Dress Code

[andrewducker]

[Poll #845318]

Note - for "Veil" also read "crucifix" or any other religious paraphenalia. What with BA having told an employee she can't wear a cross.

Oh - and the final question should have ended with "as non-religious bases".

Comments

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Point of order: I think you're looking at the issue of religious dress codes, but your questions cross another boundary -- namely dress codes that say "you must wear X" versus dress codes that say "you must not wear X".

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Also note: health and safety issues may cut across voluntary issues. For example, it's reasonable for many businesses to require steel-toed safety boots and hard hats (or other protective gear), or for food preparation businesses to require hair to be covered or contained (to keep loose strands out of the product).

Indeed, in my misbegotten youth I worked in a situation where I had to wear a facial veil. (Okay, a disposable face mask, hair net, hood, terylene bunny suit .... you get the picture.)

I think it's necessary to distinguish between dress codes imposed for religious or social reasons and those relating to hygeine, health and safety, particulate control, and so on. And in the case of the first two, to distinguish between prescriptive ("you must wear X") and restrictive ("you may not wear Y").

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

Yes, at my workplace the health and safety code requires women who usually wear veils to remove their veil when they are operating a bunsen burner in the lab. For example.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Forbidding someone to wear something that their religion requires isn't the same as requiring something to wear a uniform (even if it's limited, i.e., a tie.) And honestly, if there were a religion that said it was immoral to wear ties, I'd think the employer ought to back off there too. I just don't think that dress codes are important enough to warrant interfering with someone's religious convictions. Frex, if a woman whose religion dictated that she could not wear pants (there are a number of Christian divisions that say this) worked for a company whose dress code required that pants be worn, I think they ought to concede that she can wear a conservatively cut skirt that matches the pants in color and fabric. Unless, that is, there is a practical reason that skirts cannot be worn (legs need protection for some reason, or whatever). Similarly, regarding the recent case where a schoolteacher got in trouble because she wore a veil and her students said they couldn't hear her through it - if they really couldn't hear her, I think the school would be right to demand that she take it off, or at least get a sheerer or more sound-porous fabric.

In short, I think religious requirements, if they don't pose practical problems on the job, should be respected as far as is possible.

[andrewducker]

So you'd argue that religion can dictate things while other preferences can't?

Seems a tad unfair on us atheists.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

I think it comes down to whether one considers religion a "preference". I actually was discussing that with λ after I posted my comment, and we didn't come to any hard-and-fast conclusions. I do think the frequent intersections of religion and culture/race make this particularly difficult to untangle, as does the fact that while religion looks like a preference on the outside to an atheist, that's definitely not how many religious people would define it. So I think there's difficulty in defining it as well. Religion is often such a part of both one's cultural and personal identity that I think when issues surrounding it arise in the public sphere we need to be careful to examine our actions closely. But, in the end, my answers are not as firm as I thought they were, and I'm going to have to think more about it.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Businesses, being private property, should be able to make their own decisions about who they allow to enter.

They should still not be allowed to descriminate on religous basis, though, anymore than on racial or sexual basis, barring an extremely good reason.

Therefore, they should be allowed to forbid wearing veils if it is not part of a religious bias - if any headwear or facial covering is prohibited, for example.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Why should private businesses be privileged in that way? (They're certainly not allowed to make their own decisions about how they do their accounts, how they go about dismissing employees, how they go about fulfilling contracts for goods or services ...)

.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Where do we draw the line though?

What if I were to recruit a female sales rep - someone whose primary role is to visit customers, demonstrate products etc.

I have five candidates, a Jewish man who wears a Kippah, a Sikh who wears a turban, and three muslim women, one who wears a headscarf, one a niqab (only eyes showing) and one who wears a burqa (covers full head with mesh to cover eyes).

At what point could I refuse to employ one of these people?

Personally, I would have no problem employing the first three, but would find it hard to employ the last two as I know it will have an adverse effect on some customers. But if I ban all headgear then I have made all 5 unsuitable to work in my organisation.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

You could say the same thing about other biases, however. For example, if you were selling Bibles door to door to conservative people, and a salesman applied who was hugely, flamingly, outspokenly homosexual, would you want to hire him? In reality, he probably wouldn't get hired, but if we're talking about what businesses "should" do and not what they "do" do, then the only thing that should matter is his ability to make the sale.

But I was talking more from the perspective of who is allowed to enter an establishment than hiring policies.

[peteyoung.livejournal.com]

It's my experience of having worked in customer contact roles for most of my professional life (around 25 years) that even those "extremely good reasons" that businesses always put forward for previously prohibiting perfectly good people from doing a particular job, including certain attitudes toward a physical disability, can also be thrown out when people start thinking equitably instead of with a kind of historically received prejudice. (Please note that I am not saying your opinion constitutes or construes any prejudice.) This seems to me how these barriers to communication are broken down, by giving people a chance to prove themselves instead of denying them that opportunity to do so for what are so often arbitrary, ill-thought-out reasons.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

That's true.

But, for example, here in Germany, public school teachers are not allowed to wear any symbols of faith. The reason is because they are public employees, and they are very strict about the separation of Church and State.

Although I don't entirely agree with the principle, I can agree at least that it is a very good reason for the decision.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Except that it isn't even handed. You can tuck a cross under your jacket. These "no symbols at all" almost always default to, "do as christians do".

Bet people are allowed wedding rings, and they are religious (primarily Christian) symbols. If I wore mine on my right hand, as I should, I'd be declaring myself a married Jewish woman (my grandmother swapped hers over the day she was married in order to "fit in").

[whumpdotcom.livejournal.com]

I'm an atheist, and when I was married, I wore a wedding ring.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you did. I'm sure you didn't think twice.

I thought hard before deciding not to go with the Quaker tradition instead (a wristwatch because it's practical) as I don't actualy like wearing them, and decided in the end to keep my hands bare.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

I either don't understand, or don't agree. Here, weddings are civil as well as religious (if they are religious at all). There is always a separate civil ceremony, if there is a religious one is up to the couple. With the civil ceremony alone, you can wear a wedding ring. And wedding rings are generally worn on the right hand here, anyway, which according to your argumentation, means that there isn't a differentiation between Jewish and Christian ceremony. I have no independent experience with that other than what you said, however.

Crosses are specifically prohibited - worn under a jacket or not. But I imagine that they don't strip people to make sure there are no symbols hidden anywhere, if that's what you're getting at. I suppose you could also get away with embroidering verses from the Koran on the inside of your clothes if you were determined to have a holy symbol on you at all times - the importance being that the children being taught couldn't see it, and that the state not appear to be pushing any specific religion.

The discussion of the German law is off subject, anyway. I was giving an example of something that I thought was a "very good reason" for a prohibition, other than a prejudice about what people can and cannot do, and I think that ensuring a strict division of church and state qualifies. Your mileage may vary.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

How interesting, I didn't know you wore the ring on your right hand.

Re the ceremony, my point is that things "leak". We weren't allowed any expression of religion at our ceremony, but the words used by the registrar were still straight out of the book of Common Prayer.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

2 pence:

This media frenzy over the teacher wearing the veil and the children complaining has come at a time when the wearing of veils is in the news.

If this topic had not been in the news, I would give the opinion of the children slightly more credence.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Me too.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Didn't do the poll because I think it's contextual. It's no one's business if a woman wears a veil when coding.

It is an issue if she's supposed to be teaching children to speak better English.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Didn't do the poll because I think it's contextual. It's no one's business if a woman wears a veil when coding.

It is an issue if she's supposed to be teaching children to speak better English.

[darkoshi]

In terms of health & safety concerns, some dress codes are justifiable.

Other than that, there is always a trade-off. People's right to wear what they want, and to be able to get a job and make a decent living, versus a business's right to hire who they want, and to project a certain image via how their employees dress. In a perfect world, both options would be maintainable - businesses could have dress codes, and people who did not want to follow those dress codes would still be able to find other jobs where they could where what they wanted. Businesses with unpopular dress codes might end up having to pay higher salaries in order to attract people willing to put up with those dress codes.

But the world is not perfect. Businesses worry about staying in business, and how their employees dress can in some cases directly or indirectly affect the business. That is because you can't dictate to consumers that they must be non-biased in whom they give their business to.

And if businesses weren't allowed to have dress codes, a certain business could be unlucky enough to wind up with an employee whose chosen mode of dress was extremely unusual and which could be a major liability to the business.

So I think businesses should be allowed to have dress codes. If people don't want to follow the dress codes... and if they feel this is very important to them - whether it is a religious reason or not - they will have to pay the price and not have employment at that particular job. People are certainly justified however, in trying to change other people's opinions, and trying to get dress codes relaxed, or in creating exemptions to the dress codes, if they can be persuasive enough as to why the dress code is a problem for them.

In terms of the above arguments, I don't think there is much difference in whether the dress codes are religiously based or not.

It would certainly suck to live in a country where there was a religious dress code that most employers mandated, if you didn't happen to be of that religion. But it would suck too, having all employers mandate the wearing of ties. And likewise, if your religion (or deep desire) dictated the wearing of a tie, but no employers allowed it, that would suck too.

Life is tough.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I see several issues involved, some of which differ between businesses and religions. Since religion (in a free society, and non-free ones care little about discrimination anyway) is a voluntary choice, I can very much see regulations about what believers (or for that matter anyone else) wearing when in a building devoted to that religion or when attending formal religious services.

Such rules seem roughly comparable to businesses having dress codes. However, between scarce employment and the financial necessity of having a job, I would be stricter on business dress codes than one religious ones. Obviously, workers should not be able to wear garb that reduces their ability to perform their job. However, in an office or other work environment where workers have little or no in-person contact with the public, I can only see limiting clown suits, nudity, burqas and similar extreme gear. However, I can see absolutely no reason to require ties, a presence or lack of veils or blue jeans, etc...

In a work environment where workers must contact the public, especially in sales, then I can definitely see being stricter, since appearance directly and obviously reflects on the company and can directly affect profits. At that point, as long as there are no differences in dress code based on race, religion, or sex, and the requested clothing is not damaging (such as high heels) or excessively uncomfortable (such as having to wear a fur suit to work) to wear, I have no problem with business dress codes, but only for workers who interact with the public. The only other exception is of course for protective gear, requiring special clothing for safety is always acceptable assuming that this clothing actually protects the wearer and that such protection is necessary.

Wrt general religious requirements for clothing, instead of merely governing what one can or cannot wear at work, requirements about what a believer can or cannot wear in general seem far more onerous than requirements about what can or cannot wear at work. In general, I oppose such restrictions, but I also oppose organized religion as a concept, so that's hardly surprising.

[ripperlyn.livejournal.com]

Most customer-service based businesses won't let you have funky coloured hair or non-earlobe-based visible piercings, either.

[lilitufire.livejournal.com]

My answer of no is with the caveat that unless it's preventing them from doing the job. I'm at a loss to see how a headscarf could though.