A receptionist was recently sent home without pay for not wearing heels. We take a look at some of the implications on this and what constitutes an appropriate uniform.
In a story that wouldn’t look out of place on the front page of The Onion, it was reported that a receptionist was sent home from a temporary position at PwC for refusing to wear heels for a nine hour shift. When she pointed out that men are not subjected to similar uniform requirements, she was laughed at and sent home without pay.
Wearing appropriate uniform is a very important aspect of what makes a job role. It’s what separates you from who you are at home and who you are on the job. It lets everyone know who you are and what you do, and allows you to represent the brand you work for brilliantly.
While all this is important, the most important thing about uniform should always be that it is comfortable to wear. If it isn’t you can’t expect your staff to be at their best all day.
So when Nicola Thorp’s story made the rounds on the internet, a lot of people were surprised.
The incident happened back in December. It was her first day at PwC as a temporary receptionist outsourced from Portico. Portico set the dress code policy rather than PwC, and it is a requirement for women to wear a 2-4 inch heel.
Ms Thorp didn’t think that completing a nine hour shift in a heel that size was reasonable, so opted to wear smart flats instead. She was asked to go and buy some, and when she refused, was sent home without pay.
Current law states that employers are within their right to dismiss staff that do not adhere to dress code standards so long as they’ve been given time to acquire appropriate uniform. It’s also law that men and women can have variable uniforms so long as the level of smartness remains the same between the two.
There are a few issues at play here. First of all, is it acceptable to laugh off the concerns of an employee? Absolutely not. If Ms Thorp felt like she wouldn’t be able to complete her days work in heels, why should she be made to?
At this point, the law has to be questioned to an extent. It cannot be abolished because there is a chance people could abuse the opportunity to never wear a uniform again without repercussion despite its importance, but it can be modified to allow for more flexibility. Flats can be smart too after all!
Secondly, she was laughed at for suggesting men wouldn’t be sent home for the same problem. There is more pressure on women to dress to impress than men, and while uniform policies are optional, women are often held to higher standards than men.
Ultimately, while uniform should always be smart, it should be comfortable before anything else, and a shoe as notoriously uncomfortable as a heel should never be mandatory. It takes an average of 1 hour, 6 minutes and 48 seconds for feet to start hurting in heels. They damage the feet and shorten the Achilles tendon if worn too much; imagine being made to wear them for a 10 shift on a busy restaurant floor.
We believe that uniform should be something people want to wear, not have to wear. Therefore, it needs to be smart but comfy, flexible, appropriate for the tasks that each day provides and appealing for everyone.
Should PwC have intervened? They claimed not to know about the matter until the 10th May, and they don’t have a dress code. If the employee, while outsourced, is working on their premises doing jobs for them, do they not get a say in how they dress?
Regardless, the law needs amending to allow employees to have extenuating circumstances for not wearing aspects of uniform.
Reddit provides a wealth of great stories that highlight what is and isn’t appropriate uniform. One user recalled this story.
“My city's public bus service strictly dictate that the drivers have to wear long sleeved shirts, waistcoats and wool slacks all year round. Two years ago there was a heat wave and several drivers, including a friend of mine wore shorts to work instead, after a few days they were all written up for this and told to wear the appropriate uniforms. The following day five of them came in wearing the woman's skirt option of the uniform for the airflow.”
The moral of this story is simple. Yes, companies should have a basic uniform policy. Uniform is an important part of how a business presents itself to the public and how it brands itself. However, the moment a member of staff has a problem, be it pain or discomfort, there needs to be a degree of flexibility.