London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

Junkyard Tom · 13-05-2016 02:09AM

I think she should have worn the heeled shoes because I don't like women very much and I especially dislike women who get all uppity.

K-9 · 13-05-2016 02:26AM

Bloody feminazis!

Seriously though, high heels are office dresswear? I think she's right. I'm sure there are plenty of office appropriate flat shoes to wear.

She had to wear make up as well. That's even stupider!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 13-05-2016 08:03AM

The horror. Imagine having to look polished and presentable when being paid to meet and greet a companies clients. They'll be telling her she'll have to brush her hair next

RIGHTisRIGHT · 13-05-2016 08:20AM

LizT wrote: »

They reversed their decision about requiring heels.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/high-heels-dress-code-company-7951327

Suppose they had to with all the backlash.

The shoe is on the other foot now.

force eleven · 13-05-2016 08:24AM

She should learn to toe the line. If not she should get the boot.

ceadaoin. · 13-05-2016 09:16AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The horror. Imagine having to look polished and presentable when being paid to meet and greet a companies clients. They'll be telling her she'll have to brush her hair next

She abided by the majority of the dress code rules, including having to wear 5 different cosmetics, and I'm sure her hair was brushed.

It is possible to still look "polished and presentable" without heels. She just didn't want to wear them because she wouldnt be able to do her job without injuring herself and I don't see why she should be forced to do so.

Let's be honest, "meeting and greeting a companies clients" most likely means meeting and greeting men who want to ogle a pretty receptionist in heels and full make up. Why not just advertise the job as such then? Probably because they wouldn't get away with that. I don't see any other alternative for the arguments that she should wear them.

This is 2016, not 1956.

12Phase · 13-05-2016 09:40AM

It's a load of nonsense and I now have a dim view of the employer tbh.

There was a major controversy in Canada when a restaurant forced a female employees to wear heels even when one of them had bleeding feet from the shoes.

Also the Cannes Film Festival 2015 turned women away from a red carpet screening who didn't wear heels. This included older women who had disabilities and difficulty walking.

There's a lot of rubbish talked about heels and it's almost entirely by the same fashion bully asshats who regularly condemn other women for all sorts of things like being normal weight etc etc and will take no responsibility or criticism for being called out on it.

They're starting to turn their attention to guys too with a growth in serious eating disorder and body dysmorphia.

I'm a guy and seriously think women need to tackle this kind of stuff head on and deal with these crazy, bullying, stupid and, in this case, blatantly sexist policy.

Footwear fetish fascists seem to be the problem!

Chronicler · 13-05-2016 09:48AM

There is no policy regarding heels in my office, but having a quick perv, I mean look, around this morning I would estimate that about 60% of the women are wearing heels.

silverharp · 13-05-2016 09:52AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

She abided by the majority of the dress code rules, including having to wear 5 different cosmetics, and I'm sure her hair was brushed.

It is possible to still look "polished and presentable" without heels. She just didn't want to wear them because she wouldnt be able to do her job without injuring herself and I don't see why she should be forced to do so.

Let's be honest, "meeting and greeting a companies clients" most likely means meeting and greeting men who want to ogle a pretty receptionist in heels and full make up. Why not just advertise the job as such then? Probably because they wouldn't get away with that. I don't see any other alternative for the arguments that she should wear them.

This is 2016, not 1956.

that's a bit sexist. go to a council office and you will be greeted by a dowdy person dressed like they are between college classes and you will generally be grunted at where to go. go to a top Law or other practice where you are paying top dollar and you will be treated professionally by people who look like they put a lot of effort into getting a job there.
maybe there is a gap in the market for a hipster Law or accountancy practice?

razorblunt · 13-05-2016 09:55AM

12Phase wrote: »

It's a load of nonsense and I now have a dim view of the employer tbh.

There was a major controversy in Canada when a restaurant forced a female employees to wear heels even when one of them had bleeding feet from the shoes.

Hasn't that company come back and said they had no such policy in place?

FWIW I don't agree with the heel policy, I work in an office environment and a lot of the women have heels under their desks for when they need to attend meetings, but when they're at their desk they're in pumps.

12Phase · 13-05-2016 09:59AM

razorblunt wrote: »

Hasn't that company come back and said they had no such policy in place?

FWIW I don't agree with the heel policy, I work in an office environment and a lot of the women have heels under their desks for when they need to attend meetings, but when they're at their desk they're in pumps.

PWC was the outsourcing client, not the employer. They've a huge HR operation though and I'm shocked that it's something they weren't aware of.

It's the outsourcer I'm mostly taking a very dim view of. They did have the policy.

12Phase · 13-05-2016 10:03AM

silverharp wrote: »

that's a bit sexist. go to a council office and you will be greeted by a dowdy person dressed like they are between college classes and you will generally be grunted at where to go. go to a top Law or other practice where you are paying top dollar and you will be treated professionally by people who look like they put a lot of effort into getting a job there.
maybe there is a gap in the market for a hipster Law or accountancy practice?

Go to an IT company or most media outlets and you'll probably be greeted by a receptionist who is super friendly and efficient and could be wearing literally anything.

I've been to bank HQs where the receptionists were definitely not wearing heels and were totally slick and professional.

Someone seems to just think they're still on the set of Mad Men or something.

RWCNT · 13-05-2016 10:10AM

Jesus Christ, the amount of false equivalence being thrown around by people who will go to any lengths to defend this ridiculous policy.

I notice this a lot in threads on here. If there's a whiff of anyone pointing out inequality in any form people will go out of their way to justify it. I can't understand the mentality at all. Fair play to this lass. You lot probably think Rosa Parks should have just walked home if she had a problem with the back of the bus.*

*I want to make stupid comparisons as well, godammit.

silverharp · 13-05-2016 10:11AM

12Phase wrote: »

Go to an IT company or most media outlets and you'll probably be greeted by a receptionist who is super friendly and efficient and could be wearing literally anything.

I've been to bank HQs where the receptionists were definitely not wearing heels and were totally slick and professional.

Someone seems to just think they're still on the set of Mad Men or something.

there is no absolute right or wrong here, its an image thing at the end of the day. But corporate law firms and the like are not media companies, there is a different vibe. If one big firm thought there would be a commercial advantage if they all went Google and trendy Im sure one would have done so by now. As it is however minor an effect it might be, they deem that dressing as professionally as possible either has a positive effect for the staff or on the clients they deal with. there is no point second guessing them

maudgonner · 13-05-2016 10:21AM

silverharp wrote: »

there is no absolute right or wrong here, its an image thing at the end of the day. But corporate law firms and the like are not media companies, there is a different vibe. If one big firm thought there would be a commercial advantage if they all went Google and trendy Im sure one would have done so by now. As it is however minor an effect it might be, they deem that dressing as professionally as possible either has a positive effect for the staff or on the clients they deal with. there is no point second guessing them

The point is that it is perfectly possible to dress professionally without wearing high heels. That attitude is old-fashioned and should be changed. A good starting point would be to stop companies including it in their dress code. Then at least it would merely be a choice (although I'm sure women would still be pressured to ear heels in a corporate environment unfortunately), not mandatory.

13-05-2016 10:23AM

Heels cripple me, i could do some wedges but that's it
What a load of nonsense. Women should injure themselves permanently to look pretty for me for no reason. And people here defending that mindset!

thattequilagirl · 13-05-2016 10:23AM

I have no issue with a company saying "Our staff need to look extremely professional", I just don't understand who made the decision that high heels are more professional than flats and on what basis.

razorblunt · 13-05-2016 10:26AM

12Phase wrote: »

PWC was the outsourcing client, not the employer. They've a huge HR operation though and I'm shocked that it's something they weren't aware of.

It's the outsourcer I'm mostly taking a very dim view of. They did have the policy.

I'm talking about the restaurant example, I thought I read a follow up article stating they didn't have that policy. Now they might be just throwing the local general manager on the bus at the same time, but I though it wasn't as clear as originally laid out.

12Phase · 13-05-2016 10:38AM

silverharp wrote: »

there is no absolute right or wrong here, its an image thing at the end of the day. But corporate law firms and the like are not media companies, there is a different vibe. If one big firm thought there would be a commercial advantage if they all went Google and trendy Im sure one would have done so by now. As it is however minor an effect it might be, they deem that dressing as professionally as possible either has a positive effect for the staff or on the clients they deal with. there is no point second guessing them

There is most definitive right and wrong here. The company is definitely wrong.

I would love to see how this would play out legally if an employee, compelled to wear heals, injured herself by tripping or developed a long lasting foot or back problem.

To me this looks like something that could potentially be a fairly substantial workplace liability issue as the employer is directing staff to wear something known to cause lack of balance and foot and other injuries.

I can't actually think of any other item of clothing that actually causes serious discomfort, resides your ability to balance or potentially long term damage to body parts.

There really aren't very many arguments in favour of high heels. If someone wants to wear them, that's their business but to be perfectly honest, given the health and safety culture and litigious nature of society here, if I were an employer I would actually be insisting on safe, comfortable footwear if I were specifying anything at all.

Once you make something a requirement, you are basically responsible for it. Seems to me to be taking on a lot of legal risk for the sake of a fashion fixation.

silverharp · 13-05-2016 10:45AM

maudgonner wrote: »

The point is that it is perfectly possible to dress professionally without wearing high heels. That attitude is old-fashioned and should be changed. A good starting point would be to stop companies including it in their dress code. Then at least it would merely be a choice (although I'm sure women would still be pressured to ear heels in a corporate environment unfortunately), not mandatory.

"stop companies" by law? depending on where you work there will always be pressures over something. I worked in London for several years and I certainly remember how uncomfortable it was wearing a dark suit and using the Underground in the height of summer. I never had the slightest urge to take to Tumblr over how sexist my work clothes were.
Last year it was sexist air conditioning , I guess this is this year's oppression for the entitled :pac:

12Phase · 13-05-2016 10:49AM

silverharp wrote: »

"stop companies" by law? depending on where you work there will always be pressures over something. I worked in London for several years and I certainly remember how uncomfortable it was wearing a dark suit and using the Underground in the height of summer. I never had the slightest urge to take to Tumblr over how sexist my work clothes were.
Last year it was sexist air conditioning , I guess this is this year's oppression for the entitled :pac:

You can get a light, summer, dark suit and they are not uncomfortable. The two things are not remotely comparable.

Also you don't have to wear your jacket on the tube and you don't work on it unless you're tube staff in which case you actually do have proper clothes for the job that are practical.

maudgonner · 13-05-2016 10:50AM

silverharp wrote: »

"stop companies" by law? depending on where you work there will always be pressures over something. I worked in London for several years and I certainly remember how uncomfortable it was wearing a dark suit and using the Underground in the height of summer. I never had the slightest urge to take to Tumblr over how sexist my work clothes were.
Last year it was sexist air conditioning , I guess this is this year's oppression for the entitled :pac:

Yes, stop it being included in dress codes by law if necessary. Certainly pressure companies into changing it through the public response highlighting how ridiculous it is. That's why I acknowledged that this would merely be a starting point, wouldn't actually stop people being pressured to wear heels to look professional.

Your requirement to wear a suit didn't cause you pain or damage. You weren't required to wear it in order to look glamorous. It's not equivalent, as has been pointed out again and again.

Let me turn this argument on its head. Why do you care? If it was removed from dress codes in the morning what difference would it make to your life? Why do you object to something that would make a lot of women happy, but would not make a difference to men?

Carawaystick · 13-05-2016 11:02AM

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

We have a formal dress code here at the bank. I'll always wear a suit, shirt, tie and plain toe oxford shoes. A pocket square is optional.

So you'ld be fine with a female worker wearing the same?
Suit, shirt, tie/neckscarf and plain toe oxford shoes?

Pac1Man · 13-05-2016 11:04AM

More water.

12Phase · 13-05-2016 11:10AM

Carawaystick wrote: »

So you'ld be fine with a female worker wearing the same?
Suit, shirt, tie/neckscarf and plain toe oxford shoes?

I'd prefer the bank to be friendly to deal with, competent, not prone to causing national and global economic crisis and maybe good with IT.

Other than that, I couldn't care less if they wore Bermuda shorts and flip flops as long as they don't treat me like an inconvenience, gouge me for fees and occasionally threaten to fold.

To me this thread just shows a lot of what's wrong with the financial services and similar sectors.

Professionalism = high heels and nice suits apparently.

No wonder we nearly had a global economic collapse.

Customer care from the teeth out and a notion that business is about playing dress up.

The heels requirement thing is in a league of its own for stupidity though.

Maguined · 13-05-2016 11:15AM

You either accept that an employer is allowed to have a dress code or you do not. What is deemed professional looking is completely subjective so if you accept dress codes then you have to accept your employers subjective choices.

I don't like dress codes personally and I wish I could wear whatever I chose as I do not face any customers/clients in my job role but I accept an employer has a right to enforce a dress code and they do not pay me to be happy in what I wear.

12Phase · 13-05-2016 11:20AM

Maguined wrote: »

You either accept that an employer is allowed to have a dress code or you do not. What is deemed professional looking is completely subjective so if you accept dress codes then you have to accept your employers subjective choices.

I don't like dress codes personally and I wish I could wear whatever I chose as I do not face any customers/clients in my job role but I accept an employer has a right to enforce a dress code and they do not pay me to be happy in what I wear.

The issue being pointed out here is *NOT* a dress code one. It's basically a health and safety problem.

No other part of a dress code requires someone to wear an item of clothing that can cause major discomfort, pain, injury, compromises a basic function (balance and walking) and can cause long term disfigurement of feet, joint damage, shortening of muscles and so on.

I mean, remove the cultural inability to see faults with our own social norms and you'll find it's not all that different from asking women to come to work in bound feet.

How is it in any way reasonable to ask an employee to wear something that could damage or injure them or that might cause on going serious discomfort!!??

I mean for example, if someone decides that men look better with a narrow waist and their chest puffed out more, how about all the lads wear a tight corset ? Sure what's a bit of intestinal discomfort, maybe permanent damage to your bones, sure you'd look great and that's all that matters!

It's literally that ridiculous.

Penny Tration · 13-05-2016 11:21AM

Maguined wrote: »

You either accept that an employer is allowed to have a dress code or you do not. What is deemed professional looking is completely subjective so if you accept dress codes then you have to accept your employers subjective choices.

I don't like dress codes personally and I wish I could wear whatever I chose as I do not face any customers/clients in my job role but I accept an employer has a right to enforce a dress code and they do not pay me to be happy in what I wear.

That's true, but it's sexist in the heel incident. Men are not required to wear heels, only women.

They can in some instances escape discrimination cases, when what they're asking is a societal expectation of a specific gender IIRC, but wearing heels isn't a societal expectation.

Indeed, heels are not supposed to be worn daily because long term wearing can and does causes back problems.

Sexism aside, it's a health and safety issue.

Chronicler · 13-05-2016 11:33AM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I have no issue with a company saying "Our staff need to look extremely professional", I just don't understand who made the decision that high heels are more professional than flats and on what basis.

There is nothing inherently professional about heels themselves, no more than there is anything inherently girly about the colour pink.

But they have, through association become intertwined. The high heeled, sharp-suited business woman is a social trope for many decades now.

maudgonner · 13-05-2016 11:33AM

Maguined wrote: »

You either accept that an employer is allowed to have a dress code or you do not. What is deemed professional looking is completely subjective so if you accept dress codes then you have to accept your employers subjective choices.

You accept it or not. But you can also lobby to have the dress code changed.

That's exactly what this woman did - she rejected the dress code by choosing to go home, and now she is lobbying to have it changed. Public pressure has caused the original company to change it, hopefully either continued public pressure or a change in the law will cause it to be changed across the board.

London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

Comments