Where do you stand on "High Heels" & The workplace

[Kimberlyann11]

Only as eye candy for men.

If women want to wear them, that's fine but that is their choice. It's a fashion statement, not a qualification to perform any job that I know of.

Exactly. I thought very hard about this thread before responding but your first sentence sums it up. High heels make women's legs look longer and thus makes them look better to men. Looking better to men is important in some jobs like if you're a stripper or waitress in a Hooters. Looking hot to men shouldn't be a consideration for a receptionist.

"As eye candy for men", seriously???? Heels finish off a professional business outfit for a woman like a tie does for a man. I'm not talking crazy high heels like 4+ inches but rather a conservative 2 inches. Flats just don't have the same affect.

Again, I'm a woman dressing for myself. I've worked in fields that require professional attire, and yes heels were expected. I suppose if someone had a medical condition an exception would have been made but I have no idea. I traveled to/from work in flats so actually walking in heels was pretty minimal.

Wearing hose to the office used to be professional business attire but now in many circles it's considered to look matronly or dowdy (I live in the suburbs of a large midwest city. No hose at business meetings here -YMMV). It used to be that hose finished off a professional business outfit for a woman like a tie did for a man. I am sure that if hose were mandated these young things would feel very unprofessional. I guess my point is that what looks professional changes over time.

 

[mom2rtk]

Of course, if these are required, I may change my mind:

Those are absolutely adorable!

But unfortunately they also look like a torture device.

 

[gemini2727]

I find that so strange. I wear heels everywhere, almost everyday. I can and have ran in them (those toddlers are quick at the ballpark). I have a long fast stride in them. Why would you wear shoes you can't walk in? This is why I don't wear tennis shoes - I find them similar to clown shoes for my feet.

Maybe because their dress code forces them to.

 

[kydisneyfans]

Back in the early 2000's-a male must wear a tie rule went into effect at my workplace. Most males had positions that were not laborous, meeting with other people, sales work, etc. My position involved machine repair though. Getting a tie caught in a piece of machinery happened once and I was sent to the ER as the tie got caught and pulled it tighter against my neck. The tie had to be cut from the machine to release it. Our manager continued the rule.

I then started to remove the tie when making machine repairs. While on a remote site, another employee saw me without the tie and reported me. I was suspended for 3 days without pay for dress code violation. We had union representation at the time and I filed a grievance. It went to hearing and my employer lost on the basis that dress code rules must be uniform for both sexes. Heels fall into the same category.

 

[powellrj]

People keep saying why would you take a job you couldn't wear the correct clothing for? Maybe because they changed the rules mid-game? This isn't me because I have always had back issues so high heels were never in the picture for me. I always had to wear flats.

When my DH first took his job, black athletic shoes were fine to wear. DH has gout and comfortable shoes are a must have. Fast forward and new boss, new rules. No more black athletic shoes, must wear black dress shoes. Not only were they impractical for his job, they were horrible for his feet. You don't tell a man in his mid-fifties to find a new job. Not that easy. He did end up taking an early retirement. The shoes weren't the main reason, but the first thing he did was go out and buy 2 new pair of comfortable shoes.

 

[AppleDumpling]

"As eye candy for men", seriously????

Yes, seriously. Other than looks, what other purpose do they serve? This is a women's rights issue and should be taken seriously.

What if your employer decides that you are too fat or old or ugly for a job? Is that acceptable? Is it discrimination? Can they also require you to wear makeup, wear earrings, wear your hair a certain length? How far does it go? Can they dictate that you must wear a push-up bra and leave the top 2 buttons on your blouse undone because it "looks better"?

Whether any of us personally love wearing high heels, hate them, are indifferent, whether we are comfortable in them, think they look more professional, etc. is irrelevant. The point is that a rule about footwear, that only applies to females (because males also wear footwear), and has no bearing on one's ability to carry out their job description, is wrong.

Women are judged on their appearance far more than men. If you don't believe it, you are sadly mistaken. It's really disappointing to read some of the comments here. I applaud Nicola Thorp (who BTW, is a beautiful young woman) for bringing attention to this type of issue. And while I don't know about the UK or Canada, I believe in the United States, this IS illegal under federal EEOC laws that address sex discrimination.

 

[scrapquitler]

If I had a job where I was forced to wear those high heels, the employer better realize that there was likely going to end up being a workplace injury lawsuit, because I really cannot walk in high heels. My ankles just can't do it, and I'd be a lot more likely to fall, slip, twist my ankle, etc. walking around in high heels than in flat ones where my balance wasn't compromised.

 

[powellrj]

ask Megan Trainor about wearing heels. DD and I were watching when this happened and I really felt for her!

http://www.eonline.com/news/764682/meghan-trainor-falls-while-performing-on-the-tonight-show

 

[anneboleyn]

Yes, seriously. Other than looks, what other purpose do they serve? This is a women's rights issue and should be taken seriously.

What if your employer decides that you are too fat or old or ugly for a job? Is that acceptable? Is it discrimination? Can they also require you to wear makeup, wear earrings, wear your hair a certain length? How far does it go? Can they dictate that you must wear a push-up bra and leave the top 2 buttons on your blouse undone because it "looks better"?

Whether any of us personally love wearing high heels, hate them, are indifferent, whether we are comfortable in them, think they look more professional, etc. is irrelevant. The point is that a rule about footwear, that only applies to females (because males also wear footwear), and has no bearing on one's ability to carry out their job description, is wrong.

Women are judged on their appearance far more than men. If you don't believe it, you are sadly mistaken. It's really disappointing to read some of the comments here. I applaud Nicola Thorp (who BTW, is a beautiful young woman) for bringing attention to this type of issue. And while I don't know about the UK or Canada, I believe in the United States, this IS illegal under federal EEOC laws that address sex discrimination.

You are amazing. Perfectly stated!

 

[sam_gordon]

What if your employer decides that you are too fat or old or ugly for a job? Is that acceptable? Is it discrimination? Can they also require you to wear makeup, wear earrings, wear your hair a certain length? How far does it go? Can they dictate that you must wear a push-up bra and leave the top 2 buttons on your blouse undone because it "looks better"?

So then employers can't force their male employees to wear suits and ties. After all, they don't force the women to wear suit coats and ties, right? So that's discrimination. It has nothing to do with whether ties and suit coats are dangerous, they're requiring men to wear something they don't require women to. Therefore, they're discriminating.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

So then employers can't force their male employees to wear suits and ties. After all, they don't force the women to wear suit coats and ties, right? So that's discrimination. It has nothing to do with whether ties and suit coats are dangerous, they're requiring men to wear something they don't require women to. Therefore, they're discriminating.

My company got rid of the suit and tie requirement for guys a few years ago. The world hasn't ended.

 

[tasha99]

I think employers can list what they consider to be business attire, and that may be a little different for men and women. However, once a piece of clothing does harm then it's out. The example above of wearing a tie while working with machinery is perfect. What if someone had to wear a tie whike working on a lathe just because management said they had to? I think there could be a wrongful death lawsuit. With heels if somebody twists their ankle or gets bunions I think the company should have to pay their medical bills. What company wants to pay for a podiatrist just because they had an outdated view of what women should wear?

There are plenty of options for professional-looking footwear other than high heels.

 

[anneboleyn]

So then employers can't force their male employees to wear suits and ties. After all, they don't force the women to wear suit coats and ties, right? So that's discrimination. It has nothing to do with whether ties and suit coats are dangerous, they're requiring men to wear something they don't require women to. Therefore, they're discriminating.

Then lawyer up and do something about it if wearing suits and ties is affecting your quality of life.

 

[missbrooke06]

Maybe because their dress code forces them to.

That wasn't the case in the quoted poster (or if it was, it was omitted).

 

[robinb]

Have you ever seen a job posting that includes a heel height requirement?

If you're referring to the original cause of this thread, well, she didn't. Apply for a position where she doesn't comply with the dress code. She works for a temp agency. The place she was sent to work had, then didn't, the heel height requirement.

SThe dress code policy is that of her temp firm, Portico, NOT the client firm PwC. I couldn't find anything that said that PwC ever had the policy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36264229

 

[mnrose]

So then employers can't force their male employees to wear suits and ties. After all, they don't force the women to wear suit coats and ties, right? So that's discrimination. It has nothing to do with whether ties and suit coats are dangerous, they're requiring men to wear something they don't require women to. Therefore, they're discriminating.

Actually, they COULD institute a rule that says "suits and ties for all." Like I said, it was pretty standard for female attorneys in law firms to wear suits and ties in the 1980's. And, if some employer wanted to do that, they could do it again. It would be stupid, but not illegal.

What MOST employers do is require "professional" or "business" attire for both men and women in a corporate setting (if they have a requirement at all). That is exactly how they say it. It is up to each person to decide what that means. It just so happens that most men interpret that as a suit and tie. There are probably variations. And women wear professional attire of their choosing. Some choose to wear heals. Some choose not to. It is entirely up to them, as it should be.

What they CAN'T do is dictate a sexist requirement on shoes. They can't say "women must wear a 2 inch heel" and leave mean free to decide what heal size they want. They CAN dictate a uniform requirement for both sexes, such as "close toed footwear must be worn." Or, "dress shoes must be worn." Again, I can find a perfectly acceptable dress shoe for myself that involves no heal whatsoever, or I can choose to wear a heal of 2+ inches. MY choice. Not my employers. It is absolutely sex discrimination to require a specific heel size for one sex and not for the other.

 

[AppleDumpling]

So then employers can't force their male employees to wear suits and ties. After all, they don't force the women to wear suit coats and ties, right? So that's discrimination. It has nothing to do with whether ties and suit coats are dangerous, they're requiring men to wear something they don't require women to. Therefore, they're discriminating.

Ties are not a valid comparison to high heel shoes; this has been explained.

Many companies have gone to "business casual" attire, perhaps in an effort to minimize gender issues. To answer your question, in workplaces where formal attire is still worn, if men are required to wear a shirt and tie or full suit with jacket, it is likely that women are required to wear a comparable female equivalent, according to traditional conventions. So probably a skirt and blouse, maybe with a scarf, a tailored dress, or a suit with jacket and skirt or dressy pants. I doubt men would have to wear suits and women would be allowed to wear jeans and t-shirts or tank tops. If that were the case, then yes, that too would be discrimination.

If we compare apples vs. apples, consider that both men and women are required to wear shoes in the workplace. But women must wear a specific style of shoe while men have a lot more flexibility in what is considered acceptable. That's discrimination. It's really not that difficult to understand.

I feel like we're beating a dead horse here. Some will never get it and never agree. Sam, I think it's very easy for you to have the opinion you have since it will never directly affect you.

I am thankful that my employer has common sense policies, obeys the law, and treats ALL their employees with respect.

 

[gemini2727]

That wasn't the case in the quoted poster (or if it was, it was omitted).

It didn't say, hence the "maybe." I was being sarcastic btw.

 

[jahber]

I'm not saying it's a blatant discrimination issue, but I find it ridiculous that any woman would lose getting a job based on the fact she couldn't wear heels. You don't think that's wrong? You're 100% qualified for the job but due to a dress code of 2" heels you're denied due to a medical condition? Come on. To me that scenaio is insane! It's a SHOE! Why do you feel a woman HAS to wear them to do her job? It's so stupid. You can wear a perfectly appropriate low shoe and perform your job. Please.

BTW, height restrictions at airlines is for safety issues (i.e., not being able to reach the emergency equipment.)

Amen! Imagine the idiocy of refusing to hire a fully qualified employee (or firing one) because she wasn't willing to endure physical pain and the possibility of permanent disfigurement by wearing high heels. I can't believe there's a person on earth in 2016 who doesn't think that's ridiculous. A woman can have an MBA, a PhD, a masters degree, or years of experience in her field, but she isn't hired because she won't wear high heels? What kind of people think that way? Not people I'd want to work for. But if I had to (because let's face it, jobs are hard to come by), I would certainly be fighting that policy from day 1.
Incidentally, I worked in customer service/catalog for JCPenney for years and years in the 90s. Despite the fact that we routinely lifted filthy boxes; dug through dusty, dirty bins of packages; and climbed ladders, we were required to wear skirts/dresses, panty hose, and dress shoes. You'd better believe we protested the dress code. I worked there for 7 years and the dress code still didn't change until after I left. It shouldn't take a lawsuit to make people see common sense.

 

[ZachnElli]

I loved wearing heels, wore them for years to work. Then I got plantar fasciitis. Now after having heels on for about an hour, even while sitting, it feels like I'm standing on knives, blades up. So, if it had been my employer's requirement to wear them, and despite having worked there for years with glowing yearly reviews, I should lose my job? And just because someone's mom or old teacher did it for decades and they don't have any problems with their feet/backs the rest of woman kind should be ok too? Really?