Should bosses be allowed to tell their employees to cut their hair and shave?

[Kuciwalker]

OK. That is as an argument for not requiring a dress code -everyone may already choose to follow an unwritten dress code for the purpose of self-advancement or because of the cultural mores of [the] business.

Though in response to this specific point, try substituting "showing up to work" with "following the dress code" and you'll see that this is unsatisfactory on its own.

[Dauphin]

I appreciate that is the wider issue, but if it is self-selecting it can be argued moot.

With regard that issue, I don't view having a dress code as infringing your rights, or not hiring someone based on the non-adherence to a generic dress code unfair discrimination.

[Dauphin]

OK. That is as an argument for not requiring a dress code -everyone may already choose to follow an unwritten dress code for the purpose of self-advancement or because of the cultural mores of [the] business.

Though in response to this specific point, try substituting "showing up to work" with "following the dress code" and you'll see that this is unsatisfactory on its own.

Showing up to work is the material purpose of work and written in a contract. Following a dress code is not necessarily.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes; and that is why your point in #57 may have been a necessary but insufficient condition.

Your thesis amounts to "employees should have dress codes at least to the extent that proper dress is necessary for their jobs" which isn't terribly enlightening. The unresolved issue is to what degree dress codes should be extended beyond necessity.

[Dauphin]

I've already said I believe a dress code is required.

[Kuciwalker]

But your entire analysis, as I read it, rests from the point of view of an individual firm making the best decisions for itself. In that context, it seems reasonably clear that dress codes are strongly beneficial to the firm. But perhaps society as a whole would be better off if such firms as a whole relaxed or eliminated their dress codes. Several people in this thread seem to, essentially, believe that - see posts #3, #5, #8, #9 - and it is an intuitive conclusion, but it may actually be wrong if dress is an efficient signaling mechanism compared to the alternatives.

[Al B. Sure!]

So Kuci, you don't subscribe to the libertarian/capitalist mantra: a private firm can do whatever the hell it wants? Society's concerns override the private firm's?

Yes, I realize that discrimination based on race, gender, etc. is legislated against as is but someone like Dave Floyd takes issue with even that. Interesting that you would even consider expanding the precedent that society trumps the firm... even though one can always change clothes.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

In some professions it is necessary, if you are an ophthalmologist with long hair, it may get into the eye of the patient by accident.

But what if you have a normal desk job?

I'd be in trouble then, luckily freedom still prevails over communist dystopia.

[Kuciwalker]

So Kuci, you don't subscribe to the libertarian/capitalist mantra: a private firm can do whatever the hell it wants? Society's concerns override the private firm's?

Yes, I realize that discrimination based on race, gender, etc. is legislated against as is but someone like Dave Floyd takes issue with even that. Interesting that you would even consider expanding the precedent that society trumps the firm... even though one can always change clothes.

The free market is proper because it serves society better than any of the other options; to the degree that we can serve society better by abridging it, that is proper.

I've explained this to you a dozen times before.

[Barnabas]

Lets imagine you hire someone from an ethnicity in which unibrows are common, like Iranians or Kurds.

Can a boss demand that his employee shaves a strip between his eyebrows in order to separate them or would that be racist?
Where do we draw the line?

[Kuciwalker]

There are, of course, additional considerations. Human institutions are imperfect and reach wrong conclusions often; to reduce errors, we establish broad guidelines to follow even when they do not make sense in a specific situation. "The free market is good" is one such guideline, and the damage done to that principle by admitting another exception (regulation) may grossly outweigh the benefits of that exception.

But this too is obvious.

xpost

[Al B. Sure!]

Lets imagine you hire someone from an ethnicity in which unibrows are common, like Iranians or Kurds.

Can a boss demand that his employee shaves a strip between his eyebrows in order to separate them or would that be racist?
Where do we draw the line?

Or Spanish women and mustaches?

[Dauphin]

But your entire analysis, as I read it, rests from the point of view of an individual firm making the best decisions for itself. In that context, it seems reasonably clear that dress codes are strongly beneficial to the firm. But perhaps society as a whole would be better off if such firms as a whole relaxed or eliminated their dress codes. Several people in this thread seem to, essentially, believe that - see posts #3, #5, #8, #9 - and it is an intuitive conclusion, but it may actually be wrong if dress is an efficient signaling mechanism compared to the alternatives.

I'm not here to write a thesis or treatise.

[bc1871]

Employees should look professional at all times, and this requires them to be shaved, have haircuts and maintain proper dress and decorum. The only exception to this rule would be if you employ gothic degenerates or the Welsh, then by all means let them wear whatever the hell they wish, since they’ll look like **** regardless.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

now this is a good British working environment