Court: It's OK To Fire Woman Who Wouldn't Wear Makeup

[kenpo tiger]

Shidan,

Your profile doesn't say how old you are. I am in my 50s, and trying to find another job would be nigh onto impossible without going back to school and getting retrained. That's assuming I couldn't get another position doing what I do. Point is, I'd be viewed as too old to wait tables in Hooters if I was so inclined or it was necessary [despite my martial arts body. ] You keep glossing over that point. The other thing is, if I've been working somewhere for 20 years, I have seniority, I am probably at the top of my pay scale (something most potential employers would see and shudder), and I like what I do as well as I am good at what I do. I highly doubt an employee of 20 years is a marginal one. Unless you're talking about someone who holds a position which guarantees employment, like civil service, and the person cannot be fired unless there is an egregious offense, I don't think an employer would continue to employ a marginal employee.

Not wearing make up hardly qualifies as egregious in my book.

You're right. It is a good discussion, but, like all the others which take place in the Study, it has many facets and cannot be explained away handily.

 

[Shidan]

Shidan,

Your profile doesn't say how old you are. I am in my 50s, and trying to find another job would be nigh onto impossible without going back to school and getting retrained. That's assuming I couldn't get another position doing what I do. Point is, I'd be viewed as too old to wait tables in Hooters if I was so inclined or it was necessary [despite my martial arts body. ] You keep glossing over that point. The other thing is, if I've been working somewhere for 20 years, I have seniority, I am probably at the top of my pay scale (something most potential employers would see and shudder), and I like what I do as well as I am good at what I do. I highly doubt an employee of 20 years is a marginal one. Unless you're talking about someone who holds a position which guarantees employment, like civil service, and the person cannot be fired unless there is an egregious offense, I don't think an employer would continue to employ a marginal employee.

Not wearing make up hardly qualifies as egregious in my book.

You're right. It is a good discussion, but, like all the others which take place in the Study, it has many facets and cannot be explained away handily.

Regarding finding a job:
It can be done, but the emotion needs to be taken out of it. There is such a fear as we get older about 'starting over', 'not getting the same pay/benefits', 'being used to a routine', etc... acknowledge the comments, but go get a job. It is easier to get a better job when you have a job, then it is to find a job with NO job. UPS, Pizza delivery, season retail work, fast food - these places seem to ALWAYS have help wanted signs up - it's not likely the most glamorous work - but it is work non-the-less. SOme of these places reimburse for education, some you can work yourself into management. It is all about having a paycheck during a time when a person isnt getting one.

AS Martial Artists, hopefully the years of training (or even the first few white belt classes) help the student to see that things are not always as they seem. Relax, be patient, and let what happens happen, now make the move.

When a career path dies. Retrain, go back to school, move on. It is this simple. There are times in our life when we must take jobs we do not like, but can help pay the bills. Short term loss for the long term gain!

There are plenty of jobs for motivated individuals over the age of 40 (which includes 50, 60, 70 and yes 80). Self-defense of our welfare begins when we are able to earn for ourselves. We must safe money for down the road. We must invest money that we saved to not be a slave to the lender. We must plan for 'life' to happen (a death of a spouse, loss of job, destroyed home, etc...)

Firing someone over not wearing make-up is a bit strange, however, allowing yourself to be fired for failing to wear make-up is not good self-defense.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

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.)

I think that you might find, however, that companies are not always looking out for the "greatest good" of all employees, but "maximum profitability", which does not take employees into account. GM closed a huge money-making plant in Michigan, not because it was doing poorly, but because cheaper labor, care of NAFTA, could be found in other countries (a la Mexico). No-one was profited except the corporation, leaving people in a town that was virtually supported by this one industry to realize there was little to no work in town.

I appreciate your "go-get-'em" attitude, and the idea of financial "self-defense", but folks, especially those with kids, don't often have the opportunity to save. Some folks have medical problems that sucks up all their free funds.

Being "dumped" by your company (whether you liked them or hated them) means possibly finding a lower-paying job, if you can find one quickly. For folks I know who *need* their health insurance so they can get their meds, being without funds and without health insurance (or having to pay for COBRA) is terrifying.

And, I still hold, disloyal and crappy of a corporation to boot a long-time *good* employee, for trivial reasons like make-up. Next it'll be "your boobs are sagging, pay for a boob job or find a new job." Way to value women in the workplace.

 

[Shidan]

I think that you might find, however, that companies are not always looking out for the "greatest good" of all employees, but "maximum profitability", which does not take employees into account. GM closed a huge money-making plant in Michigan, not because it was doing poorly, but because cheaper labor, care of NAFTA, could be found in other countries (a la Mexico). No-one was profited except the corporation, leaving people in a town that was virtually supported by this one industry to realize there was little to no work in town.

I appreciate your "go-get-'em" attitude, and the idea of financial "self-defense", but folks, especially those with kids, don't often have the opportunity to save. Some folks have medical problems that sucks up all their free funds.

Being "dumped" by your company (whether you liked them or hated them) means possibly finding a lower-paying job, if you can find one quickly. For folks I know who *need* their health insurance so they can get their meds, being without funds and without health insurance (or having to pay for COBRA) is terrifying.

And, I still hold, disloyal and crappy of a corporation to boot a long-time *good* employee, for trivial reasons like make-up. Next it'll be "your boobs are sagging, pay for a boob job or find a new job." Way to value women in the workplace.

Companies do NOT need to exist for people to have jobs. Having a job because of a company is a luxury. Sometimes that luxury ends. Relying on someone else for survival is a very risky endevor -which many continue to find out.

Losing a job when while having children is difficult. However, no one evey said to have 3, 7 or 10 kids. Birth control is pretty easy to come by in the US. If its a religious thing - well, abstain and don't be selfish. Bringing children into this world and not being able to provide for them is poor self-defense. As debt begins to pile on, a person could be more likely to take up activities they normally wouldn't consider.

Paying for COBRA is better than not having any insurance at all. Looking for alternatives to being healthy and getting off medication is also an option - There are some diseases that this isn't possible, but many others are taking meds because they think they need them.

So long as people will 'do' anything for work, there will be a market for those people. There have always been women to 'entertain' men in different centuraries it was called different things, but the gist is - it happened and will continue to happen.

Frankly, working in a bar is still infringing on supporting this type of behavior. Whether or not the patrons are dressed in suits or flannel just depends upon the cost of the drinks and the size of the tips.

When companies seize to exist - moving may be the answer. Civilizations have MOVED throughout our history to areas that had 'better opportunity', better soil for planting, better water, better hunting. Moving because one losses a job need not be so emotional - it is what people have always done to survive.

 

[auxprix]

GM closed a huge money-making plant in Michigan, not because it was doing poorly, but because cheaper labor, care of NAFTA, could be found in other countries (a la Mexico). No-one was profited except the corporation, leaving people in a town that was virtually supported by this one industry to realize there was little to no work in town.

I profited. I think you did too. GM cars are more affordable for us as a result (not that I would, I'm not a huge fan of GM). But this is a discussion for a different board.


We can only make loose assumptions about this case. We can assume that she was a good employee, and followed the qualifications of her job well untill they were changed. We can not assume that she had allergies to makeup, as that probably would have been brought up in the case. Therefore, I think that we can agree that she didn't wear makeup because she didn't want to, or was unhappy with the change.

Shidan is right again. Jobs are not a right, but a privilage. It's always a two way street. Sure, her employers should know that they owe a great deal of gratitude to this woman for her service over twenty years. At the same time, she should owe her employer a certain amount of grattitude for the length of time she was employed.

So I read most of everyone's writings, and one consensis that was reached is that it was a trivial issue. I agree. It was very petty and trivial. But I find it more petty and trivial that she didn't do something so simple as apply a little makeup before work to look a little better (as her employer defines it) for the employees.

So am I a heartless bastard who refuses to see her side? No. I am surprised that there wasn't a better system in place at the company to deal with problems like this (or, perhaps there was, and she refused to go by it. Thus stubbornly refusing the policy rather than being constuctive). What I think was missing here was a dialog, where she could give her concerns and the management theirs.

-aux

 

[raedyn]

I know I'm a little late to the party with these details, but they are pertinent to this discussion and our understanding of this story.

http://www.workplacefairness.org/pblog.php

Put simply, Harrah's policy is "women must wear makeup; men can't." The policy requires women to wear foundation, concealer, or powder, blush, mascara, and to make sure that they have lip color on at all times (a challenge which has earned cosmetics manufacturers millions from women tired of constant reapplication after eating or even talking.) Not only do women have to wear all these types of makeup, but they were required to have a "makeover" by an "image consultant." Once the employee and the image consultant had devised the employee's "personal best" look, then the employee's picture would be taken, and the employee's appearance would be expected to conform to the picture each day she or he came to work.

wearing makeup made her feel sick, degraded, exposed, and violated. Jespersen felt that wearing makeup “forced her to be feminine” and to become “dolled up” like a sexual object, and that wearing makeup actually interfered with her ability to be an effective bartender (which sometimes required her to deal with unruly, intoxicated guests) because it “took away [her] credibility as an individual and as a person.”

Employers, however, can impose all kind of arcane and senseless requirements on their employees without violating the law ... What made Harrah's conduct illegal, or so Jesperson and her attorneys thought, was the difference between how female employees and male employees were treated under the Personal Best policy.

While a female employee must spend however long it takes to put on makeup in the morning, men were not required, and in fact forbidden, to wear makeup. While a female employee had to tease, curl, or style her hair every day, men only had to show up with hair trimmed above the shirt collar that was "well-groomed." Women had to paint their fingernails with clear, white, pink or red polish (very practical for employees who handle ice and must frequently wash their hands), while men were not allowed to wear colored polish. The result of Harrah's policy was that women had to spend a significant amount of time, money, and effort to meet the company's standards, while men only had to follow basic grooming and hygiene guidelines without having to "do" anything extra in order to show up for work.

http://www.nevadalabor.com/barbwire/barb00/barb10-8-00.html

Once you're photographed after your Miss Muffin Makeover, you are expected to remain that way the rest of your life. Your work clothes sizes can only be altered if you've had a boob job.Culinary Union organizer D. Taylor called the new rules "tantamount to saying working mothers need not apply."

http://www.nevadalabor.com/unews/jespersuit.html <-- the text of the federal civil rights complaint

[The casino's] policy is discriminatory per se, because it discriminates against women by (1) subjecting them to terms and conditions of employment to which men are not similarly subjected, and (2) by requiring that women conform to the sex-based stereotypes as a term and condition of employment.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

raedyn, I *heart* you.

 

[Shidan]

So find a new place of employment that is more suiting to your (her) tastes.

I wouldn't subject myself to this dress code unless I needed to keep my job (i.e. I had no other options). People can move. People can go back to school. People can hire into other companies that have different cliental and do not need this type of image.

It is Las Vegas

 

[kenpo tiger]

Again - point is, why should she have to look for work after twenty years of employment? And, why is Harrah's so darned specific about nail polish color? *One* would think that, after twenty years of employment, this woman knew what was appropriate.

The point about her having to intercede (cut off) a patron who is too intoxicated is also a good one. Credibility tends to be lost if a woman is "stereotypable" -- i.e., she's blonde so she must be dumb; she's got big boobs, so she must be dumb; she's female, so she can't possibly be stronger than a man, etc.

As Eulalie McKechnie Shinn would say -- Balzac.

PS - many thanks to Raedyn.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Shidan is right again. Jobs are not a right, but a privilage.

It's funny how people always forget that corporations are granted a charter of limited liability in return for the benefits that they provide to society, through economic stimulus and the employment of citizenry.

Instead, people now believe that their only obligation is to make profit at any cost. This is, of course, the inevitable result when capitalists control marketing and education -- who needs to understand history? It doesn't maximize shareholder value.

 

[PeachMonkey]

So find a new place of employment that is more suiting to your (her) tastes.

In these discussions, it's assumed that labor has the same level of mobility and power that employers wield.

Any analysis of the actual history of capitalism and labor should prove that this isn't the case. The necessity of the labor movement is perfect proof of this. This would require you to crack open a history book or three, however.

 

[shesulsa]

So find a new place of employment that is more suiting to your (her) tastes.

I wouldn't subject myself to this dress code unless I needed to keep my job (i.e. I had no other options). People can move. People can go back to school. People can hire into other companies that have different cliental and do not need this type of image.

It is Las Vegas

One point some might neglect is that this woman must be near 40. The older you get, the harder it is to get hired. If this woman did her job, did it well and was presentable (as opposed to drop-dead gorgeous) and followed health laws and gave good customer service and did not abuse any priveledges and was an otherwise excellent employee, there just is no good reason to fire her. There is the "grandfather clause" that discretionary administrators could have employed for her.

It's not like she's a stripper or a showgirl - she's tending a bar, NOT a rod.

 

[Bester]

Ever notice...

The guys who make these rules about women needing to wear makeup, have a 38DD bust, and killer body....

Are usually fat, need a shave, some serious hair-care tips and some deoderant as well?

 

[The Prof]

Ceicei is right, what if a women is allergic to make up? I guess that it's okay to fire them anyway. It just seems a bit unfair that after years of working there and not wearing make up she now gets fired. Obviously she must have been a good worker, she maintained her job for those years. But then, who wants good workers. It's better to have "cute" according to their standards.

I wonder what would happen if they decided that all bartenders would look better if they were bald?