The long-running saga of the way in which employees are expected to dress at work took a bizarre twist this week with Swiss bank UBS (www.ubs.com) ordering any staff having contact with clients to conform to an elaborate and detailed code of dress.
While many workers may be used to rules about hair length and body piercings, this 44-page booklet which was the idea of UBS’ senior management dictates just about everything. For example, areas covered include:
- Hair colourings
- Clothes sizes (nothing must be too tight a fit)
Suit colours - Length of toenails
- Choice of underwear
- Avoidance of ‘aromatic’ foods
- Sheerness of fabrics (underwear must not be visible)
To many this may seem Draconian but what right does an employer have to dictate an employee’s choice of attire to this extent?
The answer is that it all depends upon the interpretation of the law. While there is no doubt that the bank in question is merely intending to bolster its tarnished image (UBS was the hardest hit of the Swiss banks during the recent crisis, having received over £4bn as part of a national bail-out package), when does the employer’s right to protect its interests supersede the right of the employee to self-expression?
This is not a simple matter to resolve since there a number of different scenarios to consider. From a legal viewpoint, each muddies the water.
Obviously there are some jobs for which clothing is dictated and for which a general law cannot be made to apply. For example:
- Those in need of protective clothing – e.g. fire-fighters and anyone working in hazardous situations
- Those who must quickly distinguish their status – e.g. Police, Nursing staff
- Those whose needs are dictated by their environment – e.g. rescue workers, armed services etc
- Those who are required to appear corporate in order to promote a brand – e.g. bar workers, shop front staff, restaurant crew
- Those whose clothes need to express or enhance their work – e.g. dancers
- Those who need to engender respect – e.g. teachers, leaders of people, managers
… and so on.
Any law which has so many exceptions is doomed to failure and, worse still, will only serve to jam up the courts with precedent-setting cases – some important but many trivial.
Many employees, shocked at the action of UBS, may well feel that what they wear to work is entirely their own business but this loses sight of the responsibility of an employer to remain viable for the sake of the workforce, shareholders and, even, clients. It is a perfectly valid argument for a company to say that clothes which make its workers feel uncomfortable by restricting their movements are bad for productivity; however, does it have the same right to pronounce over a facial tattoo or a plunging neckline?
To my mind, the acid test needs to be whether what an employee wears to work:
- Hampers their productivity
- Places them or others at risk
- Means the employer incurs a quantifiable loss
- Causes other workers to suffer in some way
If ‘yes’ to any of these then the dress is unacceptable.
There also needs to be a distinction between shock and enduring distaste. We are all often guilty of knee-jerk reactions, and research regarding disfigured teachers of young children has shown that where things are dealt with in an open and matter-of-fact way, the shock wears off very quickly and all that ultimately matters is the quality of the teaching.
No doubt the argument over what can be worn at work will continue for a long time to come even if UBS remains an extreme example.
No related posts.
