Are Sexy Restaurant Outfits a Human Rights Issue?

[jacee]

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.

Not quite.

Personal choice is one thing.

Employer demand is entirely different.

.

[jacee]

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*.

From the OP link:

"This treatment is often visible in bars, restaurants and other services that require women to dress in high heels, tight dresses, low-cut tops and short skirts," it said.

The thread is not about an employee's personal choice. It's about the fact that employers cannot "require" sexy dress.

[cybercoma]

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.phpA 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.

No court is going to see a dress code change as significant.

[BC_chick]

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.

I get that, I want to know why. Tell me one good reason an employer is allowed to ask a woman serving food that she must show cleavage but it would be against the law to ask an accountant to do the same.

[BC_chick]

From the OP link:

"This treatment is often visible in bars, restaurants and other services that require women to dress in high heels, tight dresses, low-cut tops and short skirts," it said.

The thread is not about an employee's personal choice. It's about the fact that employers cannot "require" sexy dress.

I realize that and I'm arguing against such policies. I'm clarifying my stance for people who are making it out like this law is meant to forbid women from showing cleavage when in fact it's about women having the choice to wear what they want without anyone forcing them to dress in a way that has nothing to do with their job.

Edited March 15, 2016 by BC_chick

[jacee]

I realize that and I'm arguing against such policies. I'm clarifying my stance for people who are making it out like this law is meant to forbid women from showing cleavage when in fact it's about women having the choice to wear what they want without anyone forcing them to dress in a way that has nothing to do with their job.

Got it.

Thanks for clarifying.

.

[jacee]

No court is going to see a dress code change as significant.

That remains to be seen, I guess.

If the change is a violation of the Human Rights Code, and a woman is forced to quit and sues for Termination pay, I can see the court awarding it to her.

.

[BC_chick]

Dre (or anyone else), let me rephrase my question this way:

If businesses have the right to set their own 'atmosphere' how come other industries aren't allowed to demand cleavage from their female employees?

Oh, but but but, those industries have nothing to do with cleavage.... whereas restaurants do. LOL

Edited March 15, 2016 by BC_chick

[dre]

I get that, I want to know why. Tell me one good reason an employer is allowed to ask a woman serving food that she must show cleavage but it would be against the law to ask an accountant to do the same.

It WOULDN'T be against the law for an accountant to do the same. That was my point. Other industries choose to have different dress codes.

[dre]

Dre (or anyone else), let me rephrase my question this way:

If businesses have the right to set their own 'atmosphere' how come other industries aren't allowed to demand cleavage from their female employees?

Oh, but but but, those industries have nothing to do with cleavage.... whereas restaurants do. LOL

You have not shown that other industries are "not allowed". They simply don't because of the image they're businesses to have. Most accounting firms are trying to convey a serious, professional image, and will ask their employees to dress accordingly. There's also the fact that a women with a degree in accounting has a lot more monetary value to an employer than your average waitress does, so she inherently has a little more bargaining power.

Every industry is different.

[BC_chick]

It WOULDN'T be against the law for an accountant to do the same. That was my point. Other industries choose to have different dress codes.

So you think if I was working for an accounting firm (as opposed to for myself) and the firm's policy stated that I need to show cleavage in order to work there, I would NOT have a legal right to fight it?

Because that's basically what is happening in the restaurant business with this debate.

Edited March 15, 2016 by BC_chick

[The_Squid]

I get that, I want to know why. Tell me one good reason an employer is allowed to ask a woman serving food that she must show cleavage but it would be against the law to ask an accountant to do the same.

You haven't explained why Hooters should get an exemption when compared to Earls...

[BC_chick]

You have not shown that other industries are "not allowed". They simply don't because of the image they're businesses to have. Most accounting firms are trying to convey a serious, professional image, and will ask their employees to dress accordingly. There's also the fact that a women with a degree in accounting has a lot more monetary value to an employer than your average waitress does, so she inherently has a little more bargaining power.

Every industry is different.

So a woman's right to cover her boobs and still keep her job comes down to how much education she has?

Edited March 15, 2016 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

You haven't explained why Hooters should get an exemption when compared to Earls...

I did, it has to do with niche-specific markets and uniforms. Same reason Molly Maid can't require their cleaning people to show cleavage but there are industries catering to half naked women cleaning the house.

If Earl's wants to require cleavage, it should do so in a way that is transparent.

[dre]

So a woman's right to cover her boobs and still keep her job comes down to how much education she has?

No... an employees bargaining power is derived from how much value they provide to their employer and how scarce their skillset is.

So you think if I was working for an accounting firm (as opposed to for myself) and the firm's policy stated that I need to show cleavage in order to work there, I would NOT have a legal right to fight it?

Very little unless the employer dress code violated some kind of federal, provincial, or municipal statute.

But its YOU that's claiming it would be illegal for other industries to have a dress code like that, so can you please point me to legislation to that effect? Because I don't believe there IS any, and if there ISN'T then your argument that women working for accounting firms have legal rights that waitresses don't have is not going to go anywhere.

There's very few laws in Canada regarding clothing, in the work place or elsewhere. There IS a law against indecent acts, but its up to the discretion of judges and its very unlikely that showing cleavage would qualify.

There's also an assumption in the law that the relationship between an employer and an employee is a voluntary contract entered into by both sides. If you want to work nude at a gentleman's club, it is your choice to do so... or not. The contract just has to not contain anything that's illegal.

Here's some information from the FAQ at labor.gov in Ontario. Basically an employer can have whatever dress code/uniform they want as long as it would be legal for a person to wear it on the street, and does not violate the Ontario human rights code (which does not mention dresscode or uniforms), the occupational health and safety act, or a collective bargaining agreement.

What are the rules about dress codes?

The employer is responsible for making decisions about dress codes, uniforms and other clothing requirements.

However, a dress code can't violate a collective agreement at the workplace, the Ontario Human Rights Code or the rules under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

[dre]

I did, it has to do with niche-specific markets and uniforms. Same reason Molly Maid can't require their cleaning people to show cleavage but there are industries catering to half naked women cleaning the house.

If Earl's wants to require cleavage, it should do so in a way that is transparent.

Show me the a law/statute that says Molly Maid cannot require employees to wear low cut tops.

EDIT: BTW, I just read Molly Maids dress code and they are going for a clean professional look. That's not because the laws force them too though, its because they chose too.

Here's a house cleaning company that's doing something different.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/06/sexy-maids-and-butlers-spice-up-domestic-chores

You're going to have to give up the argument that these type of uniforms/codes would not be allowed in other industries.

Edited March 15, 2016 by dre

[The_Squid]

I did, it has to do with niche-specific markets and uniforms. Same reason Molly Maid can't require their cleaning people to show cleavage but there are industries catering to half naked women cleaning the house.

If Earl's wants to require cleavage, it should do so in a way that is transparent.

So if Earls said upfront in the job interview, it would be OK?

Don't you think most places would discuss this with potential employees?

You should define what you specifically mean by "transparent".

[Bob Macadoo]

Well I'm ready for Booby CPAs.......my tax return can be filled out with a crayon.......I might as well get my money's worth......H&R BOOB.

[WestCoastRunner]

So if Earls said upfront in the job interview, it would be OK?

No, because it is directing women that they HAVE to dress in a sexualized outfit which is discriminating because male servers don't have to dress like that.

[WestCoastRunner]

You haven't explained why Hooters should get an exemption when compared to Earls...

Hooters shouldn't get an exemption. And if a server ever took them to court over this, they would probably win. (at least in Ontario)

[WestCoastRunner]

A BC Server actually took her case to court and won:

When server Andrea Mottu was required to wear a bikini top for a Hawaiian-themed event at the Vancouver nightclub where she worked, her boss didn't expect her to show up in a turtleneck.

"It wasn't that I had a problem with anyone wearing bikini tops," says Mottu, who now works in the legal field.

"It was simply that I felt uncomfortable wearing one in a bar setting with intoxicated people where a pull of a string would be easy."

Mottu took her complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and was awarded $6,000 in 2004.

The tribunal found that the nightclub had vastly different dress standards for males and females; males were not asked to wear gender-specific clothing or a piece of clothing that had sexual connotations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/restaurant-dress-codes-open-to-sexual-discrimination-complaints-1.3012522

[Big Guy]

When did getting a job become a right?

[WestCoastRunner]

When did getting a job become a right?

Can you expand on this?

[Big Guy]

Can you expand on this?

Certainly - Thanks for asking:

If I create a business that requires more employees to survive or expand then I will hire those who will assist my business. I will set the conditions of employment (within the Ontario labor laws) and hire those who best satisfy my requirements. Knowing my business, I will look for employees that will enhance my sales.

I am not going to hire a female to sell men's underwear or males to sell women's lingerie.

I am not going to hire a Yarmulke wearing Jew to be a receptionist at a law office catering to Palestinians.

I am not going to hire a guy in a turban to work in my kosher Delicatessen.

I am not going to hire a male to run my abused female telephone emergency line.

There are places where some people are not appropriate employees.

If I did, then I would not be in business very long and I would not be creating any job opportunities at all.

I do not believe that a job is a right. It is an opportunity to find a place where someone will pay you to enhance their ability to provide a service or make a profit or both.

BTW - I will give the physically handicapped priority hiring because I have found them to be far more reliable, trustworthy, better workers than the average person and more appreciative of the job.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Big Guy

[WestCoastRunner]

Certainly - Thanks for asking:

If I create a business that requires more employees to survive or expand then I will hire those who will assist my business. I will set the conditions of employment (within the Ontario labor laws) and hire those who best satisfy my requirements. Knowing my business, I will look for employees that will enhance my sales.

I am not going to hire a female to sell men's underwear or males to sell women's lingerie.

I am not going to hire a Yarmulke wearing Jew to be a receptionist at a law office catering to Palestinians.

I am not going to hire a guy in a turban to work in my kosher Delicatessen.

I am not going to hire a male to run my abused female telephone emergency line.

There are places where some people are not appropriate employees.

If I did, then I would not be in business very long and I would not be creating any job opportunities at all.

I do not believe that a job is a right. It is an opportunity to find a place where someone will pay you to enhance their ability to provide a service or make a profit or both.

BTW - I will give the physically handicapped priority hiring because I have found them to be far more reliable, trustworthy, better workers than the average person and more appreciative of the job.

I think that perhaps you are copping out on a direct response to this thread.