Tie Guy Forced into Uniform

Not about the Draft. Really.
I just want to put this out here. It’s a story about a man in a post office who’s been told he can’t wear loud ties to work.

Now, I have an aversion to ties to begin with, so I hate having to wear 'em for any reason. But, when I can’t avoid them, I wear the loudest ties I can find, because I like making others share my pain. (In a relatively harmless way, of course.) I can understand that a tie is a part of the bureaucrat uniform. But this still seems pretty damned petty. To say the least.

Besides, wouldn’t it be better to have happy Postal workers, even if they’re in loud ties, than to risk them becoming disgruntled?

It is indeed petty, but if it breaks the dress code that’s the way it has to be. It’s like me wearing my Steelers hat on the job, or a pair of Bermuda shorts. It’s just not done. That is the very point of a uniform dress code: uniformity.

Yes yes, we must maintain ORDER!! Empty gestures of stifled individuality must not be tolerated!! … There is no difference between the Post Office and the Air Force!!

As long as I get my mail in a reasonable time the mailman can wear Hawaiian shirts for all I care. In fact I’d prefer they did; that way they are at least happier and not exhibiting awareness of being broken and beaten down by the Man (or in this case, the Woman.)

And yet, the necessity of, say, FedEx or UPS or DHL employees to wear uniforms isn’t disputed much, is it?

And I do mean necessity. These folks are often walking onto my private property and into a government facility where I happen to work. The uniform is an indication that they have business there and are not a security problem to either me at home or my facilities manager here.

At home, packages are often left on my doorstep by the letter carrier. This is a great convenience, and is much appreciated. Random people leaving packages there wouldn’t be welcomed so well.

Uniforms or other required clothing are a part of many jobs, many not remotely related to the military. If this impedes on your individuality too much, you can get a job somewhere else.

If someone has to express their “individuality” through their clothing, I suspect they have more problems than not being able to wear their favorite tie to work.

They both require uniforms, and as a representative of an organization you are required to wear that uniform. If you can’t do that you need to find employment elsewhere.

Not necessarily; the U.S. post office requires uniforms, but other countries’ POs may merely require shirts and ties. It sounds to me like the Tie Guy is complying with the basic requirement of the dress code, but being singled out because his ties are too bright.

Absolutely. Or an even better example is the guy who checks the electric meter. Would you let him go snooping around your yard if he wasn’t in uniform?

That said, I think that an individual tie isn’t a big deal to general uniformity - however, rules are rules.

There seems to be some missing information in the linked news article. No mention of how long Tie Guy has been working at that job and wearing loud ties before the crackdown on the dress code, for example. No mention of whether the postmaster for the town is new on the job and being a typically zealous New Broom Sweeping Clean, or whether she’s just got it in for a subordinate. So I’ll suspend the Moral Outrage over some guy’s tie.

But I will note that anyone working for a service like the Post Office knows going in there’s a dress code, and don’t think for a minute that the code doesn’t include the color and style of tie one is allowed to wear. Since he knew going in what was expected of him, the loud ties put Tie Guy in the wrong, no matter how hyperbolic you want to be about Fighting The Man.

I would like to point out, Mr. Moto and Neurotik are absolutely correct that uniforms in many positions are a necessity.

However, both their arguments hinge upon people actually going out to deliver services at a customer’s home. This gentleman is working at the customer service desk in the post office. If people aren’t aware, by the point they come up to him for assistance, that they’re dealing with the US Postal Service, they’ve got more problems than simply worrying about whether he’s an authorized person.

And, yes, a employer can require anything they like for dress standards. Which is why for all my sympathy all I could say was that it seemed awfully petty. Perhaps not quite pit-worthy, but still seemed a very small thing.

Mark me down as someone who thinks that postmaster is busting balls just because she can. Certainly the locals there didn’t seem to be too offended by a few kooky ties.

At my local post office many of the workers wear things like suspenders, buttons, etc. They are cheerful, productive people and the republic has not fallen because of their tiny gestures of making their job a little more tolerable. Nor have the jackboots kicked in their door demanding conformity.

Just because a civil servant is going around wearing a uniform that looks just like everyone else’s doesn’t automatically mean that all’s well. One recent example that comes to mind is the BTK killer. I bet that guy never put on a funny tie in his life.

I could care less if they think he looks good in a clown suit. It’s not the uniform. Get that through your head. You’re wrong, and he was wrong.

At college I saw a young ROTC fellow wearing earrings with his uniform. Since I was also in uniform I pulled him aside and had a talk with him about uniform discipline. It’s a simple thing: take a job that requires a uniform, wear the uniform. Just because he was allowed at some point to break the rules it does not mitigate the requirement. This is just a return to what was always supposed to be the case. Too bad, so sad.

But… but… you’re taking away my freedom to tell my employer how to run his business! Do you wish that I present you a protruded lower lip?

Is it part of the uniform? No? Then tuck that lip in and get back to work.

:smiley:

You lockstep sheep motherfuckers make me sick.

Rules are rules, but rules that exist for no good reason are stupid rules. There’s no good reason I can see why this guy shouldn’t be allowed to wear kooky ties. “Because it’s the rule” isn’t a reason. “Uniformity for the sake of uniformity” isn’t a reason. If there were any evidence his kooky ties were negatively affecting the public’s perception of the Post Office, that would be one thing, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case. If anything, it sounds like they’re positively affecting people’s perception of the Post Office. Not to mention boosting the morale of the people who work there (at least the Tie Guy himself.) So unless there’s some reason why this guy wearing loud ties negatively affects the organization, it’s just a rule for the sake of having a rule, which is asinine.

Suppose people were entertained by trollery accusations, and that a particular person were skillful at making such accusations with great wit and charm. Should the rule against trollery accusation be waived for that one person?

It would appear that somebody’s got a case of the Mondays, but I’m unsure whether it’s Tie Guy, or the Postmaster.

What part of UNIFORM are people not grasping?

Postal workers don’t get a choice of ties. They go to the local uniform shop and get the Postal Tie, just as a police officer would go there and get the Cop Tie and Cop Hat. The USPS even has a set of specs for belts. I used to have a black “basketweave” belt that had “Meets USPS specifications” stamped on the back.

It may not be particularly attractive, but when you see those blue-gray trousers with the darker blue stripe on the sides, you immediately know who you’re looking at, which is the whole point to it.

Before Binarydrome thinks I’m some sort of lockstep sheep, I don’t even own a tie, but I understand the whole point behind uniforms. Apparently, they don’t.

Depends on how witty and charming we are talking about.