This is a rather old article, but it seems to me it`s actual till today...
Grooming Counts or Does It?
Many companies have established rigid grooming standards for their employees. Walt Disney World, for example, insists that employees follow established guidelines for hairstyle, jewelry, makeup, and facial hair. Airlines also require flight attendants to meet certain weight restrictions. Federal Express and United Parcel Service, too, impose grooming standards that limit the length of men’s hair. Currently, however, some of these policies are being justifiably challenged in courts by workers who claim that the standards infringe on their religious rights. At issue is whether employers have the right to enforce rigid grooming rules on workers whose appearance expresses their religious beliefs or their cultural heritage.
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), no company is allowed to prevent its employees from expressing religious beliefs through their appearance. The EEOC claims that forbidding such expressions of religious belief violates the Civil Rights Act. Both FedEx and UPS, for example, have fired drivers who refused to cut off their dreadlocks—long, thick strands of knotted or braided hair associated with Rastafarianism (a religious and political movement originating in the 1930s in Jamaica). Similarly, several police officers employed by the Dallas Police Department were reprimanded or fired for wearing dreadlocks. In these cases and others, the EEOC has interceded on behalf of the employees.
The question of civil rights aside, employers also need to keep in mind that an employee’s appearance seldom interferes with his or her ability to do the job. In other words, employers can afford to be more tolerant. Chris Warden, for example, was terminated from his job as a FedEx driver for wearing dreadlocks even though his manager’s evaluations called him a superior employee. Warden’s case proves that wearing dreadlocks does not affect an individual’s job performance and therefore should not be a cause of dismissal.
As the multicultural population of the U.S. continues to grow, companies will be challenged more often for their insistence on strict grooming policies. It’s high time employers embraced diversity and redefined outdated notions about what is “reasonable” and “acceptable” (David France, “Law: The Dreadlock Deadlock,” Newsweek, September 10, 2001).
What`s your opinion of this problem? Do you have to wear any uniform on the place of your employment, are you satisfied with it? As to me, I think there are several spheres where wearing of uniform is nessesary. Such as the employers of hotels, diffrerent technical services, restaurants and so on - they must be different from their clients in outward appearance. It`s no nessesity to speak about the rigid uniform of medical staff or of the army. If a person keeps some traditions which prohibit wearing uniform, he can`t work in the spheres where the uniform is obligatory. But when the rigid style of appearance is not explicable I think it`s a nonsense to insist on rigid grooming standards.
|