Are Sexy Restaurant Outfits a Human Rights Issue?

[TimG]

By your logic (that the niche market of the restaurant is irrelevant), Chuck E Cheese is free to stipulate high heels and cleavage too.

The issue is you have arrogantly decided that only your opinion matters on the 'target niche' and the opinion of the owners is irrelevant.

What is wrong with the leaving these decisions to the people who have to most invested?

Edited March 11, 2016 by TimG

[BC_chick]

The issue is you have arrogantly decided that only your opinion matters on the 'target niche' and the opinion of the owners is irrelevant.

What is wrong with the leaving these decisions to the people who have to most invested?

There are government regulations in the hospitality industry, deal with it. My opinion is no more arrogant than anyone else's.

[WestCoastRunner]

I would expect that hooters business model will be turned upside down in order to comply with these regulations. At least in Ontario.

[The_Squid]

The issue is you have arrogantly decided that only your opinion matters on the 'target niche' and the opinion of the owners is irrelevant.

What is wrong with the leaving these decisions to the people who have to most invested?

Having an opinion that differs from yours doesn't make it arrogant.

[Big Guy]

I believe that the restaurant changed its policy only because of the bad publicity and was negatively effecting sales.

This issue crops up periodically with the question of resolving any situation where two rights are in conflict with each other:

Example - I own a commercial establishment which caters to many blacks. I have an employee who insists on the right to wear a confederate flag T-shit to work. Whose rights are more important?

I own property in a suburb. It is zoned residential/commercial. I rent it out to a person who says he intends to set up a small store - well within the zoning by-laws. If find out later that it is going to be an outlet for the White Heritage Brotherhood or the Black Panthers of Canada brotherhood. My property - I want them out. They say no! Whose rights are more important?

I own a kosher delicatessen. I hire an individual who works well for weeks and then shows up with a Palestinian scarf around his neck. I say no, he says yes. Whose rights are more important?

[TimG]

There are government regulations in the hospitality industry, deal with it. My opinion is no more arrogant than anyone else's.

Regulations, when they make sense, apply to all players in an industry. You don't have rules that only apply to some players because of a purely subjective assessment of what their 'target market' is. What makes your opinion arrogant is you seem to think that your personal opinions on the target market for different restaurant chains should be turned into government regulations.

If a regulation is important enough it should apply to all players (including places like hooters). If you are not willing to insist that regulations apply equally you should stop calling for regulations.

Edited March 11, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

I believe that the restaurant changed its policy only because of the bad publicity and was negatively effecting sales.

This issue crops up periodically with the question of resolving any situation where two rights are in conflict with each other:

Example - I own a commercial establishment which caters to many blacks. I have an employee who insists on the right to wear a confederate flag T-shit to work. Whose rights are more important?

I own property in a suburb. It is zoned residential/commercial. I rent it out to a person who says he intends to set up a small store - well within the zoning by-laws. If find out later that it is going to be an outlet for the White Heritage Brotherhood or the Black Panthers of Canada brotherhood. My property - I want them out. They say no! Whose rights are more important?

I own a kosher delicatessen. I hire an individual who works well for weeks and then shows up with a Palestinian scarf around his neck. I say no, he says yes. Whose rights are more important?

It's not about what you are posting BG.

The OHRC's policy position states that, while employers can still have dress codes, female employees "should not be expected to meet more difficult requirements than male employees, and they should not be expected to dress in a sexualized way to attract clients."

It noted that women are sometimes expected to dress in a "sexualized or gender-specific way," such as wearing "high heels, short skirts, tight clothing, or low-cut tops."

The OHRC added that employees might feel pressured to dress this way "because they fear losing tips, shifts, or even their jobs."

[Guest]

The law can't make customers leave tips, nor can it prescribe the reasons behind a tip. No woman should be forced by her conditions of employment to wear sexy clothing, but if a woman chooses to do so because she wants what she perceives as an elevated income due to her outfit, it's her choice.

If she wants a decent tip from me she can just refrain from asking how the first few bites were.

[WestCoastRunner]

No woman should be forced by her conditions of employment to wear sexy clothing, but if a woman chooses to do so because she wants what she perceives as an elevated income due to her outfit, it's her choice.

And this is true within the guidelines.

[msj]

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

It was a joke for crying out loud.

It was a play on your name, is all.

[msj]

If she wants a decent tip from me she can just refrain from asking how the first few bites were.

I'm the opposite - I prefer them to come and ask because inevitably I need to ask for hot sauce or something to make the food palatable (well, when I eat in "upscale casual" restaurants I need to ask for hot sauce to cover up their crap food).

[msj]

There are government regulations in the hospitality industry, deal with it. My opinion is no more arrogant than anyone else's.

Yes, your opinion is as valid as any of ours - except I'm a male so mine is twice as valuable.

I think the question here is ought there be government regulations and to what extent should those regulations intrude into peoples businesses and into peoples lives.

I find the Cactus Clubs of the world offensive so I do not eat there (offensive primarily due to the "quality" of food but also don't like how the staff are either expected to dress or how they hire people who dress like that).

So, I go to other restaurants that treat me like an adult who has already passed through his hormonal teenage years and now has an actual working brain that decides restaurants based on food quality.

Why should the government regulate any further than this?

Edited March 11, 2016 by msj

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes, your opinion is as valid as any of ours - except I'm a male so mine is twice as valuable.

I think the question here is ought there be government regulations and to what extent should those regulations intrude into peoples businesses and into peoples lives.

I find the Cactus Clubs of the world offensive so I do not eat there (offensive primarily due to the "quality" of food but also don't like how the staff are either expected to dress or how they hire people who dress like that).

So, I go to other restaurants that treat me like an adult who has already passed through his hormonal teenage years and now has an actual working brain that decides restaurants based on food quality.

Why should the government regulate any further than this?

The guidelines are there to protect the workers not the patrons.

[msj]

The guidelines are there to protect the workers not the patrons.

Protect them from what?

If there is harassment then it is a criminal issue.

If the server is getting better tips from the stupid hormonal man because he chooses to go to a "breastaurant" then maybe the state should step in to try and protect the patron from his own hormones and lack of judgement.

But I doubt anyone will seriously call for such action.

Let people be, not everything should be regulated whether we like it or not.

Also, be careful what one wishes for: some of these women willingly put up with these "dress codes" because they want to make the money.

Yet here are other people who want their opinions to become law to prevent people from making a decent living.

[poochy]

I went to a hooters once, i thought the whole thing was weird, over the top, and i wouldn't go back, but most restaurants don't take it that far. If you don't feel comfortable working wearing a skirt or tight clothes, then don't. It's almost as though people believe that we suddenly live in a world where women aren't willing to use their looks to get things they want, what's closer to the truth is that they want the option to, but not to be asked to do so.

im sure that generations of men who killed themselves, literally, working dangerous jobs to feed their families would feel a little less than sympathetic for someone who is asked to wear tight clothing. Even now, something like 90% of workplace deaths are men, but a visible panty line is too much to bear? Cry me a river.

There is lots of turn over in service jobs, go find another, and in your opinion, less degrading work place, when you can see women wearing much more "slutty" clothes in public everywhere it's hard to argue that asking women to wear skimpy out fits at work should be somehow illegal, also i thought using that word was wrong? You can wear anything you like, and it's wrong to judge you for it, right, but don't ask you to get paid for wearing it, in a completely voluntary way, because then you're making me dress like a slut...sigh, women.

[cybercoma]

I went to a hooters once, i thought the whole thing was weird, over the top, and i wouldn't go back, but most restaurants don't take it that far.

I feel the same way. It wasn't so much the outfits, but what really bothers me is sitting at your table and fake flirting. That was obnoxious. The wings were top shelf though.

[The_Squid]

ugh... I wouldn't even consider going into a Hooters! Seems totally trashy!

And I mostly agree with MSG... MGD... whatever his name is... that most of these chains suck... but to each their own.

The Human Rights Commission really doesn't need to get involved in dress codes. If something completely unreasonable happens it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by labour relations boards. The HRCs should not have overlapping jurisdiction with the LRBs. This is inefficient and wasteful.

[Hal 9000]

I went to a hooters once, i thought the whole thing was weird, over the top, and i wouldn't go back, but most restaurants don't take it that far. If you don't feel comfortable working wearing a skirt or tight clothes, then don't. It's almost as though people believe that we suddenly live in a world where women aren't willing to use their looks to get things they want, what's closer to the truth is that they want the option to, but not to be asked to do so.

im sure that generations of men who killed themselves, literally, working dangerous jobs to feed their families would feel a little less than sympathetic for someone who is asked to wear tight clothing. Even now, something like 90% of workplace deaths are men, but a visible panty line is too much to bear? Cry me a river.

There is lots of turn over in service jobs, go find another, and in your opinion, less degrading work place, when you can see women wearing much more "slutty" clothes in public everywhere it's hard to argue that asking women to wear skimpy out fits at work should be somehow illegal, also i thought using that word was wrong? You can wear anything you like, and it's wrong to judge you for it, right, but don't ask you to get paid for wearing it, in a completely voluntary way, because then you're making me dress like a slut...sigh, women.

Wait a minute....If what you say is true, then super hot women with nice bodies are able to actually make good money because of their looks? Wow, do all women know this or just a select few.

[poochy]

Wait a minute....If what you say is true, then super hot women with nice bodies are able to actually make good money because of their looks? Wow, do all women know this or just a select few.

It's only a rumor..

[kimmy]

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.

I fully agree that it would be ridiculous for Chuck E Cheese to require their waitresses to wear sexy uniforms.

What we disagree about is whether there is a need for the government to intervene if they did so.

IMO it would be an absurd business decision for Chuck E Cheese to require the waitresses to wear sexy uniforms. I suspect most people would anticipate that as well. But what would be your rationale for the provincial Human Rights Commission to get involved?

It's not the HRC's concern as to whether the owners of a business are making unwise business decisions.

Sometimes limits have to be imposed in the free market because there's a time and place for everything.

Yes. But the standard for when limits are placed on the free market is that there needs to be a compelling public interest in doing so.

What's the compelling interest in telling Chuck E Cheese what their waitresses can or can't wear? Who are we protecting, and what are we protecting them from?

If it's supposed to be for the protection of the waitresses, then clearly the waitresses at Hooters also need protection.

If it's the customers of Chuck E Cheese that need to be protected, what is it we're protecting them from? From the sight of a woman wearing sexy clothes? We as a society do not believe that is a harmful thing. From a dining experience that differs from what they were expecting? I don't believe that's something the government needs to be involved in.

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.

I think Earl's chose the path of least resistance to avoid a public relations battle. I have a hunch that next time I go to Earl's the waitresses won't be wearing cardigans and sensible shoes. This will all be forgotten in two weeks and the same people who go to Earl's expecting a certain atmosphere will continue to go to Earl's and the same atmosphere will be there waiting for them.

And what is this "sex/food" industry? Unless you're talking about the lunch buffet at the local strip club, I don't know what the "sex/food" industry is. A brothel with a lunch counter?

Restaurants aren't selling sex. They aren't selling food either. They're selling an experience. The attire of the waitresses is a part of that, as is the way the food is plated, the lighting, the furniture, the decor, the music, and thing else that you see, hear, and taste when you go out.

I strongly oppose any attempt to regulate the experience a restaurant can provide its customers unless a compelling public interest can be demonstrated. I am in favor of restaurants not being allowed to serve fugu because the risk of people dying is just too high. I am not in favor of bureaucrats wandering around to decide whether the waitresses are dressed "too sexy" for what they believe the restaurant's target niche is supposed to be.

If you're willing to interfere in the experience a restaurant provides its customers, then what else should they look into? "these vintage-style lightbulbs look cool but they are very inefficient. We're going to need you to remove them all and replace them with energy-efficient compact fluorescent or LED lighting"? "This romantic ambiance is just too dim... we need it brighter in here to reduce the chance of a customer tripping or slipping"?

And maybe the idea of having sexy waitresses at Chuck E Cheese is actually a genius idea waiting to be discovered. Maybe it would give beleaguered fathers something to lessen the torture of screaming toddlers. I dunno. It's probably a stupid idea, but that's not for you or me to decide, it's for the people who run the restaurants.

-k

[GostHacked]

Is there a Hooters in Ontario? This could pose a problem for that particular business model.

I think there are a few still left. I think the ones in Ottawa have all closed.

And the way I see it, these places are going to hire good looking staff, men and women alike. Some places dress the sexyness up in some class, which I think is fantastic. I guess there is a difference between looking sexy/appealing, and lookin like a tramp.

The one thing that really baffles me is how they don't ban high heels of ladies in these places.

[BC_chick]

Kimmy, as I said earlier on the thread, the biggest issue in all this for me is the shoes. While I've known women who have back problems if they wear flats, some women get back problems with any level of heels. I don't think restaurants should be in the business of stipulating heel size, that should be a woman's choice.

Initially, responding to another poster, I thought that some types of businesses which are catering to sex industry (such as strip bars) should have more leniency given that they are licensed differently as well. However, I've come to change my position, no establishment of any type should tell women what kind of shoes to wear as long as they meet safety concerns. If a dancer wants to wear flats (which I've seen), who cares, high heels aren't the only type of sexy shoes out there.

And please don't start with crocs and runners again because there are all types of dress codes and I agree with dress codes. I just feel heel size should not a mandated dress code because of its health concerns.

Cleavage and tight skirts veer into the grey area because places like Hooters specifically provide a niche market FOR sexy outfits. I know you don't see the difference between a restaurant that specifically states "hey we have skimpy outfits!" and ones that don't but require their waitresses to do it anyway, but to me, that's the difference.

A woman who goes for a job at Hooters knows what her outfit will be and she is choosing to wear it. Cactus Club doesn't have uniforms, women are expected to wear their own clothes with certain guidelines.

It comes down to transparency on the part of the establishment, that's why I make the distinction.

BTW, I never get notifications whenever you respond to me. I'm guessing it's your moderator status?

Edited March 12, 2016 by BC_chick

[kimmy]

A woman who goes for a job at Hooters knows what her outfit will be and she is choosing to wear it. Cactus Club doesn't have uniforms, women are expected to wear their own clothes with certain guidelines.

It comes down to transparency on the part of the establishment, that's why I make the distinction.

The footwear thing I can see as being related to occupational health and safety.

I think the waitresses at Cactus Club are familiar with the dress code or are informed of it when they apply. When I've interviewed for jobs at bars, the expectations for dress were always discussed. I was always asked if I was ok with that. I don't think the girls at these restaurants are under the impression that they can wear whatever they feel like when they accept the job.

And as I said previously, I do have sympathy with the Bier Markt waitresses who had the tacky little dresses sprung on them unannounced, because that wasn't what they signed up for when they accepted the job. If a company changes the deal with the employees like that, they had better be prepared to reach some kind of fair settlement with employees who don't accept the new terms.

BTW, I never get notifications whenever you respond to me. I'm guessing it's your moderator status?

You're not the first to notice this. We think it's because of the moderator status.

-k

[Hal 9000]

Kimmy, as I said earlier on the thread, the biggest issue in all this for me is the shoes. While I've known women who have back problems if they wear flats, some women get back problems with any level of heels. I don't think restaurants should be in the business of stipulating heel size, that should be a woman's choice.

Initially, responding to another poster, I thought that some types of businesses which are catering to sex industry (such as strip bars) should have more leniency given that they are licensed differently as well. However, I've come to change my position, no establishment of any type should tell women what kind of shoes to wear as long as they meet safety concerns. If a dancer wants to wear flats (which I've seen), who cares, high heels aren't the only type of sexy shoes out there.

And please don't start with crocs and runners again because there are all types of dress codes and I agree with dress codes. I just feel heel size should not a mandated dress code because of its health concerns.

Cleavage and tight skirts veer into the grey area because places like Hooters specifically provide a niche market FOR sexy outfits. I know you don't see the difference between a restaurant that specifically states "hey we have skimpy outfits!" and ones that don't but require their waitresses to do it anyway, but to me, that's the difference.

A woman who goes for a job at Hooters knows what her outfit will be and she is choosing to wear it. Cactus Club doesn't have uniforms, women are expected to wear their own clothes with certain guidelines.

It comes down to transparency on the part of the establishment, that's why I make the distinction.

BTW, I never get notifications whenever you respond to me. I'm guessing it's your moderator status?

So now you've reduced your argument to shoes only...and that being a health and safety issue which is not at all the theme of the articles. That said, I think that bare legs are more cause for concern than shoes - but whatever. Along with this, you still keep mentioning Hooters, who as you know allow running shoes - any type they like, so i'm not sure you are really clear on the argument you want to make.

Anyway, you seem to imply that women who apply at these establishments are too dumb to know what dress code is required and what their back or foot issues are or how these shoes will make them feel at the end of the work day. And, because these women are too dumb to avoid applying to these places, that we must have the gov't step in and change the laws to protect these women from their own choices.

[BC_chick]

Hal, I didn't narrow it down to 'shoes only', I stated way earlier in the thread that my biggest concern in all this is shoes and as the discussion became all-encompassing I made the distinction.

Second, Kimmy and I having been debating the issue of the role sexy uniform niche-markets have in all this. She asked why I kept making a distinction between Cactus Club and Hooters and I clarified that it comes down to transparency.

When you have a uniform, a woman makes an informed decision which is completely at her own sole discretion and free will whether or not she wants to wear it.

I never called anyone dumb so please work on that reading comprehension or else I'm not even going to bother responding anymore.