London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 02:24PM

I think I've maybe just been a bit too naive all this time, but it's been useful to have my eyes opened a little bit more to this level of sexism.

And it's been clear that it goes far, far beyond a pair or heels, and one of the hardest things is when you're optimistic and think that with a little education there's hope of the world moving on to a better place, but then see quite how far we have to go, and quite how impossible it can be, and it does certainly make you wonder if, despite how far we've come over the past few decades, if we'll ever really get to where we need to be...

Lurkio · 14-05-2016 02:25PM

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

It's a bit odd, it has to be said. I know there are places who - for reasons we might only guess at - prefer very very smartly turned out young women for work on reception and bringing people in but I've never heard of a place specifically demanding high heels.....though it is the mark of a life gone terribly wrong that a man should know of such things at all.....

pickarooney · 14-05-2016 02:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Would they make wheelchair users wear high heels?

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 02:36PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Would they make wheelchair users wear high heels?

That would surely depend upon whether or not they would hire a wheelchair user in the first place. It's an issue for anyone with mobility issues which I personally would be far more focused on encouraging with regard to employment equality than whether a woman be allowed to wear flats or not tbh.

Pat Mustard · 14-05-2016 02:56PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Would they make wheelchair users wear high heels?

Alloy wheels maybe.

Galwayguy35 · 14-05-2016 06:38PM

Peregrine wrote: »

Heels are awful on a person's health.

And they look ****ing ridiculous.

I agree that wearing them could do damage sometimes and nobody sould be forced to wear them if they don't want to I don't see how you think they look ridiculous.

I think a woman looks good in high heels unless she can't walk in them.

Maireadio · 14-05-2016 09:16PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The photo she's holding up of the ballet pumps are actually just as bad if not worse for her feet than heels. I LIVE in pumps like those at work and my knees are in bits and I have a Physio appt every two weeks for my back.
They're the worst for your feet

Meanwhile, flats have been my main form of footwear since I started college 13 years ago and I've had no problems with them at all.

Zen65 · 14-05-2016 09:42PM

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'm willing to bet that she's exaggerating substantially, but that's not terribly pertinent to the issue.

Keane2baMused · 14-05-2016 09:56PM

Zen65 wrote: »

I've seen them, and I dislike them. Not to the point where it bothers me in any way, of course, but there isn't a flat among them that I'd consider 'pretty', and depending on the profession in question of course, none that I'd say looked professional for a management consultant to wear.

You're right, damn it! I should have said "not my opinion alone"

Seriously though, I have interviewed candidates for professional roles for over 30 years, and I cannot recall any woman showing up for interview in flats

Interesting. The mammy is a director for a worldwide organisation.

She wears flats to work.

As she says she's not there for foot compliments and nobody could give a flying f as long as you dress appropriately and do your job.

It's not a fashion show, it's work and if you do your job and do it well you don't need to show up in 4 inch heels to be and look professional.

Zen65 · 14-05-2016 10:06PM

Keane2baMused wrote: »

As she says she's not there for foot compliments and nobody could give a flying f as long as you dress appropriately and do your job.

That's a great attitude, and she should not change it. Clearly it has worked for her.

Men, incidentally, are entitled to feel the same way. I know several men who would never wear a tie, a suit, and some men who refuse to shave or have haircuts. Genuinely I know one man with long grey hair and a long scruffy beard who baulks at the idea of "going corporate" and getting his hair cut. He works in an IT role, never meets customers, and does his job well.

These are exceptions, and while they are encouraging, they are as relevant to most people as Richard Branson.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 10:06PM

Keane2baMused wrote: »

Interesting. The mammy is a director for a worldwide organisation.

She wears flats to work.

As she says she's not there for foot compliments and nobody could give a flying f as long as you dress appropriately and do your job.

It's not a fashion show, it's work and if you do your job and do it well you don't need to show up in 4 inch heels to be and look professional.

That's the thing really. Forget about this "looking professional" stuff, it's about dressing appropriately, and the people who decide what is or isn't appropriate dress if you're an employee, are your employer. Some employers prefer more casual, some employers prefer more formal. Most people are able to use their best judgement on the matter and sometimes, occasionally, they get it wrong. Most of them won't take to social media or demand a change in the law, but if that's the way this woman chooses to go, then that is her decision, and any future potential employers will be entitled to make their decisions too as to whether to hire her or not.

Some employers will be clamouring to hire her, some employers wouldn't touch her with a barge pole. I'd be among the latter, personally.

14-05-2016 10:28PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the thing really. Forget about this "looking professional" stuff, it's about dressing appropriately, and the people who decide what is or isn't appropriate dress if you're an employee, are your employer. Some employers prefer more casual, some employers prefer more formal. Most people are able to use their best judgement on the matter and sometimes, occasionally, they get it wrong. Most of them won't take to social media or demand a change in the law, but if that's the way this woman chooses to go, then that is her decision, and any future potential employers will be entitled to make their decisions too as to whether to hire her or not.

Some employers will be clamouring to hire her, some employers wouldn't touch her with a barge pole. I'd be among the latter, personally.

Your position seems to be in support of an employers right to insist that a dress code that includes mandatory items that cause long term damage to an employees health, and if they don't like it they can lump it elsewhere. Sure, that's reasonable.

And you go so far as to say you wouldn't touch anyone who takes a stand against that kind of totalitarian tactic with a bargepole, because something about image and something about brand, and something about professionalism. Because nothing spells competence like crippling footwear.

Your position and all your attempts at arguing in favour of it, consists of complete and utter nonsense based on nothing but your own preferences, regardless of the cost of them to the actual people who have to wear them. But that is apparently secondary to your right to insist on women wearing your choice of footwear.

juicyduckie · 14-05-2016 10:30PM

Don't forget the numerous hotels around Ireland (usually 5 star to be fair) where as part of the compulsory dress code, female front line staff are obliged to wear 2-4 inch heels.

This can include wearing the heels while working 12 hour, yes, 12 HOUR shifts in Food and Beverage, during which time the female employees may have the opportunity to sit down for roughly 45 minutes altogether? Also working 8 hour shifts standing at reception where chairs are often not allowed.
Not to mention the health and safety concerns when female F&B employees have to walk around the kitchens, carry heavy trays, crockery etc. all whilst wearing heels. For 12 hour shifts.
I don't know why people always forget about hospitality staff in these instances...don't even get me started on uniforms and make-up/hair codes. AND to add insult to injury the wages are absolutely ****e, at least in an office they might be earning decent money!

Yer one would want to stop whinging.

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 10:32PM

Keane2baMused wrote: »

Interesting. The mammy is a director for a worldwide organisation.

She wears flats to work.

As she says she's not there for foot compliments and nobody could give a flying f as long as you dress appropriately and do your job.

It's not a fashion show, it's work and if you do your job and do it well you don't need to show up in 4 inch heels to be and look professional.

Hear fecking hear

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 10:34PM

Candie wrote: »

Your position seems to be in support of an employers right to insist that a dress code that includes mandatory items that cause long term damage to an employees health, and if they don't like it they can lump it elsewhere. Sure, that's reasonable.

And you go so far as to say you wouldn't touch anyone who takes a stand against that kind of totalitarian tactic with a bargepole, because something about image and something about brand, and something about professionalism. Because nothing spells competence like crippling footwear.

Your position and all your attempts at arguing in favour of it, consists of complete and utter nonsense based on nothing but your own preferences, regardless of the cost of them to the actual people who have to wear them. But that is apparently secondary to your right to insist on women wearing your choice of footwear.

Also hear hear to this too. Seriously

14-05-2016 10:34PM

juicyduckie wrote: »

Don't forget the numerous hotels around Ireland (usually 5 star to be fair) where as part of the compulsory dress code, female front line staff are obliged to wear 2-4 inch heels.

This can include wearing the heels while working 12 hour, yes, 12 HOUR shifts in Food and Beverage, during which time the female employees may have the opportunity to sit down for roughly 45 minutes altogether? Also working 8 hour shifts standing at reception where chairs are often not allowed.
Not to mention the health and safety concerns when female F&B employees have to walk around the kitchens, carry heavy trays, crockery etc. all whilst wearing heels. For 12 hour shifts.
I don't know why people always forget about hospitality staff in these instances...don't even get me started on uniforms and make-up/hair codes. AND to add insult to injury the wages are absolutely ****e, at least in an office they might be earning decent money!

Yer one would want to stop whinging.

It's because of her and people like her who do something about those onerous dress codes that things will change and people in hospitality won't find themselves being obliged to wear damaging footwear for those 12 hour shifts.

She's not whinging, she's acting on it and effecting change that benefits many women. And it's only women affected by these codes, unless men are required to wear heels too.

Apparently that doesn't make it sexist though.

whatismyname · 14-05-2016 10:40PM

Candie wrote: »

It's because of her and people like her who do something about those onerous dress codes that things will change and people in hospitality won't find themselves being obliged to wear damaging footwear for those 12 hour shifts.

She's not whinging, she's acting on it and effecting change that benefits many women. And it's only women affected by these codes, unless men are required to wear heels too.

Apparently that doesn't make it sexist though.

Yes how are things meant ever supposed to improve for otherd if no one ever challenges ****tiness and inequalities and injustices?

People sometimes have a such a seriously weird approach to things

14-05-2016 10:40PM

Not too surprised by this. PwC have been caught out before.

http://www.thejournal.ie/three-pwc-male-workers-suspended-over-hot-mail-45748-Nov2010/

juicyduckie · 14-05-2016 10:43PM

I'm not quite sure a UK based petition will have much effect on the Irish Hospitality Industry but hey - I'll be delighted if it does.

Even if it became a choice I'd hedge a bet that it will be expected that female management and any woman who wants to get ahead in hotels continue to wear heels for the duration of their shifts.

Only time will tell.

Keane2baMused · 14-05-2016 10:54PM

Zen65 wrote: »

That's a great attitude, and she should not change it. Clearly it has worked for her.

Men, incidentally, are entitled to feel the same way. I know several men who would never wear a tie, a suit, and some men who refuse to shave or have haircuts. Genuinely I know one man with long grey hair and a long scruffy beard who baulks at the idea of "going corporate" and getting his hair cut. He works in an IT role, never meets customers, and does his job well.

These are exceptions, and while they are encouraging, they are as relevant to most people as Richard Branson.

Wearing flats and turning up scruffy are completely different things.

I have no idea why they would even be compared, unless I'm picking your post up wrong.

You don't get to such a level in a company by looking scruffy, or kissing someone's louboutins.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2016 10:56PM

Candie wrote: »

Your position seems to be in support of an employers right to insist that a dress code that includes mandatory items that cause long term damage to an employees health, and if they don't like it they can lump it elsewhere. Sure, that's reasonable.

Well of course it's going to sound unreasonable to some people, and for other people it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. If someone doesn't like that, do I not have as much right to say I would have no wish to employ them based on their attitude, as they have every right to say they wouldn't want to work for someone with my attitude?

And you go so far as to say you wouldn't touch anyone who takes a stand against that kind of totalitarian tactic with a bargepole, because something about image and something about brand, and something about professionalism. Because nothing spells competence like crippling footwear.

Not once have I said anything about professionalism (except that it's irrelevant), but yes, I am absolutely entitled to hire who I want and decide that I wouldn't want to hire someone I couldn't work with, and she would be entitled to that same right. Thereby we're both happy and there should be no issue. Like I said, she'll hardly be short of job opportunities after this, and good luck to her.

Your position and all your attempts at arguing in favour of it, consists of complete and utter nonsense based on nothing but your own preferences, regardless of the cost of them to the actual people who have to wear them. But that is apparently secondary to your right to insist on women wearing your choice of footwear.

Nope, it's secondary to my choice as to whether I would hire someone I could work with or not. I couldn't work with her, and it's not as though I couldn't find someone with the exact same skillset and someone I could work with. That'd be the most important thing for me, rather than someone who takes to social media at the first slight in her place of employment. I'd rather she was able to talk to me if she had issues with her conditions of employment. I'm not completely unreasonable.

14-05-2016 11:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not completely unreasonable.

Beg to differ.

No point in arguing any further than that.

Irish Guitarist · 15-05-2016 12:02AM

kylith wrote: »

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:

Because bubble wrap is really dangerous. :rolleyes:

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.

Zen65 · 15-05-2016 12:21AM

Keane2baMused wrote: »

Wearing flats and turning up scruffy are completely different things.

I have no idea why they would even be compared, unless I'm picking your post up wrong.

Yes, you're picking it up entirely wrongly. It's not about heels, suits nor 'scruffy'. It's about choice.

There's nothing *wrong* with choosing not to shave your beard (the IT guy I referred to is very clean, he just does not shave nor tidy his beard so it's all over the place, except for the days he uses a rubber band to 'neaten' it - which looks awful IMHO). There's nothing *wrong* with not wearing a tie, and there's certainly nothing *wrong* with wearing flat shoes. If you want to do these things then you should be free to choose a job where that fits with the company ethos.

But if the corporate image ambition is reasoned and measured, and it's explicit in the T&Cs of employment then it's very reasonable to expect employees to honour that aspect of the employment contract.

When I say 'reasoned and measured' I mean that the risks are properly assessed. It's not high-risk to wear heels for a few hours five days a week if you are skilled at wearing them, if they fit correctly, and if you are not standing or walking in them for long periods of time. Most professional women that I know (finance, legal, engineering) spend more time sitting than standing or walking so they rarely ever complain about their footwear. All of them (as best I know) wear what they wear voluntarily. Many of the engineering ladies I know complain more about steel-capped protective shoes than about the office heels.

As some posters will know I have taught self-defence to women for many years, and I regularly warn of the dangers to mobility of wearing high heels, advocating that women should carry 'rollies' in their handbags to wear instead of heels if they must walk a distance alone, so that they are better able to flee an attack.

None of this, in my mind, makes it wrong to ask employees to wear clothing in accordance with the corporate image. It is wrong, and unprofessional, to show up to work on day #1, refuse to wear the company dress code, and then campaign to have it changed by public opinion. If the dress code is inappropriate by virtue of representing a health risk then refer the matter to the Health & Safety Authority (or UK equivalent) where it can be assessed honestly and fairly, rather then on the basis of a biased online campaign.

kylith · 15-05-2016 12:26AM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Because bubble wrap is really dangerous. :rolleyes:

Maybe not, but doors can be pretty heavy.

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 used to work in an office in a warehouse and was required to wear steel toed boots. My entire time on the floor consisted of walking to and from my office, about 2 minutes a day. However I'd rather wear the boots than risk something falling and crushing my feet.

If your shoes were uncomfortable then you should have brought it up with your supervisor and gotten a pair that fit. Runners just don't protect you.

Keane2baMused · 15-05-2016 12:38AM

Zen65 wrote: »

Yes, you're picking it up entirely wrongly. It's not about heels, suits nor 'scruffy'. It's about choice.

There's nothing *wrong* with choosing not to shave your beard (the IT guy I referred to is very clean, he just does not shave nor tidy his beard so it's all over the place, except for the days he uses a rubber band to 'neaten' it - which looks awful IMHO). There's nothing *wrong* with not wearing a tie, and there's certainly nothing *wrong* with wearing flat shoes. If you want to do these things then you should be free to choose a job where that fits with the company ethos.

But if the corporate image ambition is reasoned and measured, and it's explicit in the T&Cs of employment then it's very reasonable to expect employees to honour that aspect of the employment contract.

When I say 'reasoned and measured' I mean that the risks are properly assessed. It's not high-risk to wear heels for a few hours five days a week if you are skilled at wearing them, if they fit correctly, and if you are not standing or walking in them for long periods of time. Most professional women that I know (finance, legal, engineering) spend more time sitting than standing or walking so they rarely ever complain about their footwear. All of them (as best I know) wear what they wear voluntarily. Many of the engineering ladies I know complain more about steel-capped protective shoes than about the office heels.

None of this, in my mind, makes it wrong to ask employees to wear clothing in accordance with the corporate image. It is wrong, and unprofessional, to show up to work on day #1, refuse to wear the company dress code, and then campaign to have it changed by public opinion. If the dress code is inappropriate by virtue of representing a health risk then refer the matter to the Health & Safety Authority (or UK equivalent) where it can be assessed honestly and fairly, rather then on the basis of a biased online campaign.

I understand and take your point.

It doesn't change the fact however that heels are not a requirement to fulfill a role competently and professionally.

If a company has a set uniform for all employees I see that as a different matter (unless said uniform has potential to cause health problems, then alternatives should be considered and implemented).

However in a professional organisation (with no uniform) there rarely is a set dress code. There may be strong 'guidelines' of professional and appropriate dressing (ie no tracksuits/ trainers/ hoodies) but these are no way a reflection of whether it is more professional to wear a shoe sole with a 4 inch lift or one without one at all. It's not reasonable to expect someone to walk in shoes they are simply unable/unwilling to wear.

Personally I don't believe men should be forced to shave either for work but again, it's not painful to go clean shaven.

One eyed Jack · 15-05-2016 12:40AM

Zen65 wrote: »

None of this, in my mind, makes it wrong to ask employees to wear clothing in accordance with the corporate image. It is wrong, and unprofessional, to show up to work on day #1, refuse to wear the company dress code, and then campaign to have it changed by public opinion. If the dress code is inappropriate by virtue of representing a health risk then refer the matter to the Health & Safety Authority (or UK equivalent) where it can be assessed honestly and fairly, rather then on the basis of a biased online campaign.

This is my issue with it really. If someone has an issue which would prevent them from adhering to a dress code, then the proper thing to do is to go through the proper channels to resolve the issue. PwC didn't even have anything at all to do with this woman's case, yet their name was dragged into it because some temp agency that nobody's ever heard of wouldn't draw enough attention to this woman's issue.

I wasn't even going to bother with this thread initially as these types of threads always, always go the same way, the same way as the clingy, selfie-taking, breastfeeding woman from a couple of weeks back that was "raising awareness" (of her own existence), and the woman in the opening post here "raising awareness" (again, of her own existence), and in the same way as nothing has been heard since of the breastfeeding woman, in a few days this will die off too.

I have no issue with whether a woman wants to wear heels or flats, but if her idea of competence and professionalism is being more concerned with seeing her name in spotlights, then we definitely have very different ideas of professionalism and competence and conflict resolution in employment.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 15-05-2016 09:13AM

Maireadio wrote: »

Meanwhile, flats have been my main form of footwear since I started college 13 years ago and I've had no problems with them at all.

That's great but I wouldn't be so confident you will be saying that in the future, just like I have no doubt my heels will probably give me varicose veins or bunions in the future. At the end of the day they're relatively comfortable while they're on, they're pretty, they're cheap. But there is literally no support at all in them. I stand pretty much all day in my job. I walk a lot. I get sciatica, and my knees swell up, and my back hurts if I don't stand straight enough.
But, I still wear them. Because I have to wear flat shoes in work. And I'd rather a sore back than someone see me in a pair of eccos.

Whereas, I can wear heels all day, not a bother. They keep me standing straight, so my posture is better. They have my calves toned and my foot is more comfortable being like \ than being like _

I had to go to outpatients back in 2012 to have those staple things removed from my ankle after an operation, I was wearing 4inch heels with a platform under the ball of the foot, so they were so comfortable. But I was on crutches.
When I got to the room to have them out the nurses were like what the ****? Why are you wearing high shoes when you just had an operation? But in flats, my feet hurt, my calves hurt, my knees hurt, my thighs hurt. It just wasn't working for me.
I went into same outpatients the following year with my dad and one of the nurses remembered me. "You're the girl who wore the high heels with a broken ankle".

I'm sure whatever the preference for footwear that's more fashion than support, we'll end up having problems, but if you start sueing people for having to wear heels you'll have people sueing over having to wear flats too.

15-05-2016 09:18AM

Keane2baMused wrote: »

Personally I don't believe men should be forced to shave either for work but again, it's not painful to go clean shaven.

Can be.

gctest50 · 15-05-2016 09:34AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

..........................
I wasn't even going to bother with this thread initially as these types of threads always, always go the same way, the same way as the clingy, selfie-taking, breastfeeding woman from a couple of weeks back that was "raising awareness" (of her own existence), and the woman in the opening post here "raising awareness" (again, of her own existence), and in the same way as nothing has been heard since of the breastfeeding woman, in a few days this will die off too .................

No, it'll be in parliament at some stage :

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129823

then it'll shall be known as Nicola's law and you'll get a little sticker window of yer office,

then can't have Ireland lagging behind so it'll come in here

Be great fun listening to the whining

London receptionist sent home without pay for refusing to wear heels

Comments