new thread
I would like to set up and get a petition to protect men with long hair from employment discrimination, I am in Texas...there are many long hairs here that face employment discrimination.
(The TX state labor board does not protect anyone unless they are getting some kickback or pay out of it).
Has anyone on this hyperboard had the backbone to stand up for the freedom of having long hair before in the U.S.?
what did you do? any results?
who here will help or sign a petition?
I would sign a petition for that! And I'd sign one against tattoo discrimination too. I'm sick of all these employers and their seminars on descrimination, yet they discriminate everyday against employees that don't fit their everyone looking the same criteria.
We'll try and help if we can but like Jonathan I live in the UK. On our Prime Ministers website we can start a petition and you'd be amazed how that does have an effect.
Cheers,
John.B
The first thing I would do if I were you would be to research the archives and get information on the various issues discussing long hair and employment that have been held on this board. This issue is a legitimate one, and many good points have been put forth previously. Do a little research first.
Second, I am a bit put off by your confrontational attitude. I also live in Texas, and know for a fact that your comment about the Texas State Labor Board is unsupportable by the facts. Just because they haven't handled an issue related to yours does not mean that they all are taking illegal kickbacks. Are you interested in trying to advance your position or creating a controversy?
Your last statement is just more of the same. You imply that those on this board who have not stood up for the freedom of having long hair in the US have no backbone. Once again your statement does nothing but attempt to confront members into doing your bidding for them. If you are trying to drum up support, this is a pretty poor way of doing it.
As I said, I live in Texas, and am for advancing the rights of those with long hair to not be discriminated against. However, I have no desire to "challenge the establishment" using confrontational tactics which will do nothing but alienate people on both sides of the issue and accomplish nothing.
I will continue to advance the cause by working with and hiring those that are qualified to do the job without regard to hair length, and to encourage others in positions that have an effect to do the same.
I will leave the demonstrations and protest marches to others.
George
nfm
Two things.....
1. I think you went about getting our support the wrong way. We have worked hard to get hwere we are and dont want anyone with a eager attitude to mess things up. If you want our support, try a little compashion next time. Implying that we have no backbone was not the best way to make friends.
2. I thin kyou need to adress one particular issue, not the whole entire issue of longhair in the workplace. The key word here is RESEARCH. Do a bit of it before heading into this thing completely uninformed.
peace
clayton
I would say they all do, every day.
As a longhair myself I understand the frustration about long hair and employment discrimination. Unfortunately this is an issue and I wish it were not, but I would not waste the time or the effort dealing with a petition when there are a million other things you could do to better occupy your time. Instead of limiting yourself to an employee mindset why don't you become the employer and then you can have nothing but long haired co-workers. As long as you are the employee they are under no obligation to hire you and no one owes you anything.
That does indeed seem like a good course of action, but becoming a successful entrepreneur is not such an easy thing to do. Certainly easier said than done. Besides, remember that most businesses start up with a loan, and its needless to say most banks will have a negative view of your hair. You will indeed have to overperform with the business plan and other preparation to achieve the same level of respect, but that's not necessarily a bad thing at all.
During the age of anti-semitic legislation and Jewish quotas, Jews would habitually receive two grades lower than their peers simply due to discrimination, and they had to overperform to gain the same exam results. I'm sure this is a contributing factor to why there are so many Jewish scientists and nobel laureates. Just thought I'd mention the relative advantages :)
What about the right for an employer to establish a dress code that he wishes his employees to keep?
Case in point: A guy I know, who managed a small FBO (Fixed Base Operation...a "filling station" for airplanes) at an airport, was looking to hire a lineman (guy who fills up those airplanes) for his company. The FBO's owner had a set of standards IN WRITING, that specified dress code (which included company paid uniforms, and the prohibitting of visible pearcings and long hair on men). Well, wouldn't you know, a longhair decides to apply for the job. When he was told he couldn't get it unless he cut his hair, and be clean shaven, he threatened legal action, and that's exactly what he did. Good for HIM right?
Well, unfortunately, this business was teetering on closing (the aviation industry isn't kind these days for small operations), and the owner literally could not afford to get a lawer himself to defend him. Had he won, the costs he figured would have been too great (lawers don't work for free). Had he lost, well, it would have been money down the drain, and he still would have had to hire him. So he caved. After that, the corporate business jets that he had coming in slowly one at a time pulled their business somewhere else. Three of the aircraft owners pulled their aircraft off the field and relocated elsewhere, and do you want to know why? You guessed it, and it wasn't speculation. You see, these pilots talk to each other, and they in turn talk to their bosses. They had misgivings about having someone who looked like he would rob a liquor store, messing around, crawling all over, a 10+ million dollar aircraft. Two in particular had their pilot's play watchdog on him while he was anywhere near their plane. If a pilot has to go out and be there with the lineman while he fuels his plane, the pilot might as well fuel it himself. One even told ME that he would have kept coming had it not been for the guy he hired, and after running into the other's who also brought their business there, found out they felt the same. The general consensus was that the FBO's owner "...did it to himself by hiring this guy". So again, this is NOT speculation.
The owner had prided himself on establishing a "professional looking staff", and wanted a "uniform" look to his establishment. That was his only crime. By hiring this guy, the "discrimanatory big wigs" that gave him his business, pulled elsewhere. These were people who had been loyal to him for some time.
Was it RIGHT that the owners and pilots felt that way? To you it's not. Was it right that they judged the business based on ONE individual. Again, to you it's not. But the fact of the matter is, a man who couldn't afford to have legal action AGAINST him, was pushed into a position which caused him to buckle and hire someone who wanted to play the discrimination card, which eventually folded his company.
The guy looked like a sore thumb among the rest. And it even peeved the other workers to know that HE got exemption from the rule book, when THEY were loyal to their boss' wishes all along.
But great victory for the guy right?! He did get hired, and more power to him. Unfortunately, it resulted (whether you think it or not), in business loss for someone, and other people losing their jobs. Even had the compnay not closed, losing just ONE customer because of their judgement (no matter how misguided it may be) on the appearance of a business owner's employees, is still a loss. Anyone who knows anything about aircraft, knows that a corporate turbine powered aircraft sucks fuel like a fish sucks water. This guy didn't lose just one turbine aircraft, he lost MANY.
So before anyone thinks it's because the employer is just plain MEAN to longhairs, just consider that maybe he's keeping his CUSTOMERS in mind when he makes the decision to establish a set of guidelines that he thinks would make those customers comfortable in his establishment.
Oh, and to let everybody know, I am a fellow longhair.
Joseph
Yours probably isn't going to be a very popular position on this discussion board, but I agree with you, Joseph. In my opinion, all PRIVATE institutions (businesses, schools, clubs, etc.), have every right to establish and enforce dress codes that include specifications regarding hair length, piercings, tattoos, and the like. However, I also believe that all PUBLIC institutions (government agencies, public schools, etc.) do NOT have the right to discriminate based on the above-mentioned factors. In other words, if it's supported by tax-payer dollars, it should not dicriminate, as tax-paying citizens come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. If it's supported by private dollars, the private citizen who owns the operation should be able to call the shots.
--Val
It's called libertarianism and I absolutely agree with you. If it's a private institution, since it is their property, they can by law enact any guidelines regarding dress code, or anything else, that they want. The only thing you can do is to protest by taking your business elsewhere. In that sense, the business may lose customers, but as Joseph has said, the opposite might happen and they might save customers. It varies case by case.
It would be far more interesting if you told us you were applying to a government job and THEY rejected you on the basis of your hair length, at which point in time your complaints would have a more serious basis in law. I'm probably not wrong when I say most, or a lot of people here are libertarian. Btw, if any of you are interested in economics, check out www.mises.org it's a haven for libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.
Liberals (in the true sense, not the US pejorative sense) and libertarians are quite close on the political spectrum, but this points up the difference. As a liberal I believe that self expression ought to be protected by law. In the example given, if none of the companies in that sector had been able to reject prospective employees based on self expression, then none would have an advantage over any other when dealing with conservative clients.
I assume you mean classical liberals then?
The problem with the protection of such rights by law, is that they set in motion a slipper slope. The government starts by gaining power to coerce all businesses to adopt a certain dress code, but where does it end? I'm sure that by looking at history you will realise that every time the government started off by doing something out of good intentions, it ended up pretty badly. The income tax started at 2-3%, now look where it is. Just look at all the civil rights that have been violated, such as habeas corupus being suspended, all in the name of fighting terrorism. But terrorists can't take away your freedoms or your rights, only your government can, and they shouldn't have that power. The examples could continue, but I'm sure you know them yourself.
Whenever you expand government from it's bare necessary minimum, and give it the creative license to coerce a segment of the population for the benefit of a different segment, you have put the proverbial foot in the door. Everything that goes on today with governments usurping power left and right is simply an extension of the good intentions argument. In the end its simply unfeasible. This argument is pervasive within the individualist ideology, which says that no matter how large the group that benefits, if at least one person is harmed in the process, then this should not occur.
The way humans are, whenever you choose a lifestyle outside the norm, you will have to pay for it in some way or another. Trying to change the way people act through positive law, as opposed to going along with natural law, never brings any good in the long term.
Think of it this way, my freedoms end where yours begin. When you give the right to longhaired men to be employed without discrimination, you have thereby ended the property rights of the businesses (they were ended long ago by other legislation). Since long hair can hardly be classified as an inalienable right, I don't see why business freedom, especially since this forms the core of our economy, should take priority over a life style choice. Remember, long hair is a choice, you're not stuck with it like you are with skin colour, so to pass anti-discrimination legislation is simply not necessary.
Ditto then, for religion. Religion is also a choice.
Surprise! "It is a choice" is not the criterion. Some courts, such as the Supreme Court of California, have recognized that in decisions, and they have extended the protection of some civil rights statutes to matters which are a deep integral part of one's identity. In interpreting the state's Unruh Act, for example, that court has added "long hair" to the list.
Bill
Yeh you're probably right, to some people it's so important and part of their identity that they couldn't possibly choose otherwise.
However I stand by my other statements, especially the violation of property rights when enforcing such decisions upon a business. The entrepreneur is offering to pay YOU for a job. They are not obliged to hire you, as it is their business and they may do as they see fit. You also have a right to purchase goods and services from another business which does not discriminate, hence they may lose clients. Of course, public industries, having a monopoly, should not be able to discriminate, but private businesses should have that choice. Any time you tell them they can't do what they want with their property, you're violating their rights. Btw, I do realise that property rights have become unimportant to governments in today's society anyway. Even in so called capitalist countries, we see entire sectors of the economy nationalised by the government (see Northern Rock for recent example).
They had misgivings about having someone who looked like he would rob a liquor store
I'm not going to take a position on your argument but I couldn't help but react with disgust that they would think this about the man simply because he had long hair! Is that what they actually said to you or are you only surmising that that is what they were thinking? There's a big difference between the two.
Jason,
I am with you, I am not going to react to this either.
You can still be neat and have long hair. :-)
You tell us you have long hair, but you stereotype longhairs as people likely to rob a liquor store. Let's see your hair, then. without a hair pic I will regard you as a troll.
His not answering the question of where he got the idea the man looked like he would rob a liquor store also makes me think he is a troll. He's also not produced a picture of his long hair. Such inflammatory language is highly unlikely to come from someone who has long hair or supports those who do.
Joseph, than you for sharing this story, I think it exemplifies nicely the problems of discrimination- people that support it sometimes forget they might be the ones being discriminated against one day. The manager discriminates against employees and in return loses business to discrimination by the customers. Fitting, I think.
To me treating people right is far more important than "good business" practices, particularly if that is defined as catering to a prejudice of customers.
Elizabeth
have a hard time believing your story.
You don't say where this took place. I could believe it in a few places--maybe South Korea, or Singapore.
See, in most places people who can fly in private jets, got there by not being stupid. Oh, that doesn't mean they're Einsteins, but it does mean they're probably smart enough to know that long hair on a guy refilling an airplane isn't a big deal. Maybe I'll go to our local private jet airport and hang around and see what happens.
Substitute "black dudes" for "longhairs" in that tale, and it could play out just the same. The problem is, society has recognized that it harms society (and BUSINESS) as a whole when pervasive discrimination excludes segments of society from gainful employment. It is to SOCIETY'S benefit that all members of society be able to contribute to their fullest. Discrimination, if pervasive against a group, deprives society of that benefit.
So what society does is outlaws discrimination. As someone else pointed out, once all businesses are held to the same rules, then none has an advantage over another and all applicants for employment can find work. Keeping people off the welfare roles is appropriately a matter of societal concern.
Bill
Last I checked, we have the freedom to have long hair in the U.S. Private industry also has the freedom to establish guidelines for their employees' appearance. As long as those guidelines do not involve something an individual can't control, there is no discrimination involved, because we longhairs also have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere.
Hi Viking,
Obviously this topic touched a nerve with a few people here.Personally I wouldn't waste my time with an employer who made a request of me to cut my hair for a job.That happened to me a long time ago during an interview and I graciously thanked them for their time and declined the job.It would have been an upgrade for me in my line of work but you know what a few years later I got another offer from a different company and they never made that request to me.So now I'm doing what I could have done a few years earlier and still have my hair and pride as well.Sometimes you have to stand your ground if something means that much to you.Some say "Its just hair" but for me I don't buy that line.Good luck should you pursue the petition and I hope you do keep your hair.Assuming that pic posted is you I have to say you look awesome!You make a splendid longhair and I wouldn't want to loose that cool hair either.Take care.Mark
Indeed, the best tack if the "go elsewhere" option exists, is to just go there. I had a co-worker back in 1985 tell me he thought our boss was discriminating against him because he was black. I said, "Before you do anything else, go see if you can get a job elsewhere - if you can make the same or more money elsewhere, why subject yourself to the agony of struggling to stay here?" He came up to me a few days later, smiling really big, and he said he landed a job at another firm that was going to pay him a lot more! Problem solved.
If discrimination is pervasive though, and you feel cornered, then it is time to fight.
Fighting solely for principles provides benefit to society but not necessarily to oneself. One always takes a psychological beating when doing that, and one can only be beat up so much. If your work is stressful by its nature in the first place, this may add more stress than you can take.
Oh, but that is a great line to throw back in their face: "As you just said, it is just hair, so GET OVER IT!"
Bill
I'll sign, although I'm in Maryland.
I would suggest that we align ourselves with the broader cause of self expression rights. Longhairs are not the only ones who are discriminated against on appearance grounds, and if we join with others we have a better chance of success, as it's a numbers game.
My opinion of dress codes is that they are annoying but supportable up to where they involve only easily restorable changes, and no further. So, for example, requiring hair to be secured is OK, but requiring it cut off is not.
Or, to take a non-hair example, an earring ban is OK only as long as studs are permitted to be worn to keep the piercings from closing up. I have no horse in that race, having not the slightest interest in piercing my ears, but I'm including it to make a more general point.
The law is another matter entirely - but laws can be changed.
Nope. I don't believe in backbones. My whole life, all I've ever accomplished is shivering timidly in my boots, afraid of what people will say or think or whisper about me... and of course, I don't DARE to *speak* my own mind, --- in fact, I don't even have a mind! I make it a regular practice to cooperate with EVERYone, to be as wishy-washy as I possibly can, and never, EVER openly state my true thoughts, feelings, or opinions! That's why I've never successfully grown my own hair out, as you can see by looking at my avatar pic....
The guys here on this hyperboard are really all just "closet case longhairs!" We secretly yearn and BURN inside to someday, maybe SOMEday grow our OWN hair long!
Yep, never experienced what it feels like to stand up for someting I believe in...
If society, ---- including family, friends, and co-workers --- disapprove of me having hair longer than what they like looking at, then it should be my job to happify *THEM*, right??
I hope I answered your question!
(Name Withheld, because I'm too afraid everyone will find out it's Ken from San Francisco!)
...
Ken ... you just rock dude!!!!!!!!!
Tristan
Yeah, man! Once again, Ken, your comedic muse is here legend; WHEN are ya goin' into stand-up comedy? I'll be among the first ta reserve my own copy of your first live performance DVD, I kid thee not . . .
A fan o/t jocular muse,
Quenyan
I also live in the UK but will help if I can.