Is this an issue raised too high?

[P. G. Tipps]

Open-minded and receptive... hmmm... well there are things I'm not open-minded about - whether the earth is flat, for example, is something I'm not really interested in debating; another rather similar example is whether employers should be able to indulge in the social engineering of forcing their workers to wear clothes which have no bearing on their ability to do their job except perhaps to make it more uncomfortable and difficult.

Well, I disagree completely, Mr Barrett. One must never shrink from challenging Wrongheadedness at all times or else Wrongheadedness wins by default.

Indeed, that is exactly what I'm doing here, challenging the FLAT "Earthers" of the Shoe-World ... ?

[P. G. Tipps]

Well, yes; they were looking after themselves when they objected to their employers forcing these dress codes on them.

And they seem to have won, so what are you complaining about?

Thanks for finally appearing to agree with me, jean. That is exactly the question I have been indirectly posing to others, in my usual gentle way, of course.

I'm not complaining about women being told to wear high heels at work. As I've said repeatedly, that is entirely a matter between them and their employer.

If the employer changes its policy due to real and genuine pressure from those staff directly affected, well done to the ladies, I say!

It's a dictatorial minority of Flat-Shoers supported by interfering outsiders I'm agin !

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm not complaining about women being told to wear high heels at work. As I've said repeatedly, that is entirely a matter between them and their employer.

Not so - no matter how repeatedly you make this claim. Such a requirement is against the Law (and was admitted as such by the employer, see link in #134).

[ahinton]

Not so - no matter how repeatedly you make this claim. Such a requirement is against the Law (and was admitted as such by the employer, see link in #134).

Indeed; no employer should have to change its policy on such issues, whether as a consequence of pressure from employees or for any other reason, because it shouldn't have such a policy in the first place! Likewise, female employees should not have to devote energies and time fighting such a policy when they should be getting on with their work; moreover, the employer's lawyers should have told the firm that its policy breaches the law.

[jean]

Thanks for finally appearing to agree with me, jean.

I wonder what gave you that idea!

It's...interfering outsiders I'm agin !

Me too. Perfect example in your posts here.

[ahinton]

It's a dictatorial minority of Flat-Shoers supported by interfering outsiders I'm agin !

Really? So you're not "agin" employers breaking a law designed to protect their employees, then?

Moreover, how do you equate your "well done to the ladies, I say" in respect of cases in which "real and genuine pressure from those [female] staff directly affected" has persuaded their errant employers to change their policies on this issue with your objection to this "dictatorial minority of Flat-Shoers supported by interfering outsiders"? You omit not only to clarify of whom you believe that "dictatorial minority of Flat-Shoers" to consist but also to identify these "interfering outsiders"; from the former omission one must assume that it's those very "directly affected" "ladies" to whom you refer, though the latter one remains uncertain since I am unaware that there are any such people involved in such cases. I'm having trouble detecting a train of logic here...

[P. G. Tipps]

Not so - no matter how repeatedly you make this claim. Such a requirement is against the Law (and was admitted as such by the employer, see link in #134).

Not for the first time, there appears to be some confusion on the matter here ...

The following BBC report states what actually occurred :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36264229

Even Ms Thorp doesn't claim the employer broke the Law, and in fact she appears to hold no ill-feeling towards her employer and, in any case, had always known the dress-code for women (Inc. high-heels!) and had indeed signed-up to it !

She then organised a Petition to CHANGE the Law to force employers not to issue the 'high heel' part of the code which, of course, she is perfectly entitled to do.

Frankly, in this day and age, the employer is wise to have backed down on this one, I do accept that completely .There is no way it can win such a case in the current climate of 'equality' hysteria, amply demonstrated by some of the over-the-top and quite ridiculously silly remarks by MPs (of all colours) included in your link ?.

However, that does not mean we should all now agree with even more one-sided 'equality' legislation, even if ultimately we may have to reluctantly accept and abide by it !

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As Hansard reported the discussion in the House of Commons (reported in the link in #134):

The Government think that the law is fairly clear on this. In their answer to the petition, they were clear that the requirement to wear high heels, as experienced by Nicola Thorp, is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. We received some legal evidence that suggested the law is not quite so clear. The legal opinions we heard suggested that a conventional dress code, for want of a better term, might not constitute direct discrimination under the Equality Act, because men and women tend to dress differently. However, if that dress code impacted more on one sex than another, it was likely to be indirect discrimination. The problem is that indirect discrimination can be justified if it is reasonably necessary in pursuit of a legitimate end, but there is not a proper definition of “legitimate end”.

More importantly, not only can tribunals decide cases differently in different parts of the country, but very few cases are getting to tribunal at all. We heard that there is very little case law or advice for employers. When I asked the managing director of Portico, during our evidence session, whether it had occurred to him that his company’s dress code might be discriminatory, he said that it had not at all. That is one reason why we suggest that the Government need to provide much more information to employers about not only the health and safety aspects of their dress code but what may constitute discrimination.

So "the Law" needed clarifying, not "changing", and pervy employers needed to be provided with "much more information".

[jean]

... pervy employers...

Quite.

[vinteuil]

.

... I see from the BBC article in Mr Tipps's #157 -

"PwC does not have specific dress guidelines for male or female employees."

[ahinton]

As Hansard reported the discussion in the House of Commons (reported in the link in #134):

So "the Law" needed clarifying, not "changing", and pervy employers needed to be provided with "much more information".

Indeed so, but some seem to labour under the misplaced assumption that the law concerned isn't even there in the first place!

[ahinton]

.

... I see from the BBC article in Mr Tipps's #157 -

"PwC does not have specific dress guidelines for male or female employees."

But if that were true, how could any such guidelines have been imposed?

[P. G. Tipps]

.

... I see from the BBC article in Mr Tipps's #157 -

"PwC does not have specific dress guidelines for male or female employees."

Well spotted the perfect ready-made management 'Don't Look At Me, Guv ... '

However, the BBC article in Mr Tipps's #157 also states ...

'Outsourcing firm Portico said Ms Thorp had "signed the appearance guidelines" but it would now review them.'

Nowhere in the article does Ms Thorp accuse her employers of breaking the Law or being 'pervy' or any other such juvenile term. She simply thinks the 'high-heels' bit of the dress code is 'sexist' and unfair and wants such codes to be outlawed.

As I said she is perfectly entitled to do that but one has to wonder why she didn't raise the matter at the appropriate time when she was initially presented with the guidelines ?.

Of course, one can easily form one's own opinion about that ...

[ahinton]

Well spotted the perfect ready-made management 'Don't Look At Me, Guv ... '

However, the BBC article in Mr Tipps's #157 also states ...

'Outsourcing firm Portico said Ms Thorp had "signed the appearance guidelines" but it would now review them.'

Nowhere in the article does Ms Thorp accuse her employers of breaking the Law or being 'pervy' or any other such juvenile term. She simply thinks the 'high-heels' bit of the dress code is 'sexist' and unfair and wants such codes to be outlawed.

As I said she is perfectly entitled to do that but one has to wonder why she didn't raise the matter at the appropriate time when she was initially presented with the guidelines ?.

Of course, one can easily form one's own opinion about that ...

Either there is/was a dress code - "guidelines", or whatever - or there wasn't; that needs to be established first.

Whether or not Ms Thorp accused her employers of breaking the law could have had no impact upon what's arguably more important, namely whether or not they DID break the law.

[Serial_Apologist]

Either there is/was a dress code - "guidelines", or whatever - or there wasn't; that needs to be established first.

Whether or not Ms Thorp accused her employers of breaking the law could have had no impact upon what's arguably more important, namely whether or not they DID break the law.

... a definitive decision upon which, one way or the other, outwith due process, could lay one open to actionability, presumably!