Problem at work
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
surely no one could be as dense as the OP is pretending to be.
Just because people don't seem to fit into what you feel is acceptable in "modern times" it really does not mean you have the right to dismiss and insult others.Women wear skirts, so what. Why do men and women need to be equal, they are clearly not unless you studied biology at the school of modern equalness like most of the muppets these days.
Or maybe you are simply a fat pig-dog
Breadvan72 said:
How can you see that the OP is a good manager? The only evidence that we have of his management skills is of him behaving like a crass oaf, exposing his employer to tribunal claims, and putting his job at risk.
I can see his thinking and logic as I have been in the same scenario and the OP wants to do good for his team and have a team to be proud of working in harmony, further evidence is no leavers only upwards. He is only guilty of advanced David Brentism which may get him sacked / written warning which would be a pity as a lot of real lecherous pervy saddos are far worse.
BGARK said:
Breadvan72 said:
surely no one could be as dense as the OP is pretending to be.
Just because people don't seem to fit into what you feel is acceptable in "modern times" it really does not mean you have the right to dismiss and insult others.Women wear skirts, so what. Why do men and women need to be equal, they are clearly not unless you studied biology at the school of modern equalness like most of the muppets these days.
Or maybe you are simply a fat pig-dog
BGARK said:
Just because people don't seem to fit into what you feel is acceptable in "modern times" it really does not mean you have the right to dismiss and insult others.
Women wear skirts, so what. Why do men and women need to be equal, they are clearly not unless you studied biology at the school of modern equalness like most of the muppets these days.
I fully agree. It's political correctness gone mad. At least we'll be rid of this namby-pamby pinko liberal nonsense when UKIP take power next year.Women wear skirts, so what. Why do men and women need to be equal, they are clearly not unless you studied biology at the school of modern equalness like most of the muppets these days.
Disastrous said:
To all the men pretending that they don't prefer it if women pretty themselves up: you realise this is the internet and you won't get a row from the wife for admitting it?
Men and women objectify each other. We're all animals and trying to pretend we don't instantly rate each other's attractiveness and prefer our colleagues to look attractive is just b
ks. I appreciate the uglies need to be appeased and thus we can't have policy saying so, but please drop the faux-outrage! Nobody believes it! 
Same for women, by the way (I'm no sexist!). They love a bit of eye candy round an office just as much as we do. The OP's only mistake was vocalising what everyone thinks.
Best of luck!
You have completely missunderstood the problem. Of course people like attractive people. The difference is that in work a manager should not be trying to force women to dress is a particular way just because its eye candy.Men and women objectify each other. We're all animals and trying to pretend we don't instantly rate each other's attractiveness and prefer our colleagues to look attractive is just b
ks. I appreciate the uglies need to be appeased and thus we can't have policy saying so, but please drop the faux-outrage! Nobody believes it! Same for women, by the way (I'm no sexist!). They love a bit of eye candy round an office just as much as we do. The OP's only mistake was vocalising what everyone thinks.
Best of luck!
In work you are there to do a job, which generally has nothing to do with how attractive you are. As a manager you have power over other people, so to try any force them to dress based on how you rate their looks is not on.
If the OP presents his case as he expressed himself in the first post, then he is likely to lose his job.
Breadvan72 said:
Quality argument, Master of subtle wit and ready repartee! This isn't about women wearing skirts, it's about women being told what to wear so as to gratify the OP's view of what is attractive and, as he says, "brighten up the office". This has nothing to do with biological differences between genders.
Beg to differ. This is all about opening mouth before engaging brain.
As for dress and performance I can quite happily say that my drafting is utterly unaffected by if I am doing it in full suit and boot in the office or sat on my sofa in a T and trackies. In fact the latter is likely to be the more productive afternoon. On the other hand there is no way in hell I'd turn up at a meeting with Clients and 3 other solicitors facing me in anything other than best bib and tucker. Sometimes looking the part assists in acting it and is another weapon in your arsenal.
Likewise we had to introduce a uniform for our receptionists when one new girl a few years ago started wearing tops that left absolutely nothing to the imagination.
With the OP I think that there are certainly personal attitudes that are out of step with UK 2014 but fortunately thought crime has yet to be fully covered by legislation.
I also agree that no one should be allowed to got to the 'smart casual' office in flip flops or trainers. I quite like summer dresses though provide it looks smart and not like they are on their way to the beach.
Breadvan72 said:
Thoughts are one thing, but the OP sought to impose a rule on employees which is discriminatory on the grounds of gender, so he is judged for his actions. His attitudes do seem to be stuck some way in the past, but it's what he did that matters.
The OP is imposing a rule that they jointly agreed to (did you skip that bit), its only the fat munter that is causing the issues. Not clear why the minority always seem to win the arguments about stuff like this, I suppose its perhaps how you make a living though?98elise said:
Disastrous said:
To all the men pretending that they don't prefer it if women pretty themselves up: you realise this is the internet and you won't get a row from the wife for admitting it?
Men and women objectify each other. We're all animals and trying to pretend we don't instantly rate each other's attractiveness and prefer our colleagues to look attractive is just bks. I appreciate the uglies need to be appeased and thus we can't have policy saying so, but please drop the faux-outrage! Nobody believes it!
Same for women, by the way (I'm no sexist!). They love a bit of eye candy round an office just as much as we do. The OP's only mistake was vocalising what everyone thinks.
Best of luck!
You have completely missunderstood the problem. Of course people like attractive people. The difference is that in work a manager should not be trying to force women to dress is a particular way just because its eye candy.Men and women objectify each other. We're all animals and trying to pretend we don't instantly rate each other's attractiveness and prefer our colleagues to look attractive is just b
ks. I appreciate the uglies need to be appeased and thus we can't have policy saying so, but please drop the faux-outrage! Nobody believes it! Same for women, by the way (I'm no sexist!). They love a bit of eye candy round an office just as much as we do. The OP's only mistake was vocalising what everyone thinks.
Best of luck!
In work you are there to do a job, which generally has nothing to do with how attractive you are. As a manager you have power over other people, so to try any force them to dress based on how you rate their looks is not on.
If the OP presents his case as he expressed himself in the first post, then he is likely to lose his job.
What's ludicrous is all the people on here calling him a a misogynistic dinosaur when nobody in their right mind would actually dislike pretty girls in skirts about the place.
Besides the OP has presented his case several times since his first post and I doubt he will be calling the staff member a pig dog in front of HR. PH isn't a hearing, FFS!
BGARK said:
The OP is imposing a rule that they jointly agreed to (did you skip that bit), its only the fat munter that is causing the issues. Not clear why the minority always seem to win the arguments about stuff like this, I suppose its perhaps how you make a living though?
The OP described it as an unofficial policy/code/whatever. It has not been sanctioned and/or approved by the company. He cannot arbitrarily over-ride company rules/policy in this way, even if the whole workforce agree to it.I reiterate - people are allowed to fancy one another, but men and women must be free to dress as they choose within the constraints of a dress policy. A dress policy can say be smart. It can't say that smart means a woman must wear a skirt and heels.
If one person objects to something unlawful happening, one is enough. You can't have a workplace vote to disregard the law.
If one person objects to something unlawful happening, one is enough. You can't have a workplace vote to disregard the law.
The EHRC Guidance says this:
"Having different rules about clothing or appearance for men and women can result in claims of sex discrimination.
For example,
If there is a dress code that applies to women but not to men or if the dress code is applied more strictly to one sex than the other, this could be direct discrimination. However, it has been established in the courts that employers do not have to impose exactly the same dress code on men and women. If the dress code applies 'conventional standards of dress and appearance' then it will be seen as applying an even handed approach between men and women
The standard of dress or appearance set should be the same for both women and men, such as ‘business dress’ or ‘casual clothes’. "
"Business dress" for western men can be understood as suit and tie. "Business dress" for women is not limited to skirts and heels.
"Having different rules about clothing or appearance for men and women can result in claims of sex discrimination.
For example,
If there is a dress code that applies to women but not to men or if the dress code is applied more strictly to one sex than the other, this could be direct discrimination. However, it has been established in the courts that employers do not have to impose exactly the same dress code on men and women. If the dress code applies 'conventional standards of dress and appearance' then it will be seen as applying an even handed approach between men and women
The standard of dress or appearance set should be the same for both women and men, such as ‘business dress’ or ‘casual clothes’. "
"Business dress" for western men can be understood as suit and tie. "Business dress" for women is not limited to skirts and heels.
Breadvan72 said:
I reiterate - people are allowed to fancy one another, but men and women must be free to dress as they choose within the constraints of a dress policy. A dress policy can say be smart. It can't say that smart means a woman must wear a skirt and heels.
If one person objects to something unlawful happening, one is enough. You can't have a workplace vote to disregard the law.
And the bold is the beginning and the end of the case against the accused. Engage brain, then open mouth, not the other way around.If one person objects to something unlawful happening, one is enough. You can't have a workplace vote to disregard the law.
BTW I find a long legged lady in a trouser 'power' suit almost as 'exciting' as one in a pair of jeans and lacy bra
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff