Woman sent home for refusing to wear high heels at work

Originally Posted by nomadking

Same as any other job that required something.

Somehow I doubt she would have complained if an acting job came along that required her to be in 2in heels all day long.

The requirements have to be reasonable, not arbitrary - these were found not to be reasonable.

I have worked in a number of companies that have had dress codes (suits, ties, no trainers, smart dress) - not one had a requirement for women to to wear high heels.

Common sense prevails..but not without someone speaking out.I wonder how many didn't?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The requirements have to e reasonable, not arbitrary - these were found not to be reasonable.

I have worked in a number of companies that have had dress codes (suits, ties, no trainers, smart dress) - not one had a requirement for women to to wear high heels.

It was part of a general dress code for a temp agency. Specific assignments might have had other specific requirements, but you have to set a minimum standard which she had agreed to.

[Stop It]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Actually the real sexism is that it is extremely unlikely that a man would hired for the job in the first place. And if he was, he would almost certainly have dress guidelines to follow, eg suit and tie.


It's not an office job. A receptionist is on view and it was an agency that employed her. The dress code would have to be set to deal with a wide range of customers and their requirements.

Originally Posted by nomadking

It is a general dress code. The specific clients and the setting will be unknown at the time.

Oh god. If there is a dress code it shouldn't exclude perfectly reasonable attire. High Heels should be allowed, not forced. It's not exactly rocket science this. Receptionists are employees, not eye candy. Again, what year is this?

It is perfectly reasonable for an employer to have a dress code, it is not reasonable for a dress code to conform to sexist stereotypes in an office! PwC are an auditing firm, not Hooters for crying out loud.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Same as any other job that required something.

Somehow I doubt she would have complained if an acting job came along that required her to be in 2in heels all day long.

Guess what, that doesn't exist. If an actor required to wear heels on set, they will, after that, I'm sure they'll be free to swap.

Originally Posted by nomadking

It was part of a general dress code for a temp agency. Specific assignments might have had other specific requirements, but you have to set a minimum standard which she had agreed to.

She didn't agree, hence the dispute. Your posts make me think that you're stuck at 11:55am on a Saturday morning when Fighting Talk airs. permanently stuck Defending The Indefensible.

[techguyone]

It's still happening in other industries - I'd cite Airlines as a good modern example.

You'd think Elf n Safety would trump all, given as it's medically proven that those things cause problems with health later in life, It'll need a succession of ppl suing and claiming I expect, for things to change.

Bad publicity helps too though

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

[URL]I think the reason the company insist of females wearing High Heels, to make them look sexy.

Quite right too; I expect to be titillated. I don't want to be greeted by squat-legged, tweedy librarian-types I want to see a pencil skirt, heels and teetering.

I also approve of lipstick, big sexy business spectacles and simpering.

If DC and her Maj can speak their minds, so can I

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Stop It

Oh god. If there is a dress code it shouldn't exclude perfectly reasonable attire. High Heels should be allowed, not forced. It's not exactly rocket science this. Receptionists are employees, not eye candy. Again, what year is this?

It is perfectly reasonable for an employer to have a dress code, it is not reasonable for a dress code to conform to sexist stereotypes in an office! PwC are an auditing firm, not Hooters for crying out loud.

Guess what, that doesn't exist. If an actor required to wear heels on set, they will, after that, I'm sure they'll be free to swap.

She didn't agree, hence the dispute. Your posts make me think that you're stuck at 11:55am on a Saturday morning when Fighting Talk airs. permanently stuck Defending The Indefensible.

Guess what, she agreed to the general dress code in the contract for the agency. It wasn't PwC that specified anything. The danger is that if you don't have specific dress codes, then anything goes.

The company initially said Ms Thorp, from Hackney, had signed its "appearance guidelines" but said it would review them.

Nomad there are legal limits to what an employer can demand their employees wear. They can't get away with it by attempting to get them to agree to it before hand.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

Nomad there are legal limits to what an employer can demand their employees wear. They can't get away with it by attempting to get them to agree to it before hand.

And what exactly are those "legal limits"?

[Stop It]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And what exactly are those "legal limits"?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36265545

UK employers can dismiss staff who fail to live up to "reasonable" dress code demands, says employment law firm Thompsons, as long as they've been given enough time to buy the right shoes and clothes. They can set up different codes for men and women, as long as there's an "equivalent level of smartness".

.

It boils down to the word "reasonable" dress code demands. I do not feel that having the option of wearing smart, black, flat shoes to be unreasonable. It's not comparable to wearing a tie etc as you don't suffer potential injury from wearing a tie (Unless if you were a complete idiot).

I think that if there is a hell that is specific to the individual it will be nice if the idiot who comes up with these rules gets to spend eternity in 6 inch high heels.

[tweetiepooh]

I like the equivalent level of smartness.

Virgin is pretty relaxed in dress, there are some uniforms and safety gear rules but else where it's nice and appropriate.

I hate it where us fellows have to wear suit and tie all year and the women can dress more in keeping with the weather, or more usually pretty much how they liked (within reason).

[techguyone]

I bet Virgin Airlines isn't so relaxed.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

I like the equivalent level of smartness.

Virgin is pretty relaxed in dress, there are some uniforms and safety gear rules but else where it's nice and appropriate.

I hate it where us fellows have to wear suit and tie all year and the women can dress more in keeping with the weather, or more usually pretty much how they liked (within reason).

I agree..all it takes is some sort of common sense attitude..

[Kursk]

Most women, who dress to impress other women probably even more than they dress to impress men, know that heels elongate the leg and change the position of the hips so as to flatter the female form. After some practice, deportment is improved and self confidence enhanced through improved height, stature and that feel good factor.

Dress codes always produce victims; those who feel demeaned or objectified but who will be fluttering the eyelashes with pretend vulnerability just as soon as the opportunity arises. And there is always a dearth of male champions ready to defend her honour .

Heels look good. Be really thankful the dress code isn't a full body covering of Hessian sack and a pair of hobnailed boots.