Question:
I’m starting this as a new thread, as the subject has suggested itself to me in many other threads. The point is employers attitudes towards mail piercings. Several people have said that their employer forbids even male earings, and in one case would allow a ring in only one ear! In the UK, and probably elsewhere, such action would be illegal, unless they also ban female earings. Otherwise, this would amount to sexual descrimination, which is illegal in the UK. It would also be illegal unless the contract of employment specifically bans it (for both sexes). If it isn’t stated explicitly in the contract, there is nothing they can do to stop you. A possible exception might arise where you need to come face to face with the public as a receptionist would. In this case there may be a clause about ‘being presentable’. I’d be interested to hear what the legal position might be in other countries, and what experiences other people may have had in this regard. — John.
Response:
Another reason that the ERA should still be passed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I’m starting this as a new thread, as the subject has suggested itself to me > in many other threads. > The point is employers attitudes towards mail piercings. Several people > have said that their employer forbids even male earings, and in one case > would allow a ring in only one ear! > In the UK, and probably elsewhere, such action would be illegal, unless > they also ban female earings. Otherwise, this would amount to sexual > descrimination, which is illegal in the UK. > It would also be illegal unless the contract of employment specifically bans > it (for both sexes). If it isn’t stated explicitly in the contract, there is > nothing they can do to stop you. > A possible exception might arise where you need to come face to face with > the public as a receptionist would. In this case there may be a clause about > ‘being presentable’. > I’d be interested to hear what the legal position might be in other countries, > and what experiences other people may have had in this regard. > — > John.
Response:
: I’m starting this as a new thread, as the subject has suggested itself to me : in many other threads. : The point is employers attitudes towards mail piercings. Several people : have said that their employer forbids even male earings, and in one case : would allow a ring in only one ear! : In the UK, and probably elsewhere, such action would be illegal, unless : they also ban female earings. Otherwise, this would amount to sexual : descrimination, which is illegal in the UK. : It would also be illegal unless the contract of employment specifically bans : it (for both sexes). If it isn’t stated explicitly in the contract, there is : nothing they can do to stop you. : A possible exception might arise where you need to come face to face with : the public as a receptionist would. In this case there may be a clause about : ‘being presentable’. : I’d be interested to hear what the legal position might be in other countries, : and what experiences other people may have had in this regard. Apart from what the law in the United States actually says in this regard, employers in this country seem to be able to do what they like regarding the look of their employees. Dresses for girls, suits for boys; Earrings on girls, none on boys; Long hair on girls, hair not past the collar on boys, etc. Then again, The United States was founded by a bunch of maniacal jesus freaks that YOU guys didnt want. Thanks alot. —–yttrx
Response:
>The point is employers attitudes towards male piercings. Several people >have said that their employer forbids even male earings, and in one case >would allow a ring in only one ear! <snip> >I’d be interested to hear what the legal position might be in other countries, >and what experiences other people may have had in this regard.
I live in the US, Portland Oregon and I work at the office of a large retailer. Up until about 1995 there was a policy prohibiting male employees from wearing earrings. (I think that policy started in the mid 80s) About 1996 they changed the policy and made it a unisex policy permitting earrings but prohibiting visible body jewelry except for earrings. Last year, 1998, they again went back to prohibiting earrings on men. I guess all the vacillations was due to recent fashion trends – they would bend their policy to allow the "vanilla" among us the freedom to keep up with Cosmo and GQ magazines, but then as it went out of style – they again reverted to a more restrictive policy. I heard in Portland, there was a legal case that a police officer brought against the city – because they refused to allow him to wear an earring. I think he won on the base that they did permit female officers to wear small studs (Dangling earrings were considered dangerous) but not men. I think I could push the issue at work – and I would imagine that I could win in court if I wanted to pursue it that far. But that is what our employer is banking on – that no one will go through the legal hassle to regain the right to wear an earring. I think it is one of those things that it is illegal for an employer to prevent it – but it is much more hassle than it is worth to fight it. (At least for the majority) That’s my .02 cents worth. Noah
Response:
>In the UK, and probably elsewhere, such action would be illegal, unless >they also ban female earings. Otherwise, this would amount to sexual >descrimination, which is illegal in the UK.
Not quite correct. It *should* be illegal in the UK as it is obviously discriminatory, but a legal precedent set a couple of years ago says that it’s not. Thanks to this ruling it would be very, very difficult for a male to get a satisfactory result regarding this subject. As far as our middle class, white, Conservative voting, male judges and magistrates are concerned – Women with multiple earings is considered normal, for men it’s not. The same is true for long hair. Also remember that until you’ve been employed for two years you have almost no legal protection at all and the employer can get away with almost any damn thing they want – and do. Veggie ‘battered, broken ‘n’ bruised’ Dave V&S Extreme Photography http://www.bikehouse.demon.co.uk — ’Democracy is a good thing – in moderation’ Conservative MP Peter Luff ’Who ever puts their hand upon me to govern me is a usurper, a tyrant and I declare them my enemy’
Response:
>towards mail piercings.
hmmmm I wonder what kind of piercings it would have? Maybe just a hole punch…
Response:
> Another reason that the ERA should still be passed.
Wrong. Read the Constitution, Amendment 14, Article 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Constitution ALREADY guarantees equal protection of the laws. The ERA would be redundant (as was the Civil Rights Act). etc. — Home page: http://www.io.com/~jcookson | make your life complete" RAB FAQs: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bodyart/ | Bad Religion, No Direction
Response:
> I’ve noticed that what is acceptable varies from department to > department, and whether or not you are "liked" by management. Some of
In many cases, this is what it comes down to. The most important thing in any business relationship is to be able to get along with people. If you can do your job well and get along with your co- workers, superficial things like appearance *usually* don’t matter. It’s true that there can be cases where management may insist on a particular appearance, but this is a good general guide. There was even an article about this some years ago in _The Wall Street Journal_. The writer had to spend 30 days in LA County jail, and in the process of learning how not to be killed, he learned how to get along with people. He said that this helped him tremendously in his career, as getting along with co-workers turned out to be relatively easy compared to negotiating not getting killed for taking the wrong bunk. —
Stan | "Recess is over in the playpen of the damned." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
I’m not sure what anyone else has observed here in the United States, so I’ll add in my personal observations: I work as a graphic designer/tech writer for a technological company. Our employee handbook merely states that employees must present a "business-like" appearance. Sub-headings under that particular paragraph indicate special departmental designations – i.e., employees working on the manufacturing floor cannot wear flip-flops or open-toed shoes, heels worn cannot exceed 1" in height, and long hair must be tied back. No designation by sex. I’ve noticed that what is acceptable varies from department to department, and whether or not you are "liked" by management. Some of our engineers have earrings, and two have long ponytails; however, they don’t have any F2F contact with customers. One of our salesmen – a very successful salesman, BTW, has a diamond stud. If it were a really large stud, or if his performance sucked, something might be said. One of our Lab Technicians has 3/4 sleeves (nice work, too!), and he has been asked to cover up when customers come in. Management gave him a hard time regarding his appearance when he first joined that department (he was from the Manufacturing floor, where no one cared), until he "proved himself" to be a good guy. Since I work in the Marketing Department, and all of my co-workers are old enough to be my parents, I keep myself "neat" (my tattoos and piercings are not visible). But, since I’m one of "the creatives" and don’t have much customer contact, I don’t think anyone would be too surprised if I showed up one day with a large tat on my shoulder, or something like that. Bridget (who may get that shoulder tat some day!)
Response:
:> Another reason that the ERA should still be passed. : Wrong. Read the Constitution, Amendment 14, Article 1. : "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the : jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State : wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall : abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor : shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without : due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the : equal protection of the laws." : The Constitution ALREADY guarantees equal protection of the laws. The ERA : would be redundant (as was the Civil Rights Act). Redundant, but unfortunately nessesary. Who pays attention to the constitution? —–yttrx
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > :> Another reason that the ERA should still be passed. > : Wrong. Read the Constitution, Amendment 14, Article 1. > : "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the > : jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State > : wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall > : abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor > : shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without > : due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the > : equal protection of the laws." > : The Constitution ALREADY guarantees equal protection of the laws. The ERA > : would be redundant (as was the Civil Rights Act). > Redundant, but unfortunately nessesary. Who pays attention to the > constitution?
Redundancy in legislation is never necessary. Enforcement of what is already legislated is. — Home page: http://www.io.com/~jcookson | make your life complete" RAB FAQs: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bodyart/ | Bad Religion, No Direction
Response:
>I’d be interested to hear what the legal position might be in other countries, >and what experiences other people may have had in this regard. >– >John.
I currently have 2 jobs right now. I work in a pharmacy where the dress code is pretty relaxed. All it says is that they cannot forbid body piercing on anyone unless it directly interferes with safety or with "customer service." The only visible piercings I have are lobe, upper cart., and rook (with more coming soon). My other job is at a pizza place where no one (male or female) can wear any jewelry other than a watch and wedding band. But since my boss doesn’t really care, we only follow the rules when one of HIS bosses drops in. 
Just my 2 cents….. Oriel
Response:
> >In the UK, and probably elsewhere, such action would be illegal, unless >they also ban female earings. Otherwise, this would amount to sexual >descrimination, which is illegal in the UK. > Not quite correct. It *should* be illegal in the UK as it is obviously > discriminatory, but a legal precedent set a couple of years ago says > that it’s not. Thanks to this ruling it would be very, very difficult > for a male to get a satisfactory result regarding this subject.
Interesting. Do you have any more info on that, or can you point me in the right direction? I cannot see how you could argue around this in court. Taking a different view of earings (or anything else) purely on grounds of gender MUST be sexual descrimination, surely. Anyway, it needs fighting. The world is full of people who want to tell you what you can and can’t do, how you should live, what you can’t do on a Sunday, etc, etc. Schools used to send girls home if they wore earings. Now they do it if they have a nose stud. Is this progress? The only reason an employer could (should be able to) use against any form of dress is if it interferes with the person’s ability to do the job. This may be because they might scare off potential customers, or because a dangling ring might catch in machinery, etc. But sex should NEVER come into it, any more than religion or skin colour. — John Skingley.
Response:
>Interesting. Do you have any more info on that, or can you point me in the >right direction?
The case was approx. 5 years ago and actually made it on to national news. Other than him being around 27 with long blond hair I can’t remember any other specific info, like his name. >The only reason an employer could (should be able to) use against any form >of dress is if it interferes with the person’s ability to do the job. This >may be because they might scare off potential customers, or because a >dangling ring might catch in machinery, etc.
You’ve just answered your own question. The above excuses can be used in pretty much any set of circumstances. If they want you out, you’re out. Britain, thanks almost entirely to Thatcher, is now a country where ‘workers rights’ is a dirty phrase and where workers who stand up for their rights are viewed as selfish dangerous subversives rather than what they really are – people who’ve been screwed and simply want a little justice. Veggie ‘battered, broken ‘n’ bruised’ Dave V&S Extreme Photography http://www.bikehouse.demon.co.uk — ’Democracy is a good thing – in moderation’ Conservative MP Peter Luff ’Who ever puts their hand upon me to govern me is a usurper, a tyrant and I declare them my enemy’
Comments