London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

FTA69 · 12-05-2016 05:25PM

I love the way people are talking about agency and temporary staff as if they are some sort of sh*te on a shoe or something, devoid of rights and basic respect. One of the biggest problems we have in work today is casualisation and insecurity which leads to all sorts of abusive practices in a variety of industries with people being walked on and terrified to raise a complaint in case they get the sack.

'Suck it up and get on with it' is the attitude which will have people working all sorts of intolerable conditions, and fair play to this woman for standing up for herself.

Her job is that of a receptionist, she didn't show up in gym gear and Air Maxes. She was a perfectly capable and presentable employee and those qualities aren't dependent on her tarting herself up or wearing f*cking heels to do it; least of all when she's supposed to be on her feet for 8 hours a day.

ScumLord · 12-05-2016 05:27PM

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

She would have spent most of the 9 hours behind a desk, so that's a lie for a start. It seems like a very stupid thing to do, for the next 10 years a google search will show here setting up a widespread protest on her first day of a job.

I doubt it will hurt her to much. She'll have no problem with companies that like promoting equal opportunities in their company. Most people have taken her side.

blue note wrote: »

Appropriately by whose standards? Yours? Or the company's?

Personally I think it's a stupid rule. But I don't think it's sexist and I think a company should have the right to have a dress code.

You're right up to a point. A receptionist is representing a front line role in the company and the company should have some say in how that presentation was made. But at the same time receptionist is a roll that requires some experience, the job isn't just about looking good.

Where I work we have to wear safety gear, high heels would be a major safety issue and wouldn't be allowed near the factory floor. High heels are purely cosmetic, they don't really serve much of a practical purpose. they slow people down and cause injuries,

If the company want to have someone pretty to walk people around their building hire someone to do specifically that. If you want a good receptionist high heels shouldn't even come into it.

Although, having said all that, if she was informed of the dress code up front, she had the opportunity to not take the job and still raise a complaint. If she was a temp, the temp agency could change their contract so that their temps couldn't be forced to wear high heels.

But now the discussion been had and I think this requirement will become at the very least unpopular.

thattequilagirl · 12-05-2016 05:31PM

I know I look a lot more professional walking confidently in my flats than stumbling around in heels. I'm not good at walking in heels. Since I'm not a model, I'd be disgusted if this inability on my part effected my career in any way.

SEPT 23 1989 · 12-05-2016 05:34PM

You can't jiggle in flats

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 12-05-2016 05:34PM

I work in an industry where myself and the other girls in my job are expected to be fully made up. For any of us to show up without any makeup wouldn't be accepted. While we have to abide by a uniform it's expected to be on trend too. You wouldn't show up in granny slacks and ugly shoes. even on days with "no makeup" you would have your eyelashes and lips done, and that's only if your skin is flawless.

Sleepy · 12-05-2016 05:36PM

ScumLord wrote: »

If the company want to have someone pretty to walk people around their building hire someone to do specifically that. If you want a good receptionist high heels shouldn't even come into it.

And if you don't have the budget to hire two people, could you not just merge the roles and only hire a good receptionist who happens to be pretty and happy to escort clients around the building in high heels?

It's a stupid requirement I'd agree but if she was sent a copy of the dress code prior to starting there, or informed of it on her first day, I don't really see the issue. Who hasn't turned up to work wearing the wrong dress code on their first day? On my first day in my current role I wore a shirt and tie and was told to take the tie off because "that's not how we do things here, just wear what you're comfortable in and save the suit for days when we're out with clients". If I'd insisted on it, I'm sure they could have refused to continue my contract. Why shouldn't it work the other way around too?

maudgonner · 12-05-2016 05:39PM

I don't have any problem with her being sent home for breaking the dress code, but I have a big problem with the dress code itself.

Heels should not be mandatory. In fact I'd like if we could get away from the daft notion that you somehow look more professional if you're wearing the blasted things.

If you like the look of them, and want to wear them either at work or socially, grand. But it should not be required, either formally or informally. A neat pair of flats should be perfectly acceptable. Thank christ I've never had a job where it matters what I wear, and I'd have to think very carefully before I'd take one.

(Personally, I'd also have no objections if men were allowed to ditch their ties btw)

thattequilagirl · 12-05-2016 05:40PM

Sleepy wrote: »

And if you don't have the budget to hire two people, could you not just merge the roles and only hire a good receptionist who happens to be pretty and happy to escort clients around the building in high heels?

It's a stupid requirement I'd agree but if she was sent a copy of the dress code prior to starting there, or informed of it on her first day, I don't really see the issue. Who hasn't turned up to work wearing the wrong dress code on their first day? On my first day in my current role I wore a shirt and tie and was told to take the tie off because "that's not how we do things here, just wear what you're comfortable in and save the suit for days when we're out with clients". If I'd insisted on it, I'm sure they could have refused to continue my contract. Why shouldn't it work the other way around too?

Ties don't effect your balance, or pose a health and safety issue. Heels can have a long-term negative effect on your health, or cause you to have an accident. I think people should be able to challenge workplace policies that are antiquated, even if they knew about them when they signed up.

ScouseMouse · 12-05-2016 05:41PM

FTA69 wrote: »

I love the way people are talking about agency and temporary staff as if they are some sort of sh*te on a shoe or something, devoid of rights and basic respect. One of the biggest problems we have in work today is casualisation and insecurity which leads to all sorts of abusive practices in a variety of industries with people being walked on and terrified to raise a complaint in case they get the sack.

'Suck it up and get on with it' is the attitude which will have people working all sorts of intolerable conditions, and fair play to this woman for standing up for herself.

Her job is that of a receptionist, she didn't show up in gym gear and Air Maxes. She was a perfectly capable and presentable employee and those qualities aren't dependent on her tarting herself up or wearing f*cking heels to do it; least of all when she's supposed to be on her feet for 8 hours a day.

I am not talking her down whatsoever. I am making the point she is hired in staff who can easily be replaced. She has caused a storm for her employer on her first day. Her name is all over google and every HR office in the western world will be aware of this.

Are you really suggesting this will not hurt her career?

thattequilagirl · 12-05-2016 05:42PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I work in an industry where myself and the other girls in my job are expected to be fully made up. For any of us to show up without any makeup wouldn't be accepted. While we have to abide by a uniform it's expected to be on trend too. You wouldn't show up in granny slacks and ugly shoes. even on days with "no makeup" you would have your eyelashes and lips done, and that's only if your skin is flawless.

There's a logic to that though, if you work in the beauty industry. Slightly different scenario I think as women are coming to you specifically because they have confidence in your ability to improve their appearance.

12-05-2016 05:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They possibly had to.

On the other hand, if it was a term of employment, surely that's that. Much like a cabin steward can hardly refuse to wear make up.

Surely it's only legal if its a requirement for both male and female employees? I don't understand how they can get away with insisting a woman wears heels or makeup, but it's okay for men not to.

Unless they pay them more for the intrusion and cost.

ScumLord · 12-05-2016 05:45PM

Sleepy wrote: »

And if you don't have the budget to hire two people, could you not just merge the roles and only hire a good receptionist who happens to be pretty and happy to escort clients around the building in high heels?

It's a stupid requirement I'd agree but if she was sent a copy of the dress code prior to starting there, or informed of it on her first day, I don't really see the issue. Who hasn't turned up to work wearing the wrong dress code on their first day? On my first day in my current role I wore a shirt and tie and was told to take the tie off because "that's not how we do things here, just wear what you're comfortable in and save the suit for days when we're out with clients". If I'd insisted on it, I'm sure they could have refused to continue my contract. Why shouldn't it work the other way around too?

I get all that, and you are right. If she was told up front what was expected of her then it's her own fault if she took the job.

The fact she's a temp means she may not have been aware of the dress code. The company may have just asked for someone to be sent and then threw a fit when she turned up with normal shoes on. I don't know how things are done over there but when I hear temp I assume they were caught short and needed someone to temporarily fill a roll. If that's the case they should make do with the temp for the time she's there, and forgive the fact she's not an expert on this one company's dress code.

The bar is probably pretty high for women in London, the place is crammed with jaw droppingly beautiful women always dolled up to the nines. The same goes for the men, there are so many that look like they're just stepping off the shoot for a men's clothing catalog. So I'd guess they can be quite picky in some parts of London.

ScouseMouse · 12-05-2016 05:49PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I get all that, and you are right. If she was told up front what was expected of her then it's her own fault if she took the job.

The fact she's a temp means she may not have been aware of the dress code. The company may have just asked for someone to be sent and then threw a fit when she turned up with normal shoes on. I don't know how things are done over there but when I hear temp I assume they were caught short and needed someone to temporarily fill a roll. If that's the case they should make do with the temp for the time she's there, and forgive the fact she's not an expert on this one company's dress code.

The bar is probably pretty high for women in London, the place is crammed with jaw droppingly beautiful women always dolled up to the nines. The same goes for the men, there are so many that look like they're just stepping off the shoot for a men's clothing catalog. So I'd guess they can be quite picky in some parts of London.

Thats very true. I completely agree. But what do you think they would do if one turned up and got stroppy for whatever reason on their first day? Man or woman.

HensVassal · 12-05-2016 05:52PM

Tinley Drab Self-defense wrote: »

I don't agree with that. They're supposed to be polite, pleasant and helpful, not give off an air of power.

I've no problem with uniforms and dress codes, but there are often good reasons why someone doesn't wear shoes with heels including back and knee problems. Specifying no trainers, flip flops etc would be fine. But insisting that female employees wear heels is unfair.

In financial companies image is very important. Clients want to be greeted by someone who looks the part not by so.eone dressed like a waitress. Ryanair flight attendants were heels and they're not escorting millionaires to meetings.

thattequilagirl · 12-05-2016 05:54PM

HensVassal wrote: »

In financial companies image is very important. Clients want to be greeted by someone who looks the part not by so.eone dressed like a waitress. Ryanair flight attendants were heels and they're not escorting millionaires to meetings.

Perhaps that's an attitude that warrants challenging? Any client that would make business decisions based on this would be incredibly difficult to manage either way.

maudgonner · 12-05-2016 05:55PM

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Thats very true. I completely agree. But what do you think they would do if one turned up and got stroppy for whatever reason on their first day? Man or woman.

Did she get stroppy? They told her that if she didn't get heels she would be sent home. She chose not to get heels, so she was sent home.

Then she decided to start a petition to change dress codes. Not a petition to get her job back, or get compensation from the company. I'm not seeing any hysteria there (I haven't seen any coverage other than the article in the OP and one in the Guardian though).

maudgonner · 12-05-2016 05:57PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Perhaps that's an attitude that warrants challenging? Any client that would make business decisions based on this would be incredibly difficult to manage either way.

Exactly, this is not Mad Men. Attitudes could definitely do with an update in the City and this might not be a bad place to start.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 12-05-2016 05:59PM

'Leave your workplace for most of the morning to go buy shoes you can't walk in, so you can um, do your job properly' kind of does show up how ridiculous the whole thing is. Heels don't look any more or less presentable or professional than flats, they make your pretty little legs and bottom look better though, and sure that's the main thing

ScouseMouse · 12-05-2016 05:59PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Did she get stroppy? They told her that if she didn't get heels she would be sent home. She chose not to get heels, so she was sent home.

Then she decided to start a petition to change dress codes. Not a petition to get her job back, or get compensation from the company. I'm not seeing any hysteria there (I haven't seen any coverage other than the article in the OP and one in the Guardian though).

It appears she refused. Its in the OP "
Nicola Thorp says she was laughed at when she told her bosses that she didn't want to wear high heels on her first day as a corporate receptionist."

I dont want to wear a suit or a shirt and tie, but its expected. I would call her "not wanting to and refusing to" being stroppy.

henryporter · 12-05-2016 06:04PM

No surprise given that it's PWC (Pr!cks W4nkers and Cnuts) - spend their time going around doing rather creative accounting for Banks and Governments and leaving us to deal with the consequences (even managing to make money out of the clean up) - just like their Big 4 chums. Of course they will get away with this sexist muppetry the same way they get away with everything.

maudgonner · 12-05-2016 06:05PM

ScouseMouse wrote: »

It appears she refused. Its in the OP "
Nicola Thorp says she was laughed at when she told her bosses that she didn't want to wear high heels on her first day as a corporate receptionist."

I dont want to wear a suit or a shirt and tie, but its expected. I would call her "not wanting to and refusing to" being stroppy.

Maybe we have different meanings for the word stroppy then. For me it has connotations of being rude/shouty/unreasonable. Not just deciding that something isn't acceptable to you and refusing.

ETA: Actually I just looked it up - dictionary.com says it's 'bad tempered and argumentative'. Now she may well have been, but I don't see evidence of it in the article.

ceadaoin. · 12-05-2016 06:05PM

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Thats very true. I completely agree. But what do you think they would do if one turned up and got stroppy for whatever reason on their first day? Man or woman.

ScouseMouse wrote: »

It appears she refused. Its in the OP "
Nicola Thorp says she was laughed at when she told her bosses that she didn't want to wear high heels on her first day as a corporate receptionist."

I dont want to wear a suit or a shirt and tie, but its expected. I would call her "not wanting to and refusing to" being stroppy.

I don't think that's being stroppy. She informed them that she would physically not be able to do her job wearing heels. You're underestimating how much wearing heels can hurt. Not to mention the long term effects from wearing them daily. She was perfectly willing to wear the clothes indicated in the dress code, the same as you wear a shirt and tie.

On the other hand, they wanted her to look a certain way even if it was to the detriment of performing her duties, it kind of indicates that her appearance is more important than actually doing the job she was hired to do. There's something wrong with that policy IMO.

Iwasfrozen · 12-05-2016 06:09PM

henryporter wrote: »

No surprise given that it's PWC (Pr!cks W4nkers and Cnuts) - spend their time going around doing rather creative accounting for Banks and Governments and leaving us to deal with the consequences (even managing to make money out of the clean up) - just like their Big 4 chums. Of course they will get away with this sexist muppetry the same way they get away with everything.

Their 4 big chums? Who would they be?

maudgonner · 12-05-2016 06:12PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Their 4 big chums? Who would they be?

Not sure if you're serious, but the Big 4 accounting firms.

henryporter · 12-05-2016 06:12PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Their 4 big chums? Who would they be?

KantPiddleMaGee, Detoilets and that Ernt and NotSoYoung crowd ( + PWC = the Big 4)

Iwasfrozen · 12-05-2016 06:27PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Not sure if you're serious, but the Big 4 accounting firms.

He said pwc's 4 chums so I assumed he mention something else.

Fratton Fred · 12-05-2016 06:37PM

FTA69 wrote: »

I love the way people are talking about agency and temporary staff as if they are some sort of sh*te on a shoe or something, devoid of rights and basic respect. One of the biggest problems we have in work today is casualisation and insecurity which leads to all sorts of abusive practices in a variety of industries with people being walked on and terrified to raise a complaint in case they get the sack.

'Suck it up and get on with it' is the attitude which will have people working all sorts of intolerable conditions, and fair play to this woman for standing up for herself.

Her job is that of a receptionist, she didn't show up in gym gear and Air Maxes. She was a perfectly capable and presentable employee and those qualities aren't dependent on her tarting herself up or wearing f*cking heels to do it; least of all when she's supposed to be on her feet for 8 hours a day.

My company have carried out a check on the contractor we use to make sure they don't have the same rule.

Absolutely farcical.

Fratton Fred · 12-05-2016 06:39PM

henryporter wrote: »

No surprise given that it's PWC (Pr!cks W4nkers and Cnuts) - spend their time going around doing rather creative accounting for Banks and Governments and leaving us to deal with the consequences (even managing to make money out of the clean up) - just like their Big 4 chums. Of course they will get away with this sexist muppetry the same way they get away with everything.

It wasn't PwC though, was their contractor.

uck51js9zml2yt · 12-05-2016 06:46PM

So she refused to toe the line, turned on her (flat) heel and walked out.

I see Maurice Pratt is blaming the third patty provider for the debacle saying it wasn't his company's policy yet he then reversed the policy he didn't enforce!

Aidric · 12-05-2016 06:57PM

HensVassal wrote: »

In fairness a two inch heel isn't going to cripple her.
Corporate receptionists are supposed to give off an air of power and flat shoes just don't convey that. I've worked in many companies with many women and I can tell you that a lot of them wore heels that were in no way "sexy" but they did give them an air of professionalism and authority. The girls who wore flat shoes looked dowdy and meek.

There has been a lot of laughable contributions in this thread but this tops the lot.

I've worked in a large US corporation for the last 5 years and we actively discourage women from wearing high heels in the office. You are working in a corporate environment, not a night club.

London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

Comments