Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
General News

Employees: Are You Dressing for the Job?

By       Message Martha Rosenberg     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 7/15/11

Author 1353
Become a Fan
  (79 fans)

"They Pretend to Pay Us And We Pretend to Work" used to be attributed to the employment situation in the former Soviet Union. But in today's "jobless recovery," US workers are also performing low-wage jobs with no benefits, future and, sometimes, purpose. Jobs whose main perks are air-conditioning, access to the Internet and service to the dictum that an already employed person is more likely to get hired elsewhere.

 

Needless to say, people don't display a lot of apparel respect for such gigs. That's why around this time of year, many companies circulate a dress code memo.

 

These codes always appeal to "common sense" and "good taste" even from companies whose concept of good taste includes making employees wear price item buttons for store merchandise at their collarbones.

 

Memos usually begin banning jeans, shorts, cutoffs, T-shirts, tank tops, undershirts (aka "wife beaters") sweat pants and workout clothes (read: Lycra and Spandex), tennis shoes, boots and sandals.


Ready for work
(Image by Martha Rosenberg)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

 

Then the memos segue into their Sex and Alternate Lifestyle section and ban miniskirts, bare midriffs, "excessively low-cut or revealing clothing," clothing that has "holes, tears and a ragged appearance" or that is "obviously ill-fitting," leather jackets, sunglasses, "special colors" and "club insignia" (they do not mean drum and bugle corps) and hats, bandanas and "distracting" headgear.

 

Then the memos add their updated-since-1999 codicil which bans visible underwear (thongs), low risers, tattoos, inappropriate jewelry and "extreme hair colors and styles" fearing an employee corps of Amy Winehouses.

 

But of course there are plenty of loopholes. Would the see-through, tissue weight halter dress from Urban Outfitters be considered "excessively low-cut or revealing clothing", "obviously ill-fitting" or "underwear"?

 

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Martha Rosenberg is an award-winning investigative public health reporter who covers the food, drug and gun industries. Her first book, Born With A Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health, is distributed by Random (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Grassley Investigates Lilly/WebMD link Reported by Washington Post

The Drug Store in Your Tap Water

It's the Cymbalta Stupid

Are You Sure You're Not Psychotic Asks Shameless Drug Company?

Another Poorly Regulated "Derivative"--the Antidepressant Pristiq

MRSA and More. Antibiotics Linked to Obesity and Allergies, Too