Discrimination for having long hair as a man?

Sambucus_Nigra

GothicStirling wrote: »

Exactly.

Also someone mentioned jeans. Waterstone's and HMV allow their staff to wear jeans, I hate that. I hate it so much I now go to Blackwells or Amazon.

I can only hope is that the new owners of Waterstone's sort their staff's standards out.

You see - I LIKE jeans - in a book or record shop it's how it should be.

Just shows - it takes all sorts. Not that I ever go in HMV - I thought it had disappeared from the high street. I get my music from Sister Ray in London Village.

LittleMissAspie

GothicStirling wrote: »

Waterstone's and HMV allow their staff to wear jeans, I hate that. I hate it so much I now go to Blackwells or Amazon.

You're not serious???

Horace

Long hair looks tidier and more professional when it is tied up than left hanging loose.

My husband (soon to be ex - and I am a girl btw) has always had long hair except when we got married and he cut it short. He has always had it tied back and he has always worked.

I don't see a problem with your colleague tying his hair up to be honest.

Slinky

You only have to read the Support Each Other thread to realise how difficult it is out there to get work at the moment.

Tying your hair back is not an issue worth fighting your employer about.

As far as jeans are concerned I wear them most days when visiting customers. I run my own magazine publishing business and deliberately steer away from the little black suits worn by the sales employees from the local rags and the Yellow pages.

GothicStirling

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

You see - I LIKE jeans - in a book or record shop it's how it should be.

Just shows - it takes all sorts. Not that I ever go in HMV - I thought it had disappeared from the high street. I get my music from Sister Ray in London Village.

No, it really isn't. Especially in a bookstore. I've worked in publishing and I wouldn't dream of going into a meeting with a editor/agent/author in jeans, so why are booksellers. I worked in a bookshop while at university, it was an independent and the owner would have had a fit!

Sambucus_Nigra

GothicStirling wrote: »

No, it really isn't. Especially in a bookstore.

Obviously not in your head - but in mine it's wonderful.

poe.tuesday

if someone does their job well, is polite and courteous , what does it matter what they look like?

Savvy_Sue

SarEl wrote: »

I do recall the case of a "clever" young man who, reading the company policy on dress code, turned up to work in black jeans because the policy said "no blue jeans". When his manager pointed out that jeans were unacceptable work wear, he questioned the policy, argued that it said blue and his were black, and pointed out that his (very expensive) black jeans were of better quality and expense than most other colleagues trousers. When he tuend up the next day wearing the black jeans he landed himself a verbal warning, then a written warning.... I am sure you can see where this is going, and it went there. His union suggested, very early on, that he "grow up", and refused to represent him after the first written warning because he refused to take their advice (I believe it was "grow up" and "buy a pair of work trousers"). He went to tribunal for unfair dismissal on his continuing "clever" basis that he was not wearing "blue jeans". His was one of the rare cases - costs were awarded against him.

Yes, the employer could have amended their policy to read no jeans, but I am pretty certain that that would have meant that he came to work in camoflage trousers, or some such!

I hasten to add he was not a client of mine - or anyone elses either. For some strange reason he couldn't get a lawyer to represent him! But the ppoint of this is - it isn't worth fretting over minor issues that can be easily remedied with no pain on either side. And they certainly aren't worth making a stand over.

Cue the story of the schoolboy who turned up to school in a skirt, because uniform policy said boys could not wear shorts, but girls could wear trousers or skirts. And it didn't say boys couldn't wear skirts.

SIL was telling me that she has finally managed to get one school to admit that the reason why boys aren't allowed to wear (sensible) sandals to school is because they think it will look scruffy, rather than H&S concerns. Girls are allowed to wear slingbacks, which they can wear with otherwise bare feet, but of course it's hard to get slingbacks for boys. Crocs are definitely out.

That's the school which now states explicitly that shoes must be worn. They had one (brilliant and faintly eccentric) pupil who attended in bare feet for two years, rather than wear the regulation shoes.

However, arguing points of principle with an employer really isn't worth it: work with colleagues to find better ways of getting policies changed if there's an issue.

Tiddlywinks

poe.tuesday wrote: »

if someone does their job well, is polite and courteous , what does it matter what they look like?

Corporate image - the employer wants the employee to be a suitable representative of the business.

Mr_Smith_3

real1314 wrote: »

If he turned up with a moustache, skirt and blouse, would that be ok? (some women have moustaches).

:shocked: :shocked: