new thread
I shaved, and wore my hair and uniform neatly for work today. My slicked it back very tight and she even wrapped it around like a bun, to make my ponytail look smaller. As soon as i walked inside the shop, my store manager, who takes orders from the dictator area manager bitch, didn't waste any time at looking at the back of my head(obviously to see if i had gotten a haircut or not).
Finally, the policies that i requested was given to me in a hard copy form. Most of the policies are just general drooming/dress/attire stuff but there is a small section on hair and hair length. It is a very conservative workplace though, things like earring and chewing gum are not allowed, to name a few things.
Here is the extract of rule 25:
"Men:
-Hair is to be neat, clean and business like. Long hair and extreme hairstyles(dreadlocks,spkies,colours, mohawks etc) are not permitted.
-Men are to be clean shaven or to maintain neatrim beards or moustaches"
And here is the rules for our female counterparts:
"Females:
-Hair must always be clean and well groomed. Long hair is to be tied back in a business like manner. Extreme styles are not permitted"
So as you can clearily see, Men must have short,'business like' hair but it is ok for women to have long hair in a ponytail.
This is the basis for one of my defenses, on the grounds of sexual discrimination, under the NSW anti-discrimination act 1977(I even have the exact sections, thanks to Hans and Milney).
Another defense of mine, besides the sexual discrimination grounds, is that their definition of men's hair is rather vague and unspecific. Firstly "Hair is to be neat and clean", a slicked back ponytail is both of these things, so that is out of the way. Next section "long hair and extreme hairstyles are not permitted". Well firstly, i don't have an "extreme" hairstyle, not by a long shot, so that is eliminated from the equation. OK, the word "long hair". What length warrants to be long hair or not?
Maybe to the corporate suckers "long hair" is anything over the ears and collar. To me "long hair" , truly is something that can only be given to hair that is atleast low-shoulders or mid back, heck, my definition of long hair could be waist length.
Their faliure to specify what exactly is "long hair" and what is "business like" will help my defense. In my mind, my hair is neat and clean and slicked back for work, fulfilling the first requirements, and i don't even consider it "long" yet, so thus i shouldn't have to comply with these policies.
I'm gonna ring the HR(Human Resources) manager tomorow to discuss these issues with her. I hope she is alot more understanding and reasonable than that other bitch.
If all else fails, well, i can always just leave. It's hard for me to do and its such a great job and good pay but you can't have it all, i guess. As someone people mentioned on here, "get yourself a lawyer", i don't think i will be taking it to that level or degree of dispute. Man, it would cost thousands of dollars in legal fees, what for, just for my stupid hair.
As my dad said to me, "you are just a number, they can hire and fire you as they see fit". But then again, he told me to cut my hair. I told him that i want justice and fairness and that it shouldn't be acceptable for a guy to be discriminated over his hair.
I have been thinking about this alot lately. Even just the thought of having to cut my hair makes me feel sick. I'm hoping that my last line of defense won't be demolished.
BTW, you know why i don't see any longhairs at my work? because the ones with long hair chopped it off for the job. One of my colleagues told me he had shoulder length hair but cut it off because of the manager was pressuring him. Similiar thing happened to another guy who used to work at the company.
I may start looking for a new job soon, depending on the outcome of this scenario.
Hi Jean
You certainly have your act together. Where most guys would cower, you stand your ground on principal. If anything like myself, if forced into cutting my hair it would make me feel sick like you wouldn't believe. I understand completely where you are coming from on that one.
As to the "rules," as usual in an institution such as this they are just a bit too vague. And yes, it IS discrimination.
Alas, most likely the HR person you will be talking to will also be "vague." (They usualy don't really want to become involved with something like this and you will probably be sweet-talked.) Knowing you, you will pin her to the facts so that an answer will finally be heard that you are in the right. I doubt however anything will be done............but naturally I hope HR gets involved and disproves my theory as to the outcome of the conversation.
To hire a Lawyer would be useless except for the Lawyer who would be the winner of the cash crash.
If you happenned to be the son of the President of that bank or chain of banks............this would not happen.
You have put them in a tight spot as I am most sure they have NEVER run across the likes of someone such as yourself, that is an excellent employee, but one that won't cave-in to their petty demands.
I give you all the credit in the world.
Justin
Hi 80s,
I see you are handling this well. Your definition of long hair is waist-long, of course, if the "male hair rule" is that unspecific - if the b**** gets angry, you just calmly stand your ground. And, you interpret the rule in such a way that it is not really different for men and women - hair tied back in a pony tail IS business-like (see "male hair rule"). You can't imagine that they are doing something that is in violation of sections 24 and 25 of your home state's antidiscrimination law...
The others who have "sold out" to the company didn't even know about the state law.
Whatever happens next, you'll come out of it with your head erect and your hair intact. If they fire you now, then it is easy to prove that this was based on an illegal policy.
You can file a complaint with the state authorities WITHOUT the help of lawyers, and you have NO legal costs - just watch them to call you back to work in order to avoid trouble with the regulatory authorities.
In that sense, happy Friday, and lots of good "hair days" at work!
Hans-Uwe
Well, I admire your analytical take on the legal system, but in this case, it doesn't seem like it will do much. I was hoping there wouldn't be a long hair clause in the policy at all, but the lady wasn't kidding around.
But then, maybe she was. The deal about the exact definitions of "long hair" and "business-like," "clean" and "neat" are good ways to attack the situation. They are defined entirely on the opinion of the writer and on a general stereotypical image, but these definitions appear to exist incompletely even in the policy-penner's mind. I mean, long hair is a very subjective term, as are "clean" and its entourage.
If you can convince her that your hair isn't long, the ponytail/bun will still be a problem, and this is where the definition of "extreme" comes into play. It's like an equation: long hair (completed) and/or extreme hairstyles = ? The first half of it is done; now just do the second. If you succeed, you should be back in the "professional" category, if only grudgingly.
However, even if you do enlighten your boss on semantics, I don't think there's much you'll be able to accomplish afterwards. A ponytail is practically the symbol of long hair, and the concept of hair going over the ears being long is a long-standing cliche she'll be sure to bring out against you, and in my mind, slicked-back hair, even if it's still short, isn't really business-like. A boring ol' buzzcut or the like is what comes to mind. As much as we'd hate to admit it, a ponytailed employee is an uncommon sight, and in extreme cases, it's a downright oxymoron.
So bring up the argument, but don't expect too much. Even if she let you stay on the basis that your hair isn't "long" yet, your hair would still be growing every month and you'd one day face the nasty policy once again. I honestly think a new job is the way to go, but good luck in whatever you do, man.
Peace
Hi Fallen_angels,
I think that, legally, 80s is in a strong position. In any legal system, everything needs to be defined clearly. So, by just remaining cool and standing his ground, he will prevail. Even if a common perception of eg "long hair" exists in 70 to 90% of the population, that would still not be a crystal-clear definition in the legal sense.
It's a little bit like Bill Clinton avoiding a perjury conviction by (successfully albeit absurdly) arguing that being satisfied orally by Ms Lewinsky didn't amount to having sex in the sense of the law.
Therefore, 80s should stick to his definition that "long hair" means waist-long, and that "slicked back" is not extreme, but fulfills the definition of "business-like" - that's how the law works. "Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo", as the old Romans said, "What isn't in the files, isn't in the world". - the main point: If the company policy does intend to set different hair length limits for men and women, then it is an illegal policy, and enforcing it will get the company into trouble with the regulatory authorities (no need to talk about labour tribunals).
There is absolutely no point in trying to convince that b*****, she'd only be satisfied if her victim were shorn and humiliated like a sheep in the Australian outback. Thank God, 80s is not a sheep but a proud Australian citizen. - The b**** will probably become irrelevant, and others will call the shots.
I'm quite certain that Jean will prevail.
Hope there will be more exemples of this!
Hans-Uwe
You might want to research case law under the act - this will tell you how the law is interpreted in practice. In the UK, a "swings and roundabouts" approach applies. That is, the dress code can be different for men and women providing it is equally restrictive.
Also, "long hair" is not defined in your quote of the dress code. For many, more than collar length is long, for others, it is shoulder length. I would suspect that this code would not stand up to scrutiny in court because it is so vague - are they saying all men should have buzz cuts? it could be interpreted that way.
When companies write policies; to be enforceable, the measures contained therein have to be clear so that people can understand them - "long hair" is imprecise and therefore the policy is not well written.
News and Views Current affairs discussions
Though it is of little comfort it is interesting to note that in the UK in Waitrose - an 'upmarket' supermarket chain opposite end to Walmart etc men can have tails as long as they are tied back like women. In one branch there is even a guy working cheerfully on the deli counter serving fresh unpacked foods - hair tied back like the woman he works beside.
DON'T CUT IT!!!
;)
Given that your legal position is so strong, and that you can survive without the job anyway, I would say fight them without a lawyer. That way you will cause them the maximum inconvenience at no great loss to you. If you win, great, and if you don't you still gave them a big headache, which is worthwhile in itself.
that's a bit of a sod. businesses try to do that here and discriminate against males wearing their hair long. if i were you i would dig up a bit of dirt on my boss just in case he/she was faltering in the workplace a bit.
maybe you could wear a turban or a kufi over your hair and say it's for a religious reason lol i'd try anything to keep from cutting my hair lol
Way too vague. "Long hair" is not properly defined and is altogether too open to "interpretation".
There's your grounds for gender discrimination. Either threaten to use it, or just use is preemptively without telegraphing the threat to the corporate hierarchy. Note that you may get more mileage out of the latter since the corporation is operating outside the law based on its written policy. That won't do anything about your "immediate problem" (the district supervisor), but will make the dogs at the top perk their ears up a bit.
I'm going to shout this: "IT'S NOT YOUR 'STUPID' HAIR -- IT'S AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF WHO YOU ARE." Would you submit to castration to keep the job? This is not about "professional appearance"; this is about *control*.
In this case, you don't need a lawyer since it looks like the firm itself has policies that contravene the local laws. This is a matter for the State to pursue, not you.
That said, if you're going to actively pursue this, I'd start looking for another gig. Companies can get rather vindictive when they get called out on things like this. Enjoy watching them squirm, to be sure, but beware that they will be looking to exact revenge whenever they can.
Hi 80s, I Read your original post about this the other night, but forgot to reply, Glad you posted this one to keep us informed, Im behind you 100% the whole situation is ridiculous
as you say, your hair is neat and Tidy, So if this is ok for a Woman, why not a man? you cant have one rule for one and one for another surely, I Wouldnt back down, I Wouldnt cut my hair for nobody, I'd Rather just walk, and that would be after ive done all I Can to show these people what Idiots they are, As for just being a Number to them, Thats true, but at least your Standing up for your Identity and your Rights and Not just falling into the Trap of just being another one of them.
Look forward to hearing What Happens, Good luck man
\m/ \M/
I dont know if you really cared about my opinion, but here is my 2 cents...
You can fight it and possibly make a case out of it, but the question is, is it worth the money to hire lawyers and stuff just to fight this over court? perhaps if you got enough people that have been discriminated against for having long hair and start a petition or movement over it, or if you can pay a famous lawyer to help, my advise is find another company or manager that is more understanding. I know this sucks and it sounds like being cowards and stuff, but believe me, this is like fighting an army armed with the latest weaponary and stuff with nothing but a butterknife. Most people out there they don't care about hair so if the boss demanded they are likely to comply.
So you have 2 choices, get a wig, tie your hair into the bun then put it over the hair, and lie to your boss that you cut your hair. If they check then say "my hair is only short during work hours" or something. If they have a problem with that (like its a moral issue or whatever) then there's option 2, that is leave the company ASAP because if that company has moral issues against long hair they will have moral issues with a lot of other things like rock music. Then when you show up for an interview dont hide the length or anything, just you know, show up with neat ponytail and stuff and if there's a problem it will come up before they hire you.
LOL!!!
HI THERE 80'S METAL,
THAT IS SO SCREWED UP..CAN YOU DO THE OTHER EXTREME AND SHAVE IT? OR IS THAT ALSO STILL CONSIDERED NOT-BUSINESS, JUST LIKE LONGHAIRS, SHAVED HEAD OR EXTREME BUZZ CUTS ARE FROWNED ON...STICK W/YOUR GUNS, I AM SURE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP YOU HAIR AND YOUR JOB!
CHEERS
LOUIS
Please type in Lowercase Louis
Axel
Hi 80s, I Read your original post about this the other night, but forgot to reply, Glad you posted this one to keep us informed, Im behind you 100% the whole situation is ridiculous
as you say, your hair is neat and Tidy, So if this is ok for a Woman, why not a man? you cant have one rule for one and one for another surely, I Wouldnt back down, I Wouldnt cut my hair for nobody, I'd Rather just walk, and that would be after ive done all I Can to show these people what Idiots they are, As for just being a Number to them, Thats true, but at least your Standing up for your Identity and your Rights and Not just falling into the Trap of just being another one of them.
Look forward to hearing What Happens, Good luck man
\m/ \M/
For the benefit of everyone, here's the specific section of the act that is contravned by this policy. (quoted from the act)
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977
- As at 17 March 2006
- Act 48 of 1977
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECTION 24
What constitutes discrimination on the ground of sex
24 What constitutes discrimination on the ground of sex
(1) A person ( "the perpetrator") discriminates against another person ( "the aggrieved person") on the ground of sex if, on the ground of the aggrieved person’s sex or the sex of a relative or associate of the aggrieved person, the perpetrator:
(a) treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same circumstances, or in circumstances which are not materially different, the perpetrator treats or would treat a person of the opposite sex or who does not have such a relative or associate of that sex, or
(b) requires the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition with which a substantially higher proportion of persons of the opposite sex, or who do not have such a relative or associate of that sex, comply or are able to comply, being a requirement which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case and with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to comply.
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) (a), something is done on the ground of a person’s sex if it is done on the ground of the person’s sex, a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of that sex or a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of that sex.
(1B) For the purposes of this section, but without limiting the generality of this section, the fact that a woman is or may become pregnant is a characteristic that appertains generally to women.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the circumstances in which a person treats or would treat another person of the opposite sex are not materially different by reason of the fact that the persons between whom the discrimination occurs:
(a) are a woman who is pregnant and a man, or
(b) are not of the same marital status.
(Section 25 explains to the employer that they cannot descriminate in any circumstance)
There are exemptions in the act and I will list them here:
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECTION 31
Exception—genuine occupational qualification
31 Exception—genuine occupational qualification
(1) Nothing in this Division renders unlawful discrimination against a person on the ground of the person’s sex where being a person of a particular sex is a genuine occupational qualification for the job.
(2) Being a person of a particular sex is a genuine occupational qualification for a job where any one or more of the following requirements is satisfied:
(a) the essential nature of the job calls for a person of that sex for reasons of physiognomy or physique, excluding physical strength or stamina, or, in dramatic performances or other entertainment, for reasons of authenticity, so that the essential nature of the job would be materially different if carried out by a person of the opposite sex, or
(b) the job needs to be held by a person of that sex to preserve decency or privacy because it involves the fitting of a person’s clothing, or
(c) the job requires the holder of the job to enter a lavatory ordinarily used by persons of that sex while it is used by persons of that sex, or
(d) the job requires the holder of the job to search persons of that sex, or
(e) the job requires the holder of the job to enter areas ordinarily used by persons of that sex while in a state of undress or while bathing or showering, or
(f) the job requires the holder of the job to live in premises provided by the employer and:
(i) those premises are not equipped with separate sleeping accommodation for persons of the opposite sex and sanitary facilities which could be used by persons of the opposite sex in privacy from persons of that sex, and
(ii) it is not reasonable to expect the employer either to equip those premises with accommodation and facilities of that kind or to provide other premises for persons of the opposite sex, or
(g) the job requires the holder of the job to keep persons of that sex in custody in a prison or other institution or in part of a prison or other institution, or
(h) the holder of the job provides persons of that sex with personal services relating to their welfare or education, or similar personal services, and they or a substantial number of them might reasonably ob ject to its being carried out by a person of the opposite sex, or
(i) the job is one of two to be held by a married couple.
(3) Being a person of a particular sex is a genuine occupational qualification for a prescribed job or a job of a prescribed class or description.
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) limits the Governor’s power to make a regulation for the purposes of subsection (3).
That section lists the only LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for discriminating against sex. Section 24, Subsection 1A states that a person cannot be descriminated aainst based on characteristics that are assigned to a gender. (ie. long hair). Section 31 lists the genuine exceptions and none apply in this situation.
The defense that long hair does not fit a 'corporate look' is no legal standpoint, especilly given the vagueness of the policy. (Example: long hair is actually defined at my workplace as 'shoulder length or longer', but it is not prohibited) I would guess that the policy was introduced before the 1977 act was and was most probrably introduced at a time where men with longer hair were classified as 'hippies'.
If they try and claim that the military requires the 'short back and sides' from men, they also stipulate that there should be 'no excessive length on top ' as it would 'interfere with the proper wearing of headress'. This is a legally justifiable reason. The correct wearing of the uniform is one of the regulations of the military and this is an extension off that. It's not very fair for those of us with long hair, but I digress.
BTW, I would look at your original contract of employment and see exactly what terms and conditions are listed there. Legally, they are supposed to show you the grooming/dress standars, but alot of compnies forget to include them in their own contracts. And for the record, the 'corporate look' is no legal defense due the vague nature of this term. The current CEO of Sun Mircosystems has a ponytail and no-one would dare claim that his appearance doesn't fit in with the corporate area.
/end of long winded post
milney
Hi Jean and I too feel very bad about the situation you are currently dealing with at work.One thing I observed from this post and the many others that you've made in the past is that you are very mature for your age and express yourself very well.Given those qualities it amazes me how your supervisor could be stuck on such a petty issue as I'm sure your work ethic is excellent as well.Unfortunately it looks like they found their "ace in the hole" to back up their stupid demand.I'm not sure if you have to face the public regarding your duties at work which in their eyes means you are a visual representation of the company then.Also I'm not sure how long you have been employed by them as well because if you've been there a while then why all of a sudden is your hair now a problem!Since you are going to school now and this is not a carreer job for you I would not give in to them and I also would make them fire me as I would not resign.Obviously thats my opinion as others have stated theirs.Fortunately I have only had one situation in my working carreer that the hair thing came up.That was in a job interveiw probably more than 15 yrs. ago in which the person said I would need to cut my hair as so to "maintain an AT&T appearance"whatever that meant!I was applying for a HVAC Service position at the time and I would be entering office buildings for some of my calls.But hey its a blue collar job so why do I need to look like an office geek!Ultimately I turned down his job offer because of that and some years later I got into service working somewhere else and kept my hair!Well enough of my story as I hope it all works out for you too.Please do keep us posted as you write great letters.Take care and good luck.Mark
80's, I seriously wouldn't bother staying with them, it's only Super Cheap Auto anyway, they have never struck me as having any class.
Plenty of other jobs around for someone like you, I would suggest stacking shelves in a supermmarket on night shift, you would get better pay & overtime anyway.
That's what my brother did during uni and he has long hair
half way down his back.
Good luck!
MattT
Sorry to hear about your problem. If I was you I will not back down. I did once when I was growing my hair out for the first time. I only did because I needed the job and did not have much experience to find another quickly. That was about 8 Years ago. I have since left that job.
I feel that these laws they set are wrong, they do not apply in all retail environments so why where you work? The job I was working before medical reasons made me leave did not seem to have any issues with long hair on guys. I worked with at least 3 in my area that did and they always had it tied back so it look neat and tidy. I was working at Myer (a large department Store Chain here in Australia (Melbourne)) these guys and I were in the food hall of that store. I did not start growing my hair again until I left so I would not have any awkward stage issues while working there as we were not allowed to wear hats while in the public eye only at back of house areas hats were allowed.
Hey 80's
been a bit busy at the moment so didn't get to post a reply to your previous post but im glad to hear that you have enough conviction to not give into unfair demands.
I'm also happy to hear that your parents seem to have your back on this one...i remember when i didn't get a cadetship with a law firm my parents thought it would be a good chance to bring up the hair debate again.
I replied to this along the lines of not wanting to work with a company that thinks so little of its employees, an argument which was dismissed as idiotic by both family members who said "i have no right to choose"
i eagerly await to hear your next post about new employment!!! :)
take care dude
