While employers in Britain connive to get their staff to strip off, councillors in Florida have passed a policy enforcing the wearing of underwear.
The policy, implemented in Brooksville, Florida, requires employees: to wear underwear; to wear deodorant; to not wear "distracting, offensive or revealing" clothing, including, but not limited to, halter tops and clothing made of Spandex; to cover all body-piercings besides those of the ear; to cover all cuts and wounds; and to refrain from wearing skirts that expose the "waistline such that the abdomen or back is exposed".
This bizarre policy has an interesting history, having been suggested by former council member Mary Staib in 1996 following a legal action brought against Brooksville's then-city manager Richard Anderson by his secretary. Following a $135,000 settlement being reached between Anderson and his secretary, Staib tried to push through the new dress code to prevent men being needlessly tempted into harassing their female colleagues.
Staib said at the time, "Men have it hard enough just to do a day's work and not be enticed by a woman who is not dressed properly. If you have to bend over for the bottom file... that would entice any man, unless he is not completely a man."
It is hard to know which of the sexes should be more offended by this: men for the implication that the sight of a women collecting a file will inevitably lead to their sexually harassing her, or women for being told that they're responsible for the harassment.
Fortunately, here at XpertHR there is no need for such a policy as there has always been a tacit agreement that you do not wear Spandex to work (except on dress-down Friday, of course, when you can wear what you like).
| Tweet |
|
| Permalink | Email this |
Comments (1)
Eh? But the outcry if someone wanted to wear a burka.
I do remember NZ pilots objecting to a new uniform because the trousers were simply too tight - fertility hazard.
I think we are making idiots of ourselves trying to tell people what to do.
What if we went back to the basics of English law and said that anything is permitted unless it is expressly forbidden.
And any rule has to pass the test of law - is it absolutely necessary and is it effective.
And you get three strikes. If your rules don't pass the test, you have to be quiet for the next year?
Posted by Jo Jordan | July 3, 2009 1:09 PM
Posted on July 3, 2009 13:09