.
I do doubt the initial premise in this case, but to assume that stained clothes = bad work is false. If the work is bad, I don’t think you’re going to need stained clothes to tip you off. We aren’t talking about a job interview here, but a situation where the boss is already familiar with and ostensibly pleased with the work.
I think this is a key divergence point between camps. I have the precisely opposite view: I see dressing up as a façade, and that the primary goal is to hide something ugly. And so I assume that their work ethic is similar; that they are covering up cut corners with a polished exterior. An ugly exterior makes no such pretenses, and further implies that they’ve spent their (always limited) time on actually productive efforts instead of polish.
I was thinking about this thread yesterday. A co-worker of mine who was planning to telecommute that day ended up coming in due to an emergency. He was wearing a rather antiquated t-shirt (the hems had come undone on the sleeves) topped with a cat-hair-covered sweater. We were good-naturedly picking on him for that. I doubt his boss said a word, but if he made a habit of coming in like that, things would be different.
I’m pretty sure “clothing free of stains and holes” is part of the written dress code for our company, even for people on the production floor (or IT). If you work in an area likely to ruin your clothes, you get a uniform provided to you.
Or elimination of the department or the product area, or insubordination, or other reasons I’m not thinking about.
In the vast majority of US states, a “legal reason to fire someone” is “just because.”
As I found out 20 odd years ago, in New York you can fire someone for being pregnant.
(Because she could no longer perform her job duties in the shipping department.)
Elimination of the job may necessitate laying someone off, not “firing” them.
Insubordination would depend on the circumstance, but could fall under the category of bad behavior, thus a moral issue. When I say “proper” reasons to fire someone relate to morals or competence, I mean fair and just reasons, not legal reasons. Hopefully there is some overlap, but they are not the same thing.
If a pregnant person cannot do her job, clearly she is no longer competent. She would be protected by law in some states but not others, I suppose.
I can’t read this whole thread, but try soaking an item of clothing in rubbing alcohol. That should get the stains out.
That might be true in some fields. However, in IT specifically, there are a lot of tasks that the average IT person considers window dressing or a facade that are in actuality highly important–documentation, code commenting, strict adherence to security standards, complete unit tests.
The guy who doesn’t care about ink spots because clothes are just a facade, I worry he’s also going to not care about comments or documentation because the code is the important part. After ten years in the field, I find this holds true in 99% of cases.
The only thing I’m confused about is what the hell planet you live on. Proper reasons for firing almost never have anything to do with morals. That really *would *take a lot of legal maneuvering. That leaves us with competence. If one cannot comprehend, or will not follow, the rules that have been set down by the proprietor of the company - and I’m not even speaking to the lack of common sense regarding showing up at work in unacceptable attire - then one is *incompetent. *
Keep tilting at that windmill in your mind, if you like. Pit me, or pit the way the American corporate world works. Hell, start a thread poll on what should be considered acceptable attire at work. But please obtain a grip on reality. For the lasat time, business, including hiring and firing, simply doesn’t work the way you *think *it should.
It’s pretty simple really. The OP asked about “normal people” reaction to ink on clothes. The normal reaction is, assuming you don’t work in a messy environment where stains are common enough that you want to wear crappy clothes anyway, that you look like a slob. Now depending on how strict of a dress code your company has, they may take issue with it. You probably won’t get fired. Your boss may point out that you have a stain on your shirt. If you show up every day with a different ink stained shirt, you’re going to look like a weirdo. And if you work at a place where professional appearance is part of your performance, it could have a negative affect.
I’m not sure why that’s such a difficult concept to grasp for some people. I can only assume that part of it is because IT people spend a lot of work and personal time in social isolation or with similar-minded people and never learned the concept of “social conventions”. That is to say, at a certain point, actively not conforming to the norm isn’t a “creative expression of your freedom”, it’s being an off-putting weirdo.
I’m pretty sure there have been some developments in that area in the past 20 years.
And you have hit the nail on the head. That what actually matters , matters; and that what doesn’t matter, doesn’t. That is the secret to an good IT mind.
And that is a perfect example. In ten years the code matters, the comments matter, the documentation matters. The clothes I was wearing don’t