MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: mu03eng on November 01, 2016, 10:13:43 AM
-
I'm starting a thread that may go down some awful paths but it'd be nice to get some feedback from the many MU professionals out there.
Let me preface this with saying I recognize how much harder it is to navigate professional attire for women than men....men essentially have 4 uniform choices polo or button down, dress pants or jeans....with some tech folks going shorts I suppose.
I have someone working for me that I've received complaints from a few coworkers(all female) that this individual(female) wears leggings with nothing that fully covers the pelvic area and that they are inappropriate. First, I don't think this employee is wearing anything I haven't seen my wife or a million other women wearing over the last couple of years out in public. The question is, is it appropriate for the employee to wear it at work?
The attire is basic black leggings with a top of some sort that comes down to the hip typically. Again, I think society has completely accepted it in the general public but should it be acceptable with the work place(Fortune 100 company in this case)? I don't like dress codes generally, but when you get some complaints, they need to be addressed one way or the other. I lean toward, no issue, but curious what others have seen or experienced.
-
I'm starting a thread that may go down some awful paths but it'd be nice to get some feedback from the many MU professionals out there.
Let me preface this with saying I recognize how much harder it is to navigate professional attire for women than men....men essentially have 4 uniform choices polo or button down, dress pants or jeans....with some tech folks going shorts I suppose.
I have someone working for me that I've received complaints from a few coworkers(all female) that this individual(female) wears leggings with nothing that fully covers the pelvic area and that they are inappropriate. First, I don't think this employee is wearing anything I haven't seen my wife or a million other women wearing over the last couple of years out in public. The question is, is it appropriate for the employee to wear it at work?
The attire is basic black leggings with a top of some sort that comes down to the hip typically. Again, I think society has completely accepted it in the general public but should it be acceptable with the work place(Fortune 100 company in this case)? I don't like dress codes generally, but when you get some complaints, they need to be addressed one way or the other. I lean toward, no issue, but curious what others have seen or experienced.
That's a tricky place to be in for you, however if you're working at a Fortune 100 company, it seems there should be a specific policy to reference or an HR department to offer guidance.
If I were the woman on your team, I'd not be too pleased that a Marquette Basketball Forum post informed your consideration of the issue.
-
That's a tricky place to be in for you, however if you're working at a Fortune 100 company, it seems there should be a specific policy to reference or an HR department to offer guidance.
If I were the woman on your team, I'd not be too pleased that a Marquette Basketball Forum post informed your consideration of the issue.
Doesn't inform my decision.....already handed off to HR, more of a curiosity with the audience then any decision I need to make.
-
Have you contacted HR about this issue? That should be your first stop. There should be an HR handbook that details the dress code. Looks like you did that.
Did you ask the women who complained WHY they feel that it is inappropriate? Did they feel it was too revealing or did they feel it was too casual?
From my own experience, I'd say that it depends on your work environment. If employees wear jeans and/or untucked shirts, leggings are probably acceptable. If employees wear suits, obviously not. Assuming your company is somewhere in between like mine is (dress pants, no tie for men) then leggings are simply not acceptable.
-
Doesn't inform my decision.....already handed off to HR, more of a curiosity with the audience then any decision I need to make.
Got it - my misunderstanding.
-
Did you ask the women who complained WHY they feel that it is inappropriate? Did they feel it was too revealing or did they feel it was too casual?
From my own experience, I'd say that it depends on your work environment. If employees wear jeans and/or untucked shirts, leggings are probably acceptable. If employees wear suits, obviously not. Assuming your company is somewhere in between like mine is (dress pants, no tie for men) then leggings are simply not acceptable.
The folks who complained said it was a coverage and a casual issue so no winning there.
The issue we have at our company and why I'm curious what other people experience is we can run the gambit of attire. We have 3000 people in the fortress I sit in with a huge range of functions from sales to coding to executive(including CEO) teams. I could walk down the hall to the cafeteria and see someone in a suit walking behind someone in shorts and a t-shirt (was even more pronounced when we had union manufacturing in the building). We have folks that are in customer facing 100% of the time and folks that don't see natural light 10 hours a day. We also have generational divides as we employee something like 400 interns in the summer and 150 year round all the way up to the exec leaders who are all in their late 50s and 60s.
-
Have you contacted HR about this issue? That should be your first stop. There should be an HR handbook that details the dress code. Looks like you did that.
Did you ask the women who complained WHY they feel that it is inappropriate? Did they feel it was too revealing or did they feel it was too casual?
From my own experience, I'd say that it depends on your work environment. If employees wear jeans and/or untucked shirts, leggings are probably acceptable. If employees wear suits, obviously not. Assuming your company is somewhere in between like mine is (dress pants, no tie for men) then leggings are simply not acceptable.
Agree.
For most people, general attire guidelines work just fine. But there are always those that want to push the envelope. I think that is an HR issue rather than something that Eng should have to deal with.
It may be a good idea for him to have a conversation with this person (depending on her personality) about what she is wearing and the complaints against her, but if this is a person who is already trying to move the boundaries, that could also lead to male / female complications (a man telling a women what is appropriate for her to wear), so it is much better to turn it over to HR.
-
If these are her co-workers, I wouldn't even listen to their complaints. My response would be "I think what she is wearing is appropriate" if that's indeed how you feel about it.
If this were a work related issue than I have no problem with it. But a dress code issue? Blah. Tell them to get to work and forget about it.
-
The folks who complained said it was a coverage and a casual issue so no winning there.
I assume that HR will deal with this but if it's left up to you, I'd go with the "too casual" angle. Leave "too revealing" out of the equation, if possible. Also, bring a female employee into the room with you when having the conversation, ideally from HR or just a higher-up with whom you have a good working relationship. These situations are uncomfortable and you don't want to things to veer down a messy road.
I dealt with a situation a couple summers ago where an employee's clothes were a little too snug and revealing and we got some complaints. The HR Director (female) and I had a brief conversation with her in which she began bawling because she had gained 20 pounds over the winter but couldn't afford to buy all new clothes. Man, was I glad that wasn't a one-on-one conversation!
-
If these are her co-workers, I wouldn't even listen to their complaints. My response would be "I think what she is wearing is appropriate" if that's indeed how you feel about it.
If this were a work related issue than I have no problem with it. But a dress code issue? Blah. Tell them to get to work and forget about it.
Yeah I turned it all over to HR cause it's just not worth trying to get involved at all(besides what the hell else is HR good for).
Chain of command complicates it all as well as only one of the complainers report to me, the rest report to someone else so my ability to tell people to go pound sound is limited. ;D
Let me say this, at the end of the day, I'm super glad I'm not a woman who has to play the corporate attire game.
-
First, whoever convinced women that yoga pants were appropriate for every day attire should be canonized.
Next, it basically comes down to the workplace and the HR rules. People are always going to push the envelope, so whatever is decided needs to be enforced.
-
Isn't there a designated Scooper to send in to Eng03 to verify the leggings pelvic coverage.......?
-
Isn't there a designated Scooper to send in to Eng03 to verify the leggings pelvic coverage.......?
In that regard, I'm surprised we've gone this long without a "pictures or nothing" post from Keefe or 4ever.
Does anyone here know what HR generalists make with just a couple years of experience? Six-fu@king-figures. These (mostly) ladies are well-compensated because they are trained to deal with these issues in a professional and - more importantly - defensible manner. But when the 5-o'clock whistle blows, nobody parties harder than HR. Point is, the issue of how women dress in the workplace is not one that any of us should tackle or even entertain unless specifically trained to do so. If you have employees who report to you that bring up complaints, the best thing to do is to defer. D-E-F-E-R, DEFER, period. Whether that involves a "I'll document your complaint and turn it over to HR" or the popular "this is above my paygrade" or a flat out "not my problem, take it up with HR," make it very clear that you ARE NOT the arbiter of such matters (even if you are, sometimes), and let the folks in HR deal with it.
That said, not everyone has the benefit of a competent HR dept. It's difficult to be a manager, and this is a great example of why; you can't simply take a utilitarian approach and you can't do nothing... so you have to do a little politicking and relationship building (as MM alluded to) behind the scenes so that everyone feels like the issue has been addressed without anyone feeling like they were singled out. What it boils down to is every workplace is different; there is no universal solution, and every manager has to assess their own personnel and culture in order to make a decision. So I defer back to you, Eng on what you believe is the most defensible approach.
In other words, if you need to tell someone to cover their six, make sure you're covering your own.
-
In that regard, I'm surprised we've gone this long without a "pictures or nothing" post from Keefe or 4ever.
Does anyone here know what HR generalists make with just a couple years of experience? Six-fu@king-figures. These (mostly) ladies are well-compensated because they are trained to deal with these issues in a professional and - more importantly - defensible manner. But when the 5-o'clock whistle blows, nobody parties harder than HR. Point is, the issue of how women dress in the workplace is not one that any of us should tackle or even entertain unless specifically trained to do so. If you have employees who report to you that bring up complaints, the best thing to do is to defer. D-E-F-E-R, DEFER, period. Whether that involves a "I'll document your complaint and turn it over to HR" or the popular "this is above my paygrade" or a flat out "not my problem, take it up with HR," make it very clear that you ARE NOT the arbiter of such matters (even if you are, sometimes), and let the folks in HR deal with it.
That said, not everyone has the benefit of a competent HR dept. It's difficult to be a manager, and this is a great example of why; you can't simply take a utilitarian approach and you can't do nothing... so you have to do a little politicking and relationship building (as MM alluded to) behind the scenes so that everyone feels like the issue has been addressed without anyone feeling like they were singled out. What it boils down to is every workplace is different; there is no universal solution, and every manager has to assess their own personnel and culture in order to make a decision. So I defer back to you, Eng on what you believe is the most defensible approach.
In other words, if you need to tell someone to cover their six, make sure you're covering your own.
A) are we sure Keefe isn't dead, I rewrote the original post about 6 different times with him and 4ever in mind to at least it make it harder for them to go off the reservation
B) Your approach is 100% my method of operation when it comes to this stuff and it really annoys me. Everything with being a people manager is almost certainly a trap and almost never ends well for the manager. Only reason I take these types of jobs is it's the easiest way to set strategy and minimize the executional bull$hit.
C) HR salaries are what they are because the fox is guarding the hen house. Want to know the best compensated, filthiest, most inappropriate person in your organization...find your HR rep.
D)Deflecting to your HR rep has it's own hazards....no issue is ever minefield free.
How did we get here as a society? :o
-
A) are we sure Keefe isn't dead, I rewrote the original post about 6 different times with him and 4ever in mind to at least it make it harder for them to go off the reservation
B) Your approach is 100% my method of operation when it comes to this stuff and it really annoys me. Everything with being a people manager is almost certainly a trap and almost never ends well for the manager. Only reason I take these types of jobs is it's the easiest way to set strategy and minimize the executional bull$hit.
C) HR salaries are what they are because the fox is guarding the hen house. Want to know the best compensated, filthiest, most inappropriate person in your organization...find your HR rep.
D)Deflecting to your HR rep has it's own hazards....no issue is ever minefield free.
How did we get here as a society? :o
I blame the lawyers. HR reps would probably be a close second, though I don't agree with the assertion of the fox guarding the henhouse is truly the issue there... they are standing guard, but not with nefarious intentions. Keep in mind that these HR folks are regularly the difference between a $10,000 severance package and a $10,000,000 discrimination suit. When you consider the potential cost of not having an HR team that's good at what they do, HR is more important to the company's bottom line than the sales department on a $4$ basis.
And I agree... I absolutely deplore the fact that my ability to manage through personal interaction is oft complicated by the legal ramifications of showing a little empathy from time to time.
-
In that regard, I'm surprised we've gone this long without a "pictures or nothing" post from Keefe or 4ever.
Does anyone here know what HR generalists make with just a couple years of experience? Six-fu@king-figures. These (mostly) ladies are well-compensated because they are trained to deal with these issues in a professional and - more importantly - defensible manner. But when the 5-o'clock whistle blows, nobody parties harder than HR. Point is, the issue of how women dress in the workplace is not one that any of us should tackle or even entertain unless specifically trained to do so. If you have employees who report to you that bring up complaints, the best thing to do is to defer. D-E-F-E-R, DEFER, period. Whether that involves a "I'll document your complaint and turn it over to HR" or the popular "this is above my paygrade" or a flat out "not my problem, take it up with HR," make it very clear that you ARE NOT the arbiter of such matters (even if you are, sometimes), and let the folks in HR deal with it.
That said, not everyone has the benefit of a competent HR dept. It's difficult to be a manager, and this is a great example of why; you can't simply take a utilitarian approach and you can't do nothing... so you have to do a little politicking and relationship building (as MM alluded to) behind the scenes so that everyone feels like the issue has been addressed without anyone feeling like they were singled out. What it boils down to is every workplace is different; there is no universal solution, and every manager has to assess their own personnel and culture in order to make a decision. So I defer back to you, Eng on what you believe is the most defensible approach.
In other words, if you need to tell someone to cover their six, make sure you're covering your own.
I took 2 things from this:
1. All of the HR people I've ever worked with are incredibly incompetent and incredibly overpaid
2. (Some/most?) women in the workplace make it a hellacious atmosphere. Cliques, talking behind others' backs, ratting people out, gossiping, etc. All of those things are 10x worse when women outnumber men in any job I've ever had.
Yes. I am aware that both of the above are broad-strokes statements.
-
I blame the lawyers. HR reps would probably be a close second, though I don't agree with the assertion of the fox guarding the henhouse is truly the issue there... they are standing guard, but not with nefarious intentions. Keep in mind that these HR folks are regularly the difference between a $10,000 severance package and a $10,000,000 discrimination suit. When you consider the potential cost of not having an HR team that's good at what they do, HR is more important to the company's bottom line than the sales department on a $4$ basis.
And I agree... I absolutely deplore the fact that my ability to manage through personal interaction is oft complicated by the legal ramifications of showing a little empathy from time to time.
I'm one of those lawyers who represents employers and makes things so difficult for you. If I've learned one thing in 20 years of doing this, it's that no good deed goes unpunished. Sadly -- and I really mean that...it's very sad -- showing a little empathy can be extraordinarily expensive. Often, it works out great. But honestly, the majority of lawsuits I've defended over the years can be traced back to somebody trying to do someone a favor and having it come back to bite them in the ass.
/Disclaimer: doing this for 20 years has made me a cynical SOB as it relates to employees. People only call me about the bad ones.
-
2. (Some/most?) women in the workplace make it a hellacious atmosphere. Cliques, talking behind others' backs, ratting people out, gossiping, etc. All of those things are 10x worse when women outnumber men in any job I've ever had.
It probably is 10x worse for women.
For a man working with a majority of women (it was about 75% women in my last job), it was much easier than working with the macho crap when it is all or mostly all male.
Surprisingly, in my last job, I was also involved in more conversations regarding some aspect of sex more often than when I worked in mostly male workplaces.
-
It probably is 10x worse for women.
For a man working with a majority of women (it was about 75% women in my last job), it was much easier than working with the macho crap when it is all or mostly all male.
Surprisingly, in my last job, I was also involved in more conversations regarding some aspect of sex more often than when I worked in mostly male workplaces.
That's probably true.
Guess I'd prefer my workplace with a little vulgarity vs having to watch my back at all times and having to play politics so often
-
I have someone working for me... (who) wears leggings with nothing that fully covers the pelvic area
Can you get some recce photos of this in order for us to conduct proper BDA?
-
We need input from our resident expert, Chick.
-
She's typing feverishly on her laptop right now. Not sure the thread.
;D
-
Wow fellas, you sure have given me a lot to work with here. Let me start by telling you my background regarding this subject. I have been a woman for most of my life. I have been in the professional workforce for more than 30 years. I have worked in environments from super stuffy (Big 8 accounting firm in the '80's) to super casual (HR person wearing Daisy Dukes in the summer). I have had HR departments report to me, including one that had 5000 employees in all 50 states and had five different unions, so I have seen nearly every HR issue imaginable.
I'm starting a thread that may go down some awful paths but it'd be nice to get some feedback from the many MU professionals out there.
Let me preface this with saying I recognize how much harder it is to navigate professional attire for women than men....men essentially have 4 uniform choices polo or button down, dress pants or jeans....with some tech folks going shorts I suppose.
I have someone working for me that I've received complaints from a few coworkers(all female) that this individual(female) wears leggings with nothing that fully covers the pelvic area and that they are inappropriate. First, I don't think this employee is wearing anything I haven't seen my wife or a million other women wearing over the last couple of years out in public. The question is, is it appropriate for the employee to wear it at work?
The attire is basic black leggings with a top of some sort that comes down to the hip typically. Again, I think society has completely accepted it in the general public but should it be acceptable with the work place(Fortune 100 company in this case)? I don't like dress codes generally, but when you get some complaints, they need to be addressed one way or the other. I lean toward, no issue, but curious what others have seen or experienced.
First of all, leggings were never designed to have the torso portion showing when being worn. They are designed to be paired with either a long shirt or sweater, a skirt, or even a long jacket if you keep it buttoned. If your heinie or hooha are exposed, you are not wearing them appropriately. They are not pants. They are basically heavy-gauge tights without feet.
Are they professional? No outfit that gives you cameltoe or clings to your buttcheeks is professional. That being said, any company that does not have a dress code expressly forbidding leggings will have a hard time telling that person she cannot wear them. Of course, if this woman is generally viewed in the office as unprofessional in her dress, it could potentially affect her career. Her only saving grace might be if she is an engineer, because everyone knows that engineers don't know how to dress themselves.
If I were the head of that HR department and decided to deal with it, I would take her aside and simply let her know that there have been some complaints from female co-workers about her mode of dress, and that I wanted her to be aware of it for her own benefit. I would emphasize that there was nothing specific in the dress code that prevents her from wearing leggings with a short top, but there are folks in the office (myself included) that believe that it is not a professional look. I would have the same conversation with a guy who wore camouflage cargo shorts to work.
-
Does anyone here know what HR generalists make with just a couple years of experience? Six-fu@king-figures. T
Um, yeah, can you point me to some actual statistics that say that? Because most HR folks I know (including the ones I have hired) that make that kind of dough have more like a couple of decades of experience, have supervisory and policy-making responsibilities, and often have a graduate degree.
An HR generalist with a couple of years of experience? Closer to $40-$45K.
-
First, whoever convinced women that yoga pants were appropriate for every day attire should be canonized.
Next, it basically comes down to the workplace and the HR rules. People are always going to push the envelope, so whatever is decided needs to be enforced.
I love yoga pants, on da right broad, hey?
-
Need pics
-
Eng, I'm particularly pleased that my delightful wife got in a dig to you types from across campus on 16th & WI. ;D
-
In that regard, I'm surprised we've gone this long without a "pictures or nothing" post from Keefe or 4ever.
Does anyone here know what HR generalists make with just a couple years of experience? Six-fu@king-figures.
Um, no.
-
Need pics
If you insist:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/09/3f/1e/093f1e746301288454565ebf970c50bd.jpg)
-
Wow fellas, you sure have given me a lot to work with here. Let me start by telling you my background regarding this subject. I have been a woman for most of my life. I have been in the professional workforce for more than 30 years. I have worked in environments from super stuffy (Big 8 accounting firm in the '80's) to super casual (HR person wearing Daisy Dukes in the summer). I have had HR departments report to me, including one that had 5000 employees in all 50 states and had five different unions, so I have seen nearly every HR issue imaginable.
First of all, leggings were never designed to have the torso portion showing when being worn. They are designed to be paired with either a long shirt or sweater, a skirt, or even a long jacket if you keep it buttoned. If your heinie are hooha are exposed, you are not wearing them appropriately. They are not pants. They are basically heavy-gauge tights without feet.
Are they professional? No outfit that gives you cameltoe or clings to your buttcheeks is professional. That being said, any company that does not have a dress code expressly forbidding leggings will have a hard time telling that person she cannot wear them. Of course, if this woman is generally viewed in the office as unprofessional in her dress, it could potentially affect her career. Her only saving grace might be if she is an engineer, because everyone knows that engineers don't know how to dress themselves.
If I were the head of that HR department and decided to deal with it, I would take her aside and simply let her know that there have been some complaints from female co-workers about her mode of dress, and that I wanted her to be aware of it for her own benefit. I would emphasize that there was nothing specific in the dress code that prevents her from wearing leggings with a short top, but there are folks in the office (myself included) that believe that it is not a professional look. I would have the same conversation with a guy who wore camouflage cargo shorts to work.
Good advice Chick
I guarantee, you haven't seen it all.
-
Good advice Chick
I guarantee, you haven't seen it all.
Yep, I am working for a stuffy medical society now, so the stories aren't nearly as good as when I was the CFO of one of the largest privately-owned janitorial firms in the country.
-
It's amazing what people will film, put on a thumb drive, and play on their computer.
And that's the mild stuff.
-
It's amazing what people will film, put on a thumb drive, and play on their computer.
And that's the mild stuff.
I caught our HR director embezzling. Good times.
-
That's mild. Meh
-
Need pics
Nothin' worse den a broad rockin' yoga pants with panty lines showin', hey? If ya don't have the balls ta go sans bloomers, just don't even put da suckers on, hey?
-
The outfits tend to be closest to the maybe picture
(http://www.reviewfithealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/how-to-wear-leggings.jpg)
-
Talking to some of my female friends, I think there is a disconnection between what they think yoga pants do and what they do. It does not suddenly make your ass look better, it just is a sluttier outfit. I still appreciate it but two different things.
-
Eng, I'm particularly pleased that my delightful wife got in a dig to you types from across campus on 16th & WI. ;D
Listen, lets not go giving her a ticker tape parade just yet.....in a battle of wits my people are unarmed. ;)
-
Talking to some of my female friends, I think there is a disconnection between what they think yoga pants do and what they do. It does not suddenly make your ass look better, it just is a sluttier outfit. I still appreciate it but two different things.
Keep in mind that yoga pants and leggings are two different things....close cousins by my understanding but different nonetheless
-
Talking to some of my female friends, I think there is a disconnection between what they think yoga pants do and what they do. It does not suddenly make your ass look better, it just is a sluttier outfit. I still appreciate it but two different things.
It depends on the ass.
-
It depends on the ass.
That response is a universal truism regardless of the conversation topic.
-
Nothin' better den a well sculptured female ass, ai na?
-
I have someone working for me that I've received complaints from a few coworkers(all female) that this individual(female) wears leggings with nothing that fully covers the pelvic area and that they are inappropriate.
(http://picture-cdn.wheretoget.it/u27iew-l.jpg)
-
Now yer talkin', bro, hey?
-
I'm one of those lawyers who represents employers and makes things so difficult for you. If I've learned one thing in 20 years of doing this, it's that no good deed goes unpunished. Sadly -- and I really mean that...it's very sad -- showing a little empathy can be extraordinarily expensive. Often, it works out great. But honestly, the majority of lawsuits I've defended over the years can be traced back to somebody trying to do someone a favor and having it come back to bite them in the ass.
/Disclaimer: doing this for 20 years has made me a cynical SOB as it relates to employees. People only call me about the bad ones.
I should have qualified... I blame the plaintiffs' lawyers. You're cool. Sure, I don't like it when all y'all be getting up in my kool aid, but at the end of the day, I know who you're working for. 67% of my job is risk management... if not for you guys, I wouldn't be able to spend 5-75% of the other 33% slumming around here.
-
Are they professional? No outfit that gives you cameltoe or clings to your buttcheeks is professional.
Depends on one's profession I should think
-
The outfits tend to be closest to the maybe picture
(http://www.reviewfithealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/how-to-wear-leggings.jpg)
Basic rule of thumb: If the answer to "Is this a professional look?" is "maybe", default to "no".
-
Basic rule of thumb: If the answer to "Is this a professional look?" is "maybe", default to "no".
I'll take it a step further... Every man and woman still working in a Fortune 100/500/1000 workplace after their first 60-90 days knows damn well what is acceptable and what is not. There is no maybe... those who choose to push the envelope are either trying to draw attention to themselves or make a statement, period*. Those who have a blatant disregard for standards, i.e. lack attention to detail, aren't going to make it past the probationary period.
* Except in cases where the stereotypical "personal secretary," i.e. those ladies who are being paid to cross the line, is sitting outside the C-suite that is still occupied by filth... but their days are numbered in the business world. Oh, and maybe the tooth jockeys, too... probably should make an exception there as well.
-
Basic rule of thumb: If the answer to "Is this a professional look?" is "maybe", default to "no".
My wife worse something today that was in the first "yes" picture category. She looked damn good.
-
Basic rule of thumb: If the answer to "Is this a professional look?" is "maybe", default to "no".
I tend to believe that if a person genuinely wonders if his/her look is professional, the answer is almost always going to be "no."
-
Basic rule of thumb: If the answer to "Is this a professional look?" is "maybe", default to "no".
I tend to think the people who are in the no or maybe category aren't even asking the question.
-
I'll take it a step further... Every man and woman still working in a Fortune 100/500/1000 workplace after their first 60-90 days knows damn well what is acceptable and what is not. There is no maybe... those who choose to push the envelope are either trying to draw attention to themselves or make a statement, period*. Those who have a blatant disregard for standards, i.e. lack attention to detail, aren't going to make it past the probationary period.
* Except in cases where the stereotypical "personal secretary," i.e. those ladies who are being paid to cross the line, is sitting outside the C-suite that is still occupied by filth... but their days are numbered in the business world. Oh, and maybe the tooth jockeys, too... probably should make an exception there as well.
Dunno, society is changing and impacting the workplace as well in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't. Casual wear is getting to be closer and closer to the norm in the workplace because it's nearly universal outside of the workplace. Don't get me wrong, if I thought it would have zero impact on how I was perceived and/or treated in the workplace I would be the first guy in the office in cargo shorts, t-shirt and ball cap. However, I find that almost universally I'm "over dressed" for the setting. My wife gives me a hard time when we go to a musical or classier event and I put on "slacks and a sport coat"...always asks when I'm getting my gold sweater vest. No matter how much I hate the clothes I'd much rather be the overdressed person than the underdressed person. I think we've gotten to the point in society where the majority fit in the underdressed category.
I blame my mother for making me wear nice clothes to church and/or any concert event I went with them to.
*not a value judgement, just an observation
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O47HASywXnU
-
Dunno, society is changing and impacting the workplace as well in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't. Casual wear is getting to be closer and closer to the norm in the workplace because it's nearly universal outside of the workplace. Don't get me wrong, if I thought it would have zero impact on how I was perceived and/or treated in the workplace I would be the first guy in the office in cargo shorts, t-shirt and ball cap. However, I find that almost universally I'm "over dressed" for the setting. My wife gives me a hard time when we go to a musical or classier event and I put on "slacks and a sport coat"...always asks when I'm getting my gold sweater vest. No matter how much I hate the clothes I'd much rather be the overdressed person than the underdressed person. I think we've gotten to the point in society where the majority fit in the underdressed category.
I blame my mother for making me wear nice clothes to church and/or any concert event I went with them to.
*not a value judgement, just an observation
The downward spiral all started when MU dropped the dress code in '68 requiring us "gents" to wear Jackets and ties for dinner.
-
The downward spiral all started when MU dropped the dress code in '68 requiring us "gents" to wear Jackets and ties for dinner.
No, when it really went to hell is when coeds were allowed to wear slacks to class.
-
I'm always better dressed than my peers, but I attribute that to habits from high school. I had to wear a sport coat and a tie everyday except those very occasional casual days which meant khakis & a polo shirt. The Brother's would come down hard on any dress code violation, especially jeans!
-
I'm always better dressed than my peers, but I attribute that to habits from high school. I had to wear a sport coat and a tie everyday except those very occasional casual days which meant khakis & a polo shirt. The Brother's would come down hard on any dress code violation, especially jeans!
I went to ND Fairfield and I once got a detention because my shirt didn't match my tie!
That was from a layperson teacher, too. To be fair to the teacher, I wore a plaid shirt and had a solid tie in my locker, but my older brother (we knew each other's locker combination) forgot to bring a tie and borrowed it before I got to school, leaving me with only a patterned one, so it was pretty bad.
-
I went to ND Fairfield and I once got a detention because my shirt didn't match my tie!
That was from a layperson teacher, too. To be fair to the teacher, I wore a plaid shirt and had a solid tie in my locker, but my older brother (we knew each other's locker combination) forgot to bring a tie and borrowed it before I got to school, leaving me with only a patterned one, so it was pretty bad.
(http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kr3lbo4BRA1qzhiqwo1_1280.png)
Sounds pretty serious
-
(http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kr3lbo4BRA1qzhiqwo1_1280.png)
Sounds pretty serious
Back in the day it was.
-
I have been a woman for most of my life.
Chick, since we've met before, I would say that given the above statement, that's quite a re-engineering job.
On the broader question of workplace attire, I'm an old-schooler. You go to work to work. You respect the environment you are in and you dress for the success you hope to have. I'm a big believer that men in the workplace should dress conservatively, leave the jeans, tank tops, shorts and clothing with advertisements at home. I admit, I wear my suits to work most days, but I am communicating something when I do -- I'm dead serious. Take note you Millennials!
For women, trying to be provocative in a workplace environment is a bad idea. A very bad idea. I understand the individualism associated with a personal statement, especially for women, but the clothing one wears sends a message about who you are and to what you aspire to be. I'm an old-schooler here in that I believe women should be professional and conservative in how they present themselves. You can still be elegant, but the elegance doesn't mean dressing for the pick-up bar or evening cocktail party.
The feminine workplace rule is why I sometimes grimace at what I see on television in Chicago. I don't pretend I don't like some of it, but a professional, serious image is not enhanced by an anchor whose cleavage real estate is fully opened to the sunshine or a weatherwoman who has a Size 3 figure and wears a Size 0 dress!
-
So watt you're really sayin' is, one doesn't chit in da same place dey eat, ai na?
-
I went to ND Fairfield and I once got a detention because my shirt didn't match my tie!
That was from a layperson teacher, too. To be fair to the teacher, I wore a plaid shirt and had a solid tie in my locker, but my older brother (we knew each other's locker combination) forgot to bring a tie and borrowed it before I got to school, leaving me with only a patterned one, so it was pretty bad.
Being the 80's and all, the brother who ran the bookstore, Brother Benjamin, was notorious for grabbing students by the sport coat collar and yanking them into the bookstore because their collars were turned up.
-
I'm always better dressed than my peers, but I attribute that to habits from high school. I had to wear a sport coat and a tie everyday except those very occasional casual days which meant khakis & a polo shirt. The Brother's would come down hard on any dress code violation, especially jeans!
dgies will appreciate this - at our high school (at least during the time I attended), there was a very strict dress code for the girls, including a the requisite uniform plaid skirt. The guy's dress code was any kind of non-jean pants, any kind of collared shirt, and a tie - in any color combo. I remember receiving a detention for wearing a navy track jacket instead of a navy cardigan sweater, and in order to hand me the detention slip, the teacher walked past a guy wearing a leopard-print tie, striped shirt, and plaid pants.
-
dgies will appreciate this - at our high school (at least during the time I attended), there was a very strict dress code for the girls, including a the requisite uniform plaid skirt. The guy's dress code was any kind of non-jean pants, any kind of collared shirt, and a tie - in any color combo. I remember receiving a detention for wearing a navy track jacket instead of a navy cardigan sweater, and in order to hand me the detention slip, the teacher walked past a guy wearing a leopard-print tie, striped shirt, and plaid pants.
In elementary school (public school in Ohio) the only real dress code was that boys couldn't wear shorts after October 15th and before April 15th. One year we got a week in late March where is was super hot but the school refused to allow boys to wear shorts. I happened to notice that girls were allowed to wear skirts and dresses. This was an outrage, AN OUTRAGE I TELL YOU, so I organized a group of friends to circumvent the no shorts rule....we all wore skirts one day because there was no rule against that for boys.
The no shorts time frame disappeared the following year for some reason.
-
dgies will appreciate this - at our high school (at least during the time I attended), there was a very strict dress code for the girls, including a the requisite uniform plaid skirt. The guy's dress code was any kind of non-jean pants, any kind of collared shirt, and a tie - in any color combo. I remember receiving a detention for wearing a navy track jacket instead of a navy cardigan sweater, and in order to hand me the detention slip, the teacher walked past a guy wearing a leopard-print tie, striped shirt, and plaid pants.
You are right Chick, I laughed pretty hard. Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- ever accused Father Ryan students of having good taste.
You got detention? No work crew? Geeze, life was a whole lot easier when you were there. Work crew when I was there was the Father Ryan version of the chain gang and students who broke even the most menial of rules ended up collecting trash, cleaning bathrooms, sweeping or any other menial job the proctor could heap on us.
But Chick, you did not commit the sin for which you would be sent to confession and then condemned to hell -- being a young woman with a skirt of inadequate length. As judged by Murray Lynch and/or Sister John!!!!!
-
I liked this flick and it is somewhat on topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU3Xban0Y6A
-
dgies will appreciate this - at our high school (at least during the time I attended), there was a very strict dress code for the girls, including a the requisite uniform plaid skirt. The guy's dress code was any kind of non-jean pants, any kind of collared shirt, and a tie - in any color combo. I remember receiving a detention for wearing a navy track jacket instead of a navy cardigan sweater, and in order to hand me the detention slip, the teacher walked past a guy wearing a leopard-print tie, striped shirt, and plaid pants.
Elementary school for boys was blue slacks or corduroys, and a collared white, yellow or light blue shirt. Same shirts for the girls with the ubiquitous plaid skirt (or jumper up to 4th grade), though they had the pants option anytime Nov-Feb or when temps were expected to be below 32degF. High school was solid color pants or skirt (for the girls), no denim except on two Fridays/month, and a collared shirt of any color/colors provided there were no pictures, writing, characters, etc. and no logos bigger than 1". If you were on a varsity or JV team, those boys wore a tie & girls wore either a dress or slacks & blouse on game day. A couple here and there bent the rules (sometimes involuntarily), but the teachers/admin were pretty lax in enforcement. I never saw anyone ever reprimanded for dress code violation, but nobody really pushed the envelope either. There was one rule, however, that no one dared violate: no shorts, ever, not even on "free" or "dress down" days.
Imagine my surprise going to the uniform sale for my kids and being handed a pair of shorts for my son; in retrospect, the lady behind the table must have thought I was an idiot when I held up - what was obviously a pair of boys' shorts - and said "what's this for?" "They're shorts." Indeed they were shorts.... shorts, mind you, which the kids are allowed to wear anytime throughout the year (a right which I oft see exercised by the 7th and 8th graders when there's fresh snow on the ground).
-
You are right Chick, I laughed pretty hard. Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- ever accused Father Ryan students of having good taste.
You got detention? No work crew? Geeze, life was a whole lot easier when you were there. Work crew when I was there was the Father Ryan version of the chain gang and students who broke even the most menial of rules ended up collecting trash, cleaning bathrooms, sweeping or any other menial job the proctor could heap on us.
But Chick, you did not commit the sin for which you would be sent to confession and then condemned to hell -- being a young woman with a skirt of inadequate length. As judged by Murray Lynch and/or Sister John!!!!!
Oh, we still had work crew. Don't forget that included sweeping cigarette butts off the smoking porch (my kids don't believe me that you were allowed to smoke at school - at a Catholic school on top of it). As a general rule, that assignment seemed fair since most of the smokers were delinquents.
And as I recall I didn't have to actually serve on work crew for my violation. I must have been able to successfully point out the injustice inherent in our dress code.
Speaking of Murray Lynch, one of my very good friends wound up marrying John Murray Lynch III. They had all sons, of course. But surprisingly, no JML IV.
-
Back in my day we were required to wear jackets at all times and especially to Mass!
If Scotty would spend more time running the damn school and less time crafting weepy love poems there would be an adherence to the time-honored traditions!
(https://www.gprep.org/uploaded/images/home/home-photo-rotation/homepage5a.jpg)
-
I'm starting a thread that may go down some awful paths but it'd be nice to get some feedback from the many MU professionals out there.
Let me preface this with saying I recognize how much harder it is to navigate professional attire for women than men....men essentially have 4 uniform choices polo or button down, dress pants or jeans....with some tech folks going shorts I suppose.
I have someone working for me that I've received complaints from a few coworkers(all female) that this individual(female) wears leggings with nothing that fully covers the pelvic area and that they are inappropriate. First, I don't think this employee is wearing anything I haven't seen my wife or a million other women wearing over the last couple of years out in public. The question is, is it appropriate for the employee to wear it at work?
The attire is basic black leggings with a top of some sort that comes down to the hip typically. Again, I think society has completely accepted it in the general public but should it be acceptable with the work place(Fortune 100 company in this case)? I don't like dress codes generally, but when you get some complaints, they need to be addressed one way or the other. I lean toward, no issue, but curious what others have seen or experienced.
My view is employees can wear what they want to work if they are strictly internal. All I care about is that they get the job done effectively and efficiently. So I would say yes to the leggings and ignore the commentary from the peanut gallery.
The minute employees go external they need to be professionally and conservatively dressed. The only exception to the external rule is if your in a hipster creative flow dominated industry. In that case being conservatively attired is a liability.
-
I'm starting a thread that may go down some awful paths but it'd be nice to get some feedback from the many MU professionals out there.
Navy
In all seriousness I think that wardrobe standards depend on industry and region.
In the PNW, where tech and west coast mores dominate, business casual means something very different than in the Midwest, East Coast, and the South.
Around MSFT, Amazon, Google, f5, and their myriad of spin offs the norm in summer is shorts and flip flops and fleece the rest of the year.
What you cite as a potential workplace dress code issue in Milwaukee is accepted in Seattle. Women in law firms wear tights to the office. (And God help anyone who tries to tell an employee that tights are unacceptable work wear.)
What plays in Seattle might not fly in Milwaukee.
-
What plays in Seattle might not fly in Milwaukee.
No S*it!!!!
Your work attire, sorry Millennials, shows respect for the people around you. You come in in flip flops and shorts and you're not respecting your job. You are not conveying seriousness.
If I'm a techie and want to stay a Techie First Class, then I dress down and look like Maynard Ferguson from Dobie Gillis. But if I want to run the whole enchilada someday, I dress like it and act like it.
Success is a holistic concept. Everything you say. Everything you do. Everyway in which you present yourself signals your commitment to success. Period.
-
No S*it!!!!
Your work attire, sorry Millennials, shows respect for the people around you. You come in in flip flops and shorts and you're not respecting your job. You are not conveying seriousness.
If I'm a techie and want to stay a Techie First Class, then I dress down and look like Maynard Ferguson from Dobie Gillis. But if I want to run the whole enchilada someday, I dress like it and act like it.
Success is a holistic concept. Everything you say. Everything you do. Everyway in which you present yourself signals your commitment to success. Period.
And get off this guy's lawn!
But seriously, I don't think you understood Keefe's posts at all.
-
And get off this guy's lawn!
But seriously, I don't think you understood Keefe's posts at all.
I did. I do a lot of work in California and the PNW and I've very much seen what Keefe is talking about. But what I tried to say was that if you want to rot in a techie Jungle, then OK, dress like you are going to the beach. But even out west, if you want to grow beyond a specialist or low level management, I don't think ultra casual flies.
I just don't think you can dress casual and grow to an executive suite. Admittedly Milwaukee and Chicago is much more button-down than Seattle.
-
This is a great thread and is exactly why I enjoy working outside the US, in developing countries. I have had the pleasure in my management career of:
- buying deodorant for a young lady in the office and explaining how it's used
- moving a guy's desk because the others complained about how much he farted
- detected an undiagnosed diabetic (and probably saved his life - according to him) by counseling him about bad breath and then finding his other issues were straight from the diabetes diagnosis tree
- detecting a severe dyslexic and getting him into remedial lessons for reading which enabled him to move from a technical job all they way into management where he belonged based on his intellect and capability
- handing a guy his bonus check and telling him that 50% of it needed to go to his wardrobe or his career would be limited because he came to work looking like a slob
... all without ever needing to bother with HR. All quick, immediate solutions and all well received because they were delivered privately and in the right way. I could never work in the hyper political and litigious USA office environment... ugh.
-
No S*it!!!!
Your work attire, sorry Millennials, shows respect for the people around you. You come in in flip flops and shorts and you're not respecting your job. You are not conveying seriousness.
If I'm a techie and want to stay a Techie First Class, then I dress down and look like Maynard Ferguson from Dobie Gillis. But if I want to run the whole enchilada someday, I dress like it and act like it.
Success is a holistic concept. Everything you say. Everything you do. Everyway in which you present yourself signals your commitment to success. Period.
Sorry, you clearly are not old enough. It was Maynard G. Krebs (played by Bob Denver, who went onto Gilligan fame). Maynard Ferguson was a Jazz artist.
-
This is a great thread and is exactly why I enjoy working outside the US, in developing countries. I have had the pleasure in my management career of:
- buying deodorant for a young lady in the office and explaining how it's used
- moving a guy's desk because the others complained about how much he farted
- detected an undiagnosed diabetic (and probably saved his life - according to him) by counseling him about bad breath and then finding his other issues were straight from the diabetes diagnosis tree
- detecting a severe dyslexic and getting him into remedial lessons for reading which enabled him to move from a technical job all they way into management where he belonged based on his intellect and capability
- handing a guy his bonus check and telling him that 50% of it needed to go to his wardrobe or his career would be limited because he came to work looking like a slob
... all without ever needing to bother with HR. All quick, immediate solutions and all well received because they were delivered privately and in the right way. I could never work in the hyper political and litigious USA office environment... ugh.
[/quote
Ever hand out any condoms ta da dudes, hey?
-
This is a great thread and is exactly why I enjoy working outside the US, in developing countries. I have had the pleasure in my management career of:
- buying deodorant for a young lady in the office and explaining how it's used
- moving a guy's desk because the others complained about how much he farted
- detected an undiagnosed diabetic (and probably saved his life - according to him) by counseling him about bad breath and then finding his other issues were straight from the diabetes diagnosis tree
- detecting a severe dyslexic and getting him into remedial lessons for reading which enabled him to move from a technical job all they way into management where he belonged based on his intellect and capability
- handing a guy his bonus check and telling him that 50% of it needed to go to his wardrobe or his career would be limited because he came to work looking like a slob
... all without ever needing to bother with HR. All quick, immediate solutions and all well received because they were delivered privately and in the right way. I could never work in the hyper political and litigious USA office environment... ugh.
I bet you also got rid of nonperformers without going through a 30-step Performance Improvement Plan as well. Talk about a flipping waste of time....
-
Back in my day we were required to wear jackets at all times and especially to Mass!
If Scotty would spend more time running the damn school and less time crafting weepy love poems there would be an adherence to the time-honored traditions!
(https://www.gprep.org/uploaded/images/home/home-photo-rotation/homepage5a.jpg)
That was my dress code too plus the sport coat. Guys would wear ties that looked like fish, covered with the 3 Stooges, the Knitted flat end tie, American flag, you name just to diversify and be different.
-
Super grateful I went to public school after kindergarten....even that hell hole in Tampa, Fl ;D
-
This is a great thread and is exactly why I enjoy working outside the US, in developing countries. I have had the pleasure in my management career of:
- buying deodorant for a young lady in the office and explaining how it's used
- moving a guy's desk because the others complained about how much he farted
- detected an undiagnosed diabetic (and probably saved his life - according to him) by counseling him about bad breath and then finding his other issues were straight from the diabetes diagnosis tree
- detecting a severe dyslexic and getting him into remedial lessons for reading which enabled him to move from a technical job all they way into management where he belonged based on his intellect and capability
- handing a guy his bonus check and telling him that 50% of it needed to go to his wardrobe or his career would be limited because he came to work looking like a slob
... all without ever needing to bother with HR. All quick, immediate solutions and all well received because they were delivered privately and in the right way. I could never work in the hyper political and litigious USA office environment... ugh.
As they say, the grass is always greener....
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3ornjJs5TL4dzMiF8s/giphy.gif)
-
I bet you also got rid of nonperformers without going through a 30-step Performance Improvement Plan as well. Talk about a flipping waste of time....
The 30 steps is over to where they are sitting to tell them "See ya". Even sacked a guy by phone once. Told him to give his company phone and computer and car keys to the receptionist and be out of the office before 10am.
-
Sorry, you clearly are not old enough. It was Maynard G. Krebs (played by Bob Denver, who went onto Gilligan fame). Maynard Ferguson was a Jazz artist.
Senility sets it. of course you are right 8-)
-
This is a great thread and is exactly why I enjoy working outside the US, in developing countries. I have had the pleasure in my management career of:
- buying deodorant for a young lady in the office and explaining how it's used
- moving a guy's desk because the others complained about how much he farted
- detected an undiagnosed diabetic (and probably saved his life - according to him) by counseling him about bad breath and then finding his other issues were straight from the diabetes diagnosis tree
- detecting a severe dyslexic and getting him into remedial lessons for reading which enabled him to move from a technical job all they way into management where he belonged based on his intellect and capability
- handing a guy his bonus check and telling him that 50% of it needed to go to his wardrobe or his career would be limited because he came to work looking like a slob
... all without ever needing to bother with HR. All quick, immediate solutions and all well received because they were delivered privately and in the right way. I could never work in the hyper political and litigious USA office environment... ugh.
Within the first month of starting with GE Cap in Jakarta my pribumi secretary informed me that she had to go home for a few days as her period had started. Years later I saw the compounds in Afghani villages where menstruating women were segregated as required by shari'ah law.
-
I bet you also got rid of nonperformers without going through a 30-step Performance Improvement Plan as well. Talk about a flipping waste of time....
I am so glad I am retired.
-
Senility sets it. of course you are right 8-)
I may be right on this one, but being right about Gilligan is nothing to write home about.
You were correct about the look, however. When I was at MU, I grew a scraggly beard and dressed like cr@p, and my older sisters gave me grief and called me Maynard G. Krebs. That's is the only reason I remembered the name.
-
I love yoga pants, on da right broad, hey?
that's it! next question-does this person wear said "leggings" well or not? if this certain employee wears the attire more along the lines of say, a victoria's secret babe, then it's no wonder the other ladies are "upset" and tell them to mind their own business. if she wears the stuff like rosie o'donnell, by all means, write her up...quickly. the complainants have good cause. eyn'a?
-
Sorry for the necro, but I thought this was relevant:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html
I am personally familiar with United's dress code for pass travelers as I flew on a pass ticket about 20 years ago (before it was limited to dependents and immediate family only)... I wasn't related to the employee, yet I was fully aware of the dress code.
Nevertheless, I understand both sides of the issue... though archaic & inconsistent, at best, there's still a (quasi-workplace) dress code and it's the employees' responsibility to enforce.
-
Sorry for the necro, but I thought this was relevant:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-leggings.html
I am personally familiar with United's dress code for pass travelers as I flew on a pass ticket about 20 years ago (before it was limited to dependents and immediate family only)... I wasn't related to the employee, yet I was fully aware of the dress code.
Nevertheless, I understand both sides of the issue... though archaic & inconsistent, at best, there's still a (quasi-workplace) dress code and it's the employees' responsibility to enforce.
This one is pretty easy. Flying for free as a courtesy from United, need to follow their rules. I am not sure why Hollywood has their pitchforks out over this one.
-
This one is pretty easy. Flying for free as a courtesy from United, need to follow their rules. I am not sure why Hollywood has their pitchforks out over this one.
Pure speculation, but the twitterer, tweeter, twittizen (not sure how to personify one who "tweets") who originally broke the story injected the "sexist" angle early on -- any big story needs a hot button, and so it's got one now.
-
The problem was that the original twitter person was misinformed on a number of fronts. First, she was unaware that she was flying on a pass. Second, she was unaware that rules for pass holders existed. Finally, she was complaining about the father wearing shorts, but he was not flying.
That being said, any policy that doesn't allow 10 year olds to wear leggings on a plane is dumb.
-
Wonder if da rules apply ta underwear? Gotta figure lotsa folks flyin' via United rules are goin' free willy, ai na?
-
Back to the broad in question. Does she have a FUPA? If not, does she sport the camel toe?
If 1) sugar needs to cover up.
If 2) post pics.
If both, she needs ta hit the dentist in da Quon.
My office is very casual. Sadly, that means that the pleasantly plumpers can wear luluroe leggings. Got news for you honey, paisley, pandas and waffles just make your fat legs fatter.
-
The problem was that the original twitter person was misinformed on a number of fronts. First, she was unaware that she was flying on a pass. Second, she was unaware that rules for pass holders existed. Finally, she was complaining about the father wearing shorts, but he was not flying.
That being said, any policy that doesn't allow 10 year olds to wear leggings on a plane is dumb.
Agreed on all counts and if we were an enlightened society we'd actually recognize there are all sorts of "villains" in this story, but instead the focus will be on how United is a barbaric, neanderthal organization (which isn't untrue, but still)
Villains, in no particular order:
1. United's clothing policy for employees
2. Twitterzen who was completely uninformed who first "reported" the story
3. Media/Social Justice Warriors who took up the cause without knowing/articulating the full story
4. Whatever United employee decided that 10 year olds wearing leggings and traveling on an employee pass was the hill to die on
5. People who need to be woke about everything and make sure everyone knows it.
-
Back to the broad in question. Does she have a FUPA? If not, does she sport the camel toe?
If 1) sugar needs to cover up.
If 2) post pics.
If both, she needs ta hit the dentist in da Quon.
My office is very casual. Sadly, that means that the pleasantly plumpers can wear luluroe leggings. Got news for you honey, paisley, pandas and waffles just make your fat legs fatter.
I get that you have a schtick and a sullied reputation to uphold, but this is not funny and generally awful
-
I get that you have a schtick and a sullied reputation to uphold, but this is not funny and generally awful
On top of that, one of the people we're talking about is a 10 year old.
-
The problem was that the original twitter person was misinformed on a number of fronts. First, she was unaware that she was flying on a pass. Second, she was unaware that rules for pass holders existed. Finally, she was complaining about the father wearing shorts, but he was not flying.
That being said, any policy that doesn't allow 10 year olds to wear leggings on a plane is dumb.
This is news in the social media age. "Report" first and figure out the details later. Normally by the time the actual facts have come out, no one is interested in them.
End of the day, it doesn't matter what you think of the actual policy, it was violated. It doesn't matter if the girls knew of the policy, it was violated. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
-
End of the day, it doesn't matter what you think of the actual policy, it was violated. It doesn't matter if the girls knew of the policy, it was violated. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
At the end of the day, 99% of the things we talk about on Scoop are about our opinions. That's all I was stating.
-
At the end of the day, 99% of the things we talk about on Scoop are about our opinions. That's all I was stating.
Although I quoted you, my second sentence wasn't directed specifically towards you. Just a general statement to those who are up in arms over this situation (which does not appear to include you). I guess I should have said that it doesn't matter what one thinks of the actual policy...
-
On top of that, one of the people we're talking about is a 10 year old.
I'm not talking about the United thing. Give me a break.
-
The United situation is a tough one. First, I will say that the gate agent was just doing her job and following her training....totally recognize that.....however....as an employer, I would expect my employee to use some common sense and think about the impact of her actions. Which is going to be more damaging for the employer? Two teenage girls "getting away with" breaking an archaic and outdated dress code policy? Or a public fight with a fellow employee that could potentially cause a scene and snowball into a PR mess?
To me, this is a classic case of people following the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. Having a dress code for employees using the pass system is perfectly fine. The purpose of that is to make sure that a United employee does not negatively impact the brand while using a company benefit. Two teenage daughters of an employee wearing an article of clothing that 95% of american teenage girls wear on a near daily basis, is not going to negatively impact the brand. The gate agent should have let them through.
-
I'm not talking about the United thing. Give me a break.
Who's the "broad in question?" There was only situation being discussed here in the last 5 months.
-
Eng, I'm particularly pleased that my delightful wife got in a dig to you types from across campus on 16th & WI. ;D
My intuition says muEng acquired his sense of humor while getting his MBA. Sorry I'm so late to the parade on this one.
-
Who's the "broad in question?" There was only situation being discussed here in the last 5 months.
The OP.
Didn't realize this was hoopalooped.
-
The OP.
Didn't realize this was hoopalooped.
It really wasn't funny no matter who you were talking about.
-
The United situation is a tough one. First, I will say that the gate agent was just doing her job and following her training....totally recognize that.....however....as an employer, I would expect my employee to use some common sense and think about the impact of her actions. Which is going to be more damaging for the employer? Two teenage girls "getting away with" breaking an archaic and outdated dress code policy? Or a public fight with a fellow employee that could potentially cause a scene and snowball into a PR mess?
To me, this is a classic case of people following the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. Having a dress code for employees using the pass system is perfectly fine. The purpose of that is to make sure that a United employee does not negatively impact the brand while using a company benefit. Two teenage daughters of an employee wearing an article of clothing that 95% of american teenage girls wear on a near daily basis, is not going to negatively impact the brand. The gate agent should have let them through.
No offense, but I can't imagine that any gate agent in this situation would have had even an inkling that this non-issue would become a PR nightmare after being completely blown out of proportion by social media. The girls have absolutely no reason to be upset with United. They were breaking the dress code. They were called on it. End of story.
-
No offense, but I can't imagine that any gate agent in this situation would have had even an inkling that this non-issue would become a PR nightmare after being completely blown out of proportion by social media. The girls have absolutely no reason to be upset with United. They were breaking the dress code. They were called on it. End of story.
Sometimes it's best just to go with the letter of the law, even if it stupid, just to prove that the rule is consistently applied. What would happen if the next person was wearing those leggings that were basically glorified pantyhose, and she was denied? Oh, and what if she were also a member of a protected minority group?
-
This is why we can't have nice things.
Deals often have hoops through which to jump. Live with it.
Unfortunately, the response will be for United to tighten up on who gets a pass flight.
-
Sometimes it's best just to go with the letter of the law, even if it stupid, just to prove that the rule is consistently applied. What would happen if the next person was wearing those leggings that were basically glorified pantyhose, and she was denied? Oh, and what if she were also a member of a protected minority group?
I have to agree with this. And for Christ's sake, the airport isn't the place to push the envelope... whether it's parking along the curb because the lot is full, trying to check luggage at the 45th minute before takeoff (i.e. the actual cut-off time), burying your 4 oz. bottle of hair spray in your carry-on, smooshing a carry-on that doesn't fit in the bag sizer, trying to board with a backpack, a roll-aboard, a guitar and two shopping bags, arguing with the gate agent because you don't want to pay the standby fee, telling the pretty flight attendant that she's "the bomb and keep the drinks coming", or trying to skirt (no pun intended) the employee dress code, don't throw up your arms in disgust when someone tells you that you won't be travelling on your scheduled flight.
I know that I'm not representative of the general public (which is likely a net positive for society), my kids and I are boarding a flight to Minneapolis in 3 hours, and each one of them is dressed like they're going to church... not because of some dress code rules (which don't apply to us any way) but because flight crews, gate agents and other passengers are a lot more helpful and accommodating when young children aren't dressed like they're on their way to a playground.
-
No offense, but I can't imagine that any gate agent in this situation would have had even an inkling that this non-issue would become a PR nightmare after being completely blown out of proportion by social media. The girls have absolutely no reason to be upset with United. They were breaking the dress code. They were called on it. End of story.
And to be honest have we heard any complaints by the employee or his family?
-
The OP.
Didn't realize this was hoopalooped.
Fair enough. My bad.
-
No offense, but I can't imagine that any gate agent in this situation would have had even an inkling that this non-issue would become a PR nightmare after being completely blown out of proportion by social media. The girls have absolutely no reason to be upset with United. They were breaking the dress code. They were called on it. End of story.
I think it is common sense that two teenage girls would get upset about having to change out of something that 95% of American teenage girls wear on a daily basis. The rule is there to keep someone from wearing assless chaps on a united pass. Not to keep teenage girls from wearing appropriate comfortable clothing on their flight. I don't think the gate agent should be punished or anything, but if I was the supervisor I would tell them that they should have let them through. Especially when they started to get upset. Even if this hadn't snowballed like it did, a public fight is worse for business than two teenagers wearing appropriate leggings that are technically against dress code.
-
The United situation is a tough one. First, I will say that the gate agent was just doing her job and following her training....totally recognize that.....however....as an employer, I would expect my employee to use some common sense and think about the impact of her actions. Which is going to be more damaging for the employer? Two teenage girls "getting away with" breaking an archaic and outdated dress code policy? Or a public fight with a fellow employee that could potentially cause a scene and snowball into a PR mess?
To me, this is a classic case of people following the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. Having a dress code for employees using the pass system is perfectly fine. The purpose of that is to make sure that a United employee does not negatively impact the brand while using a company benefit. Two teenage daughters of an employee wearing an article of clothing that 95% of american teenage girls wear on a near daily basis, is not going to negatively impact the brand. The gate agent should have let them through.
Here is the flaw in this line of thinking.....we've legislated and/or sued common sense application out of existence. As Chick says, it is far better for the individual employee to follow the letter and let the giant corporation deal with the $hitstorm than to apply common sense and have someone come after them for biased treatment (whether that was the intent or not).
If I'm an employee, I execute the rules as I've been trained and let the chips fall where they may.
-
Sometimes it's best just to go with the letter of the law, even if it stupid, just to prove that the rule is consistently applied. What would happen if the next person was wearing those leggings that were basically glorified pantyhose, and she was denied? Oh, and what if she were also a member of a protected minority group?
I think common sense should play a role. But I can't disagree with mueng, we have litigated common sense out of everything it seems. Which brings us to the question, is having a dress code really worth it?
-
I think it is common sense that two teenage girls would get upset about having to change out of something that 95% of American teenage girls wear on a daily basis. The rule is there to keep someone from wearing assless chaps on a united pass. Not to keep teenage girls from wearing appropriate comfortable clothing on their flight. I don't think the gate agent should be punished or anything, but if I was the supervisor I would tell them that they should have let them through. Especially when they started to get upset. Even if this hadn't snowballed like it did, a public fight is worse for business than two teenagers wearing appropriate leggings that are technically against dress code.
The rule is there because passengers on a United pass are representatives of United Airlines and, therefore, should be dressed appropriately and professionally. It doesn't matter if you like the rule or not. It's the rule. As Chick alluded to, what if the next person flying on a pass did show up in assless chaps but was not allowed on the flight? Both were in violation of the dress code but only one was called on it.
Also, as Sultan reminded us, the girls did not get upset. According to United's spokesman, "the girls were completely understanding" and "no one was upset at the gate." The whole situation would have been absolutely nothing if not for the uninformed bystander tweeting the events, leading the media and celebrities to blindly follow her ignorant rage.
I think common sense should play a role. But I can't disagree with mueng, we have litigated common sense out of everything it seems. Which brings us to the question, is having a dress code really worth it?
Common sense played a role in the United employee enforcing the rules. However, common sense was no where to be found when a woman started angrily tweeting about the event without actually understanding what was happening.
-
I think common sense should play a role. But I can't disagree with mueng, we have litigated common sense out of everything it seems. Which brings us to the question, is having a dress code really worth it?
Speaking as someone who had to draft a dress code for a company who previously did not have one, you would be amazed at what people think is appropriate to wear if they are not specifically told otherwise.
-
The rule is there because passengers on a United pass are representatives of United Airlines and, therefore, should be dressed appropriately and professionally. It doesn't matter if you like the rule or not. It's the rule. As Chick alluded to, what if the next person flying on a pass did show up in assless chaps but was not allowed on the flight? Both were in violation of the dress code but only one was called on it.
Also, as Sultan reminded us, the girls did not get upset. According to United's spokesman, "the girls were completely understanding" and "no one was upset at the gate." The whole situation would have been absolutely nothing if not for the uninformed bystander tweeting the events, leading the media and celebrities to blindly follow her ignorant rage.
Common sense played a role in the United employee enforcing the rules. However, common sense was no where to be found when a woman started angrily tweeting about the event without actually understanding what was happening.
I don't like the woman tweeting about either, unless she did it with the family's blessing which I doubt was the case. She made their situation public with their permission which is not appropriate. But I also don't believe that the girls were completely understanding either. Their dad is a United employee, at they point they have to say they side with United even if they were initially upset.
I personally think the risk of someone getting upset about having to change out of clothing that technically violates the dress code but does not harm the reputation or image of United in any way is much much greater than the risk of letting the girls through, having one of the next few people in line be a united pass customer who is also wearing something that would damage the reputation of United and getting mad that they are turned away but the two teenage girls who are wearing clothes that 95% of american girls their age wear got through.
Again, I don't think the gate agent should be disciplined or anything like that. But if was supervising her, I would tell her that the rule is there in case of egregious violations that actually carry a risk of damaging the reputation of the company. And if that isn't why United has the rule....then they have bigger issues.
-
Speaking as someone who had to draft a dress code for a company who previously did not have one, you would be amazed at what people think is appropriate to wear if they are not specifically told otherwise.
As someone who interacts with college students in a formal setting on a frequent basis, I can tell you that I would not be amazed. TAMU is filled with some of the best and brightest students in the nation but some of them can't figure out that a hearing to determine whether or not they should be expelled is a time to dress up a little.
I meant common sense for the gate agent. Teenage daughters of an employee travelling in leggings is not something that is going to damage the reputation of United.
-
Like Chick alluded to, the issue revolves around the risk of being sued.
If one employee allows a couple 10 year old white girls to go through but another employee denies similarly dressed 10 year old black/Hispanic/Arabic girls from flying you have discrimination and a lawsuit. Consistent application is key.
So yes, common sense has been sued away. Financial butts have to be covered. The PR hit in this case is rather minor. A discrimination lawsuit would be far worse from both a PR and financial sense.
-
Again, I don't think the gate agent should be disciplined or anything like that. But if was supervising her, I would tell her that the rule is there in case of egregious violations that actually carry a risk of damaging the reputation of the company. And if that isn't why United has the rule....then they have bigger issues.
The gate agent's job is to enforce the rules, not to decide if and when to enforce the rules or to determine what's an egregious violation of the rules and what's just a minor violation. The dress code is written in very specific terms in order to take away that discretion and to make things as easy as possible for both the gate agents and the United pass passengers.
-
The gate agent's job is to enforce the rules, not to decide if and when to enforce the rules or to determine what's an egregious violation of the rules and what's just a minor violation. The dress code is written in very specific terms in order to take away that discretion and to make things as easy as possible for both the gate agents and the United pass passengers.
ding ding ding
-
The gate agent's job is to enforce the rules, not to decide if and when to enforce the rules or to determine what's an egregious violation of the rules and what's just a minor violation. The dress code is written in very specific terms in order to take away that discretion and to make things as easy as possible for both the gate agents and the United pass passengers.
That's fine. That's why the gate agent shouldn't be disciplined in any way. She was just doing her job. But I expect more from my employees. I expect them to use critical thinking skills, common sense, and to prioritize customer service.
-
That's fine. That's why the gate agent shouldn't be disciplined in any way. She was just doing her job. But I expect more from my employees. I expect them to use critical thinking skills, common sense, and to prioritize customer service.
Do you also expect your employees to ignore very specific guidelines that pertain to their jobs?
-
Do you also expect your employees to ignore very specific guidelines that pertain to their jobs?
On low level things like the dress code for a coworker's daughter, I expect them to know why the guidelines are there and enforce them based on that. For example, to request a training from my office, you need to submit a request 10 business days in advance. That guideline is there to give us the ability to turn down a last minute request if it is not convenient for our schedule. But I would expect my staff to schedule a training that was requested with only 9 business days notice if it is convenient for our schedule.
At the end of the day, this is a silly discussion. None of us were there or have all the facts. Even if we did have all the facts, some of us would have let the girls pass, others would have made the girls change. We all would have done what we thought was right.
-
I'm not talking about the United thing. Give me a break.
see how that works? i feel your pain :o(teal)
-
We don't have any hard and fast rules. We try to use common sense. Works pretty well.
-
That's fine. That's why the gate agent shouldn't be disciplined in any way. She was just doing her job. But I expect more from my employees. I expect them to use critical thinking skills, common sense, and to prioritize customer service.
You find several thousand people with the skills you're asking for that are willing to work for $14-16/hour with no promise of advancement and I guarantee your salary as VP of HR will put you in the top 20 amongst CEO's worldwide.
-
You find several thousand people with the skills you're asking for that are willing to work for $14-16/hour with no promise of advancement and I guarantee your salary as VP of HR will put you in the top 20 amongst CEO's worldwide.
Well.... I can't argue with that.
-
You find several thousand people with the skills you're asking for that are willing to work for $14-16/hour with no promise of advancement and I guarantee your salary as VP of HR will put you in the top 20 amongst CEO's worldwide.
The irony for me, is that we seem to be pushing* employees to minimize their usage of common sense within their jobs, especially low wage jobs but then seem confused when the ultimate automaton that lacks common sense (computers and automation) then replace those workers.
You can't have a bias engine(humans) doing a job that must be without bias for low pay and expect it to be sustainable. Just like you can't expect determination engines(computers) to make decisions with intangible nuance.
*Not saying this pushing is intentional, but is an accumulation of all the divergent policies and behaviors we have gravitated to as a society