A Reason for "Grooming" Standards

[CWIPPERMAN]

Amusement Park Worker Killed in Roller Coaster Accident

www.foxnews.com

Sunday, August 17, 2003

LANGLEY, Wash. — An amusement park operator was killed Saturday when his hair got caught on a roller coaster car, pulling him up as high as 40 feet before he fell, back-first, onto a fence.

Doug McKay, 40, was spraying lubricant on the tracks of the Super Loop 2, a ride at the Island County Fair on Whidbey Island , when his long hair got caught on a car full of fairgoers, sheriff's spokeswoman Jan Smith said.

"It basically scalped him, and he fell and landed on the fence," Smith said.

McKay, co-owner of Paradise Amusements, based in Post Falls, Idaho, was pulled between 25 and 40 feet into the air.

Paradise Amusements had set up rides at the Island County Fair, located about 30 miles northwest of Seattle, for the past three years, Smith said.

Smith said grief counselors were on hand but that the fair continued after the incident.

http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,94937,00.html

 

[Planogirl]

This is horrible!

But I'm curious as to what you mean by grooming standards in this case. The fellow should have had his hair tied back or tucked in a hat. I don't see exactly how his hair was done but I'm presuming that he had it loose.

It's also interesting that this guy was a co-owner of the amusement park.

 

[CWIPPERMAN]

I remember reading a series of posts on this board a while back about how Disney was relaxing their grooming standards. It just struck me as odd because I expect everyone at a Disney park to look "clean cut". To me - goatees, beards, long hair on men, or unusual designs in cornrows are unprofessional. In my job - I can't wear my hair long, I can't have facial hair (except for a "neatly trimmed mustache extending no farther than 1/2" past the corner of the mouth"). And in my job if a woman has long hair - she has to keep it up in a bun or under a hat.

During the discussion - I remembered some folks making a point that grooming standards were outdated or something. This was just an interesting article about a practical reason why folks shouldn't have long hair.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by CWIPPERMAN
I remember reading a series of posts on this board a while back about how Disney was relaxing their grooming standards. It just struck me as odd because I expect everyone at a Disney park to look "clean cut". To me - goatees, beards, long hair on men, or unusual designs in cornrows are unprofessional. In my job - I can't wear my hair long, I can't have facial hair (except for a "neatly trimmed mustache extending no farther than 1/2" past the corner of the mouth"). And in my job if a woman has long hair - she has to keep it up in a bun or under a hat.

During the discussion - I remembered some folks making a point that grooming standards were outdated or something. This was just an interesting article about a practical reason why folks shouldn't have long hair.

So the grooming policies on your job should be applied to all jobs? I suppose that's important because we read about tragic accidents like this at amusement parks and fairs everyday.

 

[GANYMEDE]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
So the grooming policies on your job should be applied to all jobs? I suppose that's important because we read about tragic accidents like this at amusement parks and fairs everyday.

..how many times would you like to read about it? Twice a day? Once a month. Is that acceptable? How many deaths would be acceptable to you?

 

[KNWVIKING]

The company my father retired from put out a quarterly safety mag & I still remember the photo of a machinist's bloody hair & scalp being wrapped around whatever it was he had on the lathe. My fathers union fought to prevent grooming standards. I guess everyone deserves the right to have their hair ripped from their skull.

 

[Planogirl]

I think that hair tied back and tucked into a hat should be sufficient. Women, as rare as they may seem, do these jobs too and this is how they handle safety.

This is a horrible tragedy but the man was an owner and could presumably choose not to follow recommended guidelines. What else could be done?

 

[DisneyKidds]

It's also interesting that this guy was a co-owner of the amusement park.

PG - it sounds more like this guy was co-owner of an amusement company that sets up those moveable, temporary, rides at local county fairs and such. These types of rides do include looping coasters. Not sure if the one I went on in Danbury, CT this year was the Super Loop 2, but there was a loop coaster which basically strapped you in and sent you around in a constant loop............frontwards and then backwards. Pretty cool for a cheap thrill*. So these kinds of rides can indeed be portable.

I do have to say, these portable amusement ride companies (at least the ones I've seen) have pretty scary safety standards, if they have them at all. Furthermore, it appears some hire anyone off the local street (not that I am prejudiced or don't sympathize - but even kind of dirty, skeevy, drunk looking people). I'm actually surprised we don't hear about more such accidents...............or maybe they happen and we just never know.

* Actually, it really isn't that cheap. I think the one coater ride, at 6 tickets, cost about $4.50. Disney is a comparative bargain!!!

 

[MaddieinWonderland]

Are we ignoring that it's also patently unwise to perform maintenance on a machine while it's operating? ...especially with customers on board.

 

[w. josh]

Are we ignoring that it's also patently unwise to perform maintenance on a machine while it's operating?

Yes, but it's much easier to blame the object than the person. See also: cell phones, SUVs, cigarettes, et al.

Pull your long hair back or stuff it under a tight-fitting cap and - look at that - no grooming problem.

 

[CWIPPERMAN]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
So the grooming policies on your job should be applied to all jobs? I suppose that's important because we read about tragic accidents like this at amusement parks and fairs everyday.

No..... you're missing the point. First.... all I was doing was relaying a news story. Second.... it seems like every little issue out there suddenly has to take on the importance of a natural disaster whenever folks get it in their mind that something is unfair. The point I was trying to make was that from the posts I remember from the thread about grooming (I'd look for it but "search" is disabled right now) some folks wanted to say that Constitutional Rights were being trampled on by not allowing folks to wear their head/facial hair like they wanted. Personally I could care less what folks want to look like - but when I go to a place like WDW - I want to see clean-cut, well groomed Cast Members. I don't want to see folks with tatoos from head to toe. I don't want to see folks with earrings and spikes covering every inch of visible skin. And I don't want to see folks that look like they couldn't get a job as a Carnival Worker - so they were hired by Disney World.

The only reason I mentioned my jobs grooming standards was to reply to a question about what grooming standards should be. To me, if you choose to apply/accept a job - you choose to follow the rules of that job.

I just wanted this article to serve as a reminder for those in a position of having to enforce/support grooming standards in the future.

 

[DancingBear]

Does anyone really think the CM grooming requirements at Disney are primarily safety-driven? Isn't it supposed to make the guests comfortable?

 

[CWIPPERMAN]

Actually grooming standars DO serve a safety purpose. Sure - the main point is for cosmetic issues - but there is a practical purpose.... as demonstrated by the article.

(I'm sure Eeyore will hammer me for mentioning this but here goes...) In my job, grooming standards are very much dual-purpose. I work in Law Enforcement. If a female (or male officer even) had long hair worn down - it could easily be used during a struggle to grab/hold the officer. The same concept applies to any job where danger is present from getting caught in machinery. Just like you will not see mechanics wearing neckties - you shouldn't see long hair allowed in jobs where it could cause problems. To take this further - allowing folks to do something like shave designs in their head (or make designs with cornrows) could easily be abused. Next thing you know - you have a worker at Disney World that has "Universal Studios" shaved or braided into their hair (imagine the "Free Speech" lawsuits that could spur... the wacko's at the ACLU would be chomping at the bit for that one). So by making a simple set of rules for everyone to follow - you eliminate any "creative interpretation" of the rules.

 

[ohanafamily]

As I recall, When DW and I went on the MK Keys to the Kingdom behind the scenes tour, there was a chart of what was acceptable and not. I think they mentioned that the standard was lowered a little bit (I think men can now have a mustache if groomed appropriately). I agree that the Disney wants a clean-cut look, and it is strongly tied to the theming of the parks.

BTW, last year we we went to US Halloween night party, there were lots of people tattooed from head to toe roaming around with chain saws

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
So the grooming policies on your job should be applied to all jobs? I suppose that's important because we read about tragic accidents like this at amusement parks and fairs everyday.

I think a company has every right to define grooming/dress policies as it sees fit. If a potential employee disagrees with those policies then he/she needs to look elsewhere for a job. If a current employee suddenly decides they don't agree with the policies, they can also look elsewhere for a job.

Grooming/dress policies are implemented for lots of reasons. Public appearance and safety are the primary reasons for those policies.

Would you prefer that (public)CMs at WDW be allowed to come to work dressed/groomed as they please? Would you prefer that they look like the typical ride/attraction operator at your local county fair?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by CWIPPERMAN
No..... you're missing the point. First.... all I was doing was relaying a news story. Second.... it seems like every little issue out there suddenly has to take on the importance of a natural disaster whenever folks get it in their mind that something is unfair. The point I was trying to make was that from the posts I remember from the thread about grooming (I'd look for it but "search" is disabled right now) some folks wanted to say that Constitutional Rights were being trampled on by not allowing folks to wear their head/facial hair like they wanted. Personally I could care less what folks want to look like - but when I go to a place like WDW - I want to see clean-cut, well groomed Cast Members. I don't want to see folks with tatoos from head to toe. I don't want to see folks with earrings and spikes covering every inch of visible skin. And I don't want to see folks that look like they couldn't get a job as a Carnival Worker - so they were hired by Disney World.

What one wants or doesn't want to see in/on employees is irrelevant as pointed out in the next part of your post...

The only reason I mentioned my jobs grooming standards was to reply to a question about what grooming standards should be. To me, if you choose to apply/accept a job - you choose to follow the rules of that job.

Bingo! Grooming standards are the prerogative of the EMPLOYER, not the customer.

I just wanted this article to serve as a reminder for those in a position of having to enforce/support grooming standards in the future.

What is a greater issue here is overall safety, not hair length. Hair of almost any length could become a problem in the right conditions. What I hope investigators focus on is why in the world he was working on an OPERATING ride in the first place.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by CWIPPERMAN
(snip)
(I'm sure Eeyore will hammer me for mentioning this but here goes...)

I'm appalled... embarassed... speechless .... well, maybe not speechless! Gee, do I have a "rep" or what?

(snip)
So by making a simple set of rules for everyone to follow - you eliminate any "creative interpretation" of the rules.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. (Shocked, Cwipperman?) By accepting employment with a company, one agrees to abide by the rules of the workplace, which in many places includes dress codes and grooming standards.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by emmagata
I think a company has every right to define grooming/dress policies as it sees fit. If a potential employee disagrees with those policies then he/she needs to look elsewhere for a job. If a current employee suddenly decides they don't agree with the policies, they can also look elsewhere for a job.

I happen to agree 100% with this (see my previous posts above).

Grooming/dress policies are implemented for lots of reasons. Public appearance and safety are the primary reasons for those policies.

In most cases, employers are more concerned with the public's reaction and response (i.e., appearance) than with safety. In some instances, they are more concerned with following industry or government guidelines, standards or rules. Sadly, safety is a secondary or tertiary reason for many business decisions, if it is considered at all.

Would you prefer that (public)CMs at WDW be allowed to come to work dressed/groomed as they please? Would you prefer that they look like the typical ride/attraction operator at your local county fair?

What I prefer or do not prefer is irrelevant. Whatever grooming standards Disney chooses to use is THEIR decision, not mine. On a personal note, I honestly could not care less how CMs are "groomed." Long hair, short hair, tattoos, piercings ... those things don't bother me. (Well, maybe the fellow with 200+ piercings in his head alone would attract a second or third look from me! ) I don't always succeed, but I do struggle not to judge someone by the way they dress, groom, tattoo or pierce themselves. That said, I do believe it is Disney's prerogative to set their own standards as they see fit and if a CM doesn't wish to abide by those standards they are free to work for Universal!

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
II don't always succeed, but I do struggle not to judge someone by the way they dress, groom, tattoo or pierce themselves.

To some degree, aren't people seeking to be "judged" by the way they dress, etc.?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by DancingBear
To some degree, aren't people seeking to be "judged" by the way they dress, etc.?

I don't know if I agree with this. Certainly, some people are making a statement of some kind with their apparel, grooming, body art, etc. I don't think it's my place to judge them -- to determine their inherent worth/value, whether they are good or bad, whether I like or dislike them -- based solely on these external factors. That said, I know I do this -- more often than I care to admit. That's why I said I struggle with it. (And not to imply or state that this is a problem for anyone else BUT me.)

But as for CMs or any other employee, I would hope I could make a conscious choice to look beyond these external factors and see, interact with and maybe get to know the real person. I understand why company's choose to present a particular image and expect employees to adhere to that image. I also understand when a company chooses to allow variety & self-expression in grooming, etc.

I don't care what a company allows or doesn't allow, except as it pertains to my employment. I've worked in a number of environments from those that required rather short hair with a suit and tie to those that had a "come to work as you are" attitude (I kinda prefer the later, but had no real problem with the former).