Originally posted by jayne lee wilson
View Post
Is this an issue raised too high?
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Ten months on, and the matter was discussed in Parliament. A transcription of the debate is here:
... 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.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostTen months on, and the matter was discussed in Parliament. A transcription of the debate is here:
... 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.
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.
Comment
-
Comment