D
Deuce
Guest
Maybe she should drop off an application at "hooters". The customers there rarely even look at the faces of the waitresses!
Court: It's OK To Fire Woman Who Wouldn't Wear Makeup
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
Technopunk said:
Now you're talking!
:ultracool
kenpo tiger
Senior Master
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,061
- Reaction score
- 20
What a concept. Couldn't fire you for conforming to the 'rules' that way, could they?Technopunk said:
I agree with Feisty. From personal experience, the older you get, the fewer the better job opportunities become. Add to that the fact that you've always done what you do, and it narrows the field further.
There's a lot of talk about how the next generation isn't at all loyal to their employers. Used to be, you'd go to work for a company for 30+ years, retire with the gold watch and a pension, and that was it -- happily ever after. Many employers these days do not value their employees enough to inspire such loyalty. It's all about making $$ - on all fronts.
Aside from the fact that all women aspire to such greatness as to be oogled at Hooters... do you think a possibly 40+ year old woman would be hired there, or want to be?Deuce said:
But please, let's shunt all the women deemed "facially unattractive" into jobs where other parts of them are stared at. That's all we're good for, right? *insert vapid giggle here*
OP
- Thread Starter
- #25
There are things I would love to do appearence wise, but don't.
I live in a conservative county. I like to eat, and enjoy warmth during the winter.
That means, I can't "go goth", dye my hair neon blue, shave it to a mohawk, wear eyeliner, nailpolish or have steel balls implanted just above my eyebrows.
It means shaving prior to meeting with clients, making sure my hair is in place, and wearing shoes when I'm a 'sneakers kinda guy'.
You want total control over how you appear, run your own business, and accept the fact that certain groups will not deal with you if you do not conform to -their- ideals of 'proper appearence'. They do not need to conform to you.
This goes both ways.
I walk into Hot Topic (goth store) in a polo shirt and slacks, and the girl with the 55 earings in her head just looks at me with contempt, because I'm 'normal'. I walk into an attorneys office, and he looks at me like I'm wearing rags. I visit my local karate school, and everythings cool. Business casual works there. It's all in where you target, and what is expected of you.
Now, with this woman, they changed the rules midstream. I don't like that. It's happened to me. I once got fired for refusing to shave the goatee I had at the interview a week after I started the job. It was there when they interviewed me, twice. She was there 20? years, and was well respected... There were options available that neither party seemed to want to see.
I live in a conservative county. I like to eat, and enjoy warmth during the winter.
That means, I can't "go goth", dye my hair neon blue, shave it to a mohawk, wear eyeliner, nailpolish or have steel balls implanted just above my eyebrows.
It means shaving prior to meeting with clients, making sure my hair is in place, and wearing shoes when I'm a 'sneakers kinda guy'.
You want total control over how you appear, run your own business, and accept the fact that certain groups will not deal with you if you do not conform to -their- ideals of 'proper appearence'. They do not need to conform to you.
This goes both ways.
I walk into Hot Topic (goth store) in a polo shirt and slacks, and the girl with the 55 earings in her head just looks at me with contempt, because I'm 'normal'. I walk into an attorneys office, and he looks at me like I'm wearing rags. I visit my local karate school, and everythings cool. Business casual works there. It's all in where you target, and what is expected of you.
Now, with this woman, they changed the rules midstream. I don't like that. It's happened to me. I once got fired for refusing to shave the goatee I had at the interview a week after I started the job. It was there when they interviewed me, twice. She was there 20? years, and was well respected... There were options available that neither party seemed to want to see.
D
Deuce
Guest
No, she wouldn't be working there, and that's the point I was trying to make. The waitresses/bartenders at hooters are doing the same job as she was, yet she's not young enough or attractive enough to be hired. It seems to me that this is the way that other establishments are going in order to increase business. Is it right? No, I don't think so. Does it work? Yes it does. I know some guys who go to certain pubs or bars because of the "hot" and "young" ladies that work there.Feisty Mouse said:
I think the lady in question should have been happy that she didn't get fired because of her age, but only because she didn't conform to the standards of her employer. She disobeyed the dress code or whatever you want to call it, and that's the reason for termination. Employers want employees who do their best to get the job done, without causing unnessesary disturbances or trouble. I agree that some emplyment requirements sound ridiculous, but that's the employers choice. If you don't agree with it then find another job. It's a harsh world out there and sometimes you just gotta put up with other people's crap.
I didn't mean to offend anyone with my previous Hooters post, obviously I was joking, and wanted to get people thinking about how apperence plays a significant role in some situations of employment and seems to be spreading to other occupations.
Good point about the "mid-stream" change, Bob - you articulated a point I just waved my hands about.
It sounds like a new job requirement so they could legally boot a previously valued employee, and change the job from "competent bartender" to "pretty young eye-candy".
I am so sick of this.
It sounds like a new job requirement so they could legally boot a previously valued employee, and change the job from "competent bartender" to "pretty young eye-candy".
I am so sick of this.
S
Shidan
Guest
(before I begin, I am not looking to argue with you. I merely wish to pose the other side, the side that rarely seems to get looked at).Feisty Mouse said:
Well, we DON'T know that she did a good job for 20 years, we only know she was there.
While on a personal level, I agree that looks should not matter - the fact is they do. If not by the owner/manager of a business, by the patrons. A bar atmosphere is targeting men as a majority, and MEN spend money on women in bars. If not with the members in their party, they'll tip the waitresses. Waitresses either need to split up the tips at the end of the night or continue to provide good service for the business as they received good tips and had positive reinforcement. The business wins, the patrons win, the employees win. This being said. The decision for a dress code lies with the employer. If the employer knew this woman would NOT wear makeup and forced the policy change - that is simply their CHOICE. For the woman, WHY work someplace where the people you work for DO NOT want you there? They likely did her a favor in the long run.
It is very EASY to find a GOOD JOB. First, remember not all jobs require a pay of $20 or more per hour.
Second, some jobs exist as a mere convenience to the patrons. For example: A carry-out boy at a grocery store. This isn't a necessity nor is it a job that requires $5.00 an hour (speaking USA's min wage). However, the company is forced to offer this position and offer it at $7 or more per hour to even fill it as high school kids think they need to earn College Graduate wages.
Third, Employer are not required to offer insurance or other benefits such as paid vacation. These are luxuries. Companies can offer time off (un-paid). If one doesn't like it, go elsewhere. If there is no where else to go, then decide if some money is better than no money.
Fourth, when jobs in ones particular discipline are limited, such as factory, or IT, consider another profession and start the training. Medical jobs are going to be seriously short staffed by the year 2006-7. This doesn't mean a line worker needs to take the MCAT's, but they can certainly obtain training to become an x-ray technician, a insurance coder for a medical office, etc.. Even the trucking industry is looking for more GOOD people to haul freight. Agriculture in the US is heavily hiring migrant workers because NO Citizens will do the work (I have a number of years of experiencing this problem. And happy to say I'll work with any migrant worker. Treat them well, and receive 10 times the work ethic of most Americans).
So, there is work out there. It may not be in the neighborhood one currently resides in. It may not be exactly what one had, but there is work! The education process is a 'process' (goes forever). Work is a task - it comes to an end. Sometimes it means to move on.
S
Shidan
Guest
No offense. It was a good comment.Deuce said:
I won't go to Hooter's, but I know many who do (and it 'cause of the wings). My choice. But there are people who are willing to dress in little clothing, have men make comments or druel and are really pleased with themselves at the end of the night.
My hat (if I wore one) is off to them for keeping the scum away from me
I think if she was much-praised, she must have been doing something right.Bob Hubbard said:Court: It's OK To Fire Woman Who Wouldn't Wear Makeup
Author: Reuters Source: USA Today
Title: COURT: IT'S OK TO FIRE WOMAN WHO WOULDN'T WEAR MAKEUP COURT: IT'S OK TO FIRE WOMAN WHO WOULDN'T WEAR MAKEUP
A female bartender who refused to wear makeup at a Reno casino was not unfairly dismissed from her job, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Darlene Jespersen, who had worked for nearly 20 years at a Harrah's Entertainment casino bar in Reno, objected to the company's revised policy that required female bartenders, but not male ones, to wear makeup.
A previously much-praised employee, Jespersen was fired in 2000 after the firm instituted a "Beverage Department Image Transformation" program and she sued, alleging sex discrimination.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in favor of Harrah's. All three judges are men appointed by Democratic presidents.
Options: [Read Full Story]
Original Thread: http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=11889
Why is it that when employers decide that all their employees must be a certain way (under 30, for example, a la Children of the Corn), we must automatically say "I can understand, it is their perogative, OK"? For some requirements - a dress code, perhaps, or certain levels of cleanliness, such as washing, trimmed nails, whatever - OK.
But MAKEUP? That just is ridiculous.
Sure, sure it's the company's perogative. But it's stupid, it undermines any employee/company loyalty, and no, good jobs AREN'T just lying around. If you think health insurance is a "bonus", and not something everyone needs, you may be coming from another planet as I am.
I'm not offended, but surely you can see that as this "requirement" is spreading to other occupations, we'll soon have a national corporate policy of "no fat chicks" or something equally abhorrent.Deuce said:
Wearing makeup is one of the dumbest job requirements I've heard of, period. It doesn't mean you'll look better, or younger, or anything.
And, as a woman, I am always *delighted* when I hear of others being allowed to keep a job or not based on their appearance, whether or not it is a clever marketing ploy.
Please, let's make sure all our librarians are coyly chewing on the ends of their glasses, with their blouses unbuttoned half-way down. Then more people will support local libraries!
I'm just tired of it.
ETA: Why should she be happy not to be fired because of her age? Why be delighted in being told you are no longer a competent bartender because you don't look right?
D
Deuce
Guest
I'm just saying that it sounds like the reason she got fired was because of her objection to the policy, and not her age or appearence. If she would have complied with the new rules, she would still be employed. Some employers have absolutely no tolerence for insubordination.Feisty Mouse said:
It is crap that her employer told her initially that she wouldn't have to wear make-up, and then change the policy on her.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Now Now Bob...
I managed a Hot Topic for 6 years...
It's not "Goth" its "MtV Influenced Fashions and Accessories" and I never looked down on people who didnt look the part when they came in.
I looked down on people who came in in general.
As far as the "How do we know she did a good job" types comments...
She worked there 20 years... Dunno about you, but an employee under me who doesnt do a good job doesnt last 20 days, let alone 20 years.
I managed a Hot Topic for 6 years...
It's not "Goth" its "MtV Influenced Fashions and Accessories" and I never looked down on people who didnt look the part when they came in.
I looked down on people who came in in general.
As far as the "How do we know she did a good job" types comments...
She worked there 20 years... Dunno about you, but an employee under me who doesnt do a good job doesnt last 20 days, let alone 20 years.
True, and true.Deuce said:
*sigh* (not at you, Deuce, but at the situation)
I can't wait until this becomes even more of a problem where I work now, in academics. All about what you know, how you teach, right? Grrr - so many times, I get - or hear of other teachers - getting comments on the year-end evaluations on appearance. It makes me crazy. And we all dress professionally (I guess "business casual", pretty much), etc.
Bob Hubbard said:
The article says she was transferred for a month, then fired. They transferred her because they thought they would lose in court (too bad they didn't) if they out-and-out fired her. So instead they shuffled her somewhere else where the code was still in effect and where she still bucked the system. Given that she then had a new title in a new department, she was then under the scrutiny of the new rules and they then had grounds to fire her. Happens all the time.
S
Shidan
Guest
What I don't understand is why people will FIGHT to stay at a place of employement where they are disliked? If your co-workers hate you and your boss appreciate you that is one thing. When Management hate you but your co-workers like you.... you're days are numbered.
Here is where I see a problem with our work culture. When an employee is disgruntled because they were disciplined for being tardy, out of dress code, used inappropriate behavior, etc.. the employee many times gets angry and quits. When an employer no longer approves of an employee, performance, atitude or performance, they MUST PROVE a history.
Marriages fail all the time. People who are married for 20 or more years suddenly one spouse wants a divorce. WHY? Was the marriage good for almost 20 years and suddenly went bad? Not likely. More likely each party was too chicken to make a tough decision early on. Finally, one day on spouse makes the decision and the other is 'surprised'.
Employers have employees who are marginal. The employee doesn't violate any policy and can get the job done, but isn't a star. No REASON to fire them, but after enough time, management gets the courage to do so.
Business partners do this too. Go into business all excited. One partner isn't pulling their weight, the other is doing everything and too busy to disolve the partnership. Time passes, the busy partner finds the time to disolve the partnership and the other parnter is angry.
Many people dislike conflict. When feelings and conduct are not addressed early - 20 years later it seems like a mean, personal attack. It was likely bad management decision 20 years ago. Even more likely, someone else hired this woman -and management changed.
Another point we don't know: What pressure was HER boss under? Was business suffering? Had this waitress mixed drink orders on a big client? Was she in fact not an 'attractive' waitress in relation to the rest of the staff? Were sales down or soft when she worked in relation to her peers?
Both sides definately have good points. Being a female doesn't give me 'special' rights over male conterparts. If I am qualified for a job - I am offered it, if I am not, then someone else is offered it. IT overall is a sad case, but certainly not one that should have made it to the court system.
Here is where I see a problem with our work culture. When an employee is disgruntled because they were disciplined for being tardy, out of dress code, used inappropriate behavior, etc.. the employee many times gets angry and quits. When an employer no longer approves of an employee, performance, atitude or performance, they MUST PROVE a history.
Marriages fail all the time. People who are married for 20 or more years suddenly one spouse wants a divorce. WHY? Was the marriage good for almost 20 years and suddenly went bad? Not likely. More likely each party was too chicken to make a tough decision early on. Finally, one day on spouse makes the decision and the other is 'surprised'.
Employers have employees who are marginal. The employee doesn't violate any policy and can get the job done, but isn't a star. No REASON to fire them, but after enough time, management gets the courage to do so.
Business partners do this too. Go into business all excited. One partner isn't pulling their weight, the other is doing everything and too busy to disolve the partnership. Time passes, the busy partner finds the time to disolve the partnership and the other parnter is angry.
Many people dislike conflict. When feelings and conduct are not addressed early - 20 years later it seems like a mean, personal attack. It was likely bad management decision 20 years ago. Even more likely, someone else hired this woman -and management changed.
Another point we don't know: What pressure was HER boss under? Was business suffering? Had this waitress mixed drink orders on a big client? Was she in fact not an 'attractive' waitress in relation to the rest of the staff? Were sales down or soft when she worked in relation to her peers?
Both sides definately have good points. Being a female doesn't give me 'special' rights over male conterparts. If I am qualified for a job - I am offered it, if I am not, then someone else is offered it. IT overall is a sad case, but certainly not one that should have made it to the court system.
Of course employers must demonstrate why they are firing employees - because they do not want to be sued for discrimination, for being chauvinistic, etc. Employees have rights, actually, assuming that they are doing their job well and dealing with co-workers well.
You don't have to like your employees (or boss), but you can't fire someone just because you don't like them personally, or want your young girlfriend to be your secretary instead, or someone decided to squeeze out a good employee for trivial reasons.
Otherwise, people could lose their jobs at the drop of a hat, for no reason, and have no legal recourse. Then workers would have 0% of the rights, and power, and personal dignity, and employers would have 100%.
You don't have to like your employees (or boss), but you can't fire someone just because you don't like them personally, or want your young girlfriend to be your secretary instead, or someone decided to squeeze out a good employee for trivial reasons.
Otherwise, people could lose their jobs at the drop of a hat, for no reason, and have no legal recourse. Then workers would have 0% of the rights, and power, and personal dignity, and employers would have 100%.
S
Shidan
Guest
Feisty Mouse said:
True. Except there is an unfair burden placed upon employers today. There are far to many under motivated, under qualified employees holding positions and because they were hired in good faith, they cannot be fired now that they have shown themselves to be marginal or completely useless.
Certainly, there may be some employers with an ego trip and fire people just because. Many more won't do that. Jobs like education are priviledges NOT RIGHTS as too many people think. If it was better understood how precisious an education is - kids wouldn't drink and cheat in college. Employees would show gratitude toward the company they work for and show up on time, not abuse breaks and generally be productive during the day (no personal e-mails, no internet games, no web surfing, no coffee pot gossiping during non-breaks, no leaving early (regularly), no tardiness (regularly).
The problem with the documentation burden on the employer is that say an employee is tardy 5 minutes on day. The company policy clearly states that all employees must report no less than 10 minutes prior to the start of their shift and anytime after the start of their shift is tardy. The employee has never shown up late in the past so her immediate supervisor overlooks the infraction. Two weeks later it happens again, then again a week later.
Had the supervisor disciplined the employee, most people would likely say the guy was a jerk. Unfortunately, in almost a months time, he now has an employee who is showing signs of violating company policy (AND THERE ISN"T A HISTROY IN PRINT).
As an employee and a female, I am tired of people/employees making things to be other peoples responsibility.
It seems to be forgotten that companies/businesses don't exist for people to earn livings. Businesses exist because one person had an idea, took a chance, had some success and grew his dream. After growing his dream/vision, he needed some help, so he hired some people to carry out his dream.
There is too much attitude of people believeing that a company is 'bad' if they move overseas or fire/layoff workers. There is this misconception that ALL businesses are run like Enron. They are not. Businesses are made up of people who had the guts to take a chance to make some money and then hired others to help share in his success. Just because they are helping run the business doesn't mean they are entitled to more than the wage they agreed upon when they started. Employment opportunities are plentiful and do exist in surplus for the right people. Those who are undermotivated or need hand-holding for motivation are feeling the pinch.
Learn, adapt, move on. I have a number of friends who have lost their jobs due to job closings in the area. They are good people, some are motivated and some are not. The motivated ones were without work a few weeks. Some took on new training, and two went back to school. All have families with kids -but they are managing. The others are still complaining that everything is the world's fault....likely to be unemployed for a long time. :?
Having a Jobs is a priviledge not a right!
(just my 10 cents)
It sounds like if you find a job, then you must be a good employee, and if you don't, or are frustruated, then clearly you are not a good employee.
This may or may not actually be the case.
If an employer's policy is "you are late after 10 minutes", and someone arrives 5 minutes late, they have not violated the policy, even if others are irritated by it.
And in the case we were discussing, yes, I do think employees who have been hard-working, good at what they do, and loyal to the company should (or at least could in the past) expect some company appreciation/loyalty for their years of service and hard work. Someone who has worked for you for 20 years has given a great deal of service to the company. I have no patience for the way long-term, quality employees are tossed aside - a la GM, amazon.com, many other corporations - for cheaper "temps", or taking jobs overseas. I think we should expect more from corporations who get out of paying the taxes they owe our government, for a start. And it makes me sad that the reward for staying with a company is getting tossed into the rubbish heap. Some people devote themselves to a company, work hard, and then are cast aside because a new graduate will do the job cheaper.
We don't value experience much, it seems.
This may or may not actually be the case.
If an employer's policy is "you are late after 10 minutes", and someone arrives 5 minutes late, they have not violated the policy, even if others are irritated by it.
And in the case we were discussing, yes, I do think employees who have been hard-working, good at what they do, and loyal to the company should (or at least could in the past) expect some company appreciation/loyalty for their years of service and hard work. Someone who has worked for you for 20 years has given a great deal of service to the company. I have no patience for the way long-term, quality employees are tossed aside - a la GM, amazon.com, many other corporations - for cheaper "temps", or taking jobs overseas. I think we should expect more from corporations who get out of paying the taxes they owe our government, for a start. And it makes me sad that the reward for staying with a company is getting tossed into the rubbish heap. Some people devote themselves to a company, work hard, and then are cast aside because a new graduate will do the job cheaper.
We don't value experience much, it seems.
S
Shidan
Guest
If an employee is frustrated, larger companies have HR departments to deal with these issues. If the employee isn't happy - Why stay? Put up or shut up. Jobs like marriage are filled with ups and downs. Most are temporary and arrise out of a lack of communication usually by both parties involved.
As for GM or Amazon.com and other companies who have terminated employees. Keep in mind the good of the many over the good of the few. The whole company will go under if the company continues to pay out large some monies.
The employees being terminated agreed to work for xxx pay. Now the company to stay in business so thousands all employees are not sacrificied must sever some of the higher paid 'jobs' (remembering that jobs are temporary as they are tasks that end). The employee could be allowed to continue at the same position for yyyy pay. However, it can be pretty much guessed that FEW people would do this without complaining and without sacrificing performance. So, the smart business move is to end the relationship alltogether. Harsh - Maybe. Necessary, so others are able to continue working and the company can hang on for another year.
(btw-Feisty Mouse, I hope you are enjoying this discussion. I do completely understand you points! I am enjoying this discussion as it is rare to find someone who is able to converse without merely repeating their first statement after an opposing point is brought up. Yes, I could have pm'd this, but I wish for others to be aware this is a healthy discussion, if they maybe thinking otherwise.)
As for GM or Amazon.com and other companies who have terminated employees. Keep in mind the good of the many over the good of the few. The whole company will go under if the company continues to pay out large some monies.
The employees being terminated agreed to work for xxx pay. Now the company to stay in business so thousands all employees are not sacrificied must sever some of the higher paid 'jobs' (remembering that jobs are temporary as they are tasks that end). The employee could be allowed to continue at the same position for yyyy pay. However, it can be pretty much guessed that FEW people would do this without complaining and without sacrificing performance. So, the smart business move is to end the relationship alltogether. Harsh - Maybe. Necessary, so others are able to continue working and the company can hang on for another year.
(btw-Feisty Mouse, I hope you are enjoying this discussion. I do completely understand you points! I am enjoying this discussion as it is rare to find someone who is able to converse without merely repeating their first statement after an opposing point is brought up. Yes, I could have pm'd this, but I wish for others to be aware this is a healthy discussion, if they maybe thinking otherwise.)
