London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:30PM

osarusan wrote: »

Yes but it is so much easier just to make up things to argue against.

In order to argue that employers should not be allowed to make wearing high heels mandatory for women as part of their dress code, how would you argue that other than to have them banned on health and safety grounds?

It's been pointed out numerous times already by many posters in this thread that they present a health and safety issue, so how do they propose to argue for the criteria to be removed, and if it is removed under health and safety legislation, then that would effectively constitute a ban on wearing heels in the workplace.

osarusan · 14-05-2016 12:34PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In order to argue that employers should not be allowed to make wearing high heels mandatory for women as part of their dress code, how would you argue that other than to have them banned on health and safety grounds?

You don't limit the definition of 'professional' so that it excludes shoes that are not high heels. Rather than make it mandatory, you leave it up to the individual.

It's simple. It's obvious.

It's so simple and obvious that I've no doubt you understand it already, but choose to ignore it so you can waffle on and on.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:40PM

whatismyname wrote: »

It's really so much easier and explains the issue so much more accurately when 'It's your choice not to wear heels. Just don't apply for jobs where wearing them while working is compulsory' is read as 'It's your choice if you choose not to be in pain and choose not to put your health at risk. Just don't apply for jobs where it's compulsory to be in pain and have your health put at risk while doing the job'.

I'd personally prefer if no employer made this type of pain compulsory, nor insist on putting their employees health at risk in this way, but yeah by all means, put the onus on the potential employee just to opt out of applying for jobs which make it compulsory for them to be in pain and have their health put at risk while working

And as I've already said, for many women the issues that some women have with wearing heels, isn't an issue for them.

Why would you want to work for an employer whom you thought would want to put your health at risk anyway? You have the choice to prioritise your health over your employment prospects too, and that's something I absolutely would support anyone in doing, because no employment is worth your long term physical and mental well-being IMO, no matter how good the pay is or the prestige that comes with being an employee of the company in question.

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 12:42PM

osarusan wrote: »

You don't limit the definition of 'professional' so that it excludes shoes that are not high heels. Rather than make it mandatory, you leave it up to the individual.

It's simple. It's obvious.

It's so simple and obvious that I've no doubt you understand it already, but choose to ignore it so you can waffle on and on.

Yes. I'm a bit shocked tbh that anyone would have a need to genuinely ask that question.

kylith · 14-05-2016 12:47PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In order to argue that employers should not be allowed to make wearing high heels mandatory for women as part of their dress code, how would you argue that other than to have them banned on health and safety grounds?

It's been pointed out numerous times already by many posters in this thread that they present a health and safety issue, so how do they propose to argue for the criteria to be removed, and if it is removed under health and safety legislation, then that would effectively constitute a ban on wearing heels in the workplace.

Do you really not understand the difference between "banned" and "not mandatory"?

Dirty Dingus McGee · 14-05-2016 12:48PM

Can anyone answer the question of why a large amount of women who don't wear high heels in work can't seem to wear proper professional looking shoes.

A very large proportion of women in my work place effectively wear slippers if they aren't wearing high heels.

Although I don't agree with the policy in place in this situation perhaps such a policy exists in order to completely prevent any workers showing up in a pair of slipper type shoes which are in no way professional in my opinion.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:51PM

osarusan wrote: »

You don't limit the definition of 'professional' so that it excludes shoes that are not high heels. Rather than make it mandatory, you leave it up to the individual.

It's simple. It's obvious.

It's so simple and obvious that I've no doubt you understand it already, but choose to ignore it so you can waffle on and on.

I understand of course why it's an issue for some people (and I would never accuse them of waffling on and on about it), but different people have different standards and opinions on what they consider "professional", so it's useless to talk about what does or doesn't "look professional" or what impact a person wearing or not wearing heels has on their ability to do their job. That's all absolutely beside the point.

Leaving it up to the individual should be dependent upon the impression the company wants to promote maintain, and if it doesn't want to promote an impression that people can wear whatever footwear they want to work, then they should have that right.

Leave it up to the individual "just because" is obvious alright, but it doesn't make for a very good argument if you're attempting to campaign to change legislation that would place limitations on employers dress codes.

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 12:51PM

kylith wrote: »

Do you really not understand the difference between "banned" and "not mandatory"?

Seemingly not.... :rolleyes:

kylith · 14-05-2016 12:52PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And as I've already said, for many women the issues that some women have with wearing heels, isn't an issue for them.

Why would you want to work for an employer whom you thought would want to put your health at risk anyway? You have the choice to prioritise your health over your employment prospects too, and that's something I absolutely would support anyone in doing, because no employment is worth your long term physical and mental well-being IMO, no matter how good the pay is or the prestige that comes with being an employee of the company in question.

Let me ask you a yes or no question. Is it possible for a receptionist to perform her duties while wearing shoes without heels?

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:56PM

kylith wrote: »

Do you really not understand the difference between "banned" and "not mandatory"?

I do yes -

Banned: Based on health and safety grounds, legitimate grounds for an argument even though I personally disagree with it.

Not mandatory: Based on personal choice, makes a mockery of the concept of a dress code, just because you personally disagree with it.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 12:58PM

kylith wrote: »

Let me ask you a yes or no question. Is it possible for a receptionist to perform her duties while wearing shoes without heels?

Yes.

dark crystal · 14-05-2016 12:59PM

Kitten heels ftw. I'm like a baby deer learning to walk in anything higher.

I think it's ridiculous the woman was asked to go out and buy new shoes for the role. She should have been explicitly informed of the dress code before she started work if their policy was that strict.

Irish Guitarist · 14-05-2016 01:03PM

I once had a job where I had to wear safety boots with steel toecaps. It was a factory making cabinet doors but all I did all day was wrap the doors in bubble wrap. The boots made my toes bleed so I tried to wear my runners without anyone noticing but I didn't get away with it for long and had to wear the boots. It never occurred to me to sue the company or start a petition.

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 01:09PM

I also seriously think that there are some people who don't seem to understand the concept of 'equal opportunities'.

Me saying that would be the perfect thing for some people to pick holes at yet again about something very clear cut.

It's a really sad world sometimes .

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 01:10PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Kitten heels ftw. I'm like a baby deer learning to walk in anything higher.

I think it's ridiculous the woman was asked to go out and buy new shoes for the role. She should have been explicitly informed of the dress code before she started work if their policy was that strict.

I don't think it's that the dress code was that strict (clearly for PwC it isn't), but it's that it was expected that she would know that she should wear heels to give an impression that her direct managers wanted to portray. Her direct managers obviously handled the situation badly. Personally I would have handled that situation a lot better, but I don't think her managers expected her to make her case on social media either.

14-05-2016 01:14PM

I've to walk around for 9 hours, definitely the obvious expected footwear is high heels

Will you go away out of that

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 01:16PM

whatismyname wrote: »

I also seriously think that there are some people who don't seem to understand the concept of 'equal opportunities'.

Me saying that would be the perfect thing for some people to pick holes at yet again about something very clear cut.

It's a really sad world sometimes .

What have equal opportunities got to do with this?

I'm not attempting to pick holes, I genuinely don't understand why you think this has anything to do with equal opportunities as there are nine grounds of discrimination in Ireland at least that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee.

Their general appearance with regard to clothing and footwear isn't one of them.

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 01:18PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I've to walk around for 9 hours, definitely the obvious expected footwear is high heels

Seems reasonable

And it's not only expected, but you must. Nothing wrong with that at all :P

Obviously you could instead choose not to walk round for 9 hours. Cos the primary issue here is clearly with you choosing to participating in this activity which requires you to walk around in heels for 9 hours.

Kev W · 14-05-2016 01:19PM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I once had a job where I had to wear safety boots with steel toecaps. It was a factory making cabinet doors but all I did all day was wrap the doors in bubble wrap. The boots made my toes bleed so I tried to wear my runners without anyone noticing but I didn't get away with it for long and had to wear the boots. It never occurred to me to sue the company or start a petition.

I don't think the heels were a safety measure.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 01:24PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I've to walk around for 9 hours, definitely the obvious expected footwear is high heels

Will you go away out of that

Well, when you put it like that... :pac:

Plenty of women working in office environments manage to wear heels for 9 hours a day, so I would expect it, but I wouldn't freak out if I met a woman in flats either (sometimes it's actually a relief when they're at eye level with me, as opposed to me either having to look up or down

).

Maireadio · 14-05-2016 01:30PM

As someone said earlier, the uniform standards for flight attendants and airline ground crew are ridiculous and just not be used to justify the need for a receptionist to wear heels.

I used to live with a girl who was part of Ryanair ground crew at Dublin airport. She had to wear heavy make up in a certain standard colour (that didn't suit her), a certain colour and finish of tights, and a certain type and make of shoe. It took her more than half an hour to get ready in the morning.

kylith · 14-05-2016 01:36PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes.

Then why should it be mandatory to wear heels if wearing flatter shoes in no way impedes her ability to do her job and may actually increase her productivity because she is more comfortable and can move more easily.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I once had a job where I had to wear safety boots with steel toecaps. It was a factory making cabinet doors but all I did all day was wrap the doors in bubble wrap. The boots made my toes bleed so I tried to wear my runners without anyone noticing but I didn't get away with it for long and had to wear the boots. It never occurred to me to sue the company or start a petition.

Because there's no difference between standing at a reception desk and working in a factory where something could fall on your feet and cause you injury :rolleyes:

kylith · 14-05-2016 01:38PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, when you put it like that... :pac:

Plenty of women working in office environments manage to wear heels for 9 hours a day, so I would expect it, but I wouldn't freak out if I met a woman in flats either (sometimes it's actually a relief when they're at eye level with me, as opposed to me either having to look up or down ).

Most women who work in office environments and wear heels don't spend those 9 hours standing up.

I suggest that you go buy a pair of 4" heels in your size and see how much you like walking round in them for a couple of hours.

Contributor 2013 · 14-05-2016 01:45PM

If the organisation has a policy around dress code. It is what it is.

Should have read her contractual terms and conditions properly before accepting the position.

She's not seeking attention, just a payout.

Good luck to her, I'm sure the company concerned will look kindly on her talking to the media about a workplace issue - as will potential future employers.

Talk about digging yourself a hole, some real fools out there.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 01:51PM

kylith wrote: »

Then why should it be mandatory to wear heels if wearing flatter shoes in no way impedes her ability to do her job and may actually increase her productivity because she is more comfortable and can move more easily.

Wait a minute, you asked me a yes or no question and didn't include any of that stuff. I wouldn't have answered yes if I knew you were going to add in all sorts of qualifying conditions afterwards based upon your own personal judgement. On that basis a woman if she wants could rock up to the office in her underwear and an employer couldn't object because her clothing has no impact on her ability to do her job and may actually increase productivity because she is more comfortable and can move more easily.

My point is that it isn't about what the employee wants to wear, it's about what their employer wants them to wear, and if they aren't willing to wear heels as part of their conditions of employment, then they aren't suitable for the role. There are numerous reasons why an employer would choose one candidate over another in spite of all candidates being of equal ability to fulfil a role. Sometimes it even comes down to their attitude.

PopePalpatine · 14-05-2016 01:53PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Seems reasonable And it's not only expected, but you must. Nothing wrong with that at all :P

Obviously you could instead choose not to walk round for 9 hours. Cos the primary issue here is clearly with you choosing to participating in this activity which requires you to walk around in heels for 9 hours.

Well obviously bluewolf can choose not to have a job to sustain asshole bosses' euphoria.

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 01:57PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well obviously bluewolf can choose not to have a job to sustain asshole bosses' euphoria.

Again, seems very reasonable

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 02:01PM

kylith wrote: »

Most women who work in office environments and wear heels don't spend those 9 hours standing up.

Yeah, about that, I've never met a receptionist who had to stand behind a desk in heels for nine hours either. Common sense would suggest that while she's behind the desk she could slip out of the heels, then put them back on if she has to leave her desk for any reason. I don't know, maybe they provide her with a seat at her desk? I can't think of too many office jobs where a person is actually standing in heels all day.

I suggest that you go buy a pair of 4" heels in your size and see how much you like walking round in them for a couple of hours.

I'm probably not the best example as I have to wear custom orthopaedic shoes anyway, but before alright I could do it, because i know how to walk in heels that won't cripple me, but i take your point - it can be incredibly painful for some women, and even more-so for women who don't know how to walk properly in heels. I'm not arguing with the health issues of wearing heels themselves, it's obviously walking in them or standing in them all day that does the damage.

14-05-2016 02:17PM

She says in the article she was expected to do the shift on her feet.
Is she lying as well yeah? Or just silly and shut up and look pretty and damage herself?

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 02:23PM

bluewolf wrote: »

She says in the article she was expected to do the shift on her feet.
Is she lying as well yeah? Or just silly and shut up and look pretty and damage herself?

I never said either she or kylith were lying, I just didn't remember that from any articles and I don't know too many jobs (including receptionist jobs) where a woman is required to stand in heels all day with no breaks or whatever. I'd already said I don't encourage anyone to put their employment prospects before their health, but the more I think about it I'm wondering was this woman being belittled because she was from a temp agency or something?

I've often heard of that kind of thing going on alright.

London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

Comments