Board 8 > Hair Color at a job

(+) Yeah! (+)

HashtagSEP posted...

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.

That's a completely logical and appropriate response. I had a write up elaborating then I was like 'this is fucking stupid clearly Person A is presenting themselves professionally and cares enough about the interview I shouldn't have to justify this'. Because really I don't see any point in justifying it to the 1% of people who don't understand.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

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

I think it's a pretty common and uncontroversial idea among people who have done hiring that Person B could be a fine choice. If you slightly prefer A then that's normal but it's not crazy to accept B. The way they talk will override anything about their dress anyway.

That's the main thing about presenting well for an interview anyways. If you're in a room of 100 people, you have to present well just to get the opportunity to say the first word. Once you're actually in then it doesn't matter. And also, if you're equally dressed as the other 99 people, that doesn't help you much.

Also keep in mind this topic is about hiring B or no one at all because it's a shit job that no one else has applied for.
---

Lopen posted...

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.

Please keep in mind that it only went in this direction because there was somebody who compared bosses who want people to look professional at a job to Nazis, and then went on to imply that judging people who have non-traditional hair colors is as bad as judging people as if they were gay.

But that's the person that "gets it" in this topic apparently.
---

Oh wait, me agreeing with SEP doesn't necessarily apply to all jobs. I can't speak for software engineers or other shit. I'm just referring to my field which is academia/research. Even then, there are some exceptions. Like if someone dressed up in jeans and a nice shirt and had groomed themselves to look nice that's totally fine. Torn jeans and a stretched shirt on the other hand not so much, but if they know their shit whatever. If they are equal to someone who looks a little more put together in terms of knowledge I'd definitely choose the person who looks more put together.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

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

I think it's a pretty common and uncontroversial idea among people who have done hiring that Person B could be a fine choice. If you slightly prefer A then that's normal but it's not crazy to accept B. The way they talk will override anything about their dress anyway.

That's the main thing about presenting well for an interview anyways. If you're in a room of 100 people, you have to present well just to get the opportunity to say the first word. Once you're actually in then it doesn't matter. And also, if you're equally dressed as the other 99 people, that doesn't help you much.

Also keep in mind this topic is about hiring B or no one at all because it's a shit job that no one else has applied for.

I never said it was crazy to accept B. The thing I was replying to was the thought that "You shouldn't discriminate against choices." If you choose to present yourself in a poor manner, then discrimination against you is pretty fair. That doesn't mean you're actually a horrible worker or anything, but if you choose to pretty much tank the first impression, then yes, that's going to work against you and you'll need to make up for it. Obviously, it's not impossible that you could.
---

OliviaTremor posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

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.

That's a completely logical and appropriate response. I had a write up elaborating then I was like 'this is fucking stupid clearly Person A is presenting themselves professionally and cares enough about the interview I shouldn't have to justify this'. Because really I don't see any point in justifying it to the 1% of people who don't understand.

I think to me it boils down to a persons opinion of what is unprofessional or not. Very lightly colored pink hair is not remotely unprofessional imo and it didn't even cross my mind for a second that it might come up as an issue that it was until she told me about it.

ShatteredElysium posted...

OliviaTremor posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

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.

That's a completely logical and appropriate response. I had a write up elaborating then I was like 'this is fucking stupid clearly Person A is presenting themselves professionally and cares enough about the interview I shouldn't have to justify this'. Because really I don't see any point in justifying it to the 1% of people who don't understand.

I think to me it boils down to a persons opinion of what is unprofessional or not. Very lightly colored pink hair is not remotely unprofessional imo and it didn't even cross my mind for a second that it might come up as an issue that it was until she told me about it.

Oh, to be clear, I'm not saying that is unprofessional, either.

I was simply trying to make the argument that saying "You shouldn't discriminate on choices" is too broad a thing to say.

Like, it goes beyond appearance, too.

If somebody chooses to drink and they smell of alcohol during the job interview, I'm going to at the least question if this would become a problem later on, and thus not treat them equally to as if they didn't show up with alcohol on their breath, and I don't really think that's a bad thing.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

OliviaTremor posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

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.

That's a completely logical and appropriate response. I had a write up elaborating then I was like 'this is fucking stupid clearly Person A is presenting themselves professionally and cares enough about the interview I shouldn't have to justify this'. Because really I don't see any point in justifying it to the 1% of people who don't understand.

I think to me it boils down to a persons opinion of what is unprofessional or not. Very lightly colored pink hair is not remotely unprofessional imo and it didn't even cross my mind for a second that it might come up as an issue that it was until she told me about it.

I wouldn't care about hair color personally unless it was super distracting. If the person looks put together regardless of hair color or whatever and knows their stuff that's good. I do know though that in the corporate world a lot of times that's frowned on so it isn't surprising at all they would request her to not have her hair lightly pink. Maybe once the older heads of these companies leave their posts and younger people start filling in the positions things will change.
---

Like here's the create your own adventure version. There are four beliefs you can have. The first two are mutually exclusive and the last two are.

1. Being gay is a choice
2. Being gay is not a choice

3. Being gay is acceptable
4. Being gay is not acceptable

People saying "because 2, it's not relevant to a discussion on hair color" (I'd argue it's not relevant for other more important reasons, regardless of whether it's a choice or not) in no way implies that "I'm 3, but only because 2" or "I'm 3, but if 1 were true people should be expected to change their sexual orientation to get a job"

No one said anything beyond "being gay isn't a choice and hair color is and easily changed." Anything beyond that is you assuming the worst because people didn't explicitly pre-emptively shoot that down and you want to get on a high horse.

Keep in mind I actually agree that hair color shouldn't influence whether someone gets a job especially with a job that doesn't typically face the public, but I also agree trying to compare an employer wanting to control your hair color to LGBT discrimination issues is stupid as hell.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

I think to me it boils down to a persons opinion of what is unprofessional or not. Very lightly colored pink hair is not remotely unprofessional imo and it didn't even cross my mind for a second that it might come up as an issue that it was until she told me about it.

I mentioned this before, but they clearly don't think it's that unprofessional either if they're helping to pay to get it taken out and stuff. But if they let her have light pink hair, then some asshole could come into work the next day with bright blue hair and then go "Oh, I thought this was okay that we could color our hair now."

It's just to prevent people from going out of control with it. I've worked at a place where we could have casual dress, and then a guy abused it and kept coming in with skin tight, nipple revealing t-shirts every day, so they had to change it to all guys wearing a collared shirt to avoid this.
---

Lopen posted...

because they don't feel it's relevant to the core of the point

If the reason they think it's okay to discriminate against dyed hair but not homosexuality is...
One is a choice and one is not: it's implicit homophobia
Employer can dictate certain parts of your lifestyle: contradictory and nonsensical position that leads to homophobia anyways

Both those seem relevant to me. Either they can acknowledge the latent homophobia in their argument (which we all have, not a big deal) or they are picking a bad argument that leads there anyways. It's actually giving them MORE benefit of the doubt to assume their argument is the stronger, slightly homophobic one.

If you want a trophy for accepting gay people without reconsidering any anti-gay positions then go to tumblr or whatever is the hot anti-SJW insult nowadays.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

but if you choose to pretty much tank the first impression, then yes, that's going to work against you and you'll need to make up for it

Sure there's impressions and that's fine if you have to show your worth in other ways. But discrimination is about hard requirements. This girl interviewed well and they want to hire her already, BUT the hair color is still a problem. It's not about impressions at all. It's about control.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

It's just to prevent people from going out of control with it. I've worked at a place where we could have casual dress, and then a guy abused it and kept coming in with skin tight, nipple revealing t-shirts every day, so they had to change it to all guys wearing a collared shirt to avoid this.

Like this is a really good example. A decent manager could easily solve this problem by talking to the specific person and explaining that people were uncomfortable with their dress. But instead they busted out a company wide law and punished everyone, just to avoid dealing with 1 person.

That's why these policies are red flags. It says so much about the management, even if you're not personally affected.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

If the reason they think it's okay to discriminate against dyed hair but not homosexuality is...
One is a choice and one is not:

No one said that's the reason it's okay to discriminate against dyed hair and not homosexuality, though. They said that's a reason these are different situations. Maybe it's one of many, maybe it's not. You don't really know.

And further, even if it's the primary reason the situations are different in their mind, it also doesn't imply they would find it okay to discriminate against homosexuality were it a choice. Because one choice isn't always the same as another choice. Same reason why some companies have a dress code that requires you to wear pants and another will have that as well as controlling your hair color, and somehow neither one is controlling what you eat for your lunch break, despite all of these being choices.

You're just filling in a lot of blanks in the least flattering way for their viewpoint, because you want to feel superior and they couldn't be assed to elaborate on every facet of why they said something, which ultimately does more harm than good.

Which is why I'm saying wait for people to actually say the words you're trying to jam in their mouth to get outraged in the future, maybe.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Like this is a really good example. A decent manager could easily solve this problem by talking to the specific person and explaining that people were uncomfortable with their dress. But instead they busted out a company wide law and punished everyone, just to avoid dealing with 1 person.

That's why these policies are red flags. It says so much about the management, even if you're not personally affected.

I've ignored your nonsense so far because, well, it's nonsense argued in bad faith and you know it.

But this is just stupid. You know what happened when this guy was approached about his attire? He immediately said "well the other guys are wearing t-shirts!" And then he went on to claim they were just discriminating against him because he was gay. That's why you can't enforce a rule without making it. Because they'll just keep doing it and you can't do anything about it because there's technically no restrictions there, and then if you try to punish them for it then they can make up any excuse to get you in trouble for making just him change.

Do you know how many cases I've worked on with people who claim they were wrongfully fired when they were fired just for being horrible people and employees? These rules are the only reason companies are allowed to have the control to get rid of these people without having to pay every jerk who gets fired for good reason.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

all guys wearing a collared shirt

wow sexist policy
---

Gatarix posted...

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

all guys wearing a collared shirt

wow sexist policy

Well, the girls had a policy too, but it was much more laxed and they didn't get on their cases too much about it even though they all dressed what most of us would consider casual.

I didn't care enough to cause a stink about it because honestly who gives a shit really? I don't care if I have to wear a collared shirt. There were things at that job that were more worth being upset over.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Gatarix posted...

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

all guys wearing a collared shirt

wow sexist policy

Well, the girls had a policy too, but it was much more laxed and they didn't get on their cases too much about it even though they all dressed what most of us would consider casual.

I didn't care enough to cause a stink about it because honestly who gives a shit really? I don't care if I have to wear a collared shirt. There were things at that job that were more worth being upset over.

My partner actually does complain about this to me every summer, where the women can get away with wearing skirts, more open shirts, and open toed shoes without socks, but he has to sweat it out in pants, buttoned up shirts, and closed shoes.
---

mnkboy907 posted...

My partner actually does complain about this to me every summer, where the women can get away with wearing skirts, more open shirts, and open toed shoes without socks, but he has to sweat it out in pants, buttoned up shirts, and closed shoes.

I was fortunate that our office never got too hot, but during the winter it sucked. They could wear sweaters and stuff but they told us we couldn't and the insulation was horrible. In fact, I came in with a professional looking but warm sweater and immediately got told about it.

Now that I'm working at a place that is reasonable in every season, I don't mind wearing a collared shirt every day now. But being too hot is torture.
---

Polos ok?
---

redrocket posted...

Polos ok?

Of course.
---

Lopen posted...

Maybe it's one of many, maybe it's not. You don't really know.

I do know because I don't desperately erase all the context around me at all times. Again, I'm not the one prescribing a really dumb argument onto them just to avoid a tiny homophobic nuance.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Do you know how many cases I've worked on with people who claim they were wrongfully fired when they were fired just for being horrible people and employees? These rules are the only reason companies are allowed to have the control to get rid of these people without having to pay every jerk who gets fired for good reason.

I suspected this was the case, but you realize you're positing this as a good thing?

Punishing 99% of your employees just to indirectly maybe take down 1 asshole is THE way to do things? This is the method you're passionately supporting to the point of calling my arguments bad faith. And it doesn't even work.

Like great, you're working with an enormous asshole with no empathy to his coworkers, but at least he's wearing a button down now. What has been solved? In your cases, they do end up firing them in the end. And THEN, the problem is solved. But the policy remains, added to all the other policies supposedly made for individual assholes.

It's so shortsighted and backwards, and you're agreeing with my main point: it's all about control of your employees. Not control over the rare problem person, but everyone.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I do know because I don't desperately erase all the context around me at all times.

You rewrite context to fit whatever reality makes you feel best at the time. That's not technically erasing, true.
---

Lopen, I'm pretty sure foolmo is just trolling or is hilariously naive about the world around him to the point of delusion.

It's seriously not even worth it now. Let him think he's a big brained boy and successfully argued that jobs are a prison for having rules.
---

I mean, I know. Why do you think he always whines about me having him blocked.

If you live in foolmoland you've rewritten the reality around you and think it's because he hurt my delicate feelings (because I haven't been ragged on by literally dozens of unblocked users before) but yeah trying to have a discussion with the guy is a trap, generally. (that I admittedly don't have the self restraint to avoid, hence the need)
---

I don't really get where foolmo is coming from. Do you have a problem with any dress code whatsoever? Is any code of conduct in an office a complete overreach of management? Should there be no policies that give guidelines on how to behave at work?

Doesn't really make sense. Businesses want to operate smoothly and efficiently without conflict. A harmonious company culture contributes pretty strongly to this. It's normal to hire people you think will fit in with your culture and to avoid people who might cause friction. How someone presents themselves in attitude and in their attire is one of the most basic indicators of how they will fit in. Maybe it's part of your culture to promote friction as you think this makes the culture better too with different perspectives or something, but that's just another strategy for promoting your culture.

I've personally passed on hiring people who were on paper "good" candidates, but I didn't feel like they'd fit in with the rest of my team. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
---

I have to be naive, otherwise you're the naive one. I get it. But it doesn't have to be a zero sum game like that. You can value your autonomy at work, and so can I, and so can this pink haired girl. And everything is fine. There's no need to continue the absurd culture of subservience.
---

CoolCly posted...

Do you have a problem with any dress code whatsoever?

Pretty much. Do you really not see how it's different than a code of conduct? A code of conduct is super necessary for protecting other people from what is typically accepted and legal behavior. We do so many things that we don't know hurts other people like that. It's not about being protected from someone's existence though.

Like biscuit's example. If they are really wearing clothes that are too sexual and that makes people uncomfortable, that is obviously a problem. But if it's just a guy wearing a regular shirt, and people are uncomfortable because he happens to be gay, that is the fault of a culture of homophobia, not the guy.

That's the problem with hiring for "culture". If you have a bunch of guys who like talking about what chicks they're trying to fuck this weekend, then a woman or a gay guy would definitely cause friction. If you have a bunch of racists, then hiring a black person would ruin your culture. If your company culture likes designer outfits, then indeed the poor guy who only has only has one ragged suit would not fit in. If you think these examples are extreme or rare then let's talk about naive...

I realize a tons of companies have gatekeeping cultural requirements like these. I don't like any of them, but that's not my point. My point is you should never I also don't try to "fix" yourself to fit into these companies, because you won't, and you'll only lose yourself in the process. Although a lot of real cultural change comes from entering these companies as the odd one out and facing all those issues, but that also requires you to maintain your individuality.
---