Board 8 > Hair Color at a job

(+) Yeah! (+)

Oh I get it.

We're trying to convince new users not to stick around.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

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.

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.

You're completely ignorant. I work as a professional for a company with a progressive agenda and the dress code doesn't allow pink hair. I have multiple openly gay co-workers and they are treated just fine.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Have people ITT never been to a club

a what now
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

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.

To respond to both of you at once: Yeah I'd say overlap but not equation wrt to LGBT discrimination, and that the Nazi comparison is unhelpful. And either way it's not exactly what's happening in this topic's particular situation.

Thanks for understanding my point of view!
---

My main problem is that it's literally 2018 and having weird hair colors is considered 'socially unacceptable' Same with piercings and (some) tattoos. (obviously, offensive tattoos are a problem)

There's a lot of things that are considered socially unacceptable in some circles. Being an atheist is socially unacceptable in a lot of places. A lot of people have said they wouldn't vote for an atheist. Atheism is something that's easy to hide. A lot of people pretend to be Christians. It's easy. Just throw on a cross necklace and memorize the name of one or two chapters of the bible to quote as your favorite. "Yeah, I really like Psalm 137:9". "Merry Christmas!" "I love Jesus." "God loves everyone."

I guess I was just raised to really believe "Don't judge a book based on its cover" And I really don't think "It's socially unacceptable" should disqualify you from a job unless it's an action that directly affects another (IE you're a murderer or a convicted child molester)
---

Yes, it's literally 2018. You know, 3 years since the pendulum started swinging back to the right. You should get used to it.
---

Vlado posted...

Yes, it's literally 2018. You know, 3 years since the pendulum started swinging back to the right. You should get used to it.

Back to the right, away from merit-based hiring.
---

I always find it hard to take Vlado seriously since he once told me I should live with my parents / share a house with lots of people (like 5+) for 5-10+ years so that I could buy a house outright instead of getting a mortgage.

ShatteredElysium posted...

I always find it hard to take Vlado seriously since he once told me I should live with my parents / share a house with lots of people (like 5+) for 5-10+ years so that I could buy a house outright instead of getting a mortgage.

That is what makes it hard for you to take him seriously?
---

That's actually one of the most reasonable things vlado has ever said
---

A lot of rebellious young people in here.

If you want a business where the dress code can be anything anybody wishes, start one up!
Nobody is stopping you.

If you don't have the resources at the moment, make it your career goal. You may need to make a few personal stylistic sacrifices along the way, but the end goal would be you and your dress code free business. Once you are your own boss, you have the power to let people express themselves freely including yourself! Just don't be blindsided by the new trend nobody knows about yet that you won't be at accordance with which the new young people will be complaining and making topics about on whatever media they use and they will be calling you the discriminatory awful boss.
---

Kenri posted...

Back to the right, away from merit-based hiring.

"Merit" can include a lot of things, depending on the company. For this one, hair colour is also one, apparently.
---

KingButz posted...

That's actually one of the most reasonable things vlado has ever said

It wouldn't be a bad take if house prices hadn't gone up by 40% over the last 5 years where I live.

LOLIAmAnAlt posted...

A lot of rebellious young people in here.

If you want a business where the dress code can be anything anybody wishes, start one up!
Nobody is stopping you.

If you don't have the resources at the moment, make it your career goal. You may need to make a few personal stylistic sacrifices along the way, but the end goal would be you and your dress code free business. Once you are your own boss, you have the power to let people express themselves freely including yourself! Just don't be blindsided by the new trend nobody knows about yet that you won't be at accordance with which the new young people will be complaining and making topics about on whatever media they use and they will be calling you the discriminatory awful boss.

Her long term plan is actually to run her own social media business. Right now she has enough clients on the side to generate about 20k a year. I tried telling her she can just focus on that and not get a full time job but she's dead set on doing the full time job and continuing to do her business on the side until it's large enough to cover her full wage. That's a whole other argument though as she's going to struggle to build it up to that point whilst also doing 40 hours a week elsewhere.

Roman Reigns is fighting for his life right now and this is what you all choice to talk about? So disrespectful.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

Her long term plan is actually to run her own social media business. Right now she has enough clients on the side to generate about 20k a year. I tried telling her she can just focus on that and not get a full time job but she's dead set on doing the full time job and continuing to do her business on the side until it's large enough to cover her full wage. That's a whole other argument though as she's going to struggle to build it up to that point whilst also doing 40 hours a week elsewhere.

From what I understand, there are part time jobs for social media coordination, mostly smaller companies from what my friend in that field says. I'd recommend that as an option.
---

Well it was about time I contributed some topic of worth to the board.

LOLIAmAnAlt posted...

Nobody is stopping you.

If you don't have the resources at the moment,

this is quite the one-two punch lol

Vlado posted...

Kenri posted...

Back to the right, away from merit-based hiring.

"Merit" can include a lot of things, depending on the company. For this one, hair colour is also one, apparently.

Interesting perspective! Very postmodern.
---

KingButz posted...

You're completely ignorant

You're completely delusional

No shit there are companies that allow gay people but ban dyed hair. But it's coincidence. You are praising them as progressive even though in a second they could flip a switch and decide to ban gay people just the same (just slightly more indirectly to avoid a lawsuit). Their control right now just happens to align with what you think is acceptable, so you think it's fine. Progressives love giving others power and then being flabbergasted when it's abused, so maybe you just need to experience it for yourself. It would help to talk to others who aren't as accepting of your company policies though.
---

Vlado posted...

"Merit" can include a lot of things, depending on the company. For this one, hair colour is also one, apparently.

"Merit" is definitely a good way to put it. Maybe she could still get the job if she showed off a couple of her "merits" instead.

It's pretty obvious it has nothing to do with actual merit though
---

LOLIAmAnAlt posted...

Once you are your own boss, you have the power to let people express themselves

This is the problem. The amount of literal power you think a boss has over the employee's life.

Every person can express themselves any time they want. The only power the boss has is whether to pay them or not (and often they don't even have that power based on labor laws). And spoilers: a profitable employee will not be fired. That's capitalism. If your profitability isn't affected by your dress, you won't be fired for it. And indeed, you WILL be fired for the next pink haired smelly flip flop wearing kid who does your job better than you, no matter how religiously you wore those slacks and cleverly themed ties.
---

Moonroof posted...

To each their own. A company can set whatever standards they want. If anyone has a problem with it, they can look elsewhere. Not saying you or your girlfriend are like this, but people who bring lawsuits over discrimination like this are the worst.

Yeah, that's not actually how it works, at least not where I'm from (I'm assuming this incident took place in America). If you were refused employment because you had dyed your hair, that's unlawful, and would end up in court.
---

it's days like this that I find humanity completely unintelligible and alien

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

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?

actually ashethan's one of the only people I've seen who actually gets it

Qwaar posted...

Moonroof posted...

To each their own. A company can set whatever standards they want. If anyone has a problem with it, they can look elsewhere. Not saying you or your girlfriend are like this, but people who bring lawsuits over discrimination like this are the worst.

Yeah, that's not actually how it works, at least not where I'm from (I'm assuming this incident took place in America). If you were refused employment because you had dyed your hair, that's unlawful, and would end up in court.

This is incorrect. Things like dyed hair are not protected by law.
---

Yeah for sure it's not against the law and I do live in America

Well her hairdresser got an opening last night and she dyed her hair back to dark brown. Her second interview date isn't until Nov 6th because the owner is out of town but the company/recruiter are trying to convince her not to take any other interviews in the interim. They also paid for half the cost to dye her hair and are wanting to take her out for dinner to keep her still interested in the meantime

So I think it's fairly certain they will offer her the position even if she did have to conform

You seem kinda negative about not just the hair color, but also her having this sort of job at all.
---

That's not intentional. I prefer her hair now to how it was. And I would love for her to get a different job given how much she hates her current one. I was more providing an update.

I mean I would have preferred her hair color to be her choice (which is why she doesn't even know I preferred natural over the pink) and I want her to be in the best work environment possible. And financially we are in a position where she can do whatever she wants whether that's take this job or quit her current job and work her side business until she finds something else (or even permanently)

She is such a positive and overwhelmingly nice person that I just don't want her going into another bad work environment that may make her unhappy like her current workplace. So I'm being overly cautious. Chances are this place is great and they just have a strict dress code policy given the reviews online

ShatteredElysium posted...

Her second interview date isn't until Nov 6th because the owner is out of town but the company/recruiter are trying to convince her not to take any other interviews in the interim.

red flag #2 (possibly 3 or 4 actually)
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

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?

actually ashethan's one of the only people I've seen who actually gets it

I feel like what Ashethan's doing is the opposite of "getting it" because this kind of nitpicking of "you aren't being accepting in the right way!" kinda does make you come off as finding new and inventive ways to be outraged, which does much more harm than what little good clarifying that one detail does. Particularly because in many cases you're probably correcting to the choir.

I mean I get what you're saying but it does come off as rather silly. Consider the way a conversation between random person and Ashethan would flow. A random person can't say being gay isn't a choice, and they can't say it is a choice either. To placate Ashethan, you must specifically say "it's not choice (but it doesn't matter even if it was)" which I mean, you can't really assume people aren't thinking the parened part and just omitting it because they're not super concerned with not offending Ashethan.

To me it just feels like "you need to treat my cause like it's the most important thing in the world and get every minute detail right" rather than a meaningful thing to be offended about. Be offended about things that are actually offensive rather than you just projecting a lack of understanding onto people.
---

This thing still going on? When you go to a job the owner can ask anything from you, reasonably of course. So if he tells you to change your hair color or to dress in a certain way you do it.
---

Lopen posted...

I feel like what Ashethan's doing is the opposite of "getting it" because this kind of nitpicking of "you aren't being accepting in the right way!" kinda does make you come off as finding new and inventive ways to be outraged, which does much more harm than what little good clarifying that one detail does. Particularly because in many cases you're probably correcting to the choir.

I feel like you're not 'getting it' at all, because my point is that it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. You shouldn't discriminate against people's choices either. People choose their religion, and we all know it's not okay to discriminate against people on that basis. Or at least I hope we do.
---

Ashethan posted...

You shouldn't discriminate against people's choices either.

This is a pretty broad thing to say

If I'm hiring people, I'm absolutely not going to hire somebody who shows up with "I love meth!" painted on their chest, for instance.
---

Yeah. Seems most people here haven't got a real job or something and they are telling stupid things.
---

Lopen posted...

you must specifically say "it's not choice (but it doesn't matter even if it was)"

Ashethan posted...

because my point is that it doesn't matter if it's a choice or no

Yeah you're definitely projecting a lack of understanding onto me here. Pretty much exactly what I said you were doing and what is harmful.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

but the company/recruiter are trying to convince her not to take any other interviews in the interim

How much is she paying for this recruiter?

I went through a recruiter once in my life and I was puzzled at why they were so eager to take me on for free. Very quickly it became obvious that if you're not specifically hiring a recruiter to find you a job, you are the product yourself. The employer is the client and the recruiter's #1 goal is to get some sucker to fill the position, after which the employer will pay them. It's a terrible deal for any employee since there's a near 100% chance that the job is garbage, which is why they need to hire predatory recruiters to fill their position in the first place.

I'm guessing this is exactly the case with her. This is why they are willing to pay for her hair dyeing, and discouraging her from applying to jobs (which should be absurd advice for someone who is trying to get you a job).

I remember one employer my recruiter took me to. They sent a handler (who I never met before) to intro me to the client, and she berated me for wearing just my regular jeans and shirt instead of a suit or whatever. The client's office was a completely depressing mess of broken tech and cubicles, and they were practically begging me to work for them by the end (the recruiter also). You could tell that no one wanted to work there, except for maybe super unqualified people, which is why the recruiter wanted you to be presentable, to make up for your lack of skills.

It's such an insane and backwards system, but it makes sense once you think about who is benefiting from these policies. The bottom line is, your gf is definitely being traded around like a piece of meat, and there's no chance this new job will be good. Maybe better than the old job so it's okay? But still, gotta know what you're getting into.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

If I'm hiring people, I'm absolutely not going to hire somebody who shows up with "I love meth!" painted on their chest, for instance.

Promotion of an illegal activity, not 'just a choice'. Though since we're dealing with absolute absurdities here, I'm concerned why you're asking your employees to remove their shirts.
---

Lopen posted...

To me it just feels like "you need to treat my cause like it's the most important thing in the world and get every minute detail right" rather than a meaningful thing to be offended about. Be offended about things that are actually offensive rather than you just projecting a lack of understanding onto people.

lol what a complete and utter miss. You erased all the context of the entire topic so of course you won't understand it.

Being gay isn't okay because it's not a choice. It's okay because there's nothing wrong with it. By saying dyed hair is unacceptable because it's a choice, therefore it's incomparable to being gay, you're implying that being gay is only acceptable because it's not a choice.

i.e. If being gay WAS a choice, tons of people ITT would be totally okay with employers discriminating against it
---

Ashethan posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

If I'm hiring people, I'm absolutely not going to hire somebody who shows up with "I love meth!" painted on their chest, for instance.

Promotion of an illegal activity, not 'just a choice'. Though since we're dealing with absolute absurdities here, I'm concerned why you're asking your employees to remove their shirts.

You seem to be taking my example to the literal extreme in order to ignore the point. There are plenty of choices that are perfectly fair and legit to discriminate over. If it's a nice, salaried, client-facing office position and you show up to the interview in torn jeans and a stretched out t-shirt, I'm going to discriminate on that choice because to me, it shows you don't care very much about the position if you're willing to present yourself in that way for it.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

If it's a nice, salaried client-facing office position and you show up to the interview in torn jeans and a stretched out t-shirt

Notice how you specifically mentioned client-facing, because you know your argument is bullshit since being traditionally presentable is a requirement of client-facing jobs.

Go on, make the same argument for a social media manager.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

If being gay WAS a choice, tons of people ITT would be totally okay with employers discriminating against it

And look some other guy who gets off on thinking he's smarter than other people is doing the same thing instead of actually reading posts. Not unexpected!
---

Take out the "client-facing" and it stands. If you literally show up to a job interview in torn jeans and a stretched out t-shirt, that sends signals that you really don't care for the job.
---

Only smarter than you, which isn't saying much

Just put me back on ignore and continue bro
---

Lopen posted...

Yeah you're definitely projecting a lack of understanding onto me here. Pretty much exactly what I said you were doing and what is harmful.

It's a nice man of straw you've built up. If you feel like tilting at windmills, be my guest.
---

So if you absolutely want me to say it

Yes, if I had two people show up for a social media manager job, and Person A was dressed nicely while Person B was wearing torn jeans and a stretched out t-shirt, unless Person B destroys Person A in experience, skill, and so on, I'm going to naturally lean toward Person A because they look like they care.

If you think there's something wrong with that, cool.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Take out the "client-facing" and it stands. If you literally show up to a job interview in torn jeans and a stretched out t-shirt, that sends signals that you really don't care for the job.

Nah I'd hire them easily if they were good. I've never seen clothes correlate with quality of work and lots of office managers haven't either. In fact, just following the motions and fitting in inconspicuously indicates a weak employee to me, who cares more about floating around than actually doing good work.

I've also had great coworkers who just enjoyed the style of dressing well, so it's not a negative. Although their style was distinctly different than the lame copy/paste shirt tie and slacks that all the drones wore. Actually thinking back, I would say that every single good coworker I can remember had a distinct style of dress.

But often offices do just need those mediocre drones, so following suit can be an advantage there. It still has nothing to do with how much you care about the job though.
---

Let me explain it with less words so the people who just want to feel superior can pick the right point to address

People in topic you're being outraged at are saying: "Being gay isn't a choice or able to be changed and hair color is so it's not really the same thing anyway and I don't know why you're bringing it up"

You are choosing to insert the mindset that because they didn't explicitly mention that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not, that they think it being a choice is super important to whether they find being gay acceptable or not. Assuming that means that you're more concerned with feeling morally superior than people accepting.

I'm saying that's not necessarily the case and they're only possibly only not putting the detail that it doesn't matter because they don't feel it's relevant to the core of the point.
---