Dress Code Redux

It’s interesting that today, Bucko is discussing dress codes and Disney has announced that it is relaxing its rule regarding facial hair. Dress codes are something that I tend to take an interest in, having fallen foul of them in the past.

Very early on in my somewhat chequered career, I was told that I should wear a tie to work rather than an open necked shirt. I refused and stuck to my guns. They backed down. At that time, I was unaware of exactly what the law was regarding this –  however, I was on firm ground. There was no written code, so it couldn’t be enforced. And this is the crux; a dress code must be written down, preferably consulted with those affected and equitable. This means that you can’t have a relaxed code for some people while having it rigidly enforced for others. The principle originally set by Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops Ltd [1977] still applies. The principle is that an employer (or school) may set different codes for male and female employees or students, however, they must be equally restrictive.

This means that in the case Bucko cites regarding trainers in school, the parents are onto a loser. The code was written down and reasonable. As it was clearly communicated, enforcement shouldn’t have come as a surprise.

Where I do get annoyed about dress codes is when the employer starts to impose their code not on clothing –  or a uniform –  that can be changed at the end of the working day, but upon the bodies of their employees –  hair length and facial hair, for example. You cannot grow your hair back at the end of the working day, nor does one’s chin sprout a decent growth of beard for the evening –  although mine comes close. I don’t get so much a five o’clock shadow as a midday one.

Such codes are legal for the reasons given above –  the law does not differentiate between hair length and the wearing of ties. That it should is moot. It doesn’t and that’s that. At least it will be until someone sets a precedent in court. Hasn’t happened yet and I’m not holding my breath. And, frankly, such restrictions are pretty rare. I’ve only been taken to task once regarding the length of my hair and on that occasion, as there was no dress code, I refused and reminded them what the law says on these matters. No more was said.

Disney’s erstwhile ban on beards wouldn’t affect me. I have only worn a beard the once and then briefly. But, again, it was an imposition. Sure, you can choose not to work for an employer –  if you have that luxury. However, it is not the employer’s place to dictate your body. Clothes, yes –  issuing a uniform, fine and dandy and if they don’t want you to wear your piercings at work, then I see no problem. I can even see an argument for no visible tattoos, but a beard? A beard is perfectly natural. It is the normal state of affairs for men. Shaving is unnatural, as is cutting our hair. And there is no reason why either condition cannot look smart, businesslike and professional.

“While we are careful to maintain our heritage and the integrity of our brand, a recent review of our guidelines led to a decision that an update was appropriate at this time.”

What this tells us is that Disney are keeping up with the times and changing social attitudes. This is also part of the principle of applying dress codes –  be aware of changing attitudes. When it became known that I was under fire for having shoulder-length hair, the general reaction was “they can’t do that these days!” Well, actually, they can, but they need to play by the rules. Those rules include having a written dress code and, if you are being sensible, being sensitive to changing social norms. A man with longer hair is no longer seen as untidy or unprofessional. And although you don’t see many beards, these are not unprofessional either.

Disney are doing the right thing here. Not that this pleases Paul Hamilos.

But Disney’s public pronouncements in support of beardies need to be read closely. While they may now permit facial hair, they nonetheless still expect it to be “short and neat” (it can be no longer than a quarter of an inch, which, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, is not a beard – it’s a gesture). So Santa Claus wouldn’t have been allowed to work at Disneyland. Neither would Jesus. Interesting message you’re putting out there, Disney.

Actually, I’d say that was a reasonable compromise. It’s a way of ensuring that the beard remains neat and it is an easy way to avoid ambiguity. I am reminded of a Petty Officer I once knew who was regularly being told to cut his chest-length beard. He refused and got away with it, citing Queen’s regulations. He had been given permission to stop shaving and that was what he had done. Nothing said he had to cut it. Last time I saw him, the battle was ongoing. That’s why Disney have laid down such specific guidelines.

————————-

As an aside, do trawl through the comments and look at what SanDiegoFemist has to say on the matter. Hilarious, or what?

…to suggest that wiry, rough-textured facial hair is the same as head-hair is completely ridiculous. For a start head hair is something which is shared by both men AND women (apart from rather amusingly bald men)… secondly, I am struggling to remember the last time I saw a person with bits of food in their head-hair – something which happens very frequently with nearly all bearded men. Beards clearly have no place in a modern and gender-progressive society.

Or this:

Beards are self-evidently unhygeinic – being constantly exposed to food and saliva renders the vast majority of facial hair a breeding ground for germs from the decaying food and the encrusted spittle. What we have to ask ourselves is ‘why should women and children be exposed to the health hazard of male men who are too juvenile to resist making this aggressive visual statement’?

We need legislation to prevent what is clearly both a health hazard and a symbol of male aggression

What do you reckon, clever trolling?