Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Teacher Teacher
Because even if your boss doesn't think your outfits are inappropriate, someone somewhere will have an opinion.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Tattoo Taboo
Seven years ago I worked for a specialty apparel brand that was owned by a much larger company. The company, of course, provided every employee an Employee Handbook and Code of Conduct, that included, among other things, dress and appearance guidelines. Retail companies cannot require an associate to buy the clothing sold at their stores, but can require that an associate dress in items that look brand appropriate. The rules clearly stated that tattoos needed to be covered while on the sales floor (as well as facial piercings being removed). My store manager did not enforce this rule because she asserted that we lived and worked in a community very accepting of tattoos (Santa Cruz, CA) and thought our customers would not be offended if tattoos were visible on associates. When I was transferred to a larger store in a more metropolitan area, the tattoo rule was, again, not enforced. To my knowledge there was never a customer complaint regarding the visibility of tattoos on associates.
Fast forward to the present time. I work for the same company, but within another brand. The same Employee Handbook, with the same dress and appearance guidelines are provided to all associates. This brand takes the tattoo policy seriously, and I have several peers that take time and effort to wear clothes and accessories specifically to cover tattoos (i.e. a store manager at another store has a tattoo on her wrist that she covers with a large bangle bracelet). Again, to my knowledge, there has never been a customer complaint regarding tattoos. Which leads me to wonder, why include the policy at all? Tattoos do seem to be less taboo than they were twenty years ago; many more people have tattoos, and many individuals use body art as a form of expression. Is a policy regarding appearance worth giving up on talented individuals during the selection process simply because of a tattoo? Would this practice even be legal? Moreover, can certain tattoos be acceptable and some be unacceptable?
According to Swartzentruber v. Gunite Corp, a company can ask individuals to cover tattoos, particularly when they are offensive to other employees. Mr. Swarzentruber asserted that his tattoo was religious in nature (which is protected under Title VII) and that as a result of his tattoo, he was being harassed (his tattoo was a Ku Klux Klan symbol). He claimed his work environment was hostile. The court "agreed with Gunite that any greater accommodation would cause it an undue hardship. Gunite demanded that Mr. Swartzentruber cover his tattoo because it violated Gunite's racial harassment policy and offended other employees. Gunite accommodated his tattoo depiction of his religious belief that many would view as a racist and violent symbol by allowing him to work with the tattoo covered; Title VII doesn't require more."
What do you think: should tattoos be protected under anti-discrimination laws? Is the right person worth overlooking tattoos, or should there be strict adherence of appearance policies?
Fast forward to the present time. I work for the same company, but within another brand. The same Employee Handbook, with the same dress and appearance guidelines are provided to all associates. This brand takes the tattoo policy seriously, and I have several peers that take time and effort to wear clothes and accessories specifically to cover tattoos (i.e. a store manager at another store has a tattoo on her wrist that she covers with a large bangle bracelet). Again, to my knowledge, there has never been a customer complaint regarding tattoos. Which leads me to wonder, why include the policy at all? Tattoos do seem to be less taboo than they were twenty years ago; many more people have tattoos, and many individuals use body art as a form of expression. Is a policy regarding appearance worth giving up on talented individuals during the selection process simply because of a tattoo? Would this practice even be legal? Moreover, can certain tattoos be acceptable and some be unacceptable?
According to Swartzentruber v. Gunite Corp, a company can ask individuals to cover tattoos, particularly when they are offensive to other employees. Mr. Swarzentruber asserted that his tattoo was religious in nature (which is protected under Title VII) and that as a result of his tattoo, he was being harassed (his tattoo was a Ku Klux Klan symbol). He claimed his work environment was hostile. The court "agreed with Gunite that any greater accommodation would cause it an undue hardship. Gunite demanded that Mr. Swartzentruber cover his tattoo because it violated Gunite's racial harassment policy and offended other employees. Gunite accommodated his tattoo depiction of his religious belief that many would view as a racist and violent symbol by allowing him to work with the tattoo covered; Title VII doesn't require more."
What do you think: should tattoos be protected under anti-discrimination laws? Is the right person worth overlooking tattoos, or should there be strict adherence of appearance policies?
Monday, September 3, 2012
Dress for Success: She was asking for it?
Catchy headline: not the way I actually think. To what extent does how a woman chooses to dress at work determine her success at work? Obviously, there aren't any women who deserve to be harassed; nor does any woman deserve to be overlooked for promotions, increases in pay or responsibilities, or basic respect, because of their wardrobe. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. (Bet you thought my next sentence was going to begin with "However".)
That's why as I have researched for this blog on general practices related to Dress Codes, Appearance Guidelines, and standards of conduct at work, I am curious about the focus on women, and more specifically, women's bodies. For example, I was recently reading an issue of Ladies' Home Journal, and there was an article entitled "The Thinking Woman's Guide to Cleavage." And there are all sorts of catchy little phrases like "boob etiquette" and "breast management" (that's my favorite one.) The article itself was an informative piece regarding do's and don'ts regarding breasts and where they fit into all of life's roles. Of course, one subsection is completely dedicated to work and cleavage. As Margaret Batting, President of Eleve Style Consulting in Barrington Rhode Island is quoted as saying, "Flaunting your cleavage at the office sends the message that you're not serious about your work." And the writer of the article goes on to say, "...people might think you're just plain clueless." Which begs the question of whether a woman in the work place is judged first by her appearance, and second by her productivity, leadership ability, smarts, and skills. What's more, is there a double standard regarding men and women?
According to a ABC News/Washington Post poll, 1 in 4 women in the United States say they have experienced sexual harassment at work, 1 in 10 men have also experienced it, and 25% of men fear being falsely accused of sexual harassment. But what constitutes sexual harassment? Interestingly, there is a lot of case law on the subject; but guess what? Harassment, and how it's defined, is subjective; what makes one person uncomfortable may be perfectly acceptable to another. So if a woman walks into work with a low top blouse, and her best push-up bra on, she may be sexually harassing a person. If a coworker notices or comments on her outfit, or even stares a little too long, she may be being sexually harassed. On the other side of the coin: if man comes in wearing a tight t-shirt, or really tight pants is he subjected to the same harassment and protected by the law equally? I believe our society views sexual harassment by a man toward a women much differently than it views sexual harassment by a women toward a man.
The Courts have ruled on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace- many times. In the case of Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that sexual harassment constitutes a "hostile work environment" and that workers are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. With sexual harassment, and its broad interpretation in the work place, employers have to be ever more careful about protecting every worker from harassment, or even the appearance of harassment. Strict guidelines regarding dress and appearance seem like the first, and best, way put everyone on an level playing field.
Are men and women held to different standards by employers (what is expected of them to prevent harassment)? How about by the law (what defines harassment, toward one employee/employer by another)?
That's why as I have researched for this blog on general practices related to Dress Codes, Appearance Guidelines, and standards of conduct at work, I am curious about the focus on women, and more specifically, women's bodies. For example, I was recently reading an issue of Ladies' Home Journal, and there was an article entitled "The Thinking Woman's Guide to Cleavage." And there are all sorts of catchy little phrases like "boob etiquette" and "breast management" (that's my favorite one.) The article itself was an informative piece regarding do's and don'ts regarding breasts and where they fit into all of life's roles. Of course, one subsection is completely dedicated to work and cleavage. As Margaret Batting, President of Eleve Style Consulting in Barrington Rhode Island is quoted as saying, "Flaunting your cleavage at the office sends the message that you're not serious about your work." And the writer of the article goes on to say, "...people might think you're just plain clueless." Which begs the question of whether a woman in the work place is judged first by her appearance, and second by her productivity, leadership ability, smarts, and skills. What's more, is there a double standard regarding men and women?
According to a ABC News/Washington Post poll, 1 in 4 women in the United States say they have experienced sexual harassment at work, 1 in 10 men have also experienced it, and 25% of men fear being falsely accused of sexual harassment. But what constitutes sexual harassment? Interestingly, there is a lot of case law on the subject; but guess what? Harassment, and how it's defined, is subjective; what makes one person uncomfortable may be perfectly acceptable to another. So if a woman walks into work with a low top blouse, and her best push-up bra on, she may be sexually harassing a person. If a coworker notices or comments on her outfit, or even stares a little too long, she may be being sexually harassed. On the other side of the coin: if man comes in wearing a tight t-shirt, or really tight pants is he subjected to the same harassment and protected by the law equally? I believe our society views sexual harassment by a man toward a women much differently than it views sexual harassment by a women toward a man.
The Courts have ruled on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace- many times. In the case of Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that sexual harassment constitutes a "hostile work environment" and that workers are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. With sexual harassment, and its broad interpretation in the work place, employers have to be ever more careful about protecting every worker from harassment, or even the appearance of harassment. Strict guidelines regarding dress and appearance seem like the first, and best, way put everyone on an level playing field.
Are men and women held to different standards by employers (what is expected of them to prevent harassment)? How about by the law (what defines harassment, toward one employee/employer by another)?
Friday, August 17, 2012
Dress for Success: Personal Style and Professionalism
Dress code in the workplace has come a long way. Most employees are no longer expected to come wearing a suit and tie, or suit and panty hose, to work. As a writer with CNN.com puts it, "When it comes to personal style in the workplace, there are no hard and fast rules. What is suitable changes with where you work and what you do." Workplace dress codes are being redefined: how does an individual maintain a sense of personal style, while adhering to their company's expectations?
First, let me start off by defining modern dress code and the way that it has changed over time. According to AskMen.com, "...since the dot-com craze began, work clothes have become progressively more casual. It started when many Silicon Valley firms found that their employees worked better in relaxed clothing, than in stiffer, more traditional work wear, and so they adopted this casual look as their daily work attire. This slowly trickled down to other companies, as they believed casual clothing would make employees more comfortable, and thus boost productivity." Casual clothing is becoming the cultural norm in the workplace. The problem arises when a company fails to define what casual means which "brought about confusion in the workplace, as well as a reduced sense of professionalism." And that can mean a problem for professional work relationships, both from the employee and the client. A company has to balance the personal style of its employees in regards to the brand image that it is presenting to the public. In an article posted on suite101.com, author Deborah S. Hildebrand writes, "While many employers would nix the idea of having to teach their employees how to dress on the job, there seems to be no single resource that provides this type of education to those just entering the workforce. So establishing a workplace dress code can at least point errant workers in the right direction. That being said, employers might want to consider balancing fashion trends and corporate image when they put together their policy." Employers, in order to attract and retain top talent, are moving toward more employee centric policies; it makes sense that less restrictive dress codes will help improve both engagement and productivity.
Which leads me to the following questions: while employers don't have to consider employees need to express personal style, should they? Does having a policy that allows employees to have more freedom in dress help or hurt the professional environment?
First, let me start off by defining modern dress code and the way that it has changed over time. According to AskMen.com, "...since the dot-com craze began, work clothes have become progressively more casual. It started when many Silicon Valley firms found that their employees worked better in relaxed clothing, than in stiffer, more traditional work wear, and so they adopted this casual look as their daily work attire. This slowly trickled down to other companies, as they believed casual clothing would make employees more comfortable, and thus boost productivity." Casual clothing is becoming the cultural norm in the workplace. The problem arises when a company fails to define what casual means which "brought about confusion in the workplace, as well as a reduced sense of professionalism." And that can mean a problem for professional work relationships, both from the employee and the client. A company has to balance the personal style of its employees in regards to the brand image that it is presenting to the public. In an article posted on suite101.com, author Deborah S. Hildebrand writes, "While many employers would nix the idea of having to teach their employees how to dress on the job, there seems to be no single resource that provides this type of education to those just entering the workforce. So establishing a workplace dress code can at least point errant workers in the right direction. That being said, employers might want to consider balancing fashion trends and corporate image when they put together their policy." Employers, in order to attract and retain top talent, are moving toward more employee centric policies; it makes sense that less restrictive dress codes will help improve both engagement and productivity.
Which leads me to the following questions: while employers don't have to consider employees need to express personal style, should they? Does having a policy that allows employees to have more freedom in dress help or hurt the professional environment?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)