London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

TG1 · 14-05-2016 12:50AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

This is interesting, it's easy to forget there are two issues here.

The dress code does seem outdated, sexist and could be looked at as hazerdous to an employee's health in the long run. I would also question the legality of it as heels don't strike me as a job requirement.

However, it is the dress code in place within the company. She agreed to abide by their rules and regulations when she accepted the job. If I was her employer I would be very unimpressed by her renaging on her agreement within seconds of arriving in the office.

Junkyard Tom · 14-05-2016 12:54AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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...

This must-wear-heels rule was obviously pretty stupid seeing as PwC and the agency seem to have immediately dropped it or denied it was part of their rules.

Portico, the outsourcing company that had hired Thorp for the PwC job ... later told the BBC that, “with immediate effect all our female colleagues can wear plain flat shoes.” PcW said that such heels were not a part of its rules, the BBC also reported Wednesday.

washingtonpost.com

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.

Because forcing a woman to wear high heels is really protecting a business's image rather than enforcing a thick rule.

Do you think maybe it's that you hate the idea that an employee can force you to change a stupid rule either by leveraging public opinion or by campaigning for a change in the law?

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

bodice ripper · 14-05-2016 01:16AM

I was made wear heels when I worked in Dunnes - they made my ankles bleed. They wouldn't let me off the floor to attend to it until a customer complained. **** Dunnes and **** heels.

LETHAL LADY · 14-05-2016 01:18AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

A renowned accountancy firm has wasted their money on hiring and (I'm aware that she was an agency employee) sending a woman home because of inappropriate footwear.

Surely any accountancy firm :P worth their salt like, are meant to look for the few pence savings?.

Turns out anyway that their ill-judged dogmatic approach to women wearing heels has cost them far more reputational damage than any pair of shoes could ever have done.

TBH and if it really is all about appearences and the like I'd sack the PR team.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 01:29AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This must-wear-heels rule was obviously pretty stupid seeing as PwC and the agency seem to have immediately dropped it or denied it was part of their rules.

Both companies were protecting their corporate image.

Because forcing a woman to wear high heels is really protecting a business's image rather than enforcing a thick rule.

Do you think maybe it's that you hate the idea that an employee can force you to change a stupid rule either by leveraging public opinion or by campaigning for a change in the law?

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

Not at all, and I've worked in many different companies over the course of my career which is why I can draw on experience like being forced to wear PPE gear and overalls in the height of Sunmer in a dusty environment, and there were many lads simply wore jocks under their overalls it was that hot in them. When some lads rolled their overalls down to their waist, they were told by the Superintendent to roll them back up or leave the site.

When I worked for a large MNC the required dress code was suit and tie, neat and presentable, and one day a girl came in wearing what could only be described as a bra top that left very little to the imagination. She was sent home immediately. When people complained about their working conditions, I remembered what the Superintendent in my old job had said - "Nobody has bostik on their feet, they know where the gate is!".

Now I think of it - when I worked in Supermacs, I hated that damned red dicky bow, awful, but it was part of the uniform.

I'm all for people having the right to challenge the laws, challenge their employment conditions and whatever else, but I'm also adamant that an employer reserves the right to dictate corporate policy with regard to their corporate image, and if that means wearing stupid dicky bows, or propeller hats, or PPE gear that feels like you're trapped in bubble wrap, or indeed high heels, then that is their right.

I would have liked to see the woman take a case against her employer, although she probably sought legal advice and was told she had no case, which would explain why she started a campaign to have the legislation changed. Will she be successful? I don't know, which is why I wouldn't want to call it either way.

LETHAL LADY · 14-05-2016 01:48AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Both companies were protecting their corporate image.

Not at all, and I've worked in many different companies over the course of my career which is why I can draw on experience like being forced to wear PPE gear and overalls in the height of Sunmer in a dusty environment, and there were many lads simply wore jocks under their overalls it was that hot in them. When some lads rolled their overalls down to their waist, they were told by the Superintendent to roll them back up or leave the site.

When I worked for a large MNC the required dress code was suit and tie, neat and presentable, and one day a girl came in wearing what could only be described as a bra top that left very little to the imagination. She was sent home immediately. When people complained about their working conditions, I remembered what the Superintendent in my old job had said - "Nobody has bostik on their feet, they know where the gate is!".

Now I think of it - when I worked in Supermacs, I hated that damned red dicky bow, awful, but it was part of the uniform.

I'm all for people having the right to challenge the laws, challenge their employment conditions and whatever else, but I'm also adamant that an employer reserves the right to dictate corporate policy with regard to their corporate image, and if that means wearing stupid dicky bows, or propeller hats, or PPE gear that feels like you're trapped in bubble wrap, or indeed high heels, then that is their right.

I would have liked to see the woman take a case against her employer, although she probably sought legal advice and was told she had no case, which would explain why she started a campaign to have the legislation changed. Will she be successful? I don't know, which is why I wouldn't want to call it either way.

Do you not feel a tinge of sadness when you refer to corporate image?

Pat Mustard · 14-05-2016 01:51AM

Portico, the agency who supply staff to PWC and who had the rule about the shoes, has a three-page set of rules about their uniform, to include a rule about the maximum thickness of tights:
Link

Portico’s highly detailed uniform guidelines span three pages. As well as the previous high heel requirement, they ask that women wear “tights no more than 15/20 denier”. They also mandate that “make-up [be] worn at all times and [be] regularly reapplied, with a minimum of: light blusher, lipstick or tinted gloss, mascara, [and] eye shadow”.

Talk about micro-management.

In the meantime, PWC has put as much distance as possible between it and Portico's now-infamous uniform guidelines:
Link:

"PwC outsources its front of house/reception services to Portico who have standard uniform guidelines. We were first made aware of this matter yesterday (10 May), some five months after the event. We have asked Portico to review their uniform guidelines.

"The dress code referenced in the media is not a PwC policy. PwC does not have specific dress guidelines for male or female employees, but we ask our people to exercise their own judgement around the business environment they're operating in."

LETHAL LADY · 14-05-2016 01:59AM

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Portico, the agency who supply staff to PWC and who had the rule about the shoes, has a three-page set of rules about their uniform, to include a rule about the maximum thickness of tights:
Link

Talk about micro-management.

In the meantime, PWC has put as much distance as possible between it and Portico's now-infamous uniform guidelines:
Link:

It appears very lackadaisical on behalf of PWC though?

Pat Mustard · 14-05-2016 02:03AM

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

It appears very lackadaisical on behalf of PWC though?

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. I doubt that managers in PWC put a whole lot of thought into whether the receptionist wears heels or not.

That three page uniform document has a whiff of HR type thinking, if you ask me!

TG1 · 14-05-2016 02:20AM

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. I doubt that managers in PWC put a whole lot of thought into whether the receptionist wears heels or not.

That three page uniform document has a whiff of HR type thinking, if you ask me!

I'd disagree strongly with that. If any HR professional worth their salt got a hand to that policy they would scrap it and put in place the more usual General policy that uses phrases like "neat presentable dress" and "business appropriate" etc. There's a reason the majority of dress codes are ridiculously vague, they are harder to challenge on a job requirement basis.

A uniform policy is different but in my view this was dress code rather than uniform, despite the title of the document.

gormdubhgorm · 14-05-2016 03:17AM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Attention seeker seeks attention.

It was my first impression as well.
But I thought I would read the article and give the girl the benefit of the doubt.
Then I read she took the temp job as she was between acting roles!

In fairness it is a very clever way to get noticed. It is also a unique way to cause a fuss. It is ironic considering that high heels are adored by women because they look good, not because they are comfortable!

K-9 · 14-05-2016 07:34AM

bluewolf wrote: »

This is an issue that doesn't affect me so clearly it's not an issue

Men have to wear suits and ties so therefore...

pickarooney · 14-05-2016 09:20AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

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.

Oh I definitely meant it. It's a vain and vacuous business thriving on bullying and shaming.

riclad · 14-05-2016 09:33AM

Suits and ties dont damage your health or cause pain,
women can work in a shop or office wearing flat shoes ,
if you judge a womans work just by the shoes she wears ,
you have some kind of fetish.
This high heels issue is a left over from the days when all men wore hats
or everyone could smoke at work.
things change , society changes .
now its illegal to smoke in the office or in a shop or in a factory .
Its a health issue .
the reason women wear heels is too look sexy.
Its simply sexist to have a rule that women should wear heels at work.
How does wearing heels help a woman do her job
in a bank or shop.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 14-05-2016 09:38AM

pickarooney wrote: »

Oh I definitely meant it. It's a vain and vacuous business thriving on bullying and shaming.

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement to make without any evidence to back it up.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 09:54AM

riclad wrote: »

Suits and ties dont damage your health or cause pain,
women can work in a shop or office wearing flat shoes ,
if you judge a womans work just by the shoes she wears ,
you have some kind of fetish.

People judge each other on their appearance all the time, and no, it isn't "some kind of fetish", it's judging someone based upon their appearance, and yes, I do it all the time.

This high heels issue is a left over from the days when all men wore hats
or everyone could smoke at work.
things change , society changes .
now its illegal to smoke in the office or in a shop or in a factory .

Sure things change and society changes, and so what? The issue of employees appearance is as relevant in the office environment today as it always has been and will continue to be. That's why nowadays you see women wearing trainers on their way to and from the office, and during work they wear high heels.

Its a health issue .
the reason women wear heels is too look sexy.
Its simply sexist to have a rule that women should wear heels at work.
How does wearing heels help a woman do her job
in a bank or shop.

It's not sexist at all to have a rule that women adhere to a dress code. It would only be sexist if women had to adhere to a dress code and men didn't. The dress code isn't for their benefit, it's for the benefit of their employer. That's why in banks and shops they have a dress code that their employees must adhere to.

Canis Lupus · 14-05-2016 10:18AM

Are we going to have strippers in flats or heels now??

stoplooklisten · 14-05-2016 10:29AM

Heels will be banned altogether soon and then we'll all have to jump sides and pretend we couldn't live without them :pac:

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 10:41AM

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Heels will be banned altogether soon and then we'll all have to jump sides and pretend we couldn't live without them :pac:

That's likely what some people would do and all:

"I won't have anyone tell me what to do" types. That attitude might fly if you're planning on being self-employed and depending upon the industry you're working in, but generally in a white collar business environment, there are expectations and standards that must be adhered to.

K-9 · 14-05-2016 10:48AM

Eh, expectations and standards will still be adhered to, otherwise PWC wouldn't have agreed!

Talk about flogging a dead horse!

stoplooklisten · 14-05-2016 10:49AM

K-9 wrote: »

Eh, expectations and standards will still be adhered to, otherwise PWC wouldn't have agreed!

Talk about flogging a dead horse!

It's a slippery slope

K-9 · 14-05-2016 10:51AM

stoplooklisten wrote: »

It's a slippery slope

In high heels?

stoplooklisten · 14-05-2016 10:53AM

K-9 wrote: »

In high heels?

Appropriate footwear must be worn on the slope at all times. :pac:

kylith · 14-05-2016 10:54AM

Why do some people seem to think that wearing flat shoes equates to wearing a tracksuit, or dressing 'like a student', or being dowdy?

Flat shoes are just as nice, professional, and dressy as high heels. I work in a professional office and the women wear everything from high heels to flat shoes and as long as they're well dressed then no-one cares. Frankly I'd be worried about someone who wouldn't use a company because the receptionist wasn't in heels for the 5 seconds they may see her feet.

Nailz · 14-05-2016 10:57AM

Don't PwC have a history with being absolute ***** to women? Nothing new there then.

Zen65 · 14-05-2016 11:05AM

kylith wrote: »

Flat shoes are just as nice, professional, and dressy as high heels.

No, they're not.

That's not simply my opinion (indeed as a middle-aged man I know my own opinion on women's fashion of all types is hopelessly out-of-date in many respects) but it is the opinion of most women and most stylists. Here for example Gok Wan is asked to find nice shoes for a woman and his research points pretty exclusively to heels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeKBbZHdyig

Actually almost all fashion shows focus 70%+ on heels for women.

Again, I'll repeat that I think the dress code of the employer in this case is probably inappropriate (employer is obliged risk-assess against the potential harm caused by prolonged wearing of heels while walking / standing) - but I believe strongly that an employer is within their rights to enforce a dress code, once that code has been assessed.

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 11:08AM

Zen65 wrote: »

No, they're not.

That's not simply my opinion (indeed as a middle-aged man I know my own opinion on women's fashion of all types is hopelessly out-of-date in many respects) but it is the opinion of most women and most stylists. Here for example Gok Wan is asked to find nice shoes for a woman and his research points pretty exclusively to heels:

Actually almost all fashion shows focus 70%+ on heels for women.

Again, I'll repeat that I think the dress code of the employer in this case is probably inappropriate (employer is obliged risk-assess against the potential harm caused by prolonged wearing of heels while walking / standing) - but I believe strongly that an employer is within their rights to enforce a dress code, once that code has been assessed.

Head into Clarks Workwear webpage http://www.clarks.co.uk/c/womens-workwear and many clear examples of professional looking flats suitable for the office.

K-9 · 14-05-2016 11:09AM

But I think that's the point for me, high heels are seen as a fashion item, that's different to professional office shoes.

Anyway, somebody made the point about bowler hats earlier, used to be office attire, it's a slippery slope...

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 11:09AM

K-9 wrote: »

Eh, expectations and standards will still be adhered to, otherwise PWC wouldn't have agreed!

Talk about flogging a dead horse!

Yeah but this issue appears to be bigger than PwC dress code policy. This woman is campaigning to have the legislation changed, and that legislation would apply to all employers. It's like banning women from wearing high heels because some women don't want to wear them. Don't wear high heels if you don't want to wear them, and don't bother applying for jobs where you will be expected to wear them.

Seems simple enough surely. In the meantime, most women are aware of the discomfort that some women experience wearing heels, and they're aware of the potential health issues, but banning women from wearing heels in the office is no different to banning women from wearing flats, which are just as much a potential health issue.

K-9 · 14-05-2016 11:11AM

Well no, they shouldn't be banned, unless it's a building site or something...

London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

Comments