LOL. Yeah, I should have said designer shoes start at $300.
I live in Colorado. “Wear clothes please” is our dress code.
Well, I don’t dress like a bum to ‘fancy’ restaurants. I will wear a button shirt and of course shorts in the summer. My Wife and I go to lunch that typically costs about $130. No problem. They do want your money. Just don’t scare the other customers.
I bought cheap shoes once at a discount store. They promptly gave me plantar fasciitis. Which went away as soon as I got some better shoes. Which weren’t cheap.
It is also really hard for some people (me included) to find shoes that fit. If you’re not such a person, be grateful; you’re lucky.
Either rubber or rubber-bottomed, which don’t breathe and would be horrible to wear for long shifts in most conditions, or really expensive hiking or work boots with special synthetics purported to let moisture out but not in.
And no, most people’s everyday shoes aren’t at all waterproof. @We_re_wolves_not_werewolves , Try standing in a creek in yours sometime.
It doesn’t say they have to be waterproof, just made from a waterproof material. Either way, I agree it’s a weird requirement.
I was thinking something like this: Men - Winter Moc 3 - Slip Ons | Merrell
But can we at least agree that the pants requirement is not an issue for most people? A pair of jeans meets the requirements.
A pair of new-ish, plain jeans, anyway. And some people may only have one or two pairs of pants which would meet their specs. And the article notes that Starbucks is giving employees two shirts. One can assume that working in food service will rapidly lead to dirty shirts and pants, and unless you are expecting people to do laundry every day or two, they will need more than “a pair of jeans” and the two black shirts provided.
They’re $120.
ETA: is black clothing really considered “friendly” these days?
Ever drop a pitcher of steamed milk on your foot?
The top of the shoe needs to be of a waterproof material if you’re working around boiling liquids.
Precisely. I know American families with school-age kids seem to have defaulted to doing some laundry every day, which I find kind of horrifying, but that’s more of a middle-class or higher trait, not single people or couples. This is especially a problem if you’re in an apartment with a shared laundry room and machines that don’t give you a discount for partial loads. That’s a lot of wasted time, money, and resources for someone who’s more likely to be working multiple jobs/shifts.
I can’t imagine working in a kitchen, even something like a Starbucks, without leather upper non-slip shoes, ideally safety toe. They tend to be widely available and reasonably priced. Get them with the safety toe and you’ve got a good pair of shoes for whenever you’re handling something heavy, including moving.
Full price or on sale?
It was full price.
Clark’s makes a restaurant workers shoe. Anywhere from $45 and up. If you shop carefully you can find a pair at a sale price.
Still, no hourly worker should be expected to buy that before starting a job.
I volunteered a long time wearing crocs in a concession stand. Hot nacho cheese was flying allover that place. We got really good at bouncing back if we saw something going down to the floor.
That’s been the expectation for most of the jobs I had before I started working for myself. My job at 16 in a gas station required me to purchase steel toed shoes. My job at a cable company (nearly 40 years ago) required the purchase of $200 linesman boots (they would front you the money and take it out of your first several paychecks). That was something you agreed to to get the job. BUT, once you have the job, it’s really uncool for your employer to require that you incur further expenses that weren’t explained to you before you took the job.
Did I miss it, because I saw nothing on what this lawsuit has for what is actually being claimed and what remedy the plaintiffs are looking for.
And in Brooke Allen’s case, to do so with less than 24 hours notice. Cheaper alternatives may exist, but when your shopping timeframe is “this evening” then your options are very limited.
Her shopping timeframe was months unless she was a new hire who was either not given the dress code or who didn’t read it. The dress code was announced in April and implemented in May. Ms. Allen skirted by until July.
SB’s policy is fine. For the states that require employers to cover uniforms, this isn’t a uniform. Other than the logo shirt.
She was wearing Crocs, which are made of a waterproof material. We don’t know if they were the appropriate color, but they could very well have been. It sounds like she thought she was being compliant, then one day she was told that she wasn’t, and she only had until the next morning to correct it. Also, part of the lawsuit states that the previous dress code was only loosely enforced, so this sudden “you must comply and comply immediately” policy was unexpected and therefore extra burdensome.
I had a position in a mailroom that consisted of me walking pretty much the entirety of the day as I delivered items throughout the complex. I also had another job that consisted of me standing in a single spot for the whole day. Standing was surprisingly far harder on my body than walking all day. I might be sore after walking all week, but standing all week left me in excruciating pain.
And they expose the heel, and are thus not allowed. Not getting caught for three months doesn’t make it SB’s problem. Other than that they probably need to hire someone else.
I’m glad in all my years managing people I’ve never had to say anything about what anyone is wearing. But if I did notice something that’s obviously not allowed, it’s irrelevant whether nobody had noticed before. Go home now and don’t come back until you fix it is absolutely an appropriate response.