Are Sexy Restaurant Outfits a Human Rights Issue?

[Bonam]

That is a valid question. I'll think on it. Bed time for now...

[TimG]

Surely, Bonam, you wouldn't say an accounting firm has a right to tell me to show my boobs because it makes us *both* more money?

Jobs like accounting need to project a sense of professionalism so sexy outfits make no sense. If a firm was to require such garb people would be right to complain because such outfits would interfere with their ability to do the job.

Waitresses are in an opposite situation because such outfits can be consistent with the image the firm wishes to project and can lead to greater tips. If this was not true I would expect that these firms would have been forced to change their dress code long ago because they could not find staff willing to wear the uniform.

Why do you feel servers aren't worthy of the same protection?

As long as there is a 'hooters exception' your argument that it is about protecting workers is false. Edited March 14, 2016 by TimG

[Hal 9000]

Hot waitresses bring in more money for their employers and more tips for themselves - that's a fact. We all know the game and to suggest otherwise is pure naivety.

[msj]

Msj, I still don't think you understand the issue here. Why should I (or your receptionist) be protected by the law to not be required to show cleavage but a server isn't?

Why should we have two sets of standards?.

If a restaurant wants its servers to wear bikinis and makes men wear speedos then I'm ok with that.

Sure, if the women are wearing bikinis and the men are wearing golf shirts and khaki shorts then I agree there is a problem.

If a dentist or accountant wanted to practice under such rules (bikinis and speedos) then I also don't have a problem with it though as membership based professions I doubt the membership would allow such practices to practice that way for long. That's the rights and responsibilities that come from belonging to membership based organizations.

Hence my statement that government intervention is either unnecessary or rarely required which is the point I have been making all along.

[kimmy]

Kimmy, you say the server's service is integral to the experience but I say it's as secondary as my job as an accountant. I still have to liaise with my clients, even though the quality of my service (equivalent of the food servers serve) is the primary commodity.

Well, you're wrong. People don't just go to these places because they want food, they go to these places because they want a night out. The service experience is a key component of that.

Your clients are no doubt happy to know they're not dealing with a crazy-person when they meet with you, but beyond assuring them of your professionalism your appearance has nothing to do with the services you provide.

-k

[kimmy]

The issue is that that are 4 types of restaurants. Fast food, casual, casual upscale and high end. Casual upscale is the highest earning which doesn't require vocational training or experience and the women who work in these high paying jobs shouldn't be *expected* to dress provocatively to serve food.

Everyone here thinks the law wants them to cover up whereas all it wants to do is protect those who want to make money without having to dress sexually.

As you would expect in ANY other profession that does not cater to sex.

Perhaps some thought should be given to why the casual upscale waitresses earn more than the waitresses who work in slacks and sensible shoes.

If a server doesn't want to put herself out there in terms of her appearance in the way that some do, maybe she shouldn't expect the same financial rewards. I have about as much sympathy for her position as I have for a guy who works at a coffee shop wondering why he makes less money than a guy doing heavy labor. "It's not fair. His job doesn't take any skill. He can't even make smiley-faces with syrup in coffee-foam. Why does he make so much more money than me?" Because he's breaking his back while you're serving coffee in an air-conditioned shop, that's why. And similar with the waitress. If she wants to earn as much money as the upscale waitresses but she doesn't feel like giving up the security of her slacks and cardigan, she's in pretty much the same boat as the coffee guy who wants to get paid like a laborer without actually doing labor.

-k

[Bob Macadoo]

BC_C is right you are all a bunch of hypocrites.

If I'm buying a Porsche.....I know what I want. The salesperson is superfluous. Cleavage is going to get the commission over cufflinks.

Same with realty. Cleavage is getting the sale. Yes they are independent but the Broker decides if you are humping for them or not. If I was that broker I would stand outside Hooters at end of shift with application forms.

In addition what does it matter if I change my business model a year in? If its a policy then its a policy. Strip down or get out.....I'll have a line out the door wanting the house commissions.

Either I can set this dress code anywhere or nowhere. Your argument is that there is a market niche for that dress code in the food industry. I say I can find that niche in any market. Cars, houses, toasters......if it can be sold it can be sexualized. Let me free enterprise.

[cybercoma]

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

The employer would never willingly pay out unless there was legislation stipulating that a change to working conditions requires severance if the employee quits in response.

[cybercoma]

It is the men who are often being taken advantage of...

This sounds way too much like the reasoning behind burqas and stoning women who were raped. Men are better than that. We're not unthinking animals with no self control and if we are that's certainly nobody's fault but our own.

[TimG]

The employer would never willingly pay out unless there was legislation stipulating that a change to working conditions requires severance if the employee quits in response.

Employment law already covers 'constructive dismissal' - i.e. a change to working conditions which forces an employee to quit is treated the same as a firing without cause and compensated accordingly. A change to uniform should be a basis for 'constructive dismissal' claim.

[Bryan]

Demanding sexy attire for a business that wants to project that image is exactly the same as a business demanding business attire in theirs. CHoose what you want to wear when you make your job choices, not after.

[Bryan]

Men are better than that.

They should be, but reality shows otherwise.

[cybercoma]

A dress code isn't a human rights issue.

-k

It can be if it's racist, sexist, or discriminatory. Employers have to make reasonable accommodation for religious apparel. What you guys are essentially arguing here is whether or not it's reasonable for an employer to have a dress code that demands waitresses and only women waitresses to be sexual objects for the customers' lust.

[WestCoastRunner]

Male servers at a restaurant in Ottawa wanted to get a test of the workplace discrimination that women face so they dressed in heels and short dresses. Some of their comments:

"If this is what women have to deal with in days or weeks or years of working in restaurants, or wherever they're working, then I can't even really imagine that, actually. It's kind of tough," said busser and server James Tilden.

The men lasted only an hour or two in the heels, which ran the gamut from red stilettos to cheap, black, strappy numbers.

But aside from the physical pain, they also described feeling vulnerable and uncomfortable as they worked.

"After 45 minutes to an hour of wearing the heels, the pain I was in, I just had no focus for what needed to be done. And I would purposely make decisions contrary to what I would have in my right mind. I would see something on a table and be like, I can't turn around and fix that, so that's just going to have to stay how it is. Nowhere close to my normal level of service," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/workplace-sexual-discrimination-men-heels-union-613-1.3483305

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/union-local-613-women-dress-code-protest-1.3481576

Edited March 14, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[cybercoma]

People are talking about not requiring servers to dress in a sexy manner, but leaving them the option to do so if they choose. That would be a reasonable argument, except for what would happen in reality, which is that if it's not required, some of those servers who choose not to dress in that way will aggressively "slut shame" those who do. Social pressures like this are very strong, and eliminating jobs where waitresses are expected to earn high tips while dressing sexy will effectively also eliminate the possibility of jobs where they are merely allowed to do so. And that means basically eliminating one of the easiest ways for young women to make a decent hourly wage before they have acquired professional skills.

If a law to this effect is passed, those who benefit will be a few angry feminists, and those who will be affected most negatively are the thousands of young women trying to pay their way through college.

What about the social pressure to undress for greater tips? You recognize it in one situation but not the other. Edited March 14, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Employment law already covers 'constructive dismissal' - i.e. a change to working conditions which forces an employee to quit is treated the same as a firing without cause and compensated accordingly. A change to uniform should be a basis for 'constructive dismissal' claim.

It's not in Ontario nor New Brunswick. But I'm not going to go through each province's labour code to find out where it would be.

[Hal 9000]

Male servers at a restaurant in Ottawa wanted to get a test of the workplace discrimination that women face so they dressed in heels and short dresses. Some of their comments:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/workplace-sexual-discrimination-men-heels-union-613-1.3483305

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/union-local-613-women-dress-code-protest-1.3481576

C'mon, these experiments are always so dumb....and clearly driven with an agenda can can only go one way. Lets take a bunch of women and have them stand outside in freezing rain with a chainsaw for 10 hours and see what they say too. How many women would choose crawling around in a sewer drainage all day? Would she maybe rethink quitting her high heel waitress job that pays her 10$ and hour more than that guy?

Do you women have any idea what most men do in their everyday jobs?

[Hal 9000]

The employer would never willingly pay out unless there was legislation stipulating that a change to working conditions requires severance if the employee quits in response.

The Bier Markt obviously figured out that they were either losing money or not earning their full potential and therefore made the decision to change their servers' outfits.

It should be interesting what happens at Earls now that they've caved to the Canadian media machine. Will their waitresses dress down? Will the restaurant see lower returns?

[poochy]

C'mon, these experiments are always so dumb....and clearly driven with an agenda can can only go one way. Lets take a bunch of women and have them stand outside in freezing rain with a chainsaw for 10 hours and see what they say too. How many women would choose crawling around in a sewer drainage all day? Would she maybe rethink quitting her high heel waitress job that pays her 10$ and hour more than that guy?

Do you women have any idea what most men do in their everyday jobs?

You haven't heard that everything women do is the most difficult of all things anyone can do? I worked at a store when i was a kid and NO ONE worked harder then the women who punched numbers into a register all day, they would happily tell you so, they were on their feet all day you see, those of us who were slogging literally thousands of pounds during the day, who were also on our feet all day, who also were at their beck and call to help with carrying groceries to cars, well, we just didn't understand what it was like to be such a hard working martyr.

Also, if the dress code is in place before they accept a job then no one is forcing them to do anything, they volunteered.

[BC_chick]

I'm not going to bother quoting everyone here who responded to me because this post addressed pretty much every post...

Nobody has yet given a good reason why servers should not be given the same right as women who work in other industries. My job is professional and their isn't? That has to be one of the most demeaning things I've ever heard - what does cleavage have to do with serving food?

Sounds like everyone here think the law shouldn't apply to them because they're just a bunch of unskilled women who can get another job if they don't like it.

Servers deserve the same rights as any other woman. Their job is not in the sex industry.

Edited March 15, 2016 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

Once and for all, the title of this thread needs to be changed. This is not about covering up waitresses even though so many people seem to be making that their argument.

It's about a 'reasonable dress code' allowing for cleavage to be a woman's *personal decision*.

Edited March 15, 2016 by BC_chick

[dialamah]

Hypothetically, suppose I ran a restaurant where I want the waitresses to wear Little Black Dresses... how would I go about doing that in a manner that you wouldn't object to?

-k

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but for me it would be ok, if they specified something like "You will be expected to wear a black cocktail dress, of moderate length, or less if you prefer. Cleavage is not required, but is at your preference. Dress shoes are required, but heel height is your decision." Then I'd provide pictures of the minimum expectation, for example.

Edited March 15, 2016 by dialamah

[BC_chick]

Exactly, dialamah, it's conflating. People are making it sound like this is about little black dresses and prudish uniforms when it's about cleavage being a woman's personal choice.

Just like any other industry.

[dre]

Nobody has yet given a good reason why servers should not be given the same right as women who work in other industries. My job is professional and their isn't? That has to be one of the most demeaning things I've ever heard - what does cleavage have to do with serving food?

The people that make the decisions in other industries just choose to have different dress codes. Its not necessarily the case that an accountant or a secretary or a bank teller has any more "rights" than a server. They just work for different employers with different policies.

[jacee]

The employer would never willingly pay out unless there was legislation stipulating that a change to working conditions requires severance if the employee quits in response.

Such a change in working conditions could be deemed "constructive dismissal", and thus subject to termination of employment rules and termination pay, if the employee resigns as a result:

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/termination.php

A constructive dismissal may occur when an employer makes a significant change to a fundamental term or condition of an employee's employment without the employee's actual or implied consent.

Edited March 15, 2016 by jacee