Talk about a first world problem.

"I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said 'I just won't be able to do that in heels'."

Sometimes common sense trumps dress codes. This is one of them. The fact that the company reviewed its policy and changed it almost immediately proves that.

It wasnt that big of a deal, really. Point is, she agreed to it. She shouldnt have.

Not everyone can wear heels and be comfortable. She had being doing similar work and did not have to wear them.
And she is actually not faulting the company. Just wanted them to change. She should be praised, not criticized, for speaking up and causing a positive change. I suspect she didn't see the "heels" part when she signed the paper. Many of these boiler plate agreements are out of date and not enforced, it appears.

"I don't hold anything against the company necessarily because they are acting within their rights as employers to have a formal dress code, and as it stands, part of that for a woman is to wear high heels," Ms Thorp said.
"I think dress codes should reflect society and nowadays women can be smart and formal and wear flat shoes.
"Aside from the debilitating factor, it's the sexism issue. I think companies shouldn't be forcing that on their female employees."

Also I would rather have this young woman working for me than for a rival company. She isn't afraid to speak up when she sees something which needs to be changed. Employers should value that.

Looks like she handled it well. The job where I had to wear heels was a venture capital company. Seems that general industry has a thing for them.

These days, Im lucky if I can wear heels long enough to go out to dinner. My job now requires steel-toed boots. BIG difference.

I hate having to wear a suit everyday and a tie. Ugh!!!!

Stop the MRA crap

We men do like to find the smallest oppression possible and pretend it's equivalent.

But you knew that already, part deaux.

It might get caught in a printer or some such.

Many uniforms are uncomfortable for the time a person wears them.

Wearing heals is uncomfortable in the immediate term and does pose increased risk of injury (ties, lanyards, etc pose some elevated risk) .... wearing high heals pose health risks and cause harm long after the wearer has traded them in for more comfortable foot wear (unlike 'ties" in which any increase in risk is gone the moment they are taken off .... but then again, I think everyone already knew that)

Many of those stylish shoes ruin the bone structure in the feet, causing cramps, deformities and years of pain. I stopped wearing them when I turned 30, except for rare special occasions.

I'm glad she stuck it out and pushed for change. Their request to wear ridiculous shoes 9 hours a day was cruel, absurd, and sexist.

I agreed to it. I wore the shirts. Had I not been willing to do it, I should not have agreed to do it. Yeah?

Companies, at least in the U.S. are required to provide "reasonable accommodation" for employees who are disabled or might be injured by a work requirement. Substituting flat shoes for heels would seem to be a reasonable accommodation, imo.

Breasts don't support your weight. Feet do.

I wasnt talking about feet.

I know women that have had extensive foot surgery to repair years of wearing heels damage. I work in a business professional environment and I wear flats for two reasons: 1. I have a bad back and 2. Heels hurt my feet. Wearing heels in no way improves job performance unless that job is to model high heeled shoes.

They will cause permanent damage if worn that way. It's a work safety issue.

It's like telling construction workers that it isn't putting on a professional appearance to wear hard hats.

They wouldn't have done this to a man, and they admitted that. They did this. Did this.

perhaps you would do well over there with the snide dismissive attitude

All I can do is or or

or maybe just

This was on her first day on the job. Not a quality employers are looking for and now her name can be googled for this story.

This is not going to work out well for her.

I don't disagree with her outright but the idea you are going to come in on your first day and tell your employer how to run their business is not a quality in high demand.

To make it worse she ran to the press. Also not a quality highly desired.

She was standing up for health concerns.

Are you against workers' rights?

.

and chose to ignore it.

She agreed to this dress code then balked when they enforced it.

I may disagree with their dress code but I have no right to dictate it. I do have a right to refuse the job because I don't want to adhere to it.

There is no law against requiring high heels. It certainly is not a right.

Employees have every right to ensure their own safety and health in the work place, up to and including to refuse a dress code that endangers their health.

A woman does indeed have every right to refuse to destroy her feet and back. This is not LibertarianUnderground.

Personally, I don't think that type of dress code should be allowed as it is sexist and it is harmful to one's health. My feeling is that she's fighting for better working conditions.

What about the workers who agreed to certain wages and terrible working conditions because they needed a job, needed money to survive, should they never fight to improve their work place? This is what's being lost here. You don't sign away your rights when you take a job. You don't give the company carte blanche to treat you any way they like. That's why we have laws and unions and OSHA, etc...

.

And having a right to ignore agreements you made.

If this is the fight she wants to have more power to her but she has no right to remain in the job while she has that fight.

never try to improve one's workplace.

Do you believe in strikes?

.

Because of course, it's your right to think any old thing you want to. Some people think the world is only 6000 years old, for example. What can you do?

Anyway, thankfully a lot of people disagree, and a lot of people have for a long time. Otherwise we wouldn't have things like minimum wage, child labor laws, concepts like overtime. It's a shame we have to fight for the scraps we have left because people are forgetting how and why we have these things and the concept of worker's rights. What a shame.

Doesn't make them right nor does it make ignoring dress codes you agreed to a right.

What a shame you can't figure out the difference.

Even more of them would, and wouldn't give a shit. In fact, they would cross it with glee.

Okay, you are blaming the employee for a "public relations risk." I don't think that is fair. She actually did very little at first until she found out that others had been treated the same way. Only then did she launch the petition - not to force this company to do anything but to ask that companies not be able to discriminate in this way. A reasonable request, it seems to me.

Does it matter whether she is entry level or senior management when it comes to a respectful and safe workplace? I don't think so either.

The company almost immediately changed the police which tells me that
(1) It was not an important enough policy that they wanted to defend.
(2) She was exactly right in the wisdom of the policy.

Entry level employees are potentially senior management employees if they are treated with respect, offered professional development opportunities, and most of all, listened to when they have a good idea - which this young woman did.

The company with the retrograde dress code was off base here, even if they're within their rights to set their own dress code.

But I find it hard to believe that a company will look at a field of generically equivalent employees and say "let's hire the one who exposed that other company's stupidity." In fact, nothing at all in my entire professional life suggests that a company is likely to do so. If you know of such a company eager for an unplanned and public revelation of its unflattering policies, please tell us about it.

"sexy" element in their offices. Now that this is in news I'm thinking those laughing jerks at PwC are wiping the smiles off their faces. (I worked as a secretary to a vice president of a London investment bank back in the 80s and got to experience that smirking, sexist, public-school-boy thing that is so rampant in those kinds of institutions for myself.)

Who knew?

"Public School" means an elite private school with high tuition.

"private school" over here.

It.

Where the Obama daughters attend. Are the boys there "smirking sexists" as a group?

Feel a lot of pain in 20 years. My mom had to contend with those 'high heel policies' in the hotel industry in the late70's and early 80's and she's up for some knee and hip surgery as a result at the young age of 67.

Of wearing pointy toed heels.

Her feet were in instant pain, yet she still had to go to work and stand all day to do her job.

If it's the temp agency, then she's bound by the employment terms of that company as well as those of the finance company, including dress code.

If her employer is the finance company, then she's bound by the employment terms of the finance company, including dress code.

Having said that, I think that it's stupid and oppressive to require employees to wear high heels. If employees want to wear them, then that should be their choice. But if an employee agrees to a legally permissible dress code, then the employee can't afterwards claim immunity from that dress code.

Agree on both counts.

If you agree to the dress code complaining about it after the fact is silly.

If you can't abide by the dress code then don't accept the job.

So where does that end? Uniforms are no longer necessary?

What part of this paragraph was unclear?
"I don't hold anything against the company necessarily because they are acting within their rights as employers to have a formal dress code, and as it stands, part of that for a woman is to wear high heels," Ms Thorp said.
"I think dress codes should reflect society and nowadays women can be smart and formal and wear flat shoes.
"Aside from the debilitating factor, it's the sexism issue. I think companies shouldn't be forcing that on their female employees."

She is trying to get the company to change. And they did. That is a good thing. Who said anything about uniforms?

Slippery slope arguments are quite often a logical fallacy, by the way. http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/slope.htm

Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunately, as a temp worker (i.e. a low-value disposable employee), she has little hope of getting them to change their policy unless they want to.

There is some question as to when and if this requirement was being consistently enforced.

Ms Thorp said she would have struggled to work a full day in high heels and had asked to wear the smart flat shoes she had worn to the office in Embankment.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36264229

Also, I would draw a distinction between strictly "professional appearance" dress codes - no jeans, t shirts etc. and something like heels, which have health implications, when I suggest that some parts of dress codes may not be enforced. And there actually is evidence here that this might be the case.

Ms. Thorp appears to be a temp who had worked at other offices and wore flat shoes with no problem, whether for the same agency or not, hard to tell. When she showed up at this particular office, (a company which did not actually have this as a requirement), it suddenly became an issue. That in itself seems a bit odd to me, almost as if someone had some kind of agenda here (Such as a male who "likes" women in heels?). I say I fault the supervisor because requiring heels has health implications. If someone tells me they cannot wear heels for nine hours, I would want to pay attention to that. With ADA, we talk about "reasonable accommodation." It is not an ADA issue - different country and the woman did not claim a disability. But there is a common law or at least a common sense principle here. A good supervisor does not knowingly force an employee to choose between their health and being able to work that day. For moral and practical reasons if not for legal ones. A reasonable accommodation would be to allow flat shoes to be worn. The woman can still do the job and there is nothing to say that she is not professional in appearance. If the woman were to wear the heels as required by the supervisor and gets injured as a result, that supervisor has now unnecessarily exposed his/her company to legal liability - maybe not as serious an issue in the U.K. which has National Health Insurance - not sure how workplace accidents are handled there - but in the U.S. this could create serious problems with Workman's Comp - at the least there would be an investigation as to why a reasonable accommodation was not offered the employee when she stated she could not work in the heels. The insurance company would be justified in raising rates for this kind of behavior. And good companies and good supervisors do not elevate appearance over employee health.

I can see how different sites might maintain different dress codes (my company's office in PA has different requirements than the office in AZ). It's entirely possible that the Embankment location has different requirements. If all sites are the same, though, then the fault is with the site that created the confusion. In this case, it's ultimately a good fault, but still a fault in terms of consistency.

But for me as a supervisor, simply having an employee say to me that they have difficulty wearing heels when the are going to be traipsing around the building for 9 hours would be a good enough reason to offer to relax the rule for that individual and to recommend to the company that the rule be changed. We make a big deal out of making employees be responsible for their health and fitness to help keep health care costs down and we are going to turn around and second guess them for something like heels? I don't think so.

One would swear you people think this is LibertarianUnderground

I hope she wins

The company changed the policy very quickly when the sh*t hit the fan.

Suggesting that this may have been selective enforcement of an outdated policy. My suspicion is that a male supervisor "likes" to see women in heels. Say it isn't so!

Men can be comfortable but women must look sexy at the expense of their health and well being.

We get to choose between flat fronted or pleated pants after all. Women are forced into wearing dresses. Or skirts. Or pants. Or culottes. Or leggings. Or saris. Bastard men have all the choice...

No man or woman should be forced to wear shoes that can cause physical damage. It's ridiculous.

Jeez, what if men had to wear ??????? - wait, there is nothing required for men which can cause physical damage aside from requiring a man to wear a tie while operating a lathe - when have you ever heard of that being required?

Claiming that men can remain comfortable at work. Would it were so.

Any day of the week.

to be gone when those articles appear.

Nobody is too likely to write articles about the several orders of magnitude greater number of policies which restrict male clothing far more than female, simply because they are too common to be newsworthy.

Really what choices do most office men get? Short or long sleeves (as long as you have no tattoos) and flat or pleated pant fronts is about it. We cannot wear shoes that are more open or legwear that allows airflow in the heat. We cannot go sleeveless or have more than a couple of inches of open shirt placket (in places that have ditched ties, else we can have none)

Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

and it seemed they mostly faded away - giving place to more practical, comfortable shoes. As I recall, the "casting off" of heels was due to women reclaiming there bodies and wardrobes (ala the whole burning of the bras thing).

Now - in the last decade, they're back with a vengeance - what gives?

I'm not sure you can blame it on women that this was required in this company.

It's a massively female-dominated department (69% overall, 71% in management ranks, 67% at VP)

http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml?id=533345673

recall involving any push-back on the part of the ladies (of course there may be many stories - and I've just missed them).

She makes it look soooo easy...

Men who complain about neckties should try heels someday.

They cause permanent anatomical damage to feet.
They change posture, resulting in back strain.
They hamper a woman's ability to walk safely.
They hamper a woman's ability to drive safely.

If some company said that it was MANDATORY for all employees to do something harmful like smoke cigarettes, wouldn't we all agree this should be illegal?

Because it projected the right image.

Such dress code rules should result in lawsuits whenever a female employee gets hurt tottering around on heels she's forced to wear.

(And yes, with that number of injuries, OSHA would probably be involved.)

Studies consistently show people view tallness as a good quality. And it's something that stretches across many different cultures. Someone who is tall is perceived with authority. Some women wear heels simply to appear taller and match the height of their male co-workers.

It's also fashion. 90% of female celebrities wear heels. And they showcase it all over the media. And that sets the fashion trends.

I don't even know why you brought that up but I disagree with it anyway.

And who do you think sets fashion trends? Mostly white males. And it's all about marketing. Women have plenty of body issues and it's because they are bombarded with "fashion". We are told how sexy we should be, how skinny we should be etc, etc, etc... It's not healthy for our minds and our bodies.

This OP has nothing to do with any woman wishing to be taller for any reason. It has to do with a woman who didn't want to wear high heels at a job where she will be on her feet all day because it is uncomfortable and leads to injury/health issues.

.

Oh, and it's WHITE MALES that set female fashion trends? Black males and Hispanic males play no part in the patriarchy, right? Don't women wear heels in other countries? Women wear heels in Brazil and in Mexico. Is it white men forcing women there too?

Muslim males in the mid-east play no part in forcing women to wear head coverings and burqas. That's those white, European, heterosexual Christian men who are forcing those women to wear that.

It's those white men dictating what women wear all over the world!

And those poor women who do wear heels have no choices at all. They have no power or control over their fashion? No choices at all? Interesting.

not cultural dress. You are, of course, correct when you mention middle eastern oppression of women regarding attire.

My mention of white males was regarding the fashion industry and the advertising industry that accompanies it. Most people running both of those when these "standards" such as high heels were implemented were white males.

And if you think advertising and the fashion world doesn't affect what a woman/girl (girls are where these impressions start) chooses and gives them body issues and low self-esteem you must think advertising and marketing doesn't work. In which case you would either be wrong or there are a lot of stupid people spending billions on advertising and PR campaigns for nothing.

It is a fact that white males tend to be the oppressors in general as they are the ones usually in power, again, especially when these fashions began but still today, in western cultures, of course.

.

walk around all day in 4 inch heels themselves. Or even 2 inch heels.

I was an airline employee who wore high heels for ten years, and for ten years my feet hurt every single day. I stood the entire shift, and often had to walk to the farthest reaches of the airport and back again, a good quarter mile hike in each direction. After I left that job, I didn't wear any kind of a heel for several years. I occasionally wear a shoe or sandal with a heel these days, but I don't stand in them for 8 or more hours at a stretch.

What kind of troglodytes require high heels these days? I have worn heels exactly once (to a wedding) in the last 20 years. Even among my friends that like heels, I don't know anyone who wears them every day. It is ridiculous to think an employer could require them.

They don't care if it is detrimental or not. It is the norm and expectation. And if you don't conform, you get silently pushed out the door.