London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

gctest50 · 12-05-2016 08:36PM

https://twitter.com/myPortico/status/730495445424803841

.

darkpagandeath · 12-05-2016 08:38PM

gctest50 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/myPortico/status/730495445424803841

Where's that say sexy or glamours ?

maudgonner · 12-05-2016 08:39PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But I'm not though am I, It's merely a dress code. People are grasping their own set of straws implying it's to make the woman a glamour model. Or look like a stripper in stilettos.

Jaysus - glamorous & sexy does not equal glamour model and stripper.

YMMV of course.

thattequilagirl · 12-05-2016 08:41PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But I'm not though am I, It's merely a dress code. People are grasping their own set of straws implying it's to make the woman a glamour model. Or look like a stripper in stilettos.

What would you say purpose of including that in a dress code is?

darkpagandeath · 12-05-2016 08:44PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

What would you say purpose of including that in a dress code is?

Not being a mind reader it's a dress code for a company. When I'm at work I smile at customers and don't shout at them either being company policy.

gctest50 · 12-05-2016 08:51PM

.

Only a 3 % get a Investors in People Gold Standard accreditation

https://www.investorsinpeople.com/

.

Simon Pratt, Managing Director of Portico, commited earlier today to reviewing the uniform guidelines
in his business following the issue raised by Nicola Thorp reagrding high heeled shoes.
Our client PwC also asked us to review and revise our policy.

Simon commented : "Portico does expect high standards of professional dress from all our team
members and we do set these out clearly. We have historically recommeded plain court shoes for
our female colleagues and have generally allowed plain flat shoes when requested."

"We are totaly committed to being an inclusive and equal opportunities employer, actively
embracing diversity and inclusion within all our policies and procedures. We are therefore
making it very clear, that with immediate effect, all our female colleagues can wear plain flat
shoes or plain court shoes as they prefer. We are proud to have an Investors in People Gold
Standard accreditation, which involves a high degree of consultation and teamwork within our business
and we are glad to take this opportunity to make a further improvement to our practice"

thattequilagirl · 12-05-2016 09:13PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Not being a mind reader it's a dress code for a company. When I'm at work I smile at customers and don't shout at them either being company policy.

Yes. Shouting at customers would almost certainly have a negative impact on the business, so that's good. I can't see how forcing women to wear shoes that force their feet into an unnatural angle impacts the bottom line...?

Half Man Half Biscuit · 12-05-2016 09:19PM

A friend of mine since deceased worked in Revenue. Asked to remove his ear ring (circa mid 90's). "No problem " he said, "as soon as all the women remove theirs". A class act!

Tin Foil Hat · 12-05-2016 09:20PM

I'm guessing that, until today, none of their clients gave a flying fukk about the height of the heels on the receptionist. She really has made them look like a bunch of spastics.

Half Man Half Biscuit · 12-05-2016 09:24PM

PWC= Pretty White Chick. OOOOOH!

pickarooney · 12-05-2016 09:35PM

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.

The beauty industry is hardly a yardstick for progressive work practices.

pickarooney · 12-05-2016 09:38PM

ScouseMouse wrote: »

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?

Maybe the half dozen glamorous head shots in a major newspaper and the attendant viral propagation of same will go some way towards mitigating that. Who knows?

claregal1 · 12-05-2016 09:42PM

In my last job - a multi national office - we used to have dress down Friday - this was all well and good until a new guy arrived wearing a pair of Bermuda shorts and flip flops - needless to say an email was sent around the office after that instructing us what exactly was allowed in dress down Friday ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚

ceadaoin. · 12-05-2016 10:13PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Not being a mind reader it's a dress code for a company. When I'm at work I smile at customers and don't shout at them either being company policy.

Why don't the men have to force their feet into uncomfortable damaging shoes and wear at least 5 cosmetic products daily (also included in the dress code for women in this agency) if they want to keep their jobs? I can see the logic in not shouting at customers, but not in having to wear heels and large amounts of make up.

JuliusCaesar · 12-05-2016 10:25PM

Court shoes - even as flats - can be uncomfortable to wear. Because I have a high instep, I have to hold them on with my toes, and even then they flop off my heel bone. I'm very glad I don't have to wear anything other than 'work clothes' - the restrictions are about tee-shirts with slogans, although I think they did try to ban Capri pants at some stage but anyone who wanted to wear them just ignored it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 12-05-2016 10:26PM

pickarooney wrote: »

The beauty industry is hardly a yardstick for progressive work practices.

Excuse me, but is there something wrong with it? The tone of your post is extremely condescending, which I'm sure you didn't mean.

the groutch · 12-05-2016 10:33PM

stuff like this is why I hate the likes of Facebook so much.
it turns people into angry mobs, blowing the tiniest of things out of proportion.

dresden8 · 12-05-2016 11:00PM

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.

Ladies have to be "sexy" in work?

Have I just woken up in the 1950s?

RedemptionZ · 12-05-2016 11:05PM

dresden8 wrote: »

Ladies have to be "sexy" in work?

Have I just woken up in the 1950s?

He said they weren't sexy but looked powerful. Not agreeing with him per se, but he never said that they had to be sexy.

dresden8 · 12-05-2016 11:06PM

RedemptionZ wrote: »

He said they weren't sexy but looked powerful. Not agreeing with him per se, but he never said that they had to be sexy.

"dowdy".

FFS.

Should managers have their choice of pickings in the typing pool still?

maudgonner · 12-05-2016 11:16PM

dresden8 wrote: »

"dowdy".

FFS.

Should managers have their choice of pickings in the typing pool still?

Don't forget meek. Because as soon as you take your heels off your voice becomes quieter than a mouse and your backbone dissolves!

On the plus side, the bible says we're going to inherit the earth or something

RedemptionZ · 12-05-2016 11:18PM

dresden8 wrote: »

"dowdy".

FFS.

Should managers have their choice of pickings in the typing pool still?

I'm not in favour of the high heel dress code. I don't think however it's fair to try to paint out that poster to be some misogynist who believes women have to be sexy in the workplace. He explicitly said he thought women who he didn't find sexy at all seemed more professional in heels.

dresden8 · 12-05-2016 11:29PM

RedemptionZ wrote: »

I'm not in favour of the high heel dress code. I don't think however it's fair to try to paint out that poster to be some misogynist who believes women have to be sexy in the workplace. He explicitly said he thought women who he didn't find sexy at all seemed more professional in heels.

I know lots of short women who don't wear heels. They'd rip your bollix off.

Poster has a fetish.

FunLover18 · 13-05-2016 12:06AM

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.

What utter nonsense. Men wear flats and no one questions how powerful or professional they are. I don't see why women should be judged differently.

Shint0 · 13-05-2016 12:06AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why don't the men have to force their feet into uncomfortable damaging shoes and wear at least 5 cosmetic products daily (also included in the dress code for women in this agency) if they want to keep their jobs? I can see the logic in not shouting at customers, but not in having to wear heels and large amounts of make up.

Some feminists believe that men invented high heels so that women would take up less space on the ground. I may have just made that up.

Traditionally male nobility and horsemen wore high heels as they could assert their dominance so by that reasoning the CEO of PWC should wear them aswell and lead by example.

PopePalpatine · 13-05-2016 12:10AM

Shint0 wrote: »

Some feminists believe that men invented high heels so that women would take up less space on the ground. I may have just made that up.

Traditionally male nobility and horsemen wore high heels as they could assert their dominance so by that reasoning the CEO of PWC should wear them aswell and lead by example.

Nobles such as Bono and Nicolas Sarkozy are carrying on that great tradition. :pac:

riclad · 13-05-2016 12:31AM

The only purpose of heels is too look sexy,or feminine
if a woman is not a model, or a stripper ,
or actress she she be able to wear any footwear she wants as longs as its safe ,and clean.
I think heels are the opposite of conveying authority,
unless you have a fetish for them.
like in the 1900,s women had to wear long dress,s down to their ankles ,
if they worked in an office.
Theres a wide range of flat shoes women can wear,
when i go into the city centre i rarely see women wearing heels .
They can be painful if worn for 8 hours i presume .
IF you are looking at a woman and saying she,s not a professional
cos she,s not wearing 4 inch heels i,d say you have some kind of mental problem.
i understand models and actress,s have to wear heels at times,
but for someone in a office i see no point in this rule .

i understand wearing heels everyday can damage your health .

Do men working in an office or a shop have to wear something
thats painful or bad for your health ?
i doubt it.
You just have to wear clothes that are neat and clean.

Is it the job of a woman in an office to look sexy,
is this 1970,
am i in a time warp.
Will there be ads on jobs ie,
sexy woman , wanted to work in an office,
must be willing to wear a short skirt and high heels .

Zen65 · 13-05-2016 12:51AM

FunLover18 wrote: »

What utter nonsense. Men wear flats and no one questions how powerful or professional they are. I don't see why women should be judged differently.

If men wore women's clothes they'd be judged very differently to women wearing the same clothes, so your argument is somewhat flawed. Men and women are judged differently on the basis on their appearance, not just by their employers (who, for the most part, would not care what employees wore . . . except for this one well-established fact-) but also more importantly by customers & potential customers.

If my financial adviser showed no signs of caring for his appearance I'd have less confidence in him. For me to part with money, I have to feel a sense of confidence in the people who are looking to me to invest in them. If it's an IT project then maybe I'd be OK with a bunch of hoodie-wearing student types, but in all fairness I'd feel better if they dressed like they wanted to impress.

It's not about men vs. women. The comments about men not wearing high heels are facile, at best. The majority of men and women have more confidence in a woman (or man) who dresses well than they do in somebody who dresses in dull, boring or 'comfortable' clothing. I don't want to see my doctor wearing a tracksuit when I visit his surgery.

High heels look sharp and professional on a woman. It's not about 'sexy'. When I'm doing business (and most men I know feel the same way) the concept of 'sexy' is irrelevant. Some women can wear flats and still look sharp; some women look totally out-of-sorts in high heels, especially if they cannot walk properly in them. But statistically over the past 35+ years of my professional life, the women who wear heels do so because they are aware that they look more professional in them, and it would be my observation in large companies that the more senior women in the company are more likely to wear high heels.

The case in London is pure self-promotion by an actress. Don't tell me that if she was offered the part of leading lady opposite Johnny Depp or Tom Cruise that she would turn it down if the role required her to wear high heels - even for scenes where she had to sprint across rough terrain or fight the baddies.

BTW - have you seen any female guest appear on 'Graham Norton' wearing flats? Me neither (except for one very witty elder British lesbian).

seenitall · 13-05-2016 01:24AM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I can't see how forcing women to wear shoes that force their feet into an unnatural angle impacts the bottom line...?

Um... it impacts the bottom line quite a bit... in fact, that just may be the whole point..?

FunLover18 · 13-05-2016 01:30AM

Zen65 wrote:

If men wore women's clothes they'd be judged very differently to women wearing the same clothes, so your argument is somewhat flawed. Men and women are judged differently on the basis on their appearance, not just by their employers (who, for the most part, would not care what employees wore . . . except for this one well-established fact-) but also more importantly by customers & potential customers.

I didn't say anything about men wearing women's clothing. My point was that if men can wear flat shoes and be professional, so why should women be held to a higher standard. I'm not saying women don't look professional in heels but the idea that flats are unprofessional is ridiculous given that men wear flat shoes.

Zen65 wrote:

If my financial adviser showed no signs of caring for his appearance I'd have less confidence in him. For me to part with money, I have to feel a sense of confidence in the people who are looking to me to invest in them. If it's an IT project then maybe I'd be OK with a bunch of hoodie-wearing student types, but in all fairness I'd feel better if they dressed like they wanted to impress.

Are you equating a woman wearing flats with a man wearing a hoodie?

Zen65 wrote:

It's not about men vs. women. The comments about men not wearing high heels are facile, at best. The majority of men and women have more confidence in a woman (or man) who dresses well than they do in somebody who dresses in dull, boring or 'comfortable' clothing. I don't want to see my doctor wearing a tracksuit when I visit his surgery.

Are you now just talking about dress codes in general? I don't see how a tracksuit affects a doctor's ability to practice medicine, of course a suit looks more professional but if you offered me an incompetent doctor in a suit or a competent doctor in a tracksuit I know who I'd go with.

Zen65 wrote:

High heels look sharp and professional on a woman. It's not about 'sexy'. When I'm doing business (and most men I know feel the same way) the concept of 'sexy' is irrelevant. Some women can wear flats and still look sharp; some women look totally out-of-sorts in high heels, especially if they cannot walk properly in them. But statistically over the past 35+ years of my professional life, the women who wear heels do so because they are aware that they look more professional in them, and it would be my observation in large companies that the more senior women in the company are more likely to wear high heels.

I don't disagree with this but I think flats can look just as professional. Do you they wear them because they think they look professional or do they wear them because society tells them they look more professional? It's a chicken-egg situation.

Zen65 wrote:

The case in London is pure self-promotion by an actress. Don't tell me that if she was offered the part of leading lady opposite Johnny Depp or Tom Cruise that she would turn it down if the role required her to wear high heels - even for scenes where she had to sprint across rough terrain or fight the baddies.

You literally just complained about facile arguments 2 paragraphs ago!

Zen65 wrote:

BTW - have you seen any female guest appear on 'Graham Norton' wearing flats? Me neither (except for one very witty elder British lesbian).

What's your point? Does the GN show have a dress code or are guests allowed choose what they wear? Was she actually a lesbian or are you making a judgement call based on the fact she wore flats?

London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

Comments