The papers were awash with high heels this past week. Various folk have waded in with varying degrees of outrage – from the Katie Hopkins approach of “if you don’t like it, don’t take the job” to screeches of “sexism” in the Guardian and the Indy. As is usual, the situation is rather more nuanced.
I managed to get into an exchange with one rabid feminist who was convinced that the dress code was illegal. Actually, no, it isn’t. Nor is it sexist, because the law in this area is clear. Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops (1977) still applies. In that case, a woman was prevented from wearing trousers to work. There’s an interesting development here, because, despite this judgement, trousers are not an issue in 2016. That’s because employers tend to adapt to changing public opinion. The judgement, though, wasn’t about trousers per se; it was about the employer’s right to impose a dress code. The employer may impose gender stereotypes in that code, providing they are even-handed. So, high heels for women and suits and ties for men, would be even-handed as far as that judgement is concerned, so despite shouting at me that I am wrong, the law applies as it applies. Still, rabid feminists and lefties really can’t be bothered with facts when an emotive screech drowns out opposing voices.
So, we have a petition – another tedious fucking petition, which is little more than faux activism for the hard of thinking and terminally lazy. And parliament is supposed waste time debating this nonsense and enact a law prohibiting the imposition of high heels in the workplace. This, despite the employer in question backing down in response to the publicity. What this tells us is that we do not need more micromanaging laws when the issue can be resolved perfectly well without it. PwC were clearly behind the curve of public opinion and reacted when they realised this. So, problem resolved. No laws needed. The existing law is perfectly sound. Indeed, more law is likely to make matters worse, not better.
There are a couple of other matters – heels, if worn for extended periods of time can cause musculoskeletal problems. So, actually, there is a health and safety argument to make. And, had I been challenging it , that’s the line I would have taken – not the sexism one. Because, the sexism one simply does not apply. Indeed, on the matter of sexism, Occam’s razor leans to the reasoning that, in all likelihood, the code is an archaic one that no one has bothered until now to challenge or revisit, rather than “teh patriarchy” objectifying women.
In general, I regard dress codes as being a pragmatic approach by employers to ensure that their corporate image is not tarnished by people turning up to work and facing customers in hot pants, boob tubes, leggings baggy shorts or trousers hanging around the lower buttocks. A simple, sensible code makes sense. The law says that employers must communicate the code and preferably consult with affected employees. Providing they do this and it is even-handed in application, they remain legal. These days, smart casual is starting to be the norm, so employers are moving with the times.
Another alternative is to issue uniforms and these usually involve a range of choices, giving employees options of skirt, dress, trousers and so on.
Where it can get problematic is when they start to include hair-length, facial hair, tattoos and other aspects that cannot be changed when leaving the workplace at the end of the shift. However, we then come back to the “don’t take the job” argument, which is fair enough. It only becomes a problem if the code is retroactively applied once an employee is in place.
But, overall, this really was a fuss about nothing. A problem that could have been resolved easily and, in the end, was once the company realised that it was out of step. Are we really going to have the cretins in Westminster debating this and enacting more bad law? Really?
Mr LR agree with you on this one, but please don’t close down comments like you did recently.
I have no idea what you are on about. Unless you mean that comments are closed automatically after a period of time. That’s merely an anti-spam measure and only kicks in after about five days of inactivity.
Mr Greenscreen, I have followed this blog for five years and, as far as I am aware, Mr. Longrider only closes comments on old posts. He certainly never closes comments on posts that he thinks that people won’t like, in the manner that some online newspapers are inclined to do. I think that you may owe him an apology.
Me again. Anyway failed to make my point earlier and last time.
I really do like the blog, please keep it going.
Personally I never mentioned muzzies, but I am pretty sure that they won’t crossdress to enter any toilet. They will, most certainly, take advantage of any law that says that they can enter any toilet male or female and do whatever it is they do.
Damn sure I would not want to be CD in such circumstances.
Ah, yes, that one. In the UK we have common law, not the nasty Napoleonic law. Therefore, there has never been a law prohibiting people going into whatever toilet they choose – and, there hasn’t been a problem. It does not require laws, never did, never will.
When you consider some of the self serving cobblers that MPs do spend their time (and our taxes) needlessly debating this subject would almost qualify as a matter of up most importance.
For example did Mike Ashley ever bother to appear to explain why his company searches employees for stolen gear ?
“Are we really going to have the cretins in Westminster debating this and enacting more bad law? Really?”
That’s what’s called a rhetorical question, Longy – of course they will!
I don’t think the company should’ve backed down. If their dress code (which they’re allowed to request) is heels with a pencil skirt then that sounds appropriate (flats with a pencil skirt just looks scruffy) and since the heels could be 2″ – which ain’t high – then no problems with comfort/health and safety.
The problem here is that heels can cause harm, so backing down made sense. Even 2″, which I find easy to wear, can with prolonged wear, cause problems. By not backing down, they leave themselves open to action.
The insistence on a woman wearing high heels is less to do with appearance and more to do with the male view of a woman wearing high heels has a more erotic image than one wearing flat shoes. Catering to the sexual fantasies of inadequate males should never be a term of employment. I say this as a heterosexual male where high heels play a very small part in my enjoyment of the appearance of ladies.
“Catering to the sexual fantasies of inadequate males should never be a term of employment.”
Well, damn! What are we supposed to do with all these unemployed lapdancers, then? Not to mention the legions of out of work Ladies of Negotiable Affection?
They are already on the hit list.
I kind of covered this. The likelihood is that someone somewhere thought that this is a professional look – and has not been reviewed in the light of changing attitudes.
lipstick is sexist too.