Can't work in daytime because of hair

DVardysShadow

poet123 wrote: »

Is he being asked to cover his hair for hygiene reasons? or because they don't like the style? or because it is untidy? If it is any of these then those reasons could equally apply to any person of any colour so it is not discrimination. Maybe his colour is relevant, maybe it is not, but it irks me when the assumption is automatically made.

I don't think the assumption has been made. If OP assumed, we would only be asked how to take this forward. OP did not assume but asked if it was discrimination.

You have not given enough info for us to be able to judge, that may be because you wanted us to jump one way or the other with our opinions, it may be because you dont have any more info, or it may be because this is a wind up!!!

I don't think it is a wind up and I don't think we are being invited to jump in any particular direction. More info would be useful, but we probably have all the info the OP has - after all this relates to the owner of the business employing the manager of the boyfriend of the OP

ChrisCobra

Stop feeding trolls for the love of mike.

mumslave

no way this is definitely a wind up, no employer would say such a thing...

do...not...feed...the...trolls....

zzzLazyDaisy

I think your BF has to go back and explain that he is perfectly happy to wear his hair in a different style, and ask him to ask the owner what he can do to make his appearance acceptable for the day-time shifts.

It is possible that this is discrimination, but on the limited information given it is impossible to say.

However the experts are http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/ they will be able to advise your bf, so it would be worth giving them a ring.

delilah666

mumslave wrote: »

no way this is definitely a wind up, no employer would say such a thing...

do...not...feed...the...trolls....

I'm beginning to get really offended at all this troll business. I dont have the time to write petty posts just to provoke a response. I have an 8 month old baby, and im not particulary happy with my boyfriend working nights all them time, which is why I posted to try and get some helpful advice

savvy

Delilah - I think your bf's predicament is quite increduous and maybe that's why some think it's a wind up I can understand that some employers don't want a certain 'look' representing their company. When I had a leopardskin mohican back in the day, I looked absolutely in the right place as a hairdresser in a very alternative company, however if my employers were in say customer service, I don't think they'd have appreciated my sense of style! However, your bf is wearing his hair in a much more natural style so this absolutely can't be the problem here, and I just don't think (given the info you have presented) that they can do this

Have you looked around the direct.gov site at all for more info on discrimination??

Regarding the half caste issue, I work with many lads from mixed races and they don't seem to consider that term un pc, but then to fair I don't think the pc brigade know what they are talking about as they are always changing the terms anyway.................talk about a labelling machine! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

savvy

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I think your BF has to go back and explain that he is perfectly happy to wear his hair in a different style, and ask him to ask the owner what he can do to make his appearance acceptable for the day-time shifts.

Ah see I don't think he should have to wear his hair different for this job, in catering yeah fair enough, but not for retail. As an ex hairdresser I've seen some pretty shocking haircuts that should have been outlawed (think mullet style here) yet have been deemed normal and okay by the general public :eek::eek::eek: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

zzzLazyDaisy

Maybe, but there is a big difference between an employer making demands that the general public might think unreasonable, and making demands that are forbidden by law.

What we don't know is how long the bf has worked for the company and whether he would like to keep his job. Because if he has been there less than 12 months, and the owner's demands do not amount to unlawful discrimination, he has very little employment protection.

Errata

Perhaps one of the troll detectives could explain exactly how they know without a shadow of a doubt that a poster is a troll ?

BargainGalore

So you know that for fact?

That's okay then

DVardysShadow wrote: »

What distinguishes this from a genuine problem???????

AFAICS, OP is not winding anyone up.

DVardysShadow said it isnt "OP is not winding anyone up" They must be right

Errata wrote: »

Perhaps one of the troll detectives could explain exactly how they know without a shadow of a doubt that a poster is a troll ?