London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

FunLover18 wrote: »

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?

GN does not have a dress code, but every actress who appears on it wears heels (some ridiculously high) by choice - because the show is after all a high-profile opportunity for self-promotion. Miriam Margolyes is a well-known highly-respected actress who happens to be a lesbian. She is the exception that proves the rule, so to speak. I reference the show to point out that, given the choice, most (virtually all) women who want to make a good impression in public will wear heels.

FunLover18 wrote: »

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.

But we will almost certainly not get the opportunity to make such a choice, because we'll most likely know nothing about a doctor before meeting them. If they are dressed in a manner that is unprofessional the patient will find it harder to trust them.

Leaving doctors aside, in our professional lives we all dress to appear competent and appropriate in our jobs. If the job involves presentation (which is a key part of a receptionist's role) then you'd expect that they dress in an appropriate manner. A company is entitled to set a dress code in order to have a uniformity in the appearance of front-line staff, without necessarily insisting on a "uniform" such as one would have in McDonalds.

I'm not arguing that the dress code is this case is the most appropriate (I've never heard of a company insisting that somebody wears heels for a job that involves a lot of walking on a daily basis) - but the employer is entitled to insist on a dress code, and people taking the job should not walk in on day #1 and start a petition to overturn the dress code. Frankly I doubt this lady will be offered a job again in that capacity, though she may find herself invited onto "Reality TV" shows, because she's marked herself as ready for the Z-list.

FunLover18 wrote: »

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.

See now, you're making exactly the argument I pointed to at the start as being flawed. A woman looks professional in high heels, but a man would not. It follows that one cannot assume a woman looks professional in flats simply because a man looks professional when he wears flats. There is no equivalence between these positions, not because of 'sexism' but because of expectations. A woman can wear flat Roman sandals and look sophisticated, but a man most likely would look ridiculous in them.

Yes, as I said, a woman can look professional in nice flats, but mostly, they are less professional in appearance than heels. Some heels are totally unprofessional for a woman to wear. Some women never look good in heels because they lack the skill of walking confidently in them. There is no single rule that you can apply to all men or all women, but if the job requires heels (because the employer believes it conveys the appropriate sense of confidence) then it follows that the sort of people who would take up such a role would be confident in wearing heels. In my experience, it is women rather than men who are likely to impose (and in many cases self-impose) the rule of wearing heels.

junkyarddog wrote: »

Sending her home because of her footwear choice was silly though,
so long as she was smartly turned out,and able to do her job she should be allowed to wear shoes of her choice.

Maybe, maybe not. If the shoe policy can be ignored, maybe the skirt/trouser/tie/cufflink policies can be ignored too. Now you do not have a dress code.

I'm not defending the employer btw, I'm merely pointing out that the arguments being made here are mostly flawed. Your argument about her having to wear heels in an acting role is very valid and insightful (I made that point myself earlier) . . . she is not really opposed to wearing heels, she's opposed to wearing heels when it isn't serving HER career ambitions.

K-9 wrote: »

That's all fair enough but nobody is asking for men and women to wear trainers.

I don't see anything wrong with a presentable pair of flat shoes at all, if some choose high heels that's fine too.

But you see, that's the whole point - where is the line drawn? If flats are "presentable", then why aren't trainers or casual shoes? They all are "comfortable" shoes which were never initially intended to be part of a formal, professional outfit, they stand on the very same ground from a purely logical standpoint.

If one decides to make a distinction between them it is a completely arbitrary one, based purely on preference, which needs to be outlined specifically in the creation of a dress code - otherwise the same "looks ok" logic can be applied to the entirety of it and suddenly, you have no dress code anymore.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

But you see, that's the whole point - where is the line drawn?

Indeed, that is the point - where the line is drawn. And the women who wear these shoes are saying the line should not be drawn there (and in fairness, many men are supporting this). That neat, professional looking flat shoes should be considered perfectly acceptable. Because they are.

K-9 wrote: »

As to the slippery slope, I think brogue shoes are horrible on men and there was a time they were seen as fashion shoes. I want them banned in the office. The slippery slope fallacy works both ways.

I'd sign that petition!!

Of course, I'd expect that the petition would be started quietly and respectfully by the employees, and not in an online poll designed to attack the employer.

True enough, they need to be professional looking.

As Colin Firth put it in Kingsman: "Oxfords, not brogues!"

Shoe.

Zen65 wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. If the shoe policy can be ignored, maybe the skirt/trouser/tie/cufflink policies can be ignored too. Now you do not have a dress code.

I'm not defending the employer btw, I'm merely pointing out that the arguments being made here are mostly flawed. Your argument about her having to wear heels in an acting role is very valid and insightful (I made that point myself earlier) . . . she is not really opposed to wearing heels, she's opposed to wearing heels when it isn't serving HER career ambitions.

It's not that valid an argument though is it? If an acting role required her to wear high heels presumably it would be because it was was part of a costume that she had to wear. But there is no reason a receptionist needs to wear high heels except for the look of the thing unless the reception desk is so high she needs them to be able to see over it. There is a difference.

Zen65 wrote: »

I think this story is fundamentally all about an out-of-work actress trying to create a self-promotional story, and while her acting profile may have been boosted by the exposure she's unlikely to work in hospitality again.

I don't think you're wrong about that. But I do think that it's about more than that (or it has become about more than that maybe). There is a genuine issue there, if nothing else the response on this thread shows that.

And there are plenty of jobs where women are on their feet for most of the day but are required to wear heels. Flight attendants were mentioned, and that's the one that grieves me the most, it's absolutely ludicrous to expect someone to do that job in heels.

Zen65 wrote:

See now, you're making exactly the argument I pointed to at the start as being flawed. A woman looks professional in high heels, but a man would not. It follows that one cannot assume a woman looks professional in flats simply because a man looks professional when he wears flats. There is no equivalence between these positions, not because of 'sexism' but because of expectations. A woman can wear flat Roman sandals and look sophisticated, but a man most likely would look ridiculous in them.

No I'm not. I'm comparing a man in flats to a woman in flats, You're the one who keeps bringing cross dressing into the conversation. The equivalence of a man in flat shoes is a woman in flats which can look just as professional. You say they are the expectations but when as you admit a woman can look sophisticated in flat Roman sandals, should they be held to higher standards or expectations just because they have the option of heels.

Zen65 wrote:

Yes, as I said, a woman can look professional in nice flats, but mostly, they are less professional in appearance than heels. Some heels are totally unprofessional for a woman to wear. Some women never look good in heels because they lack the skill of walking confidently in them. There is no single rule that you can apply to all men or all women, but if the job requires heels (because the employer believes it conveys the appropriate sense of confidence) then it follows that the sort of people who would take up such a role would be confident in wearing heels. In my experience, it is women rather than men who are likely to impose (and in many cases self-impose) the rule of wearing heels.

But you are applying a single rule to all women, they look professional in heels and if an employer deems it appropriate then they should have to wear heels regardless of how impractical or uncomfortable they are. Do you have stats to backup your claim that women are imposing this rule on themselves?

I have no problem with women believing that heels are more professional or choosing to wear them, but they should have the choice.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think this is pretty simple really..

She's in a job which requires a certain dress code which in this case requires heels. It's the same as sales reps being expected to wear suits and ties, or staff in retail being expected to wear a uniform.

None of these affect the person's ability to do the job, but it's about presenting the company's desired appearance/image in a customer-facing role. If you don't like that, then fair enough but then your choice is to get on with it, or find yourself a new line of work.

Trying to make a crusade out of it is attention-seeking nonsense. Life isn't always "fair" but throwing a tantrum and starting an Internet petition/poll over it is ridiculous.

Well the company have reversed their policy. And if enough pressure is put on then others will have to follow. It may have been 'attention seeking', but it's brought attention to the issue as well as the woman. And there's a good few of us that are pleased by that. So hardly nonsense. And where is the evidence that she threw a tantrum?

I'd love to know how many of the posters on here decrying it as a nonsense issue are men.