London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

Junkyard Tom · 13-05-2016 10:31PM

A poll like this would be interesting. Maybe one of the beautiful dainty-footed mods could add one?

1. I'm a man and think she should comply and wear the heels.
2. I'm a woman and think she should comply and wear the heels.
3. I'm a man and think she shouldn't have to wear the heels.
4. I'm a woman and think she shouldn't have to wear the heels.
5. Atari clubfoot.

13-05-2016 10:44PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A poll like this would be interesting. Maybe one of the beautiful dainty-footed mods could add one?

1. I'm a man and think she should comply and wear the heels.
2. I'm a woman and think she should comply and wear the heels.
3. I'm a man and think she shouldn't have to wear the heels.
4. I'm a woman and think she shouldn't have to wear the heels.
5. Atari clubfoot.

Half of option 2 would be male pretenders.

Junkyard Tom · 13-05-2016 10:45PM

Candie wrote: »

Half of option 2 would be male pretenders.

Make it public!

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2016 10:49PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A poll like this would be interesting. Maybe one of the beautiful dainty-footed mods could add one?

1. I'm a man and think she should comply and wear the heels.
2. I'm a woman and think she should comply and wear the heels.
3. I'm a man and think she shouldn't have to wear the heels.
4. I'm a woman and think she shouldn't have to wear the heels.
5. Atari clubfoot.

That's hardly a fair poll if the expected dress code is that women wear heels?

While a woman is perfectly entitled to choose not to wear heels, I would support an employers right to choose not to hire a woman who would not be willing to comply with the employer's dress code.

35cent · 13-05-2016 10:54PM

This could be used as a good incentive to get women to work in science. Dress codes tend to be practically non existant. I love being able to wear pretty much anything to work. Even wore a pair of Adidas tracksuit bottoms to work once:D

Junkyard Tom · 13-05-2016 10:56PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's hardly a fair poll if the expected dress code is that women wear heels?

Not fair on who?

I would support an employers right to choose not to hire a woman who would not be willing to comply with the employer's dress code.

So you think a European airline should be allowed to force women flight attendants to wear headscarves on their flights to Iran?

gctest50 · 13-05-2016 10:58PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's hardly a fair poll if the expected dress code is that women wear heels?

While a woman is perfectly entitled to choose not to wear heels, I would support an employers right to choose not to hire a woman who would not be willing to comply with the employer's dress code.

That's the whole point of it, the "dress code" ( now fixed by the company )

leads to health problems :

"From the point of view of the foot high heels are a disaster," said Tony Redmond, a biomechanics expert at Leeds University. "The joints of the feet can be damaged by wearing high heels, and this can cause some forms of arthritis."

The College of Podiatry has warned employers not to make women wear high heels at work because they can cause bunions, back problems, ankle sprains and tight calves. It has been worked out that it takes an average of one hour, six minutes and 48 seconds for them to start hurting.
That's a worry for women who are on their feet for several hours a day. Emma Supple, a podiatrist from the College of Podiatry, says the high-heel issue affects a number of industries. She had a number of female cabin crew who came to her with clinical issues from wearing high heels at work.

Be some craic this year asking : do ye have Investors in People accreditation

.

maudgonner · 13-05-2016 11:04PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's hardly a fair poll if the expected dress code is that women wear heels?

While a woman is perfectly entitled to choose not to wear heels, I would support an employers right to choose not to hire a woman who would not be willing to comply with the employer's dress code.

The petition she launched was to make it illegal for high heels to be specified as part of the dress code. So that's the real issue: whether a company should be allowed to specify that women must wear high heels as part of their dress code.

I think the poll should be worded: I'm a man and I think an employer should be allowed to specify that female employees must wear high heels. etc. (or something a little less wordy

)

Junkyard Tom · 13-05-2016 11:09PM

maudgonner wrote: »

I'm a man and I think an employer should be allowed to specify that female employees must wear high heels.

Would this be better, ya reckon?

1. I'm a man and I think an employer should be allowed to specify that female employees must wear high heels.
2. I'm a woman and I think an employer should be allowed to specify that female employees must wear high heels.
3. I'm a man and think an employer should not be allowed to specify that female employees must wear high heels
4. I'm a woman and think an employer should not be allowed to specify that female employees must wear high heels
5. Atari clubfoot.

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2016 11:10PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not fair on who?

Well I'm a man and I don't think anyone should have to wear heels if they don't want to, and I don't think anyone should have to wear flats if they don't want to, but I also think an employer should reserve the right to have their employees adhere to the employers dress code.

So you think a European airline should be allowed to force women flight attendants to wear headscarves on their flights to Iran?

Yes. If someone doesn't want to adhere to their employers dress code, then the employer should reserve the right to institute disciplinary procedures. If a person is applying for employment with a European airline, they're more than well aware of the employment process already, which is fairly rigorous.

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2016 11:16PM

gctest50 wrote: »

That's the whole point of it, the "dress code" ( now fixed by the company )

leads to health problems :

Be some craic this year asking : do ye have Investors in People accreditation

.

And fair play to the woman in the opening post, more power to her and all, she is absolutely well within her right to campaign for it to be made illegal for employers to specify heels as part of the dress code. I wouldn't support her campaign is all (and yes, I'm very much aware of the long term health issues for people wearing high heels).

maudgonner · 13-05-2016 11:20PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I'm a man and I don't think anyone should have to wear heels if they don't want to, and I don't think anyone should have to wear flats if they don't want to, but I also think an employer should reserve the right to have their employees adhere to the employers dress code.

That's already the case though - no woman has to wear heels if she doesn't want to. But then she can't work for the companies in question. So that's not the issue at hand.

It seems clear that your position is that a company has the right to specify that female employees should have to wear high heels. Correct?

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2016 11:29PM

maudgonner wrote: »

That's already the case though - no woman has to wear heels if she doesn't want to. But then she can't work for the companies in question. So that's not the issue at hand.

It seems clear that your position is that a company has the right to specify that female employees should have to wear high heels. Correct?

Yes, that's correct.

I think a company should reserve the right to protect the image it projects, and my opinion isn't simply based on my gender, or that high heels tense a woman's calves and give her a shapely rear (there's only so much heels can do either tbh), and if a woman doesn't want to adhere to the dress code, then she may find herself seeking alternative employment where she wouldn't have to adhere to a dress code that includes wearing heels.

Junkyard Tom · 13-05-2016 11:31PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes.

And that is precisely why we have legal mechanisms that allow people to challenge the conditions of their employment and win.

maudgonner · 13-05-2016 11:32PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, that's correct.

I think a company should reserve the right to protect the image it projects, and my opinion isn't simply based on my gender, or that high heels tense a woman's calves and give her a shapely rear (there's only so much heels can do either tbh), and if a woman doesn't want to adhere to the dress code, then she may find herself seeking alternative employment where she wouldn't have to adhere to a dress code that includes wearing heels.

Fair enough. I disagree though

13-05-2016 11:33PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, that's correct.

I think a company should reserve the right to protect the image it projects, and my opinion isn't simply based on my gender, or that high heels tense a woman's calves and give her a shapely rear (there's only so much heels can do either tbh), and if a woman doesn't want to adhere to the dress code, then she may find herself seeking alternative employment where she wouldn't have to adhere to a dress code that includes wearing heels.

The problem lies with a dress code that can cause health problems. Hard to believe someone has no problem with that. Particularly since it's a gendered thing, unless male employees are also required to wear high heels. I think not.

By that token companies should also have the right to put their employees in asbestos lined rooms, provided of course they agree when they sign up. After all, they can choose to work elsewhere.

This logic is employed in sweatshops all over the world. If you don't like working in dangerous conditions and/or for a pittance, then work somewhere else!

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2016 11:39PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

And that is precisely why we have legal mechanisms that allow people to challenge the conditions of their employment and win.

And that's why we have the tabloids and social media who lap this kind of stuff up. It'll be back to business as usual by this time next week. Remember that woman who lost her discrimination case against Emirates Airlines?

I doubt anyone else does.

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2016 11:51PM

Candie wrote: »

The problem lies with a dress code that can cause health problems. Hard to believe someone has no problem with that. Particularly since it's a gendered thing, unless male employees are also required to wear high heels. I think not.

I'd be saying exactly the same thing though if the case in the opening post was a man who wanted to wear heels, or go barefoot, or whatever other way he would be refusing to comply with the dress code, such as if he didn't want to wear restrictive PPE gear or overalls in the height if Summer or whatever. I understand high heels are a health and safety issue, but if they are part of a dress code, then when the employer is no longer able to find women willing to wear high heels, it would encourage them to examine their dress code policy.

By that token companies should also have the right to put their employees in asbestos lined rooms, provided of course they agree when they sign up. After all, they can choose to work elsewhere.

This logic is employed in sweatshops all over the world. If you don't like working in dangerous conditions and/or for a pittance, then work somewhere else!

We're talking here about employment as a receptionist, not working in highly hazardous conditions where PPE gear has to be provided by law and the employer has to comply with all sorts of health and safety regulations. There's no need to use extremes to make the point. There are many women who have no issue working as receptionists who are more than willing to adhere to a dress code that includes wearing high heels in the UK and Ireland at least.

TG1 · 13-05-2016 11:56PM

I worked in a company where we were examining the possibility of banning heels on health and safety grounds, we had a flight of stairs in the office and it was frightening to watch some stiletto fans every day. Because it was an office environment with no ppe requirements it was deemed to be unnaceptable on the basis that we were impeding on personal freedom of expression and had no real h&s grounds.

It baffles me that we could come to that conclusion regarding imposing a flat shoe dress code but a heels requirement in a dress code is ok!

Junkyard Tom · 13-05-2016 11:59PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It'll be back to business as usual by this time next week.

History has shown this to be false. Just up the road in the north there's some of the most rigorously enforced employment laws in the world and for good reason and employers do not step out of line for good reason.

14-05-2016 12:02AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We're talking here about employment as a receptionist, not working in highly hazardous conditions where PPE gear has to be provided by law and the employer has to comply with all sorts of health and safety regulations. There's no need to use extremes to make the point. There are many women who have no issue working as receptionists who are more than willing to adhere to a dress code that includes wearing high heels in the UK and Ireland at least.

Heels are a health hazard. That's a fact. The fact that many women choose to wear heels doesn't make it acceptable for an employer to insist an employee damages their health as a condition of their job.

The fact that many women wear them through choice and wouldn't therefore have a problem with that job is beside the point.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:07AM

Candie wrote: »

Heels are a health hazard. That's a fact. The fact that many women choose to wear heels doesn't make it acceptable for an employer to insist an employee damages their health as a condition of their job.

The fact that many women wear them through choice and wouldn't therefore have a problem with that job is beside the point.

And that's why I said fair play to this woman that she wants to campaign for a change in the law, but it's just not a campaign I personally would support as I believe that an employer should reserve the right to protect their company's image.

maudgonner · 14-05-2016 12:12AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd be saying exactly the same thing though if the case in the opening post was a man who wanted to wear heels, or go barefoot, or whatever other way he would be refusing to comply with the dress code, such as if he didn't want to wear restrictive PPE gear or overalls in the height if Summer or whatever. I understand high heels are a health and safety issue, but if they are part of a dress code, then when the employer is no longer able to find women willing to wear high heels, it would encourage them to examine their dress code policy.

Sorry Jack, but that's a terrible argument. You'll always get some people who are willing to do things that aren't wise/fair/healthy in order to keep a job. That doesn't make it right. That's why we have employment law.

And finding it difficult to get employees isn't the only reason companies change their policies. Change can be brought about by putting social pressure on companies to update old-fashioned policies. And HR regulations can be brought in to force companies not to include unfair rules. That's what's being attempted here.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:18AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

History has shown this to be false. Just up the road in the north there's some of the most rigorously enforced employment laws in the world and for good reason and employers do not step out of line for good reason.

But there's nowhere in employment law that even suggests that a company cannot have it's own dress code. By all means an employee can challenge their employment conditions, and if they have a case it'll get a hearing, but if they don't have a case, there's always social media and the tabloids will make a case for them and the employer will be tried in the court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion however is always subject to public backlash.

If we really wanted to go down the road of employment law, then if an employer can demonstrate that wearing high heels is a genuine occupational requirement, it may work in their favour, it may not.

It's always very difficult to tell what way discrimination or health and safety cases will go, particularly when wearing high heels aren't covered under any specific legislation, and TG1 gave an interesting example above where trying to ban high heels in an office environment contravened people's right to personal freedom!

Junkyard Tom · 14-05-2016 12:19AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's just not a campaign I personally would support as I believe that an employer should reserve the right to protect their company's image.

One does not follow the other. How is forcing a person to wear high/raised heels 'protecting the brand' unless that brand's 'business model' is forcing people to follow stupid rules?

The laws and rules that govern society do not stop at the office entrance I'm afraid.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:27AM

maudgonner wrote: »

Sorry Jack, but that's a terrible argument. You'll always get some people who are willing to do things that aren't wise/fair/healthy in order to keep a job. That doesn't make it right. That's why we have employment law.

Employment law doesn't address the scenario presented in the opening post though, which is why I guess this woman is campaigning to have it changed.

And finding it difficult to get employees isn't the only reason companies change their policies. Change can be brought about by putting social pressure on companies to update old-fashioned policies. And HR regulations can be brought in to force companies not to include unfair rules. That's what's being attempted here.

Oh absolutely, and I completely get that, but it's just not a very trendy issue that there's going to be a lot of corporate support for, unlike LGBT rights or whatever. I absolutely get what this woman is trying to do, and I get what posters here are saying, and I agree that it is a health and safety issue, but it's not an issue I personally would be getting too excited about. Dress codes in employment would be well down on my list of priorities with regard to discrimination against people in employment.

LETHAL LADY · 14-05-2016 12:33AM

I've never been a high flying London City exec, but I've worked as a receptionist for an American company, with a national accountancy firm, a legal firm, a state agency and also in a hotel.
In all my time spent in these roles, I've never been asked to show my feet to prospective clients (I could have been butt naked below the waist for all most of them knew anyway).

Having said that, and this was never stipulated to me btw, I always wore heels to work. Never an issue for me tbh, apart from the swollen and stink feet on a day like today, but I'd always looked for the most comfortable looking pair anyway. This worked well for me until I'd had an epidural and the second one that followed soon after left my lower back weak as feck. Try as I might, but after a couple of hours walking in heels I've had to admit defeat.

I admire professionalism and all that it entails, but for the life of me I can't fathom why any professional worth their salt would give a flying feck about heels.

PopePalpatine · 14-05-2016 12:34AM

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

I admire professionalism and all that it entails, but for the life of me I can't fathom why any professional worth their salt would give a flying feck about heels.

Because ethos- I mean, company image! :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:35AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

One does not follow the other. How is forcing a person to wear high/raised heels 'protecting the brand' unless that brand's 'business model' is forcing people to follow stupid rules?

If only we lived in a world where the only defence needed for breaking rules was because the individual thought it was a stupid rule anyway...

A business has the right to protect it's image, it's branding, whatever. An employee doesn't have a right to disregard their employers dress code or code of conduct because they think it's stupid. I'd be showing an employee with that attitude their P45 fairly quickly, and I'd be well within my rights to do so.

The laws and rules that govern society do not stop at the office entrance I'm afraid.

That's true, they don't, and that goes for employees as well as employers.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:45AM

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

I admire professionalism and all that it entails, but for the life of me I can't fathom why any professional worth their salt would give a flying feck about heels.

Because other professionals worth their salt, give a feck about who they choose to do business with. Professionals are still people at the end of the day and most companies care about their corporate image. Businesses will spend huge chunks of their budget on protecting and projecting their corporate image, and they aren't doing it for nothing.

London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

Comments