Are Sexy Restaurant Outfits a Human Rights Issue?

[BC_chick]

What does half nakedness have to do with being presentable? Realtors need to be presentable too, their employers aren't ask them to show cleavage.

Edited March 14, 2016 by BC_chick

[msj]

What does half nakedness have to do with being presentable? Realtors need to be presentable too, their employers aren't ask them to show cleavage.

Realtors are usually self employed and work independently of their affiliated brokerage house (Re/Max, Royal LePage etc) so I'm sure they can wear heels and short skirts and long jackets all they want.

That's the type of realtor I want: short skirt, long jacket, touring the facilities and picking up slack....

[it's a Cake reference].

[Guest]

I dealt with an exhibitionist realtor once. I thought it was my imagination until I spoke to someone else who had the same experience.

[BC_chick]

Msj, again this is not about making people cover up, it's about not requiring them to more show than their comfortable with. I'm pretty sure remax would be in trouble too if they required their contractor realtors to show cleavage.

Edited March 14, 2016 by BC_chick

[msj]

Msj, again this is not about making people cover up, it's about not requiring them to more show than their comfortable with.

One would think if a person is uncomfortable with themselves then they would become a CPA and work in an office rather than apply at Hooters or Chuck E Cheese or any other restaurant that may or may not want its staff to wear certain clothes.

This is unnecessary government intrusion.

[kimmy]

For the last time, this is not about enforcing restaurants to cover up their servers, it's about *not requiring* them to do so.

It's about unwarranted government interference without any compelling public interest in doing so. If an employee is happy with the dress code at her place of work, the government has no business interfering. If the employee isn't happy with the dress code, she shouldn't have taken that job in the first place.

Let's put it this way. I own a styrofoam manufacturing company. I love hiring half naked women because it's great for business. Instead of hiring women who I think look like they like to dress half naked in hopes that they do, I put out a policy to my employees that says you must show cleavage and wear super short shorts to work here.

When HR commission says wait a minute, showing cleavage has nothing to do with making styrofoam cups, you're not allowed to do that.

And my answer is, but the accountants like it and Kimmy had fun here the other night, so why not??

Therein lies the crux of this argument. Being naked has nothing to do with serving food. You may encourage it but you can't enforce it.

As the Squid astutely points out, working in service and working in a factory aren't the same thing.

I think you understand that being a waitress is not simply a matter of serving food. Earlier I proposed a waitress coming to work wearing sweat-pants and Crocs, and you said that was completely ridiculous. Well, if being a waitress was simply about serving food, sweat-pants and Crocs wouldn't be ridiculous. They would be completely adequate to the job of writing down orders and bringing food and drinks to tables. You know that sweatpants and Crocs are ridiculous, so obviously you recognize that the job isn't just a matter of recording orders and carrying food around. The service staff is a key part of the customer experience that the restaurant is selling.

As for transparency, it was in the context of restaurants that have uniforms (or up front when hiring). Try reading a little slower, I've explained myself already.

And what reason would you have to think that the dress code isn't discussed during the job interview? Why would you think that the waitress who ends up at an Earl's or a Cactus Club doesn't know what the dress code is like?

You've still not managed to articulate a coherent arguent as to why it would be ok for Hooters to mandate the silly uniforms while not ok for places like Earl's et al to mandate the Little Black Dresses. And when pressed on the subject you conjure up this poorly-defined notion of "transparency", and when pressed on what that actually means, you respond with this idea that perhaps the dress code wasn't explained to the waitresses when they were interviewed. I'm sorry, but it seems like you're grasping at straws.

-k

[cybercoma]

If the employee isn't happy with the dress code, she shouldn't have taken that job in the first place.

-k

What about when the dress code changes after being hired? Say you're comfortable with the code when you apply and are hired, then they suddenly require only the women employees to wear mini skirts, high heels, and unbuttoned blouses? I agree that the waitress should quit if she's not comfortable with that, but let's consider how tough it is to find work right now and assume she needs the job to keep her lights on as many people in the service and hospitality industries do. Consider that this is a new dress code that only applies to the women too, so none of the men are forced to quit over it. Would it not be seen as an issue then that the terms of employment were changed just for the women, forcing them to expose themselves in a manner that some of them may not be comfortable unless they want to find themselves on the street? Meanwhile, the men who work there have no such ultimatums to deal with.

[BC_chick]

Kimmy, as I astutely retorted to squid, there are many sales/service industries and none of them require women to show body parts. Why should the restaurant industry be any different?

Msj, by your logic we could require women to show cleavage to do any menial job where their male counterparts aren't subjected to the same just because they don't have education. Is that what you're saying?

Edited March 14, 2016 by BC_chick

[msj]

Msj, by your logic we could require women to show cleavage to do any menial job where their male counterparts aren't subjected to the same just because they don't have education. Is that what you're saying?

Not at all. It was merely one of many examples I could have made up.

The accountant job is obvious though given how it tends to be a job that is performed mostly out of the spotlight and for introverts.

But it doesn't matter because as dre and kimmy have successfully argued, it is not for the state to decide that women need protection from the ravages of high heeled shoes and low cut shirts. Or at least no more protection than I do from being "forced" by my work culture to wear a suit and tie to work when I would rather wear those sweatpants and crocs (ok, not crocs, a line is drawn there).

I don't like the culture of Earl's and Cactus Club so I don't eat there. That is all the response needed against those types of restaurants other than not working there if one objects to the dress code.

[BC_chick]

Msj, the state does intervene in any other job where women are expected to be sexualized when it has nothing to do with their vocation.

There used to be a day when you could sexually harass AA's and flight attendants too just because they lacked the education to do anything different.

I think you're speaking from the point of view of what is acceptable at this point in time.

Eta, you are mixing reasonable attire and sexualized attire together as many others have done when my point is that they are two separate things. Wearing sweats to works as an accountant can't be compared to a server covering her boobs.

A server can be reasonably dressed without showing boobs.

Edited March 14, 2016 by BC_chick

[msj]

I don't think harassment is acceptable at any time. Given that it is in the criminal code I think most people agree.

Wearing high heels and showing cleavage to entice tips from stupid hormonal men goes both ways.

It is the men who are often being taken advantage of and they are willing and happy participants in it. Just like the women.

That's their business.

[BC_chick]

Asking women to show boobs when it has nothing to do with serving food IS sexual harassment.

[kimmy]

Kimmy, as I astutely retorted to squid, there are many sales/service industries and none of them require women to show body parts. Why should the restaurant industry be any different?

Ok, so why does Hooters get off the hook in your view? Tiny orange shorts doesn't have any more to do with serving overpriced chicken-wings than a Little Black Dress has to do with serving an overpriced steak.

You've sought to create this artificial distinction between the two, by calling the one a "uniform niche market" or referring to it as "sex/food", but that's a completely artificial distinction that only exists in your head. Neither place is selling sex. Both places are selling an atmosphere. Sex appeal is part of the atmosphere. I don't see it as being a problem that Little Black Dress restaurants aren't as crass about it as Hooters is.

-k

[msj]

Here I thought if a woman wore something that showed her boobs then it was all about her beauty and her choice and etc etc....

Hooters, Earl's, Cactus Club aren't my thing but once again: why should the government step in and upset the men who get their jollies from such an atmosphere while also upsetting the women who also benefit from such an atmosphere?

Because you don't like it?

Because I don't like it (but have no problem with other people partaking in it because, freedom)?

The criminal code is there for real harassment, people's willingness to work for, or not, and peoples willingness to eat at the restaurants, or not, is good enough for most of us. No further government intervention required.

[kimmy]

What about when the dress code changes after being hired? Say you're comfortable with the code when you apply and are hired, then they suddenly require only the women employees to wear mini skirts, high heels, and unbuttoned blouses?

I agree with you here. As I've mentioned previously I do feel the waitresses at the Bier Markt restaurant have a reasonable complaint because the Lieutenant Uhura dresses they were told to wear were definitely not what they signed up for. I'm not sure what the right way to handle that would be, but since it's the employer who changed the deal, I think the onus is on the employer to provide a solution. A layoff with reasonable severance, perhaps.

-k

[BC_chick]

Transparency. We've been over this.

Enough of making this about me. Tell me why servers should not be given the same legal protection as all other women working in service industries?

A woman selling porches would making a killing showing cleavage and I'm sure her boss would love to see it and while she should have every right to do so she not be expected to and is protected by law not to do so but it's ok if that a server is?

Edited March 14, 2016 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

Here I thought if a woman wore something that showed her boobs then it was all about her beauty and her choice and etc etc....

Hooters, Earl's, Cactus Club aren't my thing but once again: why should the government step in and upset the men who get their jollies from such an atmosphere while also upsetting the women who also benefit from such an atmosphere?

Because you don't like it?

Because I don't like it (but have no problem with other people partaking in it because, freedom)?

The criminal code is there for real harassment, people's willingness to work for, or not, and peoples willingness to eat at the restaurants, or not, is good enough for most of us. No further government intervention required.

I am the biggest proponent for women dressing as they please. Don't make this about me. Edited March 14, 2016 by BC_chick

[msj]

I know a property manager who doesn't have boobs so she can't use that to her advantage.

She does have great legs, however, so she always wears short skirts.

Does it help her in her job?

I don't know. Probably in some cases, maybe not in others.

Would I expect the government to come in and tell her what she can or can not wear whether it is by her choice or her brokerage's choice?

Nope. No need for government intervention.

[msj]

I am the biggest proponent for women dressing as they please. Don't make this about me.

I'm not making this about you.

I am making this about your idea that you don't like women showing boobs while serving food.

You don't like it.

Hell, I don't particularly like it either.

[BC_chick]

I'm not making this about you.

I am making this about your idea that you don't like women showing boobs while serving food.

You don't like it.

Hell, I don't particularly like it either.

I could care less what a woman wears. im the one actually arguing FORa woman's right to choose her attire (so long as she's presentable).

[WestCoastRunner]

A petition has been started to urge the Manitoba Human Rights Commission to also take a stand on sexualized dress codes in the workplace. This could have a ripple effect across Canada. And it's about time.

"I think that women deserve to have labour rights, they deserve to have a safe working environment, they deserve to have a work environment that's free from sexual advances, discrimination, sexist dress codes," said Tuckett-McGimpsey.

"I think it is a human rights violation and I think that they need to step up, see what Ontario's doing and do the same thing."

"It's 2016 and this sort of discrimination and sexist dress codes, they're just not welcome anymore," she said.

Tuckett-McGimpsey said when she worked as a massage therapist she would see women who work at restaurants who had problems with their back, knees and feet.

"I heard from them that they're not allowed to wear flats or if they wore a smaller heel they'd get a worse section or they'd be questioned if they really wanted to work there," she said.

Tuckett-McGimpsey said even if restaurants have mandates that only require a one-inch heel or a skirt no shorter than a fingertip length above the knee, she has heard from servers that they wear higher heels and shorter skirts.

"It is a workplace culture. Just because they say we only require an inch heel, that's not what goes on in the restaurant," she said.

Heather Unger, lawyer for the Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC), applauded the pair for raising the issue, especially on International Women's Day.

"There's still a lot of work to do around this issue. As the Ontario Commission has said, unequal treatment is still a daily challenge for women," Unger said.

"It raises the underlying principles of the human rights code, which is our provincial human rights legislation, which is that all people should be treated equally on the basis of their merit. Once a person is treated differently, based on some aspect of their identity, a human rights issue may be at play there."

"When they are treating employees different because they are a woman, that's when the human rights commission comes into play. That's when policies become problematic."

What I don't understand is why anyone would not want to be on board to ensure that women deserve to have a work environment that's free from sexual advances, discrimination and sexist dress codes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/sexualized-dress-codes-1.3481836

[WestCoastRunner]

I'm not making this about you.

I am making this about your idea that you don't like women showing boobs while serving food.

You don't like it.

Hell, I don't particularly like it either.

You are clearly missing the point.

[msj]

Sure, presentable in accordance with the dress code established by the business.

It would be easy to get around what you want: Earls and CC would just implement uniforms like Hooters.

And since even you seem to be okay with that, then what?

It's much simpler to let freedom reign: let the eye candy/hormonal men have their Hooters, Earl's and CC's while the rest of us enjoy other places to work and or dine at.

Same goes for other industries. Other than real safety issues government intervention is not needed because of your or my opinion of what you or I think is reasonable or presentable.

[BC_chick]

You are clearly missing the point.

You are clearly missing the point.

.

Totally. Along with everyone else.

[kimmy]

Transparency. We've been over this.

You've said the word transparency several times but steadfastly refuse to elaborate on it. Transparency between who and who regarding what?

Enough of making this about me. Tell me why servers should not be given the same legal protection as all other women working in service industries?

I'm not making it about you. I'm only addressing your argument, or lack thereof.

And I believe that servers do have the same legal protection as other women working in the service industries.

A woman selling porches would making a killing showing cleavage and I'm sure her boss would love to see it and while she should have every right to do so she not be expected to and is protected by law not to do so but it's ok if that a server is?

Porches? Do you mean the luxury car, or the place where you sip a beverage on a Sunday afternoon? In either case I think you're overestimating the sales power of cleavage.

-k