read the first page ignored the rest as it's hippies replying to spec (spec.. you're right btw). If I turn up to work unshaved i get yelled at, it comes down to this.. you either agree to the T&C's of your employment which in my case include looking presentable or you find another job which isn't so "strict". Anywhere in the world, if you apply for a job in a mid to high end institution you're going to get judged on EVERYTHING, accent, hair, stuble, vocal type, pronounciation, weight, height and sad to say it even the colour of your skin. *gasp*. Reality sucks doesn't it? Boys clubs still run the top companies these days, I could even see it in my supermarket job of yesteryear. If your face doesn't fit you're not getting in and if you do get in you're working bloody hard to prove your worth. Even at my current job I've seen someone sacked because they badmouthed myself and the other new starter. She'd been there a week longer than myself and slagged us both off on our second day for being "too cliquey". Management choice?: sack the bad apple and let the other two prosper.
fev and spec, you two have it right. Employment is not a right and you have to abide by the conditions you were hired on. If one of those included a dress code, you must follow it or you lose your job. It isn't about the charity at all, it doesn't matter why you violate the dress code, the issue is that she in fact did violate it. I feel sorry for her losing her job, but if I were to show up for work in a condition I knew my employer would take offense to and then refuse to change it, I would lose my job, that's just how it works. If you remove the charity element of it, I wonder, would people still be as keen to defend her.
I used to work as a night porter in a four star hotel before my appearance morphed into my current hippy-like state. The contract went as far as to specify hair length separately for males and females under the dress code. They can and did get away with firing people for repeatedly breaking the dress code. If you sign it you agree to it. I object to being ignored for being a hippy Gravemind123 - the article did say she was still on the payroll, just asked to take the summer off, no doubt because of exactly the reasons you mention.
Spot on. ...and the sig-worthy quotes just keep on coming... Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion. I don't think spec left enough pieces of him for me to sink my teeth into. And anyway, there's class acts like: Spec is about as non-fascist and non-racist as they come (free of artificial ingredients, he is 100% pure spec ). But he is also non-stupid and therefore his reasoning casually cruises at altitudes that takes a dedicated space programme for most other people's thinking to achieve. You're a case in point. You don't agree with him? Fine: explain why in coherent, rational arguments rather than throwing insults at his head. Just to help you get started (consider it an appropriate launch vehicle, say, a big bright red balloon), spec is saying that everybody should be free to do what they want as long as it does not hurt others. Employers are free to hire and fire --nobody is entitled to a job. Similarly, shop owners should be able to serve who they want; customers aren't entitled to a service. On the other hand (and pay attention now, here's the rub) employers aren't entitled to force employees to do anything they don't want to do --employees can walk out and find a more agreeable job. If an employer goes too Nazi on his employees, he may soon find himself without any staff at all. Similarly, shop owners are not entitled to custom; if he lets his racist prejudices determine what customers he serves, he may find that customers take offense and take their business elsewhere altogether. It all balances out. The crux is: life doesn't owe us a thing. It was here first. People don't have entitlements to anything, but they do have choices. And with these choices come consequences, for which they, as the choosers, are entirely responsible. That is what spec is saying. If you want to argue against that Wicz, be our guest, but this is the Discussion Forum so make it a good one. Now go flap your wings. As for my argument: I never entirely disagreed with spec. I just think that we need to be a bit careful with endulging stereotypes.
Your wish is my command. Just knocked up a replica. Resolution: 2133 x 1600; that should make a decent print-out or desktop wallpaper.
haha that's EXACTLY why I wanted your input, one of the best visual analogies I've heard for a long time. Damn that's made a bad exam/revision ridden day a bit brighter My only criticism and it's being 'per(s)nickerty' is that I couldn't imagine spec being pissed off, he seems too articulate for it and ta for the commy pics
Given the statement being made in the image, it's almost appropriate to use 'that' instead of 'who.' -monkey
