I see that dress codes have reared their heads again. Apparently it is women who are being discriminated against. Now, let me say here that Portico’s dress codes were over the top and pernickety. I would have rebelled again them – not least because heels worn over a period of time can cause harm. But the general principle that employers may impose traditional gender stereotypes is currently underpinned by law. And if the law is to be changed, I have no problem with that. Indeed, the law is long overdue for overhaul. An employer is being reasonable if they insist on smart business wear. They are being unreasonable when they start to specify heel height, whether you can have shoes with ankle straps or what colour nail varnish you may wear. And to insist on makeup goes way, way beyond their remit as an employer. They are buying time and expertise for their money, not ownership of the employee’s body. Although there is a persistent meme that employers have rights over employees that really needs to be vigorously challenged. They do not have any rights beyond the exchange entered into – i.e do the work expected to the standard required.
That said, this being the Groan, it is a woman problem:
Two Commons’ committees have called for a review of current equality legislation after gathering evidence of sexist instructions issued to hundreds of female employees but not to their male colleagues.
Tell that to Matthew Thompson who was told to wear a tie, but no similar restrictions imposed upon female colleagues, or to Mr Smith who was told to cut his hair. Or, for that matter; me. Back in 2000 I was instructed to cut my hair, despite my female colleagues wearing theirs considerably longer than mine. I stood my ground. My body, my rules apply. You can tell me to wear a business suit if you wish. You cannot – ever – insist that I make changes to my body. They backed down. Not least because they did not have in place a formal written dress code that had been consulted with those affected.
Of course, Schmidt v Austicks still applies because no one has ever overturned it. It’s why Smith lost and Thompson won. It really is time it was consigned to the dustbin of history, for modern attitudes have changed. So insisting that women dye their roots, wear makeup and high heels is as archaic as insisting that men be clean-shaven or cut their hair short. Providing people are neat, tidy and businesslike, then that is all that is necessary. And if the employer wants a particular look for their customer facing staff, provide a uniform. It really is that simple.
I personally feel that if employers wants to impose certain dress / appearance codes, e.g. no visible tatts, hair length, nail polish colour, it is their right as long it is made clear before the potential employee agrees to the position. Observing certain appearance standards would be one of the things the employer is asking from the employee in return for pay. If the employee feels it is a concession not worth the offered pay, they are not obliged to accept the job. Obviously, it is different if the employer moves the goalposts later.
The word here is reasonable. Heels for example, can cause harm, so an employee is within their rights to object and it is not reasonable to enforce them. Expecting business dress, smart grooming or wearing a uniform would be reasonable – so long as any restrictions are equally applied.
My own experience was indeed a case of moving goalposts. If I turned up at an interview and an employer told me that cutting my hair short was a condition of employment, I would terminate the interview then and there as I would not wish to work for such an organisation. I was faced with it some twelve years into my employment with them. I explained that I was not going to comply and if they wished to fight it at a tribunal, not having a written, consulted, policy, they were welcome. They decided not, wisely.
The reason that hair length crosses the boundary of reasonable is that the individual cannot grow it back again when leaving the office. They can cover tattoos – well, most anyway – and they can remove nose rings or whatever. As I cannot grow my hair back and it becomes a semi-permanent alteration of my body, the employer is crossing the boundary between the professional and the personal. As I said, my body, my rules and no employer will ever be allowed, under any circumstances, to cross that boundary. They are not buying rights to my body – merely my time and expertise. Cutting my hair is off limits.
@DocBud, 10:47 25 Jan 2017
+1
Employer pays employee to represent their business.
Don’t like employer’s rules, dress code etc – don’t work for them.
@LR
The word here is reasonable.
Yep, reasonable for employer to decide what is reasonable appearance, behaviour etc of paid employee. If employee decides it’s not reasonable don’t accept employment or resign.
I’ve already partially answered this – if an employer is such a control freak that they want me to cut my hair in order to comply with their archaic gender stereotypes, then I want nothing to do with them and would terminate an interview.
However, walking away can be a cop-out. The issue that has brought this to a head is the insistence on wearing high heels. We have known for a long time that extended wearing of heels causes musculoskeletal harm. This is a breach of common law duty of care and statute health and safety law. Walking away is not the appropriate action – fighting the bastards is.
Employers seem to have got the idea that paying someone gives them extended rights over this person. It does not.
Customer facing staff do, indeed, represent the employer and the best solution is a uniform such as EasyJet – simple, practical and businesslike.
Non customer facing staff – beyond being clean and tidy – the employer really has no business dictating anything, as it is not necessary to project any particular image to clients – but, even so, business wear is reasonable. Expecting people to cut their hair or shave off beards is way beyond reasonable – again, I fight the bastards. They need to realise that there are boundaries here. My employer at the time found this out and I make no apology for fighting. I would do so again. There is a line between the professional and the private and no employer will ever be allowed to stray into the latter as far as I am concerned. They buy my time, they buy my expertise. That’s it. No more. You want more, you had better be prepared to stump up a great deal more money – assuming I am prepared to agree anyway, which I’m not.
Probably just as well I’m self-employed. 😉
@LR.
I agree with you but my agreement is circumscribed. Yes, trying to enforce the wearing of high-heels is not on but surely this sort of requirement would have been spelled out in the job description that applicants could read and decide whether or not to apply for the job?
I joined what was then a Colonial Police Force. I was told right from the start that I had to meet certain personal appearance conditions (short hair, no visible tattoos, no personal adornments save a wedding ring, if wedded and a signed promise not to associate with persons of a disreputable character).
I signed up, never complained because it was my choice and did 30 years in that Police Force.
Okay, military and emergency services are a clear exception. As you say, we know clearly upfront what the dress requirements are and there are valid reasons for it. You know what you are signing up for.
Such strictures in civilian life are simply not necessary, nor desirable.
I have never yet come across a dress code that is made clear upfront to job candidates. Not once in forty years working. Those employers that have had codes have been fairly basic and all too often reactive and beyond an email, not written.
The example I give above was one HR manager taking up a new post and attempting to impose her own prejudices about what male hair should look like. A tribunal would have wiped the floor with them had it come to it and quite rightly too (and no, I should not have resigned). I currently have a client that is going through something similar. Every so often I will get an email saying no baseball caps, then no trainers and so on. No clearly defined policy, just one person making it up as they go along.
Portico is unusual for two reasons – firstly they do have a written code and it is unusually explicit. Whether it is made clear upfront, we do not know, but one thing, I can tell you, and this is the great irony for the sisterhood currently complaining, is that is was written by a woman. After all, how many men would tell a woman what nail varnish to wear, what dernier her nylons should be and to wear foundation and blusher? Oh, no, that’s a woman’s hand there, make no mistake.
One final point here, employers tend to react to public opinion when it comes to dress, which is why the Austicks judgement is overdue for being overturned. Public opinion has very clearly forced Portico to rethink its policy. This is a good thing, not a bad one.
Edited to add: I used the term reasonable above. This is a legal definition. A reasonable man is the man on the Clapham omnibus and is used to determine whether parties have behaved reasonably. It’s fairly clear, given the recent furore, that the man on the Clapham omnibus does not consider restrictive dress codes to be reasonable. And he is right.