Can we tell women what to wear in work?

[J70]

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.

[Puckoon]

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.

[MoChara]

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.

[Main Street]

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?

USA law
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/

[J70]

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?

USA law
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/

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.

[J70]

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.