Some businesses require a reception or front desk to welcome visitors (such as a car sales garage). Such businesses tend to recruit hot totty for receptionists.
Should such businesses be allowed to insist on a strict uniform, such as high heels for female receptionists?
Yes
Nope, but most females want to feel like they are looking their best (vanity etc) so will wear heels anyway. No need to insist it is written into policy, it'll happen anyway.
Did I enter a time warp.
Yes
Buckin apt
Will they listen?
Quote from: Orior on March 10, 2017, 06:58:20 PM
Some businesses require a reception or front desk to welcome visitors (such as a car sales garage). Such businesses tend to recruit hot totty for receptionists.
Should such businesses be allowed to insist on a strict uniform, such as high heels for female receptionists?
Are the soft porn calendars not good enough ?
Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2017, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 10, 2017, 06:58:20 PM
Some businesses require a reception or front desk to welcome visitors (such as a car sales garage). Such businesses tend to recruit hot totty for receptionists.
Should such businesses be allowed to insist on a strict uniform, such as high heels for female receptionists?
Are the soft porn calendars not good enough ?
Every marketeer knows that sex sells.
What's the point in employing them if they don't dress like this...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/7e/c6/2a/7ec62a79db96ee1a712a488c9404f5b3.jpg)
Quote from: Orior on March 10, 2017, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2017, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 10, 2017, 06:58:20 PM
Some businesses require a reception or front desk to welcome visitors (such as a car sales garage). Such businesses tend to recruit hot totty for receptionists.
Should such businesses be allowed to insist on a strict uniform, such as high heels for female receptionists?
Are the soft porn calendars not good enough ?
Every marketeer knows that sex sells.
Does sex sell?
answer - sex doesn't sell.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201312/does-sex-sell (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201312/does-sex-sell)
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 10, 2017, 10:37:39 PM
What's the point in employing them if they don't dress like this...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/7e/c6/2a/7ec62a79db96ee1a712a488c9404f5b3.jpg)
I've two friends on previous job that looked like that and also great craic!!
Quote from: Orior on March 10, 2017, 06:58:20 PM
Some businesses require a reception or front desk to welcome visitors (such as a car sales garage). Such businesses tend to recruit hot totty for receptionists.
Should such businesses be allowed to insist on a strict uniform, such as high heels for female receptionists?
Pretty sure you can enforce a dress code but I wouldnt think you can make anyone wear high heels!!
Quote from: Rois on March 10, 2017, 07:11:05 PM
Nope, but most females want to feel like they are looking their best (vanity etc) so will wear heels anyway. No need to insist it is written into policy, it'll happen anyway.
I dont know how many female estate agents I have seen arriving to show properties wearing high heels and short skirts. If they feel confident to do so what is the problem? However forcing them to do so is a completely different matter
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
I tend to agree.
For example, we all like to watch the weather forecast on TG4, even if we don't know all the words.
There is social pressure to conform and women have a thing about wanting to please and the 2 together can be pretty consistent over international borders. Social pressure is very strong. I don't agree either that sex doesn't sell.
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
Define gun?
Quote from: PW Nally on March 12, 2017, 01:39:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
Define gun?
???
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
The same question applies. Every business wants to attract customers.
This thread is Tony Ferron level, lads.
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
I thought they gave them as an example for the more general question about whether employers can insist on skimpy dress codes.
Think the principle is the same though. Looks and skin to attract customers.
As long as obscenity or lewdness laws aren't being broken, they're entitled to do it.
Quote from: Syferus on March 12, 2017, 05:07:56 PM
This thread is Tony Ferron level, lads.
Why, what is wrong?
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 06:06:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
I thought they gave them as an example for the more general question about whether employers can insist on skimpy dress codes.
Think the principle is the same though. Looks and skin to attract customers.
As long as obscenity or lewdness laws aren't being broken, they're entitled to do it.
You are way off the mark and I am surprised at your opinion
A job in cars sales or house sales or a similar occupation is basic run of the mill employment, it can certainly be requested, even mandatory that clean neat attire be worn both for male and female but as long as that requirement is fulfilled by an employee, then the condition is satisfied. It's breaching basic human rights to demand that a female employee be dressed in sexually attractive attire.
For a start, it's sexist as in gender specific. If the dress code is biased towards one gender it is illegal.
Should a female employee suffer because of an imposed code to dress more sexily, they have a solid case for compensation and the employer will be forced to change policy.
Workplace rights are well ahead of titillation.
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 09:33:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 06:06:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
I thought they gave them as an example for the more general question about whether employers can insist on skimpy dress codes.
Think the principle is the same though. Looks and skin to attract customers.
As long as obscenity or lewdness laws aren't being broken, they're entitled to do it.
You are way off the mark and I am surprised at your opinion
A job in cars sales or house sales or a similar occupation is basic run of the mill employment, it can certainly be requested, even mandatory that clean neat attire be worn both for male and female but as long as that requirement is fulfilled by an employee, then the condition is satisfied. It's breaching basic human rights to demand that a female employee be dressed in sexually attractive attire.
For a start, it's sexist as in gender specific. If the dress code is biased towards one gender it is illegal.
Should a female employee suffer because of an imposed code to dress more sexily, they have a solid case for compensation and the employer will be forced to change policy.
Workplace rights are well ahead of titillation.
If a car showroom receptionist decides to wear baggy trousers, baggy top , no lippy and a ring through her nose then I would think that the employer can find ways to get rid of her, whilst keeping within the law. But what makes you think it is always men behind those decisions?
Quote from: Orior on March 12, 2017, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 09:33:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 06:06:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
I thought they gave them as an example for the more general question about whether employers can insist on skimpy dress codes.
Think the principle is the same though. Looks and skin to attract customers.
As long as obscenity or lewdness laws aren't being broken, they're entitled to do it.
You are way off the mark and I am surprised at your opinion
A job in cars sales or house sales or a similar occupation is basic run of the mill employment, it can certainly be requested, even mandatory that clean neat attire be worn both for male and female but as long as that requirement is fulfilled by an employee, then the condition is satisfied. It's breaching basic human rights to demand that a female employee be dressed in sexually attractive attire.
For a start, it's sexist as in gender specific. If the dress code is biased towards one gender it is illegal.
Should a female employee suffer because of an imposed code to dress more sexily, they have a solid case for compensation and the employer will be forced to change policy.
Workplace rights are well ahead of titillation.
If a car showroom receptionist decides to wear baggy trousers, baggy top , no lippy and a ring through her nose then I would think that the employer can find ways to get rid of her, whilst keeping within the law.
Read my post you lewd person.
"it can certainly be requested, even mandatory that clean neat attire be worn both for male and female but as long as that requirement is fulfilled by an employee, then the condition is satisfied"Quote
But what makes you think it is always men behind those decisions?
You can manage to type on a keyboard but the basic rational thought factor is totally absent?
How did you manage that Orior?
Can you read my post again and see if you can any foundation for that bizarre statement of yours?
If you can't read right now, use the text to speech function :D
Serious amount of misogyny in this thread.
I can tell you one thing...I thank the Lord that the women in my employment don't wear short skirts and high heels...Ahh Jasus the thought of it would make an onion cry...Brutal they are, Hippo city.
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 09:33:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 06:06:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
I thought they gave them as an example for the more general question about whether employers can insist on skimpy dress codes.
Think the principle is the same though. Looks and skin to attract customers.
As long as obscenity or lewdness laws aren't being broken, they're entitled to do it.
You are way off the mark and I am surprised at your opinion
A job in cars sales or house sales or a similar occupation is basic run of the mill employment, it can certainly be requested, even mandatory that clean neat attire be worn both for male and female but as long as that requirement is fulfilled by an employee, then the condition is satisfied. It's breaching basic human rights to demand that a female employee be dressed in sexually attractive attire.
For a start, it's sexist as in gender specific. If the dress code is biased towards one gender it is illegal.
Should a female employee suffer because of an imposed code to dress more sexily, they have a solid case for compensation and the employer will be forced to change policy.
Workplace rights are well ahead of titillation.
Think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not commenting on the morality of it or whether its respectful to women. It obviously isn't.
I'm merely saying that employers can have a dress code, whatever the reason, and there's not much can be done about it except comply, if you want to work there. If it is illegal on the grounds of sexual discrimination, then surely it has been challenged in the courts by someone?
Again, I see no difference between the college girl having to wear a tight tank top and very short shorts as a waitress at Hooters and the receptionist asked to wear heels and a short skirt. Both are exploiting women's looks to curry favour with male customers.
Interesting take J70
Hooters is known for its attire. Most secretarial positions are not. Unless you're watching some kinda fluff nonsense. I think both sexes should be given the option to wear professional attire and it doesn't have to be sexualized at all.
Quote from: J70 on March 13, 2017, 12:26:54 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 09:33:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 06:06:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
I thought they gave them as an example for the more general question about whether employers can insist on skimpy dress codes.
Think the principle is the same though. Looks and skin to attract customers.
As long as obscenity or lewdness laws aren't being broken, they're entitled to do it.
You are way off the mark and I am surprised at your opinion
A job in cars sales or house sales or a similar occupation is basic run of the mill employment, it can certainly be requested, even mandatory that clean neat attire be worn both for male and female but as long as that requirement is fulfilled by an employee, then the condition is satisfied. It's breaching basic human rights to demand that a female employee be dressed in sexually attractive attire.
For a start, it's sexist as in gender specific. If the dress code is biased towards one gender it is illegal.
Should a female employee suffer because of an imposed code to dress more sexily, they have a solid case for compensation and the employer will be forced to change policy.
Workplace rights are well ahead of titillation.
Think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not commenting on the morality of it or whether its respectful to women. It obviously isn't.
I'm merely saying that employers can have a dress code, whatever the reason, and there's not much can be done about it except comply, if you want to work there. If it is illegal on the grounds of sexual discrimination, then surely it has been challenged in the courts by someone?
Again, I see no difference between the college girl having to wear a tight tank top and very short shorts as a waitress at Hooters and the receptionist asked to wear heels and a short skirt. Both are exploiting women's looks to curry favour with male customers.
Hooters is probably different in that its a uniform rather than a dress code.
I believe over here if you want to hire someone based on looks you have to have it in the terms that they are some kind of Model, I know Holister has this in their contracts as they use store workers as their models.
Quote from: J70 on March 13, 2017, 12:26:54 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 09:33:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 06:06:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
I thought they gave them as an example for the more general question about whether employers can insist on skimpy dress codes.
Think the principle is the same though. Looks and skin to attract customers.
As long as obscenity or lewdness laws aren't being broken, they're entitled to do it.
You are way off the mark and I am surprised at your opinion
A job in cars sales or house sales or a similar occupation is basic run of the mill employment, it can certainly be requested, even mandatory that clean neat attire be worn both for male and female but as long as that requirement is fulfilled by an employee, then the condition is satisfied. It's breaching basic human rights to demand that a female employee be dressed in sexually attractive attire.
For a start, it's sexist as in gender specific. If the dress code is biased towards one gender it is illegal.
Should a female employee suffer because of an imposed code to dress more sexily, they have a solid case for compensation and the employer will be forced to change policy.
Workplace rights are well ahead of titillation.
Think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not commenting on the morality of it or whether its respectful to women. It obviously isn't.
I'm merely saying that employers can have a dress code, whatever the reason, and there's not much can be done about it except comply, if you want to work there. If it is illegal on the grounds of sexual discrimination, then surely it has been challenged in the courts by someone?
Again, I see no difference between the college girl having to wear a tight tank top and very short shorts as a waitress at Hooters and the receptionist asked to wear heels and a short skirt. Both are exploiting women's looks to curry favour with male customers.
As I wrote, the illegality is when dress code is gender specific and when an employee's work career suffers should they refuse a request to dress more sexily.
You may find nothing wrong with an employees' request to exploit a woman's looks by requesting her to wear heels and a short skirt. I take it you have worn high heels all day at work? ;D
USA law
http://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/discrimination/illegal-workplace-policy.htm (http://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/discrimination/illegal-workplace-policy.htm)
Policies that impose different requirements on men and women. As long a dress or grooming code doesn't impose heavier requirements on one gender, or require that employees dress in sexually provocative ways, it is likely legal. However, an employer that required employees of only one gender to wear uniforms or follow a dress code might be violating the law.
Denying employer requests to wear high heels was a bit of a grey area.
In no time at all in the UK 150,000 women signed a petition urging the law to specifically target high heels
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/03/06/workplace-dress-codes-high-heels-uk-debate/98800652/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/03/06/workplace-dress-codes-high-heels-uk-debate/98800652/)
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2017, 12:05:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 13, 2017, 12:26:54 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 09:33:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 06:06:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 12, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: hardstation on March 11, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Of course you can tell woman (and men) what to wear to work. Companies do it all the time, whether it's heels, short skirts, suit and tie, a uniform, safety shoes or a hi-vis vest. A person doesn't HAVE to work there.
Short skirts?? Really? Any boss who asks an employee to wear short skirts is a creep.
Also, what is the obsession many schools have with short haircuts?
Ridiculous.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not clothing requirements might sometimes lean over into creepishness. Of course they do.
But, companies can still demand that certain types of clothes be worn.
Ever heard of Hooters restaurants, for example?
No one is holding a gun to those girls heads.
The OP question was precisely about hot totty uniform and high heels being required attire for a car sales business and the like, not a hooters.
I thought they gave them as an example for the more general question about whether employers can insist on skimpy dress codes.
Think the principle is the same though. Looks and skin to attract customers.
As long as obscenity or lewdness laws aren't being broken, they're entitled to do it.
You are way off the mark and I am surprised at your opinion
A job in cars sales or house sales or a similar occupation is basic run of the mill employment, it can certainly be requested, even mandatory that clean neat attire be worn both for male and female but as long as that requirement is fulfilled by an employee, then the condition is satisfied. It's breaching basic human rights to demand that a female employee be dressed in sexually attractive attire.
For a start, it's sexist as in gender specific. If the dress code is biased towards one gender it is illegal.
Should a female employee suffer because of an imposed code to dress more sexily, they have a solid case for compensation and the employer will be forced to change policy.
Workplace rights are well ahead of titillation.
Think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not commenting on the morality of it or whether its respectful to women. It obviously isn't.
I'm merely saying that employers can have a dress code, whatever the reason, and there's not much can be done about it except comply, if you want to work there. If it is illegal on the grounds of sexual discrimination, then surely it has been challenged in the courts by someone?
Again, I see no difference between the college girl having to wear a tight tank top and very short shorts as a waitress at Hooters and the receptionist asked to wear heels and a short skirt. Both are exploiting women's looks to curry favour with male customers.
As I wrote, the illegality is when dress code is gender specific and when an employee's work career suffers should they refuse a request to dress more sexily.
You may find nothing wrong with an employees' request to exploit a woman's looks by requesting her to wear heels and a short skirt. I take it you have worn high heels all day at work? ;D
USA law
http://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/discrimination/illegal-workplace-policy.htm (http://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/discrimination/illegal-workplace-policy.htm)
Policies that impose different requirements on men and women. As long a dress or grooming code doesn't impose heavier requirements on one gender, or require that employees dress in sexually provocative ways, it is likely legal. However, an employer that required employees of only one gender to wear uniforms or follow a dress code might be violating the law.
Denying employer requests to wear high heels was a bit of a grey area.
In no time at all in the UK 150,000 women signed a petition urging the law to specifically target high heels
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/03/06/workplace-dress-codes-high-heels-uk-debate/98800652/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/03/06/workplace-dress-codes-high-heels-uk-debate/98800652/)
Assuming you are correct, why do you make a distinction for a business like Hooters? Male staff are hardly expected to wear skimpy shorts and tank tops. That uniform is for cute, fit, young female waiters only.
And again, I'm talking purely about the legality and what employers are permitted to do. If someone brings a case and gets the requirement for heels or short skirts banned as discriminatory, more power to them.
Quote from: Puckoon on March 13, 2017, 04:32:04 AM
Interesting take J70
Hooters is known for its attire. Most secretarial positions are not. Unless you're watching some kinda fluff nonsense. I think both sexes should be given the option to wear professional attire and it doesn't have to be sexualized at all.
Not arguing that both sexes
should have those options.
I just don't see a distinction between the car dealer wanting his receptionist to look appealing and a Hooters restaurant employing 20 year old, leggy women in skimpy uniforms. If one is acceptable under the law, then so is the other. You can argue all you want that one is, in your perception, in poor taste and the other isn't, but that's irrelevant to the question asked at the beginning of the thread: "Can we tell women what to wear in work?"
Quite clearly, an employer can, as long as no laws are broken. The person who finds it in poor taste can either not avail of the services of that business or they can choose not to work there.