Don’t USPS employees also have to wear an ID badge? I’d say that so long as he’s wearing the 'official" shirt, or shorts or jacket or bandana or cumberbun, if he has the ID showing, that’s going to be olffial enough for me.
If the postal employees union wants to negotiate some leniency into that regulation, then let 'em but it sounds like this guy is stuck with someone that’s a stickler for enforcing the letter of the regulation.
There is a good reason why he shouldn’t be allowed to wear colorful ties. It’s the old “slippery slope”. First, this gentleman gets away with colorful ties. Then the guy two windows down starts wearing Hawaiian shirts (with the uniform tie, of course). Then the woman starts wearing micro-skirts. When the boss calls them on it, they all point to gentleman number 1 and say, “But he gets to wear his ties!”, because that’s what people do. Don’t believe it? Work in an office environment. If one person gets away with something innocuous, two things will happen. First, someone else will try to get away with something similar but less innocuous. Second, a third party will go snitching to the boss about the first. So the boss (a local Postmaster in this article) can choose to (a)enforce the rules which they may or may not be able to alter (probably not in this case), or (b)let the infraction slide, making it harder to enforce future rules violations. That said, some bosses manage such things better than others, some bosses are power-hungry and/or anal retentive, etc. Not enough detail to make a decision about this one. I’m not going to project upon this Postmaster. For all we know, a single customer complained about the uniform violation and left the Postmaster with little choice but to begin to enforce the rule.
What gets me sick are you clueless motherfuckers who think any and every rule enforcement is an attempt to subvert your freewill and expression.
If you’re saying the point of postal uniforms is to make people identifiable as postal workers, that doesn’t seem relevant here. The guy was easily identifiable as a post office employee even with the kooky tie.
I guess that the difference for me is that I don’t really give a shit if I buy stamps form a 300 pound hairy guy in a thong or if my bank loan officer wears hot pants and a wet t-shirt. Big fucking deal.
The article said it wasn’t a response to complaints. Also, regarding the slippery slope: If people started abusing the dress code more flagrantly, then you could start enforcing it more strictly for everyone, including the Tie Guy. But why not wait and see if that actually happens? I don’t see how the threat of dress code violations is so grave that it must be preemptively crushed.
Who said it’s an attempt to subvert “freewill and expression”? I’m just complaining about rules for the sake of rules. I think it does restrict his freedom of expression, and unneccessarily, but that doesn’t mean that’s the goal of the people enforcing the rule.
If it’s not interfering with the functioning of the message board, then perhaps the rule should be waived. But I don’t think it would be that hard to argue that it would interfere with the functioning of the message board, even if the accusations were witty and charming. Does wearing loud ties interfere with the functioning of the post office? I just don’t see it.
Perhaps there is some great justification the postmaster had for banning the guy’s ties, but the article left me with the definite impression that it was just rules for the sake of rules.
Neither would I. But the USPS, just like Burger King, has a uniform code (I would mind buying a burger from a 300 pound hairy guy in a thong). It’s not a surprise to anyone. As long as there is a uniform code, one should reasonably expect that it will be enforced.
Now if you are asking why do the USPS and Burger King have uniform codes, that I’ll not answer.
tim, it was a dig at people who feel that those of us who expect rules, even seemingly needless ones, to be reasonably enforced. I don’t believe ‘people’ generally capable of making good judgment decisions regarding which rules are stretchable and which are not.
I suppose that what it boils down to is that people get insulted by reality. Rather than being able to say “you know, I have to point out that you just really can’t pull off a thong, Bob” we have to ban thongs altogether. Pathetic
I should also add that sometimes even postal workers who go to customers’ homes do not have a postal uniform and aren’t allowed to wear them. Casual status employees (essentially temp workers), if I recall my USPS information correctly - my husband is a letter carrier - are not allowed to wear uniforms, the last I was told.
I just text-messaged my husband about this and his texted response was “Sometimes a postal bib.” I think I know what he means - like a half-apron thing - but I’m not going to text for clarification at the moment since he’s supposed to be delivering. 
(Much less texting something like “crazy ties for clerks ok?” since he’ll really think I’m weird after that.)
They carry a USPS mail bag, drive a USPS mail truck, but no uniform. Once, back when my husband was a casual, a customer called his post office with the warning that someone had “stolen” the mailman’s bag - and was going around delivering the mail. A supervisor came to check out the situation and talk to the customer, and yes, my street-clothes-clad husband (no “bib”) was the mysterious thief. It was explained to the customer that my husband had a postal ID but no uniform, being a temp.
So there are, in fact, situations in which the USPS requires their employees to be more or less completely out of uniform, even when dealing with customers, and those are in their official regulations.
My WAG about this situation is that a by-the-book supervisor/postmaster was making life difficult for the clerk in question, but I don’t know what the general USPS consensus on ties vs. suspenders vs. “flair” vs. whatever is.
Well, if you’re just looking for any old reason, how about if a man who suffers from epilepsy comes in, and the Tie Guy has on a loud red tie with bright yellow spirals, causing the man to fall into an epileptic seizure? That might interfere with the functioning of the post office, at least until the unfortunate man recovers.
:dubious:
Way to spread ignorance about epilepsy, Liberal. Unless his tie is flashing colored lights, it will not trigger a seizure.
Actually, yes, I do. Not for that one person, but for that one instance. If it can be made vague and amusing enough, and not interfere with the flow of the thread, then I think it’s counterproductive to bring the thread to a screeching halt by calling the poster on it and issuing a warning. And what’s more, I do occasionally see entertaining trollery accusations that are let stand. Perhaps it’s luck that a mod hasn’t seen it, but it seems that if something is amusing and innocuous enough to not illicit a “Report Post” hit from any of the readers of the thread, it ain’t worth modding. IMHO, IANAM
Yeah, I get the “uniform” thing. I just think it’s a dumb rule.
:dubious:
Way to spread ignorance about epilepsy, Liberal. Unless his tie is flashing colored lights, it will not trigger a seizure.
Actually, yes, I do. Not for that one person, but for that one instance. If it can be made vague and amusing enough, and not interfere with the flow of the thread, then I think it’s counterproductive to bring the thread to a screeching halt by calling the poster on it and issuing a warning. And what’s more, I do occasionally see entertaining trollery accusations that are let stand. Perhaps it’s luck that a mod hasn’t seen it, but it seems that if something is amusing and innocuous enough to not illicit a “Report Post” hit from any of the readers of the thread, it ain’t worth modding. IMHO, IANAM
Yeah, I get the “uniform” thing. I just think it’s a dumb rule.
For some reason, I really like the idea of a criminal stealing the mail and then taking the time to deliver it. Maybe that’ll be an option in the next Grand Theft Auto game (if it isn’t already).
You’re mistaken. Anomalous motion optical illusions, such as on the tie I described, can trigger epileptic siezures. I know this partly because I are (or rather, were) one.
But you’re not suggesting that’s actually the postmaster’s rationale, right? Am I being wooshed? (More like reverse-wooshed, since my assumption is you’re probably kidding.)
Could you link me a cite on that, please? Maybe because you know the terminology better than I. I looked for one prior to my reply, but couldn’t find anything on still images triggering seizures. If I am wrong, I apologize.
The fact that someone is wearing a uniform doesn’t do much to assume me, since uniforms and/or reasonable facsimilies are fairly easy to come by. I’m more impressed by ID and a way to contact someone who can vouch for you.
I worked at a grocery store where one of my supervisors had to get special permission to wear a slightly different belt than the one they provided (she is a large sort of person and the belts were just too short for her).
It sucks in some ways, but if you have a job where you have an assigned uniform, you are stuck.
Sure, uniforms can be faked. So can ID, for that matter. And someone vouching for you isn’t terribly reliable either.
Yet life dictates that these things have to be accepted at face value at most times, or the whole system breaks down.
It’s part of the social contract - you need to trust others to a great degree when they’re in the course of their employment. And this trust can be bolstered by things as simple as dress codes, grooming standards and even uniforms.
Say you were arrested, and couldn’t afford a lawyer. You accept a public defender, as is your right to do. How would you react if your attorney showed up unkempt, unclean, and wearing filthy shorts and a T-shirt?
Would you trust this person with your case, and likely your freedom?
Now, attorneys don’t wear uniforms as such. But they’re all expected to dress a certain way, aren’t they? And is this such a terrible thing, really?
In a number of places these guys (and cable guys, phone guys etc) are independent contractors who may just have a magnetic sign they stick opnn their truck.
I’d have to know more about the situation before I could render a meaningful opinion.
I’m willing to guess that the fellow had been wearing his loud ties for a while, apparently without incident. How else would community members know to miss them? And it’s specifically noted that the crackdown was not in response to customer complaints.
I’d like to see the language of the dress code as well as know what standard practice had been.
It’s tempting to conclude that he’s getting his balls busted for reasons not strictly related to work related issues (like a bug up someone’s butt). However, I can’t really say.
Perhaps it’s just because I’m from the South, but I do have a soft spot for eccentrics and harmless cranks.