new thread
as long as it's neat and not a mess it shouldn't matter.
why is it that women can have waist length hair in any workplace, but in many cases Men are expected to have it short?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4970628.stmat least he didnt give in
...the company had a right to set a different dress code for both sexes.
That's why.
But they shouldn't, though. It's not right.
This discrimination should be illegal.
The reason is because the company wants its employees to present a conservative, conventional image to the public, and that's quite different for men and women. It's unfortunate that's the case, but that's how it is right now with current conventions of our society. You have the right to have nothing to do with companies like that, but I believe is it reasonable for companies to be able to control the image they present to the public. I think a good case could be made against hair and clothing codes for employees who have jobs such that they never come in contact with customers.
"but I believe is it reasonable for companies to be able to control the image they present to the public"
hmm.. this happened at a local shop where i live, a young male employee (with a ponytail) took them to court for the same reasons here, he lost, the shop owners said their customers liked men with short hair, myself and several friends used to shop there, we all have long hair (male and female) and we were never asked what we, the customers, thought when they did their customer poll (we would have answered 'wrongly' i think)
it is wrong, it is discrimination - long hair rocks!
Yes, in an ideal, fairy land world.
Unfortunately, this is how society works and many corporations and businesses want their employees to uphold a conservative, clean cut look. They claim that their employees image/dress/hair is a reflection of the business.
I agree aswell, long hair in a ponytail shouldn't be a problem, especially if it is neat and clean. That longhaired victim looked very presentable and his ponytail actually compliments the suit and tie. You can try suing over grounds of "gender discrimination" ,but ultimately, the corporation can easily defend themself by stating they have "different grooming policies for each gender" and that they require a "conventional image"(.ie short hair). That's exactly what they did.
i don't pay it any attention considering alot of the employees and executives walk around with waist-length dreadlocks and braids. when the company gets those people to cut their hair then they can talk to me about mine...(even though it's only 5 inches lmao)
Sometimes companies may have such policies that are in the books but not enforced, because:
Managers and other people are two busy, and at the time it is not in their priorities to be nit-picking, and they need work to be done.
The policy could have been written up years ago, and has been enforced at one time, but gradually ignored with time. It takes some a-hole chainsaw manager fresh out of b-school who will arrogantly remind employees of the grooming code.
A new manager, who is not informed of the policy, may be somewhat afraid of making waves by enforcing trivial rules. May enformce business wear but may not touch hair and beards, and you may work with long hair for a while.
This can be a ticking time bomb, so to get ready, try alternatives like braiding and hiding the hair under the collar, should you be told to cut your hair. Try the short-haired wig method and keep the wig in a locked drawer as an emergency device should one day the policy be enforced.
Policies may be dormant if there is a lot of work to do, and no one has time for anything else, and when business goes down, bosses may want to look for ways to attract or replace lost clients by enforcing a new image.
Have a nice day,
Georges
hehe thanks for the info. but by the time they finally realize how long my hair is (since it's so curly), i would have already quit and moved to start studying in college again lol
Might be my own county but ill not be doing the same !!!!!
More importantly , why would company not want to hire the best candidate for the position regardless of his ore her appearence. Dress code's , yes I can understand that concept. The length of someone's hair ?? No that i cannot understand and furthermore would not want to be employeed by a firm with such narrow, thinking .
This case is crazy! I have worked in management for 12 years and always had long hair (mid back). However, I always keep it neatly tied up to the extent that none of my co-workers have ever seen it loose. I feel that it is my right to have long hair but out of respect to the company I keep it back.
When I was in a mare junior job I would keep it in a high ponytail which is really good fun if you have never tried it -0 feels cool. Past few years and with promotion keep it in a plait. Only other time it if i do a presentation and will pay to have it in a french plait.
I always keep my hair tailed at work as I also respect the organization I work for. My supervisor told me, as long as it's neat, I have nothing to worry about.
ESDI
I wear my hair loose, that doesn't mean I disrespect the place I work... It's just that my hair has nothing to with whether I respect it or not.
Exactly. Besides, some of us old farts had long hair back before guys even wore ponytails.
- When I were a lad we lived in't shoe box in't middle of road
- That's nothing, when I were a lad we lived in't bottom of septic tank
(from Monty Python)
I didn't mean it like that... Where I work a neat appearance is expected, my hair looks neater in a tail...
this is all due to Yuppification and Yuppies stress a certain 'image' which is very rigid imho. Yuppification (especially the U.S) has probably been more detrimental in many cases than helpful. Corporte Mergers, Outsourcing, decline in freeform FM Radio, and decline in commercial TV programming are all due to Yuppification in the U.S.
I would like to see a new subculture emerge which is similiar to the Hippy subculture of the 1960's, that is a subculture which rejects everything the Yuppies stand for and are responsible for. something needs to put a hault to Yuppification. it's probably the only way we LongHairs are going to win the battle anyway.
I miss the 60s for sure. It was a beautiful time. Most of the hippie dudes from then are still around, of course, but many moved into the hills and many more sold out to the system.
Some free form radio is still around, e.g., college radio stations and a few commercial stations like KPIG. Hippies tend to come out of the woodwork by the thousands for events like the Haight Street Fair and certain concerts in the park. But mostly hippies are under the radar even here in San Francisco. We are buried here in yuppies. San Francisco is crawling in yuppies.
I have nothing against yuppies, so long as they don't proselytize. Attempts to convert others are just as obnoxious in all other social groups as they are in religious contexts. Much of the discrimination we face is in-the-closet proselytizing, but the closet door does not seal in the stench. Proselytizing always smells.
So how are you going to get more people into the hippie lifestyle? You can proselytize, or you can live that life and sell them on it by your example. Be happy! Be free! Be a beautiful soul! Make them wish they were living your life instead of theirs. [grin]
Bill
yes, if telling one that they would look 'better' with 'short hair' is proselytizing then they've done it to me.
btw, here's a station which plays lots of old stuff from the late 1960's and early 1970's which may be of interest:
Technicolor Web of Sound
and "Far Out!" :-)
and if you want even more obscure, check this station out:
beyondthebeatgeneration.com
I dont get it. I dont have a job, but if i did i wouldnt want to cut it or tie it. is this unfair by me? i like to have my hair open, never in a tail. :]
The answer is: "it depends". Incidentally, this was discussed further down the page.
To recap - under English law, the employer is entitled to have dress/hair length policies providing that restrictions apply equally to men and women. This does not mean the same restrictions, just that overall, the policy is equally restrictive. There is a long principle of precedent in English law that allows for this.
The policy is, in my opinion, unduly restrictive - the gentleman who made the complaint appeared to me to be well presented and I would certainly have accepted his appearance as being businesslike. The loss, in my opinion, is the employer's.
However, no one has forced him to cut his hair as the image on the news story shows; he still has it. He was made an offer that involved a contract. He chose (as I would have done) not to accept the terms therein. That, really, should have been the end of the matter.
News and Views Current affairs discussionsFollow Ups:
Follow Ups:
Follow Ups:
Neither of us are lawyers, but contract law doesn't preempt employment law. It's generally the other way around. Statutes preempt the common law, and by and large employment law is statute and contract law is common law, no doubt with some exceptions.
Employment laws are specifically written to redress harm when someone is not hired, so declining a job offer with conditions that you aren't willing to accept doesn't affect your standing unless those conditions have nothing to do with anything covered by the law in question. IOW, you can't say legally that no harm was done because he didn't accept the job offer. That's not how it works.
None of the above affects the general legal position as to whether the discrimination was lawful, which we have already discussed ad nauseam, but I think you have some misconceptions.
but I think you have some misconceptions.
Then you think incorrectly.
News and Views Current affairs discussionsStatutes are generally written to modify contract law when an abuse is pervasive and its effect is seen as counterproductive in meeting society's goals. Landlords in most places cannot refuse to rent to families with children, for example, because so many landlords put that in their contracts that it was tough for families with children to find a place to live. Statutes were passed to prevent the practice.
Telling a longhair "you can work somewhere else" works if a substantial number of employers will hire him. In some fields that is the case and in some the pickings for a longhair are mighty slim. It is a waste of any society's resources for a member of it to be underemployed or unemployed. Laws won't be written to protect us from discrimination until society sees the problem as widespread enough to cause substantial harm to society (not substantial harm to an individual). Most longhairs do find work, so there is not much motivation in legislatures to add us to lists of protected categories under discrimination laws.
Bill
I was hoping you would comment on this, Bill. I think Mark has somewhat the wrong end of the stick, so to speak, but he won't admit it. Oh well, I've probably antagonised him enough already, LOL!
I think soceity will never want to protect us, because they think we can 'just cut our hair', insensitive to the fact that for many of us that would turn us from being ourselves into being someone else. Preserving one's identity is a pretty big deal, IMHO.
I think Mark has somewhat the wrong end of the stick, so to speak, but he won't admit it. Oh well, I've probably antagonised him enough already, LOL!
I have not got the wrong end of the stick - nowhere did I mention contract law (which, incidentally in English law is covered by statute as well as civil law). My point all along has been a simple one; the employment contract was lawful under current English law and will remain so until the legal precedent is overturned. Which, sooner or later, I expect it will be. But not, I suspect, with this case.
The recruitment process gives both parties an opportunity to assess each other. On this occasion, the potential employee decided that the terms of the offer were not to his liking. They wouldn't be to mine, either. An employer who tries to impose in this manner is likely to be a control freak in other areas as well. The difference being; that I am sufficiently aware of the legal position not to waste effort on a futile law suit. I believe he was badly advised. It is always best to choose ones battles carefully.
As to whether there was loss - it is no different to any other job offer that the candidate refuses because they do not like the terms. For example, employers who claim intellectual rights of employees' work carried out in their own time and using their own resources (yes, they do, unfortunately). For all we know, he was applying for a number of positions, in which case there is no loss as a talented candidate is likely to have a choice and this one appears to be talented.
As to whether you antagonised me; not really, although you were being unduly patronising. ;)
News and Views Current affairs discussionsnot once have I been told to cut my hair by an employer, here in New York. Some people on the subway make rude comments, but they go to the same place in my brain as junk email.
In New York City. about 1 out of every 12 men have longhair. Compared to other areas I have lived in, is very longhair friendly. People hardly even notice.
