Stop. Making. This. A. Problem.

thisismynickname2 · October 2018

I think this whole thing is ridiculous. 1) There are legit reasons these employees may still be wearing nice clothes, such as the idea that maybe that's most of what they own from their last jobs and they can't be bothered to buy more jeans. 2) A casual dress code usually means that the organization is casual and doesn't want to force people into a certain look. Requiring casual is hypocritical. 3) The idea that willfully not fitting into a culture via attire is somehow punishable or should be somehow addressed is also stupid. If the clothes are literally against code, sure, address it. If they're not, who cares? You know that if an organization required "professional" dress and a woman was wearing a pencil skirt too short and that was addressed, we'd all be screaming sexism. My office is casual but leggings are in a gray zone and that is, omg, sexism. Dude wears a tie. Not against code. No reason to address it.

Now, if dudes are also putting their colleagues down for the casual dress, that's a behavior that can be addressed. But if the perception, not reality, is that they're snobs because they dress that way, cry me a river. There is so much fodder today that dress codes in general are antiquated so to essentially go so far as to control what casual is in the name of "start up tech culture" is playing into a mind-blowing hypocrisy.

And by the way, in my casual environment, track pants are specifically not allowed. I side-eyed a woman hard just recently because she walked by me wearing track pants (beats me if she noticed). I actually dress more "business casual" these days since I joined a new team and it's my way of trying to counteract the slobs at my office. I'm also not in tech, however, so....

charlotte989875 · October 2018

thisismynickname2 said:

I think this whole thing is ridiculous. 1) There are legit reasons these employees may still be wearing nice clothes, such as the idea that maybe that's most of what they own from their last jobs and they can't be bothered to buy more jeans. 2) A casual dress code usually means that the organization is casual and doesn't want to force people into a certain look. Requiring casual is hypocritical. 3) The idea that willfully not fitting into a culture via attire is somehow punishable or should be somehow addressed is also stupid. If the clothes are literally against code, sure, address it. If they're not, who cares? You know that if an organization required "professional" dress and a woman was wearing a pencil skirt too short and that was addressed, we'd all be screaming sexism. My office is casual but leggings are in a gray zone and that is, omg, sexism. Dude wears a tie. Not against code. No reason to address it.

Now, if dudes are also putting their colleagues down for the casual dress, that's a behavior that can be addressed. But if the perception, not reality, is that they're snobs because they dress that way, cry me a river. There is so much fodder today that dress codes in general are antiquated so to essentially go so far as to control what casual is in the name of "start up tech culture" is playing into a mind-blowing hypocrisy.

And by the way, in my casual environment, track pants are specifically not allowed. I side-eyed a woman hard just recently because she walked by me wearing track pants (beats me if she noticed). I actually dress more "business casual" these days since I joined a new team and it's my way of trying to counteract the slobs at my office. I'm also not in tech, however, so....

In H’s office people (directors and managers included) wear yoga/sweatpants. It’s a thing there.

Ro041 · October 2018

mrsconn23 said:

STARMOON44 said:

banana468 said:

charlotte989875 said:

So I still disagree. If this were the reverse, if employees was “underdressed” for a company dress code policy would the feeling still be for LW to let it go, even if the boss said to address it?

Companies get to set their dress codes however they want. If employees don’t like the policy they can find a company where they do like the policy. I think this also includes policies of casual dress. If you are showing up in a suit when your entire office is in jeans/tshirts I think you’re trying to make a statement that you aren’t going to participate in the culture or environment. And that’s your right, but I also think it’s the company’s right to say you’re not a good fit.

That's OK but they need to do it from the start rather than at this point now.

Can someone cite an example of a company that has a dress code about exceeding the minimum as a cause for disciplinary action??

Generally the dress code is used as a sign of respect for the position and environment. Are there any HR people here who can reference ways to enforce this in reverse??

Most companies don’t need cause for disciplinary action. If you’re an at will employee you can be fired for any reason, good or bad, as long as it doesn’t violate the law. A company can set a dress code and insist employees follow it whether formal or informal.

Yes, but the reason they don't just fire people willy-nilly and have extensive guidelines for conduct, dress codes, system integrity, etc. is that when they do fire someone for cause, they can block them from getting unemployment. If they can't prove that a disciplinary process was implemented and followed to show the person was fired for cause, they will have to pay out unemployment claims for people who are fired.

At least that's how it works in my state. You can only file for unemployment if you worked somewhere for 6 months or more, I believe.

My company does not like paying out claims for people who essentially fail out of the 'performance improvement process'. I've been to unemployment court for them because I was in a temporary management role at the time a person was fired and she was on the team I was overseeing.

This is actually not correct. You can fire someone "for cause" and that cause could be "poor performance" and still be required to pay them unemployment. In the states where I have seen and/or handled unemployment cases on the legal side, the standard has been "did the employee commit misconduct on the job?" The misconduct that we would be discussing here would be the disregard of the Employer's dress code, whether they are dressing too informally, or I guess, too formally.

ETA - of course, "misconduct" may not be the standard in all states and some states may have "just cause" as their standard. In any event, I would say most Employers have a handbook and have standards in order to avoid discrimination litigation and because they do not trust lower management to make good and unbiased decisions.

maine7mob · October 2018

This is a culture mismatch. If I were the employees wearing the "formal" clothes, I'd leave. And the hiring managers need to make their culture more apparent in job postings and interviews. This stuff is easy to make transparent.

MesmrEwe · October 2018

I've worked in super formal corporate environments and I've worked as the quench wench on a relaxed (blue collar targeted customer) golf course... As someone else pointed out, dressing for the situation. I'd recommend flipping the whole "Casual Friday" to "Dress up Friday's" and about $50 in company T-shirts for a few weeks with a teambuilding exercise to personalize them to the office... 21-90 days of concerted effort to get the formal level issue addressed.

Stop. Making. This. A. Problem.

Re: Stop. Making. This. A. Problem.

Choose Another Board

Search Boards