Are Sexy Restaurant Outfits a Human Rights Issue?

[BC_chick]

I think the next engineering meeting I attend for our client, I'm gonna where shorts, sandals, a skull cap and a very loud Hawaiian shirt (or maybe my favorite Iggy Pop t-shirt). I wonder if the boss will say anything....

A more apt analogy would be you having to wear a suit in the summertime while your female coworkers enjoy capris and sandals.

[Hal 9000]

A more apt analogy would be you having to wear a suit in the summertime while your female coworkers enjoy capris and sandals.

Which is exactly how it goes in every office.

[BC_chick]

Which is exactly how it goes in every office.

Sounds like time to call Marketplace and report the offices that do that. I've never known any.

[Hal 9000]

Sounds like time to call Marketplace and report the offices that do that. I've never known any.

I've worked in offices and they're all like that. Women can get away with wearing pretty much anything that's comfortable (as long as it looks presentable), the men still have to long pants and wear suits. I'm sure there are no men out there petty enough to run to the media about it.

[BC_chick]

I bet if men were required to wear suits in non-air-conditioned offices (equivalent of wearing high heels for 8 hours), many would be that 'petty'.

[Hal 9000]

I bet if men were required to wear suits in non-air-conditioned offices (equivalent of wearing high heels for 8 hours), many would be that 'petty'.

What are you talking about? Of course they wear suits in non-air conditioned offices.

Many people work day-in day-out in uncomfortable clothing, sometimes for safety, sometimes because of the image they need to present. It's really not unusual, and it's not a gender issue either.

Back to the issue at hand; while the female server is allowed to wear a sleeveless mini-dress on the 30 degree day in a hot restaurant/kitchen, the guy is stuck wearing, hot dress shoes, long pants, shirt buttoned to the top and a necktie.

You either deal with it, or move on.

[The_Squid]

I bet if men were required to wear suits in non-air-conditioned offices (equivalent of wearing high heels for 8 hours), many would be that 'petty'.

Unlined linen and seersucker suits... the secret to staying cool(er)!

[Bryan]

If anything, it's the male patrons of these restaurants who are being exploited. They are the ones who are systematically being relieved of more of their money just by virtue of what the staff wear.

[Argus]

I get what you're saying and it's a fairly decent point but as I said to Squid, nightclubs are not in this equation as far as I'm concerned. It's somewhat fair to ask women who work in clubs to be representative of the patrons but the female patrons in Earl's, as far as I've seen, are not wearing revealing dresses and high heels.

There is no reason for servers to dress as though they are in a night club.

It's about image. Of the bar/restaurant establishing a sense of identity that will separate them from all the others which are somewhat similar.

Thus kilts, thus cute black dresses. You can say it's unfair in that they have to dress in what society considers sexy wear for women (sexy dress for men covering much more of the body), but then again they have a huge advantage in getting the job in the first place. That's not too fair to the boys.

And it's not the restaurant that decided what society considered attractive. Why have female bathing suits gotten smaller and smaller while male bathing suits have gotten bigger and looser?

[BC_chick]

I think this topic got way out of hand with the analogies and misrepresentations.

As someone who played the game, I think (and I did back then too) that a dress code for a place like casual upscale dining should be reasonable and no, I don't think cleavage or high heels are 'reasonable'. It would be if your market niche is specifically sexy uniforms, but if you want to *promote* yourself as a family-friendly restaurant to bring the kids, grandma and the wife, then no, cleavage and high heels should never be *requirement* for the servers.

If you want to promote yourself as a niche market for sexy uniforms, go for it, but please stop pretending to be one thing that they're not. That's all.

Lastly -- Hal, women in kitchens wear the same thing as the men. Your comparison makes no sense but I don't really care. 9 pages later I don't think you actually grasp what the argument is about.

[taxme]

Gee, I wonder if someone female gets a job in a Muslim restaurant, would they be forced to wear a head cover? Would the Human Rights Commission force the owners to change their dress code so some girl would not be forced to wear a head cover? I doubt the HRC would because with the HRC, there are rules for some but not for others. It will probably depend on what minority you belong too. Just my opinion. of course.

[Hal 9000]

I think this topic got way out of hand with the analogies and misrepresentations.

As someone who played the game, I think (and I did back then too) that a dress code for a place like casual upscale dining should be reasonable and no, I don't think cleavage or high heels are 'reasonable'. It would be if your market niche is specifically sexy uniforms, but if you want to *promote* yourself as a family-friendly restaurant to bring the kids, grandma and the wife, then no, cleavage and high heels should never be *requirement* for the servers.

If you want to promote yourself as a niche market for sexy uniforms, go for it, but please stop pretending to be one thing that they're not. That's all.

Lastly -- Hal, women in kitchens wear the same thing as the men. Your comparison makes no sense but I don't really care. 9 pages later I don't think you actually grasp what the argument is about.

I understand just fine. I just disagree with most of what your saying. My position is that "people do what works for them" and when it doesn't, they move on. So what? These restaurants are for the most part adult establishments and like Kimmy said, they are selling an experience.

Maybe the issue is that we shouldn't be allowing underage people in those establishments or allow teens to work there.

Why has nobody questioned that nearly all these servers are hot (8+) young women. If there is a complaint, it should be that these places discriminate against uggos and heifers.

P.S - Why do you suppose that the Bier Markt changed their servers dress? And...why, If the complainant quit and moved on to another job is she still bothered by the dress code change?

[kimmy]

Thank you for answering. Staying on topic on this thread has been like pulling teeth.

As for my feeling about employee's ignoring dress codes - you should start a thread and we could discuss it. Here, I thought we were discussing whether or not restaurants that do not cater to sexy uniform niche markets should be allowed to stipulate dress codes which include things like high heels, cleavage or very short skirts.

I don't think I was off topic at all. Why are you trying to limit discussion to restaurants outside the "Hooters" type niche? The the Ontario Human Rights Commission doesn't seem to be making that distinction, judging from the artlcle Boges cited.

Based on the statements in that article, it appears that in Ontario, Hooters and sports bars had better change their business model to support sensibly dressed waitresses or face the wrath of the Human Rights Commission. That CBC tried to get a response from Hooters certainly makes clear that they don't see the "uniform niche market" being exempt.

As someone who played the game, I think (and I did back then too) that a dress code for a place like casual upscale dining should be reasonable and no, I don't think cleavage or high heels are 'reasonable'. It would be if your market niche is specifically sexy uniforms, but if you want to *promote* yourself as a family-friendly restaurant to bring the kids, grandma and the wife, then no, cleavage and high heels should never be *requirement* for the servers.

If you want to promote yourself as a niche market for sexy uniforms, go for it, but please stop pretending to be one thing that they're not. That's all.

Why should a Hooters be able to mandate tiny shorts and tight tank-tops, but an "upscale dining" restaurant shouldn't be able to have a dress code mandating a tight-fitting above-the-knee black dress? Why should there be a distinction between the two based on "how they promote themselves"? Cactus Club shouldn't require their waitresses to wear Little Black Dresses because they're "upscale dining", but if they billed themselves as something different then it would become OK and cease to be an issue in your opinion?

How would a business like Cactus Club, say, indicate to the public that they have waitresses in little black dresses? A sign that says "Caution, these premises are patrolled by attractive waitresses in sexy dresses"?

And how will this standard of what constitutes "reasonable" dress? To avoid trouble, should Hooters and Earls and Cactus Club and the sports bars just call in the OHRC to design their uniforms for them?

-k

[The_Squid]

Point of order: Cactus Club is not "upscale dining"...

carry on...

[Bonam]

Point of order: Cactus Club is not "upscale dining"...

That's all relative. It's about as upscale as I ever go

[BC_chick]

Point of order: Cactus Club is not "upscale dining"...

carry on...

Kimmy is misquoting my post. I called it casual upscale, that's the name for those types of restaurants: Browns, Earls, Joeys and so on.

[Hal 9000]

Kimmy is misquoting my post. I called it casual upscale, that's the name for those types of restaurants: Browns, Earls, Joeys and so on.

So, when you're losing an argument you claim to be misquoted, try to change the argument and proceed to claim that we just don't understand.

You know who you sound like? I'll give you hint; she also lives on the west coast.

[BC_chick]

What? I wasn't arguing anything, I was clarifying something for squid because he thought Kimmy was calling cactus club upscale.

[msj]

You know who you sound like? I'll give you hint; she also lives on the west coast.

And you come across like that guy who has all those eyes and yet still can't see....

[BC_chick]

I don't think I was off topic at all. Why are you trying to limit discussion to restaurants outside the "Hooters" type niche? The the Ontario Human Rights Commission doesn't seem to be making that distinction, judging from the artlcle Boges cited.

Based on the statements in that article, it appears that in Ontario, Hooters and sports bars had better change their business model to support sensibly dressed waitresses or face the wrath of the Human Rights Commission. That CBC tried to get a response from Hooters certainly makes clear that they don't see the "uniform niche market" being exempt.

Why should a Hooters be able to mandate tiny shorts and tight tank-tops, but an "upscale dining" restaurant shouldn't be able to have a dress code mandating a tight-fitting above-the-knee black dress? Why should there be a distinction between the two based on "how they promote themselves"? Cactus Club shouldn't require their waitresses to wear Little Black Dresses because they're "upscale dining", but if they billed themselves as something different then it would become OK and cease to be an issue in your opinion?

How would a business like Cactus Club, say, indicate to the public that they have waitresses in little black dresses? A sign that says "Caution, these premises are patrolled by attractive waitresses in sexy dresses"?

And how will this standard of what constitutes "reasonable" dress? To avoid trouble, should Hooters and Earls and Cactus Club and the sports bars just call in the OHRC to design their uniforms for them?

-k

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-gender-specific-dress-codes-1.3474289

You're right, the article Boges posted did not mention anything about the type of restaurant. The link above discusses the Marketplace investigation and it's based on the types of restaurants I mentioned - upscale casual, namely Joey's, Earl's etc.

As to why Earl's but not Hooters - I've stated on this thread, I personally think sexy uniforms and niche markets have their place in society and I am only giving my opinions about restaurants that do not cater specifically to the sexy uniform niche market but who nonetheless stipulate it anyway.

And I don't know why you ask why. Niche market exist for a reason. I know when stepping into a strip bar that there will be naked women there. When I step into a Hooters I know there will be women wearing sexy Hooters uniforms. When I step into Chuck E Cheese I know there will be screaming kids and lots of games making noise.

It's about the consumer knowing exactly what to expect from their experience and as far as I know Earl's and Cactus Club do not promote themselves as a place where high heels or cleavage are to be expected.

If they want to, that's fine too, but if they promote themselves as a place you can take grandma, I don't see a reason why heels should be mandatory.

BTW, Earl's already changed their policy after this Marketplace:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-dress-codes-earls-1.3483432

Edited March 11, 2016 by BC_chick

[On Guard for Thee]

I just wonder whaqt kind of a loser goes to a restaurant to get sexual stimulation. I pick based on what kind of food I feel like.

[Boges]

I just wonder whaqt kind of a loser goes to a restaurant to get sexual stimulation. I pick based on what kind of food I feel like.

That's not true, much of the appeal of certain restaurants is the atmosphere they put forward. And part of that can be the attractive wait staff. Male OR Female.

[kimmy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-gender-specific-dress-codes-1.3474289

You're right, the article Boges posted did not mention anything about the type of restaurant. The link above discusses the Marketplace investigation and it's based on the types of restaurants I mentioned - upscale casual, namely Joey's, Earl's etc.

As to why Earl's but not Hooters - I've stated on this thread, I personally think sexy uniforms and niche markets have their place in society and I am only giving my opinions about restaurants that do not cater specifically to the sexy uniform niche market but who nonetheless stipulate it anyway.

The difference you're seeking to create-- uniform niche vs casual upscale or whatever-- is fictional and arbitrary. If you apply to work at either a Cactus Club or a Hooters, you know what you're expected to wear. Proposing that one restaurant's waitresses ought to be able to ignore the dress-code while those at the other can't doesn't make sense. Suggesting that the OHRC ought to be able to tell one restaurant to change their dress code but not the other doesn't make sense.

It seems like you're trying to find some reason why it could be ok for Hooters to tell waitresses to wear tank-tops and tiny orange shorts, but not ok for Cactus Club to tell waitresses to wear a Little Black Dress.

There's no justification for the OHRC to pursue one business over this but not the other.

And I don't know why you ask why. Niche market exist for a reason. I know when stepping into a strip bar that there will be naked women there. When I step into a Hooters I know there will be women wearing sexy Hooters uniforms. When I step into Chuck E Cheese I know there will be screaming kids and lots of games making noise.

It's about the consumer knowing exactly what to expect from their experience and as far as I know Earl's and Cactus Club do not promote themselves as a place where high heels or cleavage are to be expected.

If they want to, that's fine too, but if they promote themselves as a place you can take grandma, I don't see a reason why heels should be mandatory.

To be clear: is this about protecting Grandma's delicate sensibilities, or is it about protecting the workers?

If it's the former, I don't see the problem. I think Grandma will be OK.

If it's the latter I don't see why it would be OK for the waitresses at Hooters to be told how to dress, but not ok for the waitresses at Earls.

-k

[BC_chick]

By your logic (that the niche market of the restaurant is irrelevant), Chuck E Cheese is free to stipulate high heels and cleavage too. You might think that should be the case, but I disagree. Sometimes limits have to be imposed in the free market because there's a time and place for everything.

The fact that Earl's changed their position shows that even they see that it's not a great idea. They get that they're not in the sex/food industry.

You're welcome to your opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion. Same as mine.

Edited March 11, 2016 by BC_chick

[Argus]

And you come across like that guy who has all those eyes and yet still can't see....

And you come across as a snarky, whining guy who likes to post drive-by smears.