Jet builders wear skirts too

[Tor]

Seems like (all right, all right, let go o' me arm.... I distinctly recall that) a similar story has come up here that is a trifle more current, but I came across this one that seemed worth posting, even if it is now a whole decade old. If they can do it then, we can surely do the same today.

http://www.thisistrue.com/skirting_the_issue_8314.html

Tor

[couyalair]

I had not seen the story before.
Does not make any sense to me to forbid shorts but to allow skirts in a workplace that may have machines in which floating cloth could well be caught. If it had been 1902, at a time when women had nothing else but skirts to wear, perhaps, but in 2002?
Kudos to those men that stood up for themselves; I wonder how long it lasted.

Martin

[allen476]

Actually the practice is nothing new.......

There are several stories about US Postal Service male employees that have been told that they couldn't wear shorts to then wear skirts in protest.

There are other companies that have had this happen as well. The problem would lie if the state the company is in is an "employment at will" state. They could fire you then just because of it if they are.

[skirtyscot]

The problem would lie if the state the company is in is an "employment at will" state. They could fire you then just because of it if they are.

Our evil Toryalition Government want to bring in a law like that. In the name of "making Britain better for business" or some such sophistry. God, I hate them!

[crfriend]

The problem would lie if the state the company is in is an "employment at will" state. They could fire you then just because of it if they are.

That could certainly be used as a threat, but in general it's vastly more expensive to replace an experienced and competent employee than to "cut a deal" with him (e.g. "Don't do it in front of customers, and we'll overlook elsewhere."). Firing him and hiring somebody else means that the replacement needs to lean all the "local knowledge" that the replaced guy had, and that takes time. Going by the maxim that time equals money, one need not look too far to see the problem for the employer.

Generally speaking, however, if a situation has deterioriated to that point it's probably a pretty good sign that both sides need to grow up a little bit.

[allen476]

That could certainly be used as a threat, but in general it's vastly more expensive to replace an experienced and competent employee than to "cut a deal" with him (e.g. "Don't do it in front of customers, and we'll overlook elsewhere."). Firing him and hiring somebody else means that the replacement needs to lean all the "local knowledge" that the replaced guy had, and that takes time. Going by the maxim that time equals money, one need not look too far to see the problem for the employer.

Generally speaking, however, if a situation has deterioriated to that point it's probably a pretty good sign that both sides need to grow up a little bit.

While I do agree that replacing the person is more expensive than dealing with it, employers generally in this economy right now find it easier to replace the person.

How many articles get the "sympathy" treatment in the news because of why they were fired? The group of people that were fired by a lawyer because they wore "orange" on Friday. The girl who was fired because she wore a skirt to work instead of pants (that happened at a Burger King). The list is endless.

This is why I caution those who want to push the envelope at work, even if you have years in with a company, it doesn't guarantee job safety today. . With unemployment where it is, the employers find that it is relatively easy to replace than repair because the talent pool has a lot more swimmers in it right now.

[crfriend]

While I do agree that replacing the person is more expensive than dealing with it, employers generally in this economy right now find it easier to replace the person.

It's precisely that short-sighted mentality that's gotten us into the mess we're now in. If one cannot look farther out than the current month's numbers one does not deserve to be in any sort of position with responsibility.

I'm curious about the "orange" story, unless that happened in the Republic of Ireland in which case I can see it -- just. As far as the skirt at a Burger King goes, that was likely a uniform violation and those aren't real jobs anyway. I'm counting professional jobs that require skills and talent, not "McJobs".

I also counsel against "rocking the boat" at work if one is not sure what the results will be. The world is full of narrow-minded types and some of those have managed to rise into Management positions and tend to make trouble. I can understand reticence on the part of an employer if an employee breaks strongly with cultural norms and is engaged with customers, and this seems especially important for "conservative" businesses (e.g. traditional banks (not the go-go casino gamblers of today)), and I fully understand the needs of safety in places where a skirt could pose a risk of injury either to the employee or the business' processes (the "bunny-suits" worn in clean-rooms are not to protect the workers from the environment; they're to protect the environment from the workers).

Ultimately, it comes down to risk management -- is the potential risk worth the possible reward -- and it's not for everyone. However, hiding in the closet isn't the way to go either as that opens one up to the spectre of blackmail; this is why I counsel openness with one's choice of attire.

[allen476]

Here is the short story

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ing_orang/

I do disagree about food service jobs with you. A job is a job no matter what the pay or environment is. Many in this country have their first jobs at places like that. Should we discount them because they are making minimum wage? What about the person who had a good job but now has to work there because it is the only thing that he could find?

As far as the Burger King job, it was a violation of her religion to wear pants. When she wore a black skirt, it was explained that skirts were not allowed but then fired her instead of her letting her plead her case or even change. She was only on the job a total of 20 minutes. The ACLU is now taking up her case as it was never explained to her that pants were required nor was she ever given a copy of the dress code.

So in the context of men wearing skirts, would that be any different then if you went to work one day and your boss explained that you are in violation of the new dress code and fired you instead of letting you explain your position or even allowing you to go home to change?

It's precisely that short-sighted mentality that's gotten us into the mess we're now in. If one cannot look farther out than the current month's numbers one does not deserve to be in any sort of position with responsibility.

While I agree in principle, it is an employer's market. And the mess isn't just poor management, it is also poor ownership, poor performance and poor accounting. There is enough blame to go around.

[crfriend]

Here is the short story

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ing_orang/

Methinks there is something else in play here that hasn't yet bubbled to the surface.

I do disagree about food service jobs with you. A job is a job no matter what the pay or environment is.

That's true enough, but food-service jobs -- for better or worse -- have been a running joke for decades. They're useful, in a hazing sort of way, to get kids exposed to the nastiness of the real world but are irrelevant in real-world situations because they do not offer a living wage. They're fine for pocket-money when one is living with Mom and Dad, but useless for survival unless one is in basic subsistence mode.

[...] What about the person who had a good job but now has to work there because it is the only thing that he could find?

One word: unemployed. Of course it's not counted that way which is important for those who concoct the numbers.

As far as the Burger King job, it was a violation of her religion to wear pants. When she wore a black skirt, it was explained that skirts were not allowed but then fired her instead of her letting her plead her case or even change.

I've been through plenty of job applications and interviews, and every place that had anything like a uniform- (which burger joints all do) or a dress- code had it explicitly stated, and I could make up my mind at the outset as to whether it was a place I'd like to spend 1/3rd of my time during the work-week. It's also worth noting that I do not subscribe to the "religious exemption" argument; if an employer expects one to look a certain way, it's up to the individual to take that into account at the outset and look elsewhere for employment if one is unwilling to comply. I have turned down well-paying jobs that would have made me cut my hair.

The ACLU is now taking up her case as it was never explained to her that pants were required nor was she ever given a copy of the dress code.

I'd like to see the odds of the ACLU taking on something like this in the case of a guy who prefers skirts to trousers. I'd be willing to bet the numerator would have several zeros following the significant digit over that of the denominator.

So in the context of men wearing skirts, would that be any different then if you went to work one day and your boss explained that you are in violation of the new dress code and fired you instead of letting you explain your position or even allowing you to go home to change?

I'd take my lumps and start pounding the pavement that afternoon -- and take great pains to point out to prospective customers of the ex-employer that the outfit isn't worth the air that the Management breathes.

While I agree in principle [that lots of the problem is down to short-sightedness], it is an employer's market. And the mess isn't just poor management, it is also poor ownership, poor performance and poor accounting. There is enough blame to go around.

Yes, it is an "employers' market" and it will remain so for at least another several generations as the US (and other places) dive headfirst towards a neo-feudal system of governance where there are, once again, Lords and serfs. I am very glad I do not have children.

[Sarongman]

US (and other places) dive headfirst towards a neo-feudal system of governance where there are, once again, Lords and serfs. I am very glad I do not have children.

This is a trend that should have everybody "politically" active, and it's no good looking to either party one or party two in whatever country, as both are equally culpable. I worry for my grandchildren. Children---Child one is an "alternative lifestyle practicioner" (not really a hippy) and, to a degree, immune to much of the shenannigans, but child two wants it all and is heading for a catastrophe with any impending debt crisis. It's funny how two people can be SO different in their outlook.
Looking at my post, I've changed my "signature".

[crfriend]

Child one is an "alternative lifestyle practicioner" (not really a hippy) and, to a degree, immune to much of the shenannigans, but child two wants it all and is heading for a catastrophe with any impending debt crisis. It's funny how two people can be SO different in their outlook.

That is pretty amazing, especially as both share the same parents!

I grew up under the tutelage of one flinty-eyed New Englander (if she wasn't purebred Irish I'd call her a proper Yankee) and an equally steely-eyed midwesterner (whom the New Englander, I suspect, had inspired if not conquered) who pretty much hammered into me, "Don't ever "f**k" with the principal!" I live by that mantra to this day, and don't have any debt worth commenting on. Of course, I am viewed as a pariah by my peers who are in hock up to their ears (or, in some cases, beyond).

Whatever happened to common sense? The thing that really torques me off is that blokes like me, who have played things conservatively, are being called upon to bail out those who spent profligately and mortgaged themselves and their heirs into the next time-zone.

[skirted_in_SF]

Whatever happened to common sense? The thing that really torques me off is that blokes like me, who have played things conservatively, are being called upon to bail out those who spent profligately and mortgaged themselves and their heirs into the next time-zone.

Amen brother. We have a sister company where I work that built homes in the greater Sacramento area of California (home of one of the bigger housing crashes) and sold them to 97 to 103% loan-to-value buyers. They looked around in amazement when the party ended five years ago. Oh, but when times were good their gross profit margins were right up there with Apple. They weren't even the worst builders out there. At least they tried not to sell to speculators/flippers.

Management, of course, as used the blow up to take away the few small perks we had. No holiday lunch since then for the workers (the bosses still get one), mandatory week or two off at the end of the year (use vacation if you haven't used all of you three weeks max; otherwise, unpaid), no pay increases for three years and so on.

Oh he//, I just sound like an angry old man.

[crfriend]

Oh he//, I just sound like an angry old man.

Methinks the world needs more of those. Wearing skirts or kilts, of course!

[BobM]

Yes, it is an "employers' market" and it will remain so for at least another several generations as the US (and other places) dive headfirst towards a neo-feudal system of governance where there are, once again, Lords and serfs.

I glad to discover that I am not the only one who has come to that conclusion. November may delay it for a few years, but entropy applies to societies too.

I am very glad I do not have children.

As am I.

[the_scott_meister]

worthless money comes the inevitable crash and burn. I'm working to help make sure that they're future is a bright and promising as my parents did for me many years ago.

Whatever happened to the time when a man could be a man (skirts not withstanding) and go out and do whatever they wanted to do, become the man that they wanted to? The time was that you could ride the range and rope those dogies, or you could start a railroad and become a tycoon. There was a world of opportunity out there for whatever you wanted to become. Nowadays, if you show even the slightest hint of ambition that's not born on the court, field, stage, or screen, then you're automatically an evil capitalist (unless you agree with the current administration like Warren Buffet does). It is totally backwards from what it should be. We're being taught that there should be an equality of outcomes, instead of the tried-n-true equality of opportunity. We are all born equal, with the opportunity and right to become unequal. And if we don't reverse this trend towards the supposedly socialist "utopia" then we will quickly find ourselves on the steep end of the downward slope. The great experiment that is the U.S.A. will only become a footnote in history.

We need to hold the next coming administration's feet to the fire and remind them of who's really the boss in this country (i.e. the U.S. Constitution). Those of you in this online community outside of the U.S. may not understand how dearly some of us here hold that idea. We're not a government with a citizenry, we're a citizenry with a government (one that can be replaced). And even though I share the same religeon as Mitt, that doesn't necessarily mean that I trust him entirely. He is a politician afterall.

Arizona is a "right to work" state (I can't remember how the term was made in a previous post), which means that we have to right to seek work in any place without having to be subjected to a union, among other things. Of course it does work both ways, you can be fired for virtually anything except for the things specifically prohibited by the Fed. But as Carl said, and which I totally agree with, it takes much more to hire somebody with the right skill set and then train them on the things they need to know to help your company, than it does to just live with them and their excentricities. So unless there is something agregious there's no real reason to fire someone. I, being a highly trained engineer with over 20 years experience in my company alone, would be very difficult to replace. If I started showing up in skirts everyday I'm quite sure that once they got over the shock and inevitable snickering that they'd quickly get used to it and it would be business as usual. But if the boss did have a problem with it them I'm obligated to go by his rules. Afterall, it is his business, I'm just a guest essentially.

Fast food workers, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen. No disrespect intended to any of those fine people, I was one of them for a time, but that's just the nature of that kind of work. It doesn't pay a lot because it doesn't generate a lot. It's the job that's paid, not the worker. A brain surgeon working the Wendy's driver through would make the same amount as a high-school drop-out working the Wendy's drive through. It never was intended to pay a living wage because the vast majority of those working that aren't living off it, they're using it for gas or pocket money while they finish school living in they're parent's house. It's meant to get a foot in the door, exposure to the real world of work responsability. Some choose to stay there indefinitely and that's their choice. If they wanted more from life they can do more with life. Unless the government puts roadblocks in their way with insane rules and regulations, they'll frequently choose to better themselves in some way. Sadly we're being told more and more by our "elected" officials that you are entitled to make as much money as you want regardless of what job you hold, and that those with better jobs (i.e. rich people) should supplement your income with theirs in order for you to be able to afford that house, that nice car, that newest iPhone. That type of thinking tends to keep people from persuing a better life. Sorry to be blunt about it, but that's just the reality of existance in this God-created universe. Life is what we make of it, regardless of what politicians tell you. The best thing you could do for that brain surgeon working the drive through would be to show him how he could go to work in a hospital instead.

I could go on but I fear that I may just piss-off some of the other members here, which is not my intention.

Anyway, back to the original thread: That story is from 10 years ago. I wonder how things have played out since then. I bet that some of the guys reverted back to traditional wear at some point, the cowards, even if they're demands weren't met, but undoubtedly some of them got a taste of "freedom from trouser tyranie (sp)".

Dang, did I type that much? I think I'm getting calouses on my fingers. It's ok, I'll have my wife lick them for me. Oops, did I just type that out loud?