Board 8 > Hair Color at a job

(+) Yeah! (+)

The solution is simple

First, you and your girlfriend need to reduce global population to at least 1/10th the current amount

At this point there will be devastation and a lot of wahh wahhs... but once that's all over the world will rebuild and existing jobs will need people who specialize in certain skills...so they wont get 100 applicants for even meaningless positions and will take whatever they can get to help get things done for actual important roles. Politics about hair color will be a thing of the past for sure.

Your girl will now be able to freely get the kind of jobs she thinks she's owed already.

She was right...just forgot to have the apocalypse first to convert the job market into a buyer's market. Once that's done her feelings here will actually be relevant.
---

Kenri posted...

It sounds like the company's boss is very, very stupid and bad at his job

lmfao, yeah, a successful business owner is stupid and bad for not liking ugly hair colours, while you are super intelligent and good for having far-left views.
---

Honestly I think the more bizarre thing is that I'm more bothered about this than her. I preferred her natural hair color, I don't have tattoos, piercings or colored hair nor do I plan on ever doing any of those things. But I just think it's silly that something like colored hair is seen as unprofessional.

I think being narrow minded is far more unprofessional than coloring your hair.

ShatteredElysium posted...

I think being narrow minded is far more unprofessional than coloring your hair.

Welcome to corporate
---

But being narrow minded to people who are old fashioned means you're narrow minded yourself.

So much for the tolerant left

/jk
---

This is normal. Definitely more normal than pink hair!
---

Vlado posted...

Kenri posted...

It sounds like the company's boss is very, very stupid and bad at his job

lmfao, yeah, a successful business owner is stupid and bad for not liking ugly hair colours, while you are super intelligent and good for having far-left views.

the far-left view of hiring people based on merit?
---

Personally, I wouldn't want to sell to someone who refused to do business because one of my employees had pink hair.

Also, I seem to remember a country doing something like this. Where they viewed people with a certain hair color in a certain light. I think it was blonde hair. They needed blue eyes too I believe.
---

Your unnatural hair color is a form of dress. Just like shorts and t shirts are a form of dress
---

KingButz posted...

Your unnatural hair color is a form of dress. Just like shorts and t shirts are a form of dress

Dress codes are pretty bad too tbh but surely this is closer to saying that your shorts and shirts (which are otherwise regulation) aren't okay because they're dyed a color the material isn't naturally
---

If I showed up to work in a white suit I would be told to go home immediately
---

KingButz posted...

If I showed up to work in a white suit I would be told to go home immediately

To dye it a natural color?
---

I should be allowed to go to work nude

What's more natural than that???
---

So it's okay if a company only hires Blondes? Or requires people to dye their hair blonde? That seems to be giving way too much control to a company.

Dress codes are a lot different. Once you go home, you can wear whatever the fuck you want. The company has no say once you leave the building.
---

Well if you want to dye your hair blue for the weekend when you're not working, go right ahead
---

She should've just said that it's her sincere religious belief that she has to dye her hair pink.
---

Ashethan posted...

Personally, I wouldn't want to sell to someone who refused to do business because one of my employees had pink hair.

Also, I seem to remember a country doing something like this. Where they viewed people with a certain hair color in a certain light. I think it was blonde hair. They needed blue eyes too I believe.

Are we seriously going to Godwin's Law with this conversation? Really?

How about this. If you want to look a certain way that isn't entirely socially acceptable, don't be shocked when in a professional atmosphere you may be judged for it. If you don't like that, find another job. It's that simple.

Someone not being okay with colored hair doesn't make them a fucking Nazi though.
---

Like, comparing a company having a dress code to Nazi Germany may be the single dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on this board, and that's saying a lot.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Someone not being okay with colored hair doesn't make them a fucking Nazi though.

Nazi? No. Discriminatory? Yes.

It wasn't socially acceptable to be gay at one time, and it shouldn't be okay to refuse to hire someone because they are gay. In some places it's still not socially acceptable.

If you're judging someone by their hair color, I'd prefer not to do business with you.
---

Kenri posted...

KingButz posted...

If I showed up to work in a white suit I would be told to go home immediately

To dye it a natural color?

Don't be purposefully obtuse. I'm sure op's friend can put on a hairpiece if she refuses to dye her hair

It's not about dye. It's about culturally acceptable hair colors-in pretty much every culture these are natural hair colors. No business would discriminate against people because their natural hair color is pink. But pink is never a natural hair color.
---

it's not particularly different from a dress code. if the policy were on a natural hair color that would be a much bigger issue. but yeah, up to her if she's okay with that type of culture.
---

Ashethan posted...

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Someone not being okay with colored hair doesn't make them a f***ing Nazi though.

Nazi? No. Discriminatory? Yes.

It wasn't socially acceptable to be gay at one time, and it shouldn't be okay to refuse to hire someone because they are gay. In some places it's still not socially acceptable.

If you're judging someone by their hair color, I'd prefer not to do business with you.

Nobody in the first world will discriminate based on your innate hair color. That's not a thing and its disingenuous to suggest that anyone ever would.
---

KingButz posted...

Nobody in the first world will discriminate based on your innate hair color. That's not a thing and its disingenuous to suggest that anyone ever would.

So it's okay to discriminate because it's not 'natural'. Seems to be along the same lines as people saying it's okay to discriminate against gay people or transgender people.
---

KingButz posted...

Don't be purposefully obtuse. I'm sure op's friend can put on a hairpiece if she refuses to dye her hair

it's not purposely obtuse, it's literally the distinction I'm talking about?

also I sorta doubt the hairpiece thing if they're not even letting her keep it pink until she's hired

KingButz posted...

No business would discriminate against people because their natural hair color is pink.

sure they would lmao, businesses will discriminate for literally anything

it probably wouldn't be as common as hair color restrictions in dress codes, sure
---

Ashethan posted...

KingButz posted...

Nobody in the first world will discriminate based on your innate hair color. That's not a thing and its disingenuous to suggest that anyone ever would.

So it's okay to discriminate because it's not 'natural'. Seems to be along the same lines as people saying it's okay to discriminate against gay people or transgender people.

Ok you are literally just trolling now

Kenri posted...

KingButz posted...

Don't be purposefully obtuse. I'm sure op's friend can put on a hairpiece if she refuses to dye her hair

it's not purposely obtuse, it's literally the distinction I'm talking about?

also I sorta doubt the hairpiece thing if they're not even letting her keep it pink until she's hired

KingButz posted...

No business would discriminate against people because their natural hair color is pink.

sure they would lmao, businesses will discriminate for literally anything

it probably wouldn't be as common as hair color restrictions in dress codes, sure

Please direct me to an instance in the last 50 years where a business has ever unjustly discriminated against someone because of innate hair color. That's absurd.
---

Ashethan posted...

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Someone not being okay with colored hair doesn't make them a fucking Nazi though.

Nazi? No. Discriminatory? Yes.

It wasn't socially acceptable to be gay at one time, and it shouldn't be okay to refuse to hire someone because they are gay. In some places it's still not socially acceptable.

If you're judging someone by their hair color, I'd prefer not to do business with you.

You literally equated judging based on dyed hair color is the same as Nazis judging based on natural hair and eye color.

Unless now you're implying being gay is a choice, which doesn't sound too progressive to me!
---

Well I think the reason why it's a red flag for me is because they specified it being because it's a family run business that is old fashioned due to the owner. So if he's old fashioned about hair color is he old fashioned about other things too? Obviously I have no idea and it probably isn't the case (internet reviews say bad things about the company but above average things about working there) but it was the first thing that came to my mind when she told me.

Anyway, they only had 1 other prospect who interviewed terribly this morning so it sounds line she will definitely get the job if she dyes her hair back natural. I wonder what they class as natural, before she had pink hair she had dark hair with blonde highlights so I wonder if they would be ok with that.

The company did right. Appearances matter a lot despite what people say.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Unless now you're implying being gay is a choice, which doesn't sound too progressive to me!

You literally said, "It's not socially acceptable". Being gay -- choice or not, and I don't think it is since my sister's wife is a lesbian who underwent conversion therapy and I know she wouldn't 'choose' to be gay if she could choose because it was literal torture---was not considered socially acceptable and still isn't in some places. You've now decided to bring choice into it. Being transgender -- again choice or not -- is considered socially unacceptable in many places. Just because something is socially unacceptable doesn't mean someone should be discriminated against. It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. You shouldn't discriminate against someone because they are a Muslim--even if they can choose another religion.
---

I mean honestly she probably could get away with dying her hair again after a bit of tenure.
---

KingButz posted...

Please direct me to an instance in the last 50 years where a business has ever unjustly discriminated against someone because of innate hair color. That's absurd.

I didn't say they had, I said they would if pink was a natural hair color?

Nevertheless it's pretty easy to find anecdotes from people about being fired for gray hair, red hair, blonde hair, etc -- but these typically get wrapped up in age discrimination, anti-Irish discrimination (typically more than 50 years ago, yes), and sexual harassment respectively. There's no law specifically against hair color discrimination (even for natural colors) in the US so like... you're not going to find many cases of it that aren't either that or "person alleges it but it's dismissed by the court".
---

No, you decided to bring choice into this by implying that choosing a hair color is the same as choosing whether you are gay or not.

Maybe you should be advocating for these descriminated LGBT people having a hard time getting a job instead of worrying about people who want silly hair colors having a harder time getting a job when literally all they need to do to schedule a hair appointment to fix it.

Get some perspective.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Maybe you should be advocating for these descriminated LGBT people having a hard time getting a job instead of worrying about people who want silly hair colors having a harder time getting a job when literally all they need to do to schedule a hair appointment to fix it.

This is the fallacy of relative privation. One could take this a step further and say "Maybe you should be advocating for those LGBT being murdered in Iran and Iraq instead of worrying about people who can't work for certain companies because fo their sexual orientation." And in fact is often taken to that level. How do I know this? Because I've long advocated for those discriminated LGBT people in companies, and have dealt with such arguments in the past.
---

I do want to reiterate that we are talking about this level of pink, not bright pink

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/84/93/9a84936176096c671d420a4d6f2f8fd3.jpg

I mean I guess technically it makes no difference but just when I see people saying silly and ugly to describe it I envision people thinking some bright pink or something

This is pure wage slavery, no question about it. The fact that she is even considering doing it, let alone actually going for it, makes her a big part of the problem herself.

Companies love to control your life if you let them. That is slavery. They don't deserve that at all. For a company you're not even hired at to do it is completely insane. All they care about is how malleable and abusable she is, and it seems like she very much is (along with Vlado and many others ITT).

Absolutely 0 good can come of this. If she's good then she'll get the job or another job anyways. It is indeed an issue of capitalism, which has a very peculiar ability to convince bosses that "culture" doesn't matter as long as there's money being made. If the job just cares more about controlling her than that, there is no chance it will be a good job. Vlados posts here are a great example.

Anyone here suggesting even a little bit that this is okay should be ashamed of themselves for giving so much of your life up to your employers. It's definitely a choice you can make.
---

Ashethan posted...

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Maybe you should be advocating for these descriminated LGBT people having a hard time getting a job instead of worrying about people who want silly hair colors having a harder time getting a job when literally all they need to do to schedule a hair appointment to fix it.

This is the fallacy of relative privation.

I didn't escalate this conversion multiple times by making comparisons to Naziism and gay rights.
---

Equating unnatural hair color to being gay is also dumb and kinda offensive

Being gay isnt something somebody can change

An unnatural hair color is a change theyve already chosen to make and are being asked to undo that change. And its still a choice. The person can choose to keep their hair color and find a different company. A gay person still faces the issues in every day life.

Youre basically belittling the issues the LGBT community face by trying to equate the two
---

I love this topic
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Equating unnatural hair color to being gay is also dumb and kinda offensive

Being gay isnt something somebody can change

An unnatural hair color is a change theyve already chosen to make and are being asked to undo that change. And its still a choice. The person can choose to keep their hair color and find a different company. A gay person still faces the issues in every day life.

Youre basically belittling the issues the LGBT community face by trying to equate the two

I think a closer comparison would be discriminating against someone who is overweight in a job where weight has no effect on performance.

Actually, I find it kind of offensive when people keep saying "Being gay isn't a choice".

Because: Even if it were, that still wouldn't make discriminating against them okay. It's like saying there's something inherently wrong with being gay, but it's okay only because they're born that way. When it should be okay regardless of if they were born that way or not. I don't think the implication is intentional or meant. So I wouldn't normally address this. But in this case, I'm going to.

It doesn't matter if being gay is a choice or not. "They can't change!" is kind of suggesting there's something that needs to be changed. That there's something wrong. When there's nothing wrong. Not just because they were born that way (appeal to nature) but because there's nothing wrong with it period.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

I do want to reiterate that we are talking about this level of pink, not bright pink

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/84/93/9a84936176096c671d420a4d6f2f8fd3.jpg

I mean I guess technically it makes no difference but just when I see people saying silly and ugly to describe it I envision people thinking some bright pink or something

It's more likely than not to make sure someone isn't coming in with some crazy haircolor that the company thinks is unprofessional and it turns into a HR mess. But really I don't never saw the big deal here, either the hair isn't a big deal and she changes it for the job or you find another job that doesn't care about it. The outrage in this topic over it is pretty funny though between hair discrimination and it's like what nazis used to do is quality stuff. oh and WAGE SLAVERY, lol it's fucking hair color man get over it.
---

Ashethan posted...

Actually, I find it kind of offensive when people keep saying "Being gay isn't a choice".

Because: Even if it were, that still wouldn't make discriminating against them okay. It's like saying there's something inherently wrong with being gay, but it's okay only because they're born that way. When it should be okay regardless of if they were born that way or not. I don't think the implication is intentional or meant. So I wouldn't normally address this. But in this case, I'm going to.

It doesn't matter if being gay is a choice or not. "They can't change!" is kind of suggesting there's something that needs to be changed. That there's something wrong. When there's nothing wrong. Not just because they were born that way (appeal to nature) but because there's nothing wrong with it period.

Can you just admit you're being silly instead of trying to find new and inventive ways to be outraged?
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Equating unnatural hair color to being gay is also dumb and kinda offensive

Being gay isnt something somebody can change

An unnatural hair color is a change theyve already chosen to make and are being asked to undo that change. And its still a choice. The person can choose to keep their hair color and find a different company. A gay person still faces the issues in every day life.

Youre basically belittling the issues the LGBT community face by trying to equate the two

As a member of the LGBT community, though, there's actually huge overlap between the two issues because at the end of the day, the biggest difference between being closeted and being openly gay or trans is your outward presentation to the world (which is more than appearance, but appearance is a big part). The more ability a business has to curtail your appearance, the more they have cover to not hire LGBT (especially trans) people. I would also wager that LGBT people are more likely to have unnaturally colored hair than the general public (certainly they have the perception/stereotype of such), which is almost certainly why alt-right types have such a big mouth on this topic. I agree not to equate them, and in a sense I appreciate your defense of the LGBT community here, but I think you're slightly missing the forest for the trees.
---

Actually you know what is more unprofessional than hair color that doesnt get brought up at interviews. Smoking.

Kenri posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

Equating unnatural hair color to being gay is also dumb and kinda offensive

Being gay isnt something somebody can change

An unnatural hair color is a change theyve already chosen to make and are being asked to undo that change. And its still a choice. The person can choose to keep their hair color and find a different company. A gay person still faces the issues in every day life.

Youre basically belittling the issues the LGBT community face by trying to equate the two

As a member of the LGBT community, though, there's actually huge overlap between the two issues because at the end of the day, the biggest difference between being closeted and being openly gay or trans is your outward presentation to the world (which is more than appearance, but appearance is a big part). The more ability a business has to curtail your appearance, the more they have cover to not hire LGBT (especially trans) people. I would also wager that LGBT people are more likely to have unnaturally colored hair than the general public (certainly they have the perception/stereotype of such), which is almost certainly why alt-right types have such a big mouth on this topic. I agree not to equate them, and in a sense I appreciate your defense of the LGBT community here, but I think you're slightly missing the forest for the trees.

I aprreciate the response, and youre likely right that I am missing the point a bit. Im not necessarily trying to defend the position against hair color as much as saying its pretty dumb to equate it to gay people and Nazi germany

My stance is more so that yeah, it is a problem, but its a rather wide reaching problem that isnt necessarily indicative of other problems within a companys workforce. Sometimes theyre just dated policies that didnt cause enough stir to ever change
---

Ashethan posted...

It doesn't matter if being gay is a choice or not. "They can't change!" is kind of suggesting there's something that needs to be changed. That there's something wrong. When there's nothing wrong. Not just because they were born that way (appeal to nature) but because there's nothing wrong with it period.

This is a really good distinction actually

People ITT are totally okay with employers dictating your life and forcing you to make nonsense changes for no reason. They only think it's bad when they make you change something you can't control.

Like, what? As if the employer owns your entire life except what's enumerated in anti-discrimination laws. If they can't tolerate colored hair at a desk job then they definitely wouldn't tolerate a gay person. Sexuality obviously isn't comparable to hair color, but the issue of employer control is the same.
---

Have people ITT never been to a club that has a dress code like "no Tims"? Do you really think they just don't like that particular brand of shoe?

It's pure racism even though we're just talking about a shoe you can totally choose not to wear. It's all about being controlled and molded.
---

I think theres a bigger problem that even today coworkers judge each other on appearance. Studies have found that coworkers with shaggy hair/beard, or ones that dress more provocative are found less trustworthy by their coworkers.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Have people ITT never been to a club

no
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I aprreciate the response, and youre likely right that I am missing the point a bit. Im not necessarily trying to defend the position against hair color as much as saying its pretty dumb to equate it to gay people and Nazi germany

My stance is more so that yeah, it is a problem, but its a rather wide reaching problem that isnt necessarily indicative of other problems within a companys workforce. Sometimes theyre just dated policies that didnt cause enough stir to ever change

I'll save myself typing and just echo this thought entirely.

I was mostly just taken aback by the Nazi comparison in the first place. I will say you've been a lot more reasonable on your end of the discussion Kenri.
---