new thread
found this story today. this is proof that there's little difference between capitalism and fascism. death to dress codes
luke
Hello,
This is a disturbing trend, if companies return to old-fashioned policies. In the US there have been cases of companies that once tolerated long hair that changed their policies to make long hair inapropriate, one such example is Block Buster Video.
In the BBC article, the young man has very neat hair, was wearing a suit, and scored 100% in the aptitude test. I also feel that this guy would be pleasant to work with as a colleague.
Many factors behind hair discrimination are either the big boss is very religious and deeply principled (He would fire anyone who is not married, who is Gay, etc). Another possibility, is that an image consulting firm could have told the big bosses to impose a dress code and a grooming code which is written in the company handbook. More and more businesses have written grooming codes. (Even those that tolerate jeans and long hair may have a policy requiring that sales staff wear suits, and those working behind the scene may wear jeans, but may forbid t-shirts with offending messages).
That is why the guy was told that he would be hired if he cut his hair, whereas with an "unwritten code", very often the rules were bent or overlooked when a very brillant person presented himself. Usually written policies are a way for companies to protect themselves, and it is important that policies be changed to reflect current times as to avoid what happenned to IBM.
IBM prided itself as being ultraconservative, and what you did after work was counted, for example the company policy dictated what car you drove to work, and that you could be fired if seen drinking in public. In the 80's Microsoft and Apple got ahead of IBM in part because they both had no stupid policies. In Apple and Microsoft, long hair and jeans were OK at work, and they had the philosophy that no dress code enhances better thinking. Dress codes are more for a regimented strategy that may not be useful in a company that requires talent and creativity.
Conclusion, I think the guy in the BBC article will quickly find another job somewhere else, and even if it pays less, may be a better atmosphere. If he cut his hair to take the first availiable job, he may be unhappy, since a company with a dress code may have other unpleasant features, like monitored internet and phone use, timed bathroom usage, and maybe an expectation that you marry by a certain time, and even have kids. More relaxed companies would seldom delve into your private life.
Have a nice day,
Georges in Montreal.
I was about to say the same thing. From what I saw in the picture associated with the article, he looked very neat and presentable.
Where I work, they seem to be very tolarent of long hair, thankfully. At least, I've never had it come up against me in any performance appraisals as well as nobody up my "chain-of-command" has said anything about it. Several years ago, they tried to institute a formal dress code. The result is a lot of good talent just upped and left instead of "conforming" to it (and believe me, there are plenty of well-paying software engineering work to be found around this area). Then there were those like myself that did everything possible to "get around" it. Ultimately, our site manager basically told the corporate lackeys to shove that dress code up where the sun don't shine and instituded an informal dress code. Basically it came down to common sense, and what is appropriate for a business setting, i.e., don't go showing up at work in a pair of cut-off jeans and a ratty t-shirt.
No doubt this guy will find a good job somewhere else, and agree that who knows what other "buried treasure" that would've came with that job. I never agreed with these companies that meddle in peoples private lives. Once "off the clock", in my opinin, it is none of thier business what I do with my own time, regardless of what car I drive, what beer I drink, what TV shows/movies I watch, what websites I visit, what concerts I go to, etc.
I have to applaud him for standing up like that and I do wish him luck in finding something that hopefully not only appreciates him as a person and not just another "joe", but something rewarding for him as well.
That's just sad. It upsets me to see things like this. Because I know I would be upset if it ever happened to me!
That's too bad that they had to take his appearance into consideration, just to accept him for the job. It said he scored well, and from his quote, he sounded very sincere. What a stupid reason to turn a job offer down.
And I agree with him, it sounds like some places are trying to "crack down" on long hair. Normally I'd say "it's there own loss", but, there aren't many of us. =/
He sounds like the type who'd be a member here though. =)
Yes back from Finland...hick!!!
I had a couple of job interviews like that and polite told them to stuff their job...not worth it.
Two things in life:
1. Don't give into the parental pressure
2. For job interviews always check the dress code.
John.B
It sounds to me like he would have a good case under European law, but they say that he went to an industrial tribunal instead of a court. That may have been a big mistake on his part. I'm not sure of the exact UK law on industrial tribunals (OK, I'm too lazy to look it up online!), but I think it may be considered to be binding arbitration with no right of appeal. If he had gone to a proper court he would have been able to appeal it all the way up to Strasbourg if necessary.
(I'm not actually a lawyer, or even in the UK)
Hi Luke,
I agree, that company sucks, and Chris tried (unsuccessfully) to make an example of that company or to get a precedent.
Like Georges, I'm certain that Chris will find another and probably better job soon (if he doesn't have an offer already) - BBC gave him free publicity! There are always software companies looking out for young graduates like him. I'd want to hire him if I needed a computer scientist! Of course, companies that are "fascist" about hair etc won't send him a job offer...
In any case, he has the whole EU (and possibly North America as well) for a job market, even if his language skills "only" involve languages like C++, Pascal, Assembler... ;-)
Good luck for your own job hunt, too, I do think there's hope!
Hans-Uwe
I think he should have won the tribunal :-(
Under current English law, the tribunal returned the correct verdict. There is no protection for long haired males in English law. When making judgements under the sex discrimination act a "swings and roundabouts" approach is used (first applied in Schmit v Austicks Bookshops in 1977). The employer had a dress code that requires a conventional appearance for both genders - therefore, the complainant had no case in law. I'm surprised that he was advised to take the case forward - a half decent solicitor would have told him that he had no grounds for complaint in law.
While I've taken the matter up with an erstwhile employer (and succeeded) I did so because the employer didn't have a dress code and one individual was making it up as she went along - therefore, discrimination applied. Dress codes are not a bad idea - where employees are customer facing, the employer has to think about corporate appearance. Personally, I think hair length is taking it too far, but the principle is right and proper providing it is evenly applied.
What about the Self Expression clause of the European Human Rights Act? That wasn't even enacted at the time of the precedent you quote.
Indeed. However, that is still the test in these cases - "swings and roundabouts" is the dress code equally restrictive for both genders? That is why Smith lost on appeal against Safeway in 1996. It is why Judy Owen succeeded (in part) against the Professional Golfers Association in 2000.
The plaintiff in this case had a choice: accept the job along with the conditions that go with it or not. I would have chosen not in his situation and walked away - but I would not have taken matters further; simply sought employment elsewhere. An employer with restrictive dress codes is not likely to be one I would want to work for.
The employer was up-front when making the offer. As such, the restriction on hair length was no different to any other restriction or condition placed before a prospective employee. Short sighted, maybe, as it meant losing a potentially good worker, but as things stand, that is their right and they were honest and within the law.
The employer must have the right to determine how his company appears to clients and suppliers. A dress code is reasonable - it protects both the employer and the employee alike.
The Human Rights Act hasn't been adequately tested in this particular context. The last case of this kind that I am aware of was in 2003 and was found in favour of the plaintiff (Matthew Thompson v Department of Work and Pensions) and was settled at the tribunal. In that instance, there was clear discrimination because the employer was not exercising an even code of dress for men and women.
If this plaintiff takes his case further via the Human Rights Act, it would provide a test case. So, we wait and see. I don't however, hold out much hope.
I thought that by choosing an Industrial Tribunal you gave up your right to appeal? Possibly this is in one of the Industrial Arbitration acts or some such? I was hoping someone hear would know.
Smith v Safeway was ruled at the court of appeal. If I recall correctly, the tribunal ruled in Smith's favour and this was overturned on appeal. Taking a case to an employment tribunal does not, so far as I am aware, mean that either party cannot appeal the decision in a higher court.
dress codes are just a way of the bosses trying to tighten their grip on their employees. the right to freedom of expression has been infringed by the company in question, and by companies in general. (tempted to swear more than usual in ranting about capitalism)
dress codes have no positives. even though they exist in schools, they do nothing to stop bullying. if anything, they only give bullies more stigma to do so.
luke
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect (we are talking about employers, not schools - although I vigorously support school dress codes and uniforms). A sensible employer will always have a written dress policy, just as they will have written policies on things such as bullying, harassment and equal opportunities. That way, if an individual manager decides to impose their own standards (as happened to me) the employee has something with which to hold them to account. If the employer does not have a policy, then they are vulnerable in such cases.
A good employer will involve employees in drawing up such a policy so that they are comfortable with it.
Also, bear in mind that if you have invested in and built up a business, you would expect the right to make decisions on how it appears to others - I know I would. Much of this will depend on the market in which the company operates.
All of this is just common sense and pragmatism, it is nothing to do with fascism or capitalism. Ultimately, if the employee does not like the policy, they have a choice, don't they? As did this gentleman.
In the large businesses the policies are set by people who are just employees and certainly not entrepreneurs, so yes, it is usually just done as a power trip 90% of the time.
A sensible employer will involve employees who will be affected to get the best results. Whoever sets the policy will (should) be doing so with the best interests of the business, its employees and clients in mind.
My own experience was that the (belated) attempt to bring about a dress code was pragmatic and reasonable as it required uniform where issued and conservative business dress otherwise. No impositions were made on such things as hair length - although had they insisted upon it being tied back, that would have been reasonable. This was a national company, there was no evidence that people were engaging on a power trip.
Hello,
Today I have a steady job, and I work in a university so dress and hair codes are normally the last of my worries, except for the fact that my eyes will be treated to less long-haired beauty if short hair is a requirement for eating and paying rent.
This may seem like a repost, but for the newbies I feel this can be appropriate: In 1979 as I was finishing college, I had extreme anxiety about the corporate world. My job councelor was telling me to cut my hair because in the world of work it is not like 5 years ago (1974). I opted for an original solution: Wear a short haired wig at interviews. I invested $150 in a synthetic hair wig that looked like real short hair. The principle is like hiding hair underneath a baseball cap. The wig was to the collar and I had velcro clip on hair if I needed to cover my ears, however my wig was for a job so I left my ears uncovered.
After all that anxiety fed in by friends, parents and my job counselor, when came d-day, I was amongst the first to be hired, and the wig was not necessary, except as an expensive item for a halloween party where I dressed as John Travolta. The effect of the wig on others was surprising, because people really believed I had my hair cut. I kept it handy in case I lost my job and had to go job hunting again, and even lent it to friends who were job hunting.
If an employer finds out that you wear a wig, especially if he pats your head, then just say, "my hair is short for working hours only, but other wise, my after work image is non of your business".
In the picture, you see me wearing the wig. Some may consider the hair may be long by today's standards, but army-type hair codes are not that frequent. The hair looks neet, is around the ears, and above the collar.
That is a fantastic photo - a real snapshot of the past! The monitor is the size of a small car and the keyboard looks like something out of 'Thunderbirds'. I love the 'I-know-how-to-work-one of-these-new-comutpers' look on your face!
Hello,
The computer terminal is a Plato Terminal, which for 1977 when this model came out, was considered the ancestor of the Internet as we know it. The terminal is connected to a CDC Mainframe (Cyber 6600), connected in a continental network with other Cybers. The screen had a touch screen for menus and applications. The resolution was 512x512 with interchangable fonts and font sizes, with bit-mapped pictures as well as line graphics. This was an impressive gadget for the time.
If your curiosity piques you about this retro-technology, you can consult the following site:
http://cyber1.org/
You can even download an emulator for your PC or Mac and ask for a login code to PLATO. Plato is not user-friendly, and uses a command prompt to start applications (called lessons). Plato was designed for teaching on-line courses, and had a few games and MUD's as well. People played role-playing games on-line, exchanged "notes" or e-mail, or public notes on bulletin boards. Plato Notes eventually became Lotus Notes
Have a nice day,
Georges in Montreal.
You ever play Moon War? It was the rage in early 1973 when I was at the U of I in Champaign. I think about half of us DJs at WPGU were hooked on it. We'd spend hours down at the computer center sometimes. They had just hooked the computer center up to those of several other universities, and they wanted students to come down, log on, and test the system out. You could be playing the game with someone sitting next to you or with someone out in San Diego, or Lord knows where. This was so cool!
The terminals had square screens, and the only color they had was orange, on a black background. They called them "plasma screens", but they were nothing like plasma HDTV screens for sure.
I was there the night they turned free access off, because the tests had been completed. It was sad to see the list of dozens of players taper off until by around 5 a.m. there were only a few of us left. When the list was down to 2 of us, I signed off, and sure enough, I could not get back in. I left the computer center as dawn lit the eastern sky.
Bill
Hello Bill,
I have played Moonwar wit fellow students at UQAM, back in the late seventies. Plato was installed as an experimental system and was translated to French, that is why in the Plato emulator there are lessons in French edited at Université du Québec. Author Mode was called Mode Médiatique.
Moonwar was addictive, and relied on inputing the angle to shoot at opponents.... it was a lesson in physics, where you had to take angle, velocity and gravity into account. If you want to relive PLATO, you can download pterm, and ask for an account for free. There was an adventure game called moria which was like a mud.
PLATO was often used at university open houses to impress students, and sometimes families would come with their kids to see the campus, demonstrations of chemistry, robots, computers.
At one demonstration of PLATO, at Concordia University, in 1979, the lesson "sentences" was used. In this lesson, a kid builds a sentence by touching the words on the screen to make a meaningful sentence. If it is meaningful, an animation would enact the sentence. One smart-aleck six year old enters "The car runs over the boy", and the computer being litteral, simply shows a boy under an overpass, with a car rolling above him on the bridge, thus sparing the public of gore. The pictures were simple as you will see in the example.
Have a nice day,
Georges in Montreal
At U of I one could log on as "a" author mode or "s" student mode. They wanted us to log on as student mode unless we knew what we were doing, because author mode could get you in trouble. Eventually they issued passwords and the one-letter access modes were turned off to those who didn't have a password. How it all got started was we heard they had tied a university computer in with computers at several other universities and they wanted students to come down and test it all. The U of I terminals were all lined up like the ones in your photo there. They had a few dozen of them scattered around in different rooms. We had no idea this was the start of something that would later be called "the Internet".
Sometimes the guy seated next to me would curse just when I killed my opponent off, and I'd realize I had been playing him. Other times you'd find out your opponent was in California.
It sure was! I got to where I could spot angles to the nearest degree by eye. One evening a guy looking over my shoulder said, "How are you beating that guy so bad; he is in the computer room and has the computer calculating his angles for him - don't you know that?" It turned out that the way the challenge scheme was set up, I always got the first crack at him, and I kept polishing him off.
They also had this "lunar lander" where you'd tell it how much fuel to burn each second, and you'd try to not hit the lunar surface too hard. Guys would try for hours to set it down lightly. I just ran the calcs and figured out if you burned 7.5 units of fuel each second, you'd get a perfect landing. People all over the room gathered around when the computer told me, "Congratulations, you made a perfect landing!" It had never occurred to anyone to run the calc, or to try fractional units of fuel. None had gotten perfect results because they were putting in whole numbers. They had never seen the "perfect" message that I got.
Of course the NASA guys had been landing on the moon just a few years before, and people were fascinated with the moon. That was a different era for sure!
Bill
I found this one sufficiently interesting to discuss it further on my blog. Link below. Please feel free to comment.
Well said, and obviously well thought out.
Jim
Hair policies and dress codes are often presented as the same thing, but they aren't. If an employer asks me to wear a suit and tie, or any other item of clothing, I can take it off at the end of the day, and no harm done. Not so with hair.
Anything that can't be reversed in five minutes is strcitly speaking not part of a dress code atall. The only way that hair should be included in a dress code atall is in restrictions that involve no cutting, i.e. ponytails or even buns but no restriction on length or a style of cut.
The law is another matter. It is unfortunate that this industrial tribunal chose to apply a precedent that can't be supported under the new statute, but it is important to remember that they are not a court. I can't remember exactly who is supposed to sit on such a body, but I would not expect much in the way of legal expertise from them.
I also seem to remember that it is considered to be arbitration. Perhaps I may have gone to far in saying that there is no right of appeal, but maybe not. If you go into arbitration you are forming a contract in which you agree to be bound by the decision and to have it enforced by the real courts. I would think that pretty much closes off any hope of litigating the issues before a real judge.
I must stress again that I'm not a lawyer and can't give legal advice, but to anyone thinking of going to arbitration before a tribunal, my advice is don't.
Usually a representative from the legal profession, employer and trades union.
It wasn't unfortunate... they had no choice as they applied the relevant legal precedents. If they had found differently it would have been overturned at appeal. The only vaguely applicable precedent in human rights legislation went against the plaintiff.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment; a hair policy may well be a part of a dress code. Providing the employer is clear about this then the prospective employee has a choice - sign up or not. That's what happens with the armed forces, police, fire service et al. You know what you are getting into when you sign on the dotted line, and if you do you enter into the arrangement voluntarily.
This case was similar - the employers made their position clear. That's why I believe it will fail should the plaintiff try to take it further under human rights legislation - no one has infringed his human rights as no one was forcing him to sign the contract of employment.
Having said that, I believe the company is short sighted and the dress code unreasonably restrictive. ;)
As more companies are enforcing written dress and grooming codes as part of an employee's contract, the option that many people of my generation had (Cutting or hiding long hair until one has proven himself, then letting it show once well established) doesn't work no more.
If every workplace enforces grooming codes, and add to that schools, that will mean that the only time a guy can grow his hair, in theory, is during his college days, and once employed will never be able to regrow his hair since written policies, are, in theory inflexible.
This is a horror scenario, where a new society is created where no one can adopt anything original.
Have a nice day,
Georges in Montreal.
In the UK I've found that this is not the case - most employers are fairly relaxed and for the most part, peoples' perceptions and expectations are more liberal than they once were. Eventually the law will change and adapt to this. A dress code does not automatically mean cutting hair.
