Fired for not wearing make-up

[SirJosephPorter]

You may have been giving an argument but you did not say you were giving an arguement or an example. You clearly said IF A WAITRESS WEARS MAKE UP SHE LOOKS PRETTY.

I may not have said it explicitly, VanIsle, but I think there was clear implication I was giving an example of how an employer would argue.

So employer saying that waitresses should wear make up is not really all that surprising. He could make an excellent business argument for that. If a waitress wears make up, she looks pretty, and that may attract more customers, more business.

To me, it is clear that I was giving a possible argument for an employer. Taken the paragraph as a whole it is clear to me, even though it may not be clear to you.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Firing someone because they won't wear makeup is simply childish. Do male waiters have to wear it, too? You aren't supposed to be able to discriminate on grounds of gender. The dunce doesn't deserve to be in biz.

You are probably right, Gilbert, but that is an employer’s prerogative. As to discrimination, I assume courts looked into it and decided that the employer was not discriminating (we probably are not aware of all the details).

If an employer is not discriminating, courts will give the employer wide latitude, even to make stupid decisions.

 

[taxslave]

You are probably right, Gilbert, but that is an employer’s prerogative. As to discrimination, I assume courts looked into it and decided that the employer was not discriminating (we probably are not aware of all the details).

If an employer is not discriminating, courts will give the employer wide latitude, even to make stupid decisions.

Big difference between a real court and a Human RIghts Commission. A few weeks ago one of these PC Kangaroo courts found that a restaurant cannot fire employees who refuse to wash their hands, yet this girl gets fired for not wearing war paint?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Taxslave, HRC is in Canada, this case happened in USA. I am sure the laws are different in two countries.

 

[VanIsle]

You may have been giving an argument but you did not say you were giving an arguement or an example. You clearly said IF A WAITRESS WEARS MAKE UP SHE LOOKS PRETTY.

I may not have said it explicitly, VanIsle, but I think there was clear implication I was giving an example of how an employer would argue.

So employer saying that waitresses should wear make up is not really all that surprising. He could make an excellent business argument for that. If a waitress wears make up, she looks pretty, and that may attract more customers, more business.

To me, it is clear that I was giving a possible argument for an employer. Taken the paragraph as a whole it is clear to me, even though it may not be clear to you.

My Dear Sirrup:
To you it was clear. To me it was as clear as mud! :lol:;-)

 

[VanIsle]

So what happens to a waitress who develops an allergic reaction to all that poison on her skin? Can she be fired ? Or does she get to sue the employer for being poisoned in the line of duty?
The though of women plastering on makeup reminds me of Tammy Baker, which in turn makes my breakfast try to come up. I'll take clean skin any day.

Now that is food for thought (pun intended)regarding the waitress that would not wash her hands. If a customer gets sick can he sue her for not washing her hands? 8O

 

[shadowshiv]

Now that is food for thought (pun intended)regarding the waitress that would not wash her hands. If a customer gets sick can he sue her for not washing her hands? 8O

I certainly would not eat at that place, and let as many people as possible know about this.

 

[VanIsle]

I certainly would not eat at that place, and let as many people as possible know about this.

Hmm - me either but - I don't remember where it was. Taxslave - do you recall?

 

[TenPenny]

Hmm - me either but - I don't remember where it was. Taxslave - do you recall?

It was a McDonalds somewhere in BC. The company tried to find her a job that did not involve working with food, but there aren't any.

PS - one thing I've noticed about SJP, is that his lack of proper grammar and punctuation makes it so that he claims he is writing one thing, while if you read his posts, they say something different.

In this case, if he used proper sentence structure, it would have been obvious what he was trying to say, but instead, the sentence read as if it was HIS contention that makeup makes waitresses more pretty, despite his claims that he didn't say that.

To read his posts, you'd think he's literate, but he's either deliberately misleading, or just lacking in writing skills.

 

[petros]

It's nice to know there is one less woman who will get cancer from caking herself with heavy metals and whale fat.

 

[L Gilbert]

So what happens to a waitress who develops an allergic reaction to all that poison on her skin? Can she be fired ? Or does she get to sue the employer for being poisoned in the line of duty?
The though of women plastering on makeup reminds me of Tammy Baker, which in turn makes my breakfast try to come up. I'll take clean skin any day.

Pretty much the same here, too. Wife uses a little lipgloss now and then (strawberry flavored ), but that's about the limit and I like it like that. Don't want to kiss her cheek and get blush talc instead. lol.

 

[L Gilbert]

It's nice to know there is one less woman who will get cancer from caking herself with heavy metals and whale fat.

.... and fish scales.

 

[L Gilbert]

Big difference between a real court and a Human RIghts Commission. A few weeks ago one of these PC Kangaroo courts found that a restaurant cannot fire employees who refuse to wash their hands, yet this girl gets fired for not wearing war paint?

Good point. There seems to be no consistency in what employers are allowed to get away with, especially in this time where 50,000 people are available to fill every job posting.

 

[L Gilbert]

My Dear Sirrup:
To you it was clear. To me it was as clear as mud! :lol:;-)

Same here. It might have been chocolate pudding, though. I didn't dip my finger in for a taste.

 

[L Gilbert]

It was a McDonalds somewhere in BC. The company tried to find her a job that did not involve working with food, but there aren't any.

lol We are safe, then. I can't think of anyone in our family that eats that crap.

PS - one thing I've noticed about SJP, is that his lack of proper grammar and punctuation makes it so that he claims he is writing one thing, while if you read his posts, they say something different.

In this case, if he used proper sentence structure, it would have been obvious what he was trying to say, but instead, the sentence read as if it was HIS contention that makeup makes waitresses more pretty, despite his claims that he didn't say that.

To read his posts, you'd think he's literate, but he's either deliberately misleading, or just lacking in writing skills.

You mean he sounds vague, exhausts redundancies and the obvious like a blast furnace spews heat, is obtuse, etc.? Go on, you kidder. lmao

 

[Zzarchov]

I think it will be against the Charter if they did that. That will be discrimination. While employers (rightly) have a great degree of latitude, I don’t think they are allowed to discriminate. It wouldn’t surprise me if they also had some regulations for male waiters to make them presentable (they would not be required to wear make up, of course). But presumably they were able to convince the courts that what they are doing is not discriminatory.

I highlighted the part in red.

Why? There is a full range of make-up for men that has the same effect as make-up for women. Things to remove blemishes, highlight good features and generally make one appear more attractive in the same manner as make-up for women.

It is used in movies, in photo ops, by politicians, and when the "Meterosexual Craze" hit they became (and still are) available everywhere.

The "Of Course" seems to be a throwback to 60's sexism. "Oh men don't wear Make-up and women don't wear pants".


The same arguments that one can use for making women wear make-up can used for men wearing make-up. Women go to restraunts with attractive male waiters the same as men to restraunts with attractive female waitresses.

 

[petros]

Women go to restraunts with attractive male waiters the same as men to restraunts with attractive female waitresses.

I go because I'm hungry and I could care less what the server looks like. I'd be more impressed if they started firing servers who don't wash their hands regularly.

It could be the world's prettiest waitress but if she rubs a booger with the same thumb that ends up in my creme of broccoli I'm gone.

 

[JLM]

Michael Stetz

Waitress says bare face led to firing

By Michael Stetz Union-Tribune Columnist
2:00 a.m. May 20, 2009

"I always thought I looked silly wearing makeup," said Shenoa Vild, 27, of North Park. - BRUCE K. HUFF / Union-Tribune

Call Michael at
619-293-1720 E-mail Michael
Bio Page

Shenoa Vild hates to wear makeup. Face goop is simply not for her. She happens to think she has a naturally healthy, vibrant complexion. After meeting her, I have to agree.
But Vild, a waitress, says her former boss had an entirely different opinion.
He wanted Vild to wear makeup.
She wouldn't.
So, she says, she got canned.
Vild had worked at Trophy's in Mission Valley for five years without wearing makeup. Apparently, for all that time, it didn't matter.
But the restaurant was sold earlier this year, and she says the new management wanted the women to doll up. Vild says she got the ax in late April when she wouldn't.
Employers have the right to do this. A few years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is not discrimination for employers to make women wear makeup. (Who are these judges? Maybelline stockholders?)
But just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
Mark Oliver, the new owner, said he couldn't go into details as to what happened with Vild. Oliver did say she was the only employee who was unable to deal with the transition.
Trophy's, like the other restaurants in the small chain, was a sports bar. Oliver is making it more upscale.
“Shenoa could still be here if she wanted,” said Oliver, who used to be a part owner of George's at the Cove in La Jolla. “I had no problem with anybody else. If she would have made the same accommodations that the new ownership was asking, she'd still be here.”
If Vild were a terrible waitress who gave customers a hard time or got orders wrong or kept dropping plates, I'd say fire away. But a former co-worker and a former boss told me she was a good, popular waitress.
(Full disclosure: Vild provided the names and numbers.)
Vild's former boss, Nicole Alex, said Vild was aces. She even trained new workers.
Alex left the restaurant, too, but she holds no grudge. Oliver was fair about her leaving, she said.
I asked Alex if customers ever complained about Vild's appearance.
“No.”
Still, “she's facing a real uphill battle,” said Peter Zschiesche, executive director of the Employee Rights Center in San Diego. Employers have wide latitude on hiring and firing, particularly when it comes to at-will, or nonunion, employees.
One might fault Vild for refusing to budge on the issue, but I give her credit for not caving. It's not the same as, say, putting on a uniform. You're applying something to your skin. And if you overdo it – Tammy Faye, anyone? – you could face ridicule, not praise.
“I always thought I looked silly wearing makeup,” Vild, a 27-year-old North Park resident, told me. “And I don't think I need it.”
It's not as if Vild isn't interested in her appearance or is a complete rebel. When the new management instituted a dress code of nice jeans and pressed white shirts, Vild said she had no problems conforming.
The Trophy's waitresses used to wear gym shorts and blouses.
Word is the management didn't like Vild's beach-girl look. She bleaches her hair blond. Funny, since we, um, live in a beach town. And funny, since when I went in the restaurant recently to check out the place, I saw a surfboard bolted on the wall.
My bet: That surfboard is going to be following Vild out the door.
While I was at the restaurant, I decided to have lunch. Maybe my powers of observations are lame, but I couldn't tell if my waitress was wearing any makeup.
She was very pleasant and she didn't drop my club sandwich into my lap. That's about all I care about. She told me the place is undergoing remodeling. She's only been there a couple of weeks.
Look, I have no problem with the establishment going for a makeover and Oliver putting his own stamp on the joint. You buy a place of business, you run it as you see fit. It's your Benjamins.
But Vild makes good points about how makeup can be a pain and how it's not necessarily for her. It costs money and it takes time to put on. For the waiters, it's a different story. All they have to do is be clean-shaven.
Too bad the law doesn't support people like Vild.
Times are tough enough. If Vild did get the heave-ho for this, well, I'm not handing out any trophies.
P.S. Just days ago, Vild landed a job tending bar. No makeup required.
Michael Stetz: (619) 293-1720;

Click here to hide comments

I heard it say years ago that pretty girls don't need make up, make up is just for the ugly mutts.

 

[L Gilbert]

Paper bags with nice pics on them are cheaper. lol (recyclable, too).

I go because I'm hungry and I could care less what the server looks like. I'd be more impressed if they started firing servers who don't wash their hands regularly.

It could be the world's prettiest waitress but if she rubs a booger with the same thumb that ends up in my creme of broccoli I'm gone.

Ditto that.

 

[Zzarchov]

I agree, but thats not what Im saying. Im saying attractive servers are not any more a male than female issue. Some people go for food, but Hooters exists for a reason.