Is this an issue raised too high?

[Richard Barrett]

the right to wear what you want to work (which no-one will dispute)

Not having looked through this thread, and given the truth of this (with the exception of the police, fire service, surgeons etc. etc.) I've begun wondering how on earth the thread managed to get so long. Not enough to investigate though, although if it's all on the exalted level of fg's "I need a month's notice and a prescription renewal" maybe I'm mistaken.

[jean]

Not having looked through this thread...I've begun wondering... Not enough to investigate though...

I don't know why I bother, really.

[Richard Barrett]

I don't know why I bother, really.

Surely you don't think I would need much persuading towards your point of view on women's footwear?

[Dave2002]

Danish views - https://www.carrentals.co.uk/blog/wp...11/11/heel.jpg

[Beef Oven!]

Strange. Who would line their car roof with wood?

[ahinton]

Strange. Who would line their car roof with wood?

!!!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Strange. Who would line their car roof with wood?

Justin Timberlada?

[Pulcinella]

Strange. Who would line their car roof with wood?

Or Elena Firskoda?

[teamsaint]

Or Elena Firskoda?

or Ivor Woodruff.

[Serial_Apologist]

Justin Timberlada?

The one related to Justin Thyme, the famous herbivore?

[ahinton]

Justin Timberlada?

Hugh Wood, even if others wouldn't?

[vinteuil]

Hugh Wood, even if others wouldn't?

William Boyce

[... sorry, a bit 'Third Programme' for the younger listeners ]

[ahinton]

William Boyce

[... sorry, a bit 'Third Programme' for the younger listeners ]

Never mind; Boyce will be Boyce, regardless of what any of them might think of those shoes which I can just remember were once central to this thread topic...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Ten months on, and the matter was discussed in Parliament. A transcription of the debate is here:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-06/debates/58CDA5AC-D655-43F4-BDD8-3D1370BCB076/WorkplaceDressCodes(HighHeels)

... and makes clear that the matter wasn't "just" one of a discriminatory dress code:

most of Portico’s dress code at the time—to its credit, it has since changed this—was about how women should look. Not only were women to wear high heels, but they were compelled to wear make-up. It was specified that they should wear a minimum of foundation, powder, light blusher—I am not sure whether “light” referred to its colour or its application—mascara, eye shadow and lipstick or tinted lip gloss: not just any old lip gloss, but tinted lip gloss. Make-up was to be regularly reapplied throughout the day, and women were excused from wearing it only if they had a medical condition.

Women also had to wear what were described as skin-coloured tights, but the sort of skin-coloured tights that I would wear—taupe, natural tan and so on—are not at all suitable for women of colour. In fact, at one time, a black woman who turned up in black tights was told she should change them for a flesh-coloured pair, which were, of course, not the colour of her flesh at all. Portico even specified the acceptable shades of nail varnish; there was a colour chart.

... nor, of course, are such "workplace codes" confined to a single rogue company. The fact that these requirements are against the Law is of no matter to such employers - awards to employees for successful legal action against their employers' illegal activities fall short of the fees required to bring such action in the first place.

[Dave2002]

Ten months on, and the matter was discussed in Parliament. A transcription of the debate is here:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-06/debates/58CDA5AC-D655-43F4-BDD8-3D1370BCB076/WorkplaceDressCodes(HighHeels)

... and makes clear that the matter wasn't "just" one of a discriminatory dress code:

... nor, of course, are such "workplace codes" confined to a single rogue company. The fact that these requirements are against the Law is of no matter to such employers - awards to employees for successful legal action against their employers' illegal activities fall short of the fees required to bring such action in the first place.

I had a quick glance at the Hansard report. Bringing this more out into the open seems to have been helpful.

As you point out though, if the action and reports turn out simply to be hot air then little will change. Hopefully there will be a wider recognition of issues and many employers will fall into line, but unfortunately the big rogues may just carry on regardless, with few penalties and little real inconvenience.

While I think that women are more likely to have been disadvantaged by the behaviour of some employers, some men may also be affected. Gender neutral issues should be considered as well as gender specific ones.