Mini Skirts

[Steezie]

With all due respect if the company policy restricts the kind of dress she is supposidly choosing to wear how do these questions even come into play? She is obviously not really doing her job to the fullest if she can't even comply with a simple direction about dress code. Its obviously causing problems if she's having to be warned and put on suspension.

She signed the contract she knows the rules. As an employee she should be follow them if she wants to keep her job--its that simple.

Thats an incrediby rigid way to do business and a good way to lose a lot of good employees. My bosses right now are the same way, if it isnt their way, you're gone. Which is stupid because they've tossed SO many qualified and good people. Would you rather have a good worker who maybe bends the rules a little or a dipstick who does a bad job but follows all the rules?

Personally I'd be willing to overlook a little rule bending if that person did a good job.

Evem if he conveyed them in a manner that perhaps you would not agree (and hopefully JesusWalks78 will let us know how he conveyed them--we have to assume he is not saying anything that speaks of sexual harassment) with what does that have to do with her violating company policy. If she is violating company policy then she needs to be reprimanded or fired. After 3 warnings its obvious she can't follow the policy.

Again, she signed a contract and she knew full well what the dress code was. Why should she be allowed to violate it? Is it possible maybe the lady in question just doesn't want to comply and is angry about being asked to do so?

Note: Why would you assume that a businessman obviously purposely say something knowing he may be sued for sexual harassment? AND then come here to ask for advice concerning what he should do. I mean I'm not trying to belittle this women's credability but not all businessmen are guilty of sexual harassment simply because someone said they are.

Its not so much how he said is as how she took it. She may have taken it the wrong way. In which case its a mis-understanding and can be cleared up, but you are just automatically jumping to the conclusion that there was no miscommunication at all which I dont think you can make

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Thats an incrediby rigid way to do business and a good way to lose a lot of good employees. My bosses right now are the same way, if it isnt their way, you're gone. Which is stupid because they've tossed SO many qualified and good people. Would you rather have a good worker who maybe bends the rules a little or a dipstick who does a bad job but follows all the rules?

Personally I'd be willing to overlook a little rule bending if that person did a good job.

Personally I don't really agree with work dress codes at all. In my opinion it is rigid. However, if you agree to work in a place with a rigid dress code (and some places don't have it--I have worked a a few places where they didn't really care how I dressed or if I had piercings or my hair in interesting colors--as long as I was well groomed and did my job that was fine.) you should do your best to abide by the dress code. She may be a good worker otherwise but she is really showing disrespect for her employer by disregarding the dress code. If she is such a good employee why can she not follow simple instructions to any vague degree? As it is neither you or me making the decision or paying her wages it would be best to follow the rules set by the person who is. I do not think its unreasonable to ask her to follow a dress code that she has already agreed to. Besides, its a job she's only at for only a portion of her day. I think she can stand (like many other people have had to put up with) changing the manner in which she appears for a portion of her day.

Its not so much how he said is as how she took it. She may have taken it the wrong way. In which case its a mis-understanding and can be cleared up, but you are just automatically jumping to the conclusion that there was no miscommunication at all which I dont think you can make

Excuse me, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Why are you jumping to the conclusion that automatically she may have took it the wrong way and that there is no possibility she's just trying to put her employer in an awkward position or just being outright disobedient to company policy? You can't make that assumption either. And I'm not saying that your view couldn't be a possibility but we won't know untill the OP clarifies what exactly happend. We're going on the information given. Given the information that has been proffered she has been given 3 warnings and substantial time to go to her employer and discuss any problems she may have and has failed to do so.

 

[Steezie]

Excuse me, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Why are you jumping to the conclusion that automatically she may have took it the wrong way and that there is no possibility she's just trying to put her employer in an awkward position or just being outright disobedient to company policy? You can't make that assumption either. And I'm not saying that your view couldn't be a possibility but we won't know untill the OP clarifies what exactly happend. We're going on the information given. Given the information that has been proffered she has been given 3 warnings and substantial time to go to her employer and discuss any problems she may have and has failed to do so.

YOU are the one who's sitting there automatically thinking shes some manipulative woman who's just shaking her moneymaker. I dont think its fair to automatically assume her motives are manipulative

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

YOU are the one who's sitting there automatically thinking shes some manipulative woman who's just shaking her moneymaker. I dont think its fair to automatically assume her motives are manipulative

Again, no I'm not. I'm going on information given and giving my opinion about what the OP should do about the situation. I never said she was some manipulative woman--please do not put words in my mouth. (and please prove where I said this if you are going to make accusations that I said such) I don't think its very fair to assume that he obviously must have said something that made her assume sexual harassment.

If you read my post you would see that I think we--at this point--should wait untill the OP comes back and clarifies for all of us what exactly happend as far as what was exactly said and then determine if it was sexual harassment.

All the info we have is that she has violated company policy several times and that she has threatened to take him to court if he furthers his objections to her dress while working for his business. He asked us for opinions about what we would do as far as disciplinary action taken against the worker. I and others gave an opinion and no one ever assumed she was a manipulative woman. With the info given she has violated policy. Period.

 

[Lynden1000]

YOU are the one who's sitting there automatically thinking shes some manipulative woman who's just shaking her moneymaker. I dont think its fair to automatically assume her motives are manipulative

Life isn't always fair in the business world. If you directly disobey your employer not once but three times, and then threaten a lawsuit when you're warned yet again, you need to be kicked out on your kiester.

The author of the OP is free to handle this in whatever manner he deems suitable; but if it were my company, this gal would be tossed out on her [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. There are plenty of workers out there who can do their job successfully and show respect to their employer at the same time.

If she's concerned about her paycheck, then she needs to learn what it takes to keep one.

 

[TheMissus]

Thats an incrediby rigid way to do business and a good way to lose a lot of good employees. My bosses right now are the same way, if it isnt their way, you're gone. Which is stupid because they've tossed SO many qualified and good people. Would you rather have a good worker who maybe bends the rules a little or a dipstick who does a bad job but follows all the rules?

If an employee isn't willing to comply with the workplace standards she agreed to when she was hired, she's not a good employee. Disrespect and an unwillingness to do what she is contractually obligated to do (and the forms you sign when hired are most certainly a binding contract) are not signs of a productive employee.

Personally I'd be willing to overlook a little rule bending if that person did a good job.

And then you'd set yourself up for a failed business. If you let one employee very obviously toe the line, where do you draw the line from there? What else would you let slide, "if the person did a good job"? What's good enough to be a "good" job? How would you enforce the employee agreement with the other employees ever again?

 

[JesusWalks78]

Couple questions

1. Does she DO her job?

Yes.

2. Does she do it well?

Yes.

3. Has it caused any problems?

Threatening me aith a law suit is one problem, the insubordination is another.

 

[JesusWalks78]

A few more questions:


Do customers or anyone else see her?

Yes.

Does she do her job well enough that this isn't worth making an issue over? We've got a guy here that doesn't come into work until 3 in the afternoon. He's very good at his job, though.

The issue is not how efficiently she does her job....the issue is the team, I cant have one set of rules for her and another set for the rest.

Can she afford a new wardrobe?

My employees are well paid, so yes she can.

 

[JesusWalks78]

That's a pretty big leap to make.

You dont know how she interpreted his request or how it was recieved. People take things wierd ways sometimes and I dont think its fair to AUTOMATICALLY assume that shes using the fact that shes a woman as leverage.

Well her threat is laughable, at anytime when I have to speak with someone I have their supervisor in the room and the supervisor signs on the written warnings acknowledging that it has been given to his/her team member.

In this case everytime I have spoken with her on the issue her supervisor has been present and even she (the supervisor) agrees that she is dressing rather outlandishly.

I have spoken tomy lawyers and they say that I have no case to answer to (in this day and age you must be very careful when dealing with people...I believe it was Andrew Grove that said "only the paranoid survive".)

That said, if I landed a sweet job with good pay you can damn sure bet Id be willing to be a little crafty to keep it.

I can admire crafty, I can admire ambition....but threatening your boss with a law suit is neither one ofthose things.

 

[JesusWalks78]

what does it actually say in the contract, could you (Jesuswalks 78) give us a word for word run through of the section of the contract that deals with dresscode. Is it specific?

I am sorry but the contracts in their entirety are confidential.

However itis very specific, it says that women must wear skirts that are below the knee, mens sulus are also to be half way down the calves. It states that tops without sleeves are unacceptable and things like that...so it is pretty specific.

one solution is to issue a uniform for all members. in my job everyone has to automatically wear a company issued uniform. then she could not possible come in to work wearing a mini skirt and with a low cut top. and other employees woundn't wear jeans.

I have thought about that, but the other rule abiding employees dont want that.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Thats an incrediby rigid way to do business and a good way to lose a lot of good employees. My bosses right now are the same way, if it isnt their way, you're gone.

Well your bosses have every right to decide what they want their business to portray. Thats what I think anyway, no organisation owes anyone a paycheck.

Which is stupid because they've tossed SO many qualified and good people. Would you rather have a good worker who maybe bends the rules a little or a dipstick who does a bad job but follows all the rules?

Bending the rules perhaps...but breaking them outright is not good. She is a good unit, but she is replacable.

Personally I'd be willing to overlook a little rule bending if that person did a good job.[./quote]

Foe me it comes down to fairness....that would mean that everyone else got to break the rules as well as long as they were getting their job done.

Its not so much how he said is as how she took it. She may have taken it the wrong way. In which case its a mis-understanding and can be cleared up, but you are just automatically jumping to the conclusion that there was no miscommunication at all which I dont think you can make

I have already said that I had her supervisor with me on all occasions when I brought up the subject.

 

[TheBellman]

I think JesusWalks has addressed nearly every question that's been asked in relation to this issue...it doesn't appear this woman has a leg to stand on.

Fire her, and while you will feel a bit guilty for it (as you say), at least feel happy within yourself that you did everything you could to resolve it in a way that didn't hurt her. If you are forced to fire her over this issue, it won't be YOUR fault.

 

[billwald]

You need to develop a dress code, post it, and give every employee a copy. Have lawyer write it who is familiar with such matters.

 

[morningstar2651]

Taking photos is perfectly legal. Photographs are not only accepted by the courts, but are preferred to testimony.

That she signed a contract does not prove she violated that contract. A photo of her in the miniskirt is irrefutable evidence that she is in violation.

It's evidence, but without context, the photograph isn't irrefutable.

 

[Robinsegg]

You need to develop a dress code, post it, and give every employee a copy. Have lawyer write it who is familiar with such matters.

He's done that . . . it's part of the contract signed to accept employment.

Rachel

 

[christalee4]

Fire the insubordinate minx - or wear eye-blinders.