What are his uniform regs?
There are a number of vendors who sell USPS uniforms. All of them show the ties for window clerks seen in this link.
The mandated two tie patterns are the same for both men and women - only a different style of tie is used for the different sexes.
No, that’s not her rationale. It’s the rationale of Tim314. It’s the argument that just being the uniform code is not enough of a reason because here is reason X why the code should not be enforced — in Tim314’s case, that it’s not interfering with the function of the post office. Thus, my rejoinder: “Well, if you’re just looking for any old reason, how about…” It was intended to show that his exception was arbitrary.
No problem. Thing is, those images do not appear to be still, they appear to be moving, and they are very unsettling, even for people without brain disequilibria. All sorts of things can trigger epileptic seizures, from food to exercise. And it varies from person to person. Almost every reputable optical illusion site will warn epileptics about its content. If you’re looking for peer reviewed articles, I don’t have access to any.
Normally, I would be on the other side of this fence, but this is a town of 7,166 people link 150 mi from Anchorage. Give the guy his loud ties.
But preventing interference with the function of the post office is a good reason to enforce a rule. Whereas, minimizing the already minimal risk that someone’s tie might cause a seizure is not a good reason.
My point is that unless you have a good reason to strictly enforce a rule, it’s better to be flexible about it.
And my point is that there shouldn’t have been a rule at all without a good reason. If you don’t like the motion sickness tie, how about a Christ Is Lord tie with a rhinestone Jesus? How about a Holocaust denial tie? A Bush-Cheney tie? A God Hates Fags tie? Unless you are going to give the guy Carte Blanche, then you’re going to have to pay someone to supervise him and make sure his ties don’t get too far out there. Since that is not what a postmaster should be wasting time on, why not just tell the guy to wear his uniform and get his work done?
I wonder what colour the postmistress dyes her hair.
Oh, please. There’s no reason to think he’d suddenly start wearing offensive or politically motivated ties. And it’s not like they need to pay someone to do a “tie check” – if he did wear ties like that, his supervisors would certainly hear about it. At which point they say, “We were trying to give you some slack, but now you blew it.”
But in this case, the tie guy had been wearing his ties for some time without generating any complaints. And suddenly he has to stop, just in case he might start generating complaints? There wasn’t a problem, there was no evidence that there was going to be a problem, so why intervene?
And if you’re so concerned about people wearing Holocaust denial ties and what not, maybe everyone should have to choose from a pre-approved tie list before going to work. After all, it’s not as if that’s more offensive at the post office than anywhere else. And yet, there are many jobs where people do have freedom-of-tie-choice, and I’m unaware of a widespread outbreak of highly offensive ties. Most people are capable of recognizing what’s inappropriate without having their hand held when they go to pick out a tie in the morning.
I don’t see what the big deal is or why the incident is worthy of an AP story. There’s a dress code and the employee has been told to abide by it. How is that different from what goes on at many thousands of companies every single day?
They tried to impose a uniform on me and my colleagues: a short-sleeved red polo shirt. In the middle of winter. Naturally, it applied to plebs like us only. Now, I’m a professional, and my clients are professionals; I wear a jacket and tie. We rebelled; they acquiesced.
But not our PO guy. He was supposed to pick out the one he was issued.
It only takes one to ruin it for everyone else. That’s why dress codes like “business casual” have to get very picky. One might think everyone knows what business casual means. One would be wrong.
Postal worker husband confirms that yes, it is regulations that the clerks wear standard issue ties, and that yes, it’s also not often enforced.
I have no idea why the USPS decided on uniforms, but one reason may have been to eliminate individual judgement. My dad has Christmas ties, Easter ties, and Thanksgiving ties–all kinds of Christian holiday-themed ties. He can’t imagine why anyone would have a problem with him wearing such a tie. Do you think everyone feels that way? I can see how some of his ties would cause problems if he were a gov’t representative, but he can’t. Maybe the USPS wanted to take individual postal employees’ judgement out of it.
I’m not saying this guy did have an objectionable tie. Most likely, he got a prig of a manager who sticks to the rules no matter what. That’s not the best situation, but there are far worse managers out there than those who make you conform to a dress code. Wearing a uniform tie or the equivalent isn’t such a big deal (at least not to me).
The postmistresses, back when I lived in a town sixty miles past nowhere, never wore any kind of uniform. I would have been freaked out if they had. People who lived out there are extremely suspicious of anyone in a uniform and it might actually have caused problems.
I don’t debate that you follow dress code (the USPS is like Jimmy Buffet compared to the nuns at my grade school and I liked it that way), but some rules, it’s not so bad if they go unenforced. It was nice, in a quirky small-town way, though this was before the death of common sense, if I’m not mixing up my dates.
[QUOTE=Ashes, Ashes]
the USPS is like Jimmy Buffet compared to the nuns at my grade school and I liked it that way.
[QUOTE]
I must ask what you mean by this. Do you mean tha tthe USPS is so liberal as to allow all kinds of things and that is alll righ with you or tha the USPS does not allopw such things and that is all right with you?
I hope for the day our society will realize how silly ties are and dump them.
and suits.
and postal uniforms for that matter.
I wear hawiian shirts or tiedyes to work everyday. Its done much for my attitude.
[QUOTE=MaddyStrut]
[QUOTE=Ashes, Ashes]
the USPS is like Jimmy Buffet compared to the nuns at my grade school and I liked it that way.
I dunno, I got lost in that sentence. Basically, Jimmy is quite laid back, as is the USPS in regard to uniforms, when compared to how picky the nuns were at my old grade school. That they were picky was a good thing by and large. It taught us all sorts of good stuff that I still use today. And by enforcing every single rule absolutely, you always knew where you stood. But that worked for that particular school, with those particular people. Being manic about rules isn’t always needed or good, depending upon the circumstances.
We had this one relaxed code I remember… And we skated along nicely. Then one day, the defiant one got snarky and impudent and mouthy and stuff and such to the female boss lady type. It skated real close to the line but with absolute adherence to comas and word choice and totally ignoring tone and body language, he pontificated on his immunity. Oh, he was a sly one who read the rule book — he thought.
She then applied the comas and word choice and the letter of the rule to our nice well ordered self expression and shut it down. Well, well, guess what.
Being as we did not appreciate this, he ( snaky skater of self interest ) soon left the company because, well, I guess he was uncomfortable the environment for some reason. ( we did gang-up real well )
We then noted that the boss lady was into reasonable self expression and so we gladly joined her.
*::: so manny peoples ask and now I wonder, could he have skated too close to a common courtesy line with a new boss and due to the rules, he could not be … ah … instructed as to his error so could a different path to establishing dominance and actual authority be in effect here? :::: *