D
Deuce
Guest
Maybe she should drop off an application at "hooters". The customers there rarely even look at the faces of the waitresses!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Technopunk said:PERSONALLY...
Depending on how the "Dress code" was specified, I would have worn REALLY REALLY tacky "Mimi" makeup, or maybe Clown makeup...
What a concept. Couldn't fire you for conforming to the 'rules' that way, could they?Technopunk said:Ya know... Thinking about it...
PERSONALLY...
I wouldnt have refused, and then been Fired...
Depending on how the "Dress code" was specified, I would have worn REALLY REALLY tacky "Mimi" makeup, or maybe Clown makeup...
But again... I have been known to push the limits of what is required of me.
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:Maybe she should drop off an application at "hooters". The customers there rarely even look at the faces of the waitresses!
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: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?
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*
(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:I have NO tolerance for this kind of bull****. She did her job very well for 20 years. Now the company has booted her out - not offered her another position, not negotiated. Over MAKEUP?!? Come on, people, being "healthy-looking" and "presentable" does not necessarily mean wearing makeup. Some of the sickliest-looking womenI know look that way BECAUSE of their pancake makeup.
I am SO TIRED of the worship of almost-illegal youth and beauty. TIRED OF IT! Great message, court.
And I'm sorry, but who cares if the bartender is "pretty" or "hot" or whatever (male or female). It is far more important for them to be able to talk to people, deal with drunks, etc.
Stupid rule, stupid decision. So much for company loyalty, and treating long-time, hard-working employees well.
ETA: Oh yes, I forgot how easy it is to find a good job today, with health insurance and the like. People are tripping over them in the streets.
No offense. It was a good comment.Deuce said: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.
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
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: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.
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.
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: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?
True, and true.Deuce said: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.
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.
Bob Hubbard said:Now, with this woman, they changed the rules midstream. I don't like that. ........ She was there 20? years, and was well respected... There were options available that neither party seemed to want to see.
Feisty Mouse said:......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%.