Hair rules at work

This situation is well known to me. It never was a question of rights. The first hair cut request came to me at the age of 18, military rules (from hairlength about 40cm). After that I could grow it out during university studies and had to cut it short to get a job in a research institute. There was no freedom in choice, the only possible alternative would have been to look for another job. In this case the haircut was the only possible way, but I remember also that some of my aquaintances had hidden their long hair with wigs. Today the things have changed a little bit, recently I got a new job without getting a hair cut, although the members of the staff all have very short hairs (computer development area, my hairlength now is about 18 cm). To get a job in a bank without a haircut I can not imagine (my location is Germany/Munich).

wolfgang

I think that making this guy cut his hair was wrong. In my opinion that is like invading a persons privacy. If a person wants wear their hair a certain way and feel that they look good with their hair that way then who is an employer to say he must cut it off. Did they hire him because of his qualifications and that he would perform the job well or for his looks. They made this guy cut his hair against his will in order to get a job that he may have badly needed. That is akin to forcing someone to pull out all their teeth and get dentures because a couple of their teeth are crooked. I am a guy and have my hair bobbed just below my ears with bangs and I am in a professional position in an office. Many people would not accept that hairstyle on a guy but my coworkers and bosses do not mind or say anything. Don't take away a persons freedom to choose how they want to look and their freedom to express themselves.

It's my understanding -- and perhaps I'm mistaken -- that employers generally reserve the right to dictate appearances in terms of clothing and hair *styles* ... but if hair length guidelines differ based on gender then a (presumably) male candidate could claim discrimination on the basis of gender, not entirely unlike other methods of discrimination that used to be used all too often against women. Regardless, a potential employer considering two otherwise equally-qualified candidates may well choose the one whose appearance is preferred by the hiring authority, and the slighted party has little chance of receiving a sympathetic ear in the courts.

Ally, you said, "The employer is looking to maintain a particular image and thereby ensure that the company appeals to the right market and is profitable." I understand that companies want their employees to project a particular physical appearance which lends to their image, but the consistency between that image and appeals to the "right" (i.e. target) market and the projected image is based on the extent to which people want to see themselves as matching that image. To presume that this is the only method of appeal is to take an extremely narrow view of the potential of marketing, for effective marketing appeals to a diverse populace. And in that narrow approach to marketing how in the world can this hypothetical company ensure maximum profitability? The company that respects diversity in its customers AND its employees has the best chance to ensure maximum profitability. Many major corporations are beginning to understand the power of recognizing and accepting diversity, and those who insist on enforcing rigid codes of conformity run the risk of failing to reach maximum profitability and incurring the wrath of shareholders demanding to know why this rigid company is failing to keep up with its competitors.

I have to agree that the employer has a right to demand
certain standards in appearance from his employees.
After his haircut, the man looked like a bank employee,
someone you would feel comfortable dealing with as a
customer. Before he did not. I must say though, that, in
terms of personal appearance, there are double
standards. He told me, during the haircut, that his new
boss, a woman, had waist length hair which she wore
loose, and she was the one who told him to cut his
hair!

He was obviously in shock after the deed (after all I had
just cut off about two feet of hair - leaving his hair very
short) and this made me very glad that, as a woman, I
would never have to face this situation. I would never
cut off my long hair for anybody.

I totally agree that a person's appearance has nothing
to do with whether they are professional or can do the
job etc. It is interesting that it is perfectly acceptable for
a woman with, say, waist length hair to work in a bank
but it is not acceptable for a man with the same length
hair. I am sure this has got to do with society's
imprinting on us at an early age as to what is right and
what is wrong. In the same way, I, personally do not
like seeing long hair on men (this does not mean to
say that I think they shouldn't have it!). Before his hair
cut, I thought this man looked awful. Yet I do not think
that women with long hair look awful (well, not all the
time!). I am sure that this has to with when I was a
child and I learned (by my interaction with people
around me) that it was not acceptable for men to have
long hair but it was for women. Therefore, I don't like
seeing men with long hair as, subconsciously, I was
brought up to believe that they souldn't have it
(although, consciously I don't believe this). Likewise, I
think most women look alright with long hair (including
myself!) as I was brought up to believe that woamen
are supposed to have long hair.

I think it is different if one thinks someone others has to look in a special way or if someone has the power to force it. A manager in a bank should be able to get more distance to his own sight of view. As you said the haircut of the man with long hair has only depend from her subjectiv opinion. I wonder that a woman with long hair, if she likes it, is not able to see that similar feelings can occur by a man respective his hair. I wouldn't like it to work with such a boss, I would be angry about her ignorant behaviour.

Dave~

I'm not saying the employer is /correct/ in identifying its target market this way. I'm saying it has the /right/ to do so.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld an employer's right to dictate hair lengths and dress codes--even if there is a disparity between the rules for each gender. As long as this disparity does not constitute harassment (as in mandating that all women will wear 17-inch skirts with heels), it is allowable. The military is a perfect example.

Ally

I have just remembered something that I read a couple
of years ago that might be relevent to this debate. I
read somewhere about a woman shop assistant in the
1920s who was sacked because she 'bobbed' her hair.
This sounds similar to what we are talking about.
Before the 1920s every woman had long hair. A
woman with short hair was almost unheard of. Women
cutting their hair short in the 20s (bobbing it) was
viewed in the same way that some view men growing
their hair today. This woman was sacked because she
cut her long hair short yet today nobody batts an eyelid
at seeing a woman with short hair. I would assume
that if , in these two cases, if the men had not cut their
hair short, one would have been sacked and the other
wouldn't have got the job. I think the situation that these
men found themselves in today is exactly the same as
the situation that the woman I read about found herself
in in the 20s. I wonder if, in 80 years time, long hair on
men will be viewed in the same way as short hair on
women is today with nobody thinking it strange or out of
place.

Hi Ally,

I fully understand that U.S. companies are allowed to define their target market in whatever way they see fit, even if they don't "see" very clearly. :-)

It's interesting that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold a company's right to require a long-haired male employee (note: already employed) to cut his hair short against his will or else be fired, and justify the claim that this does not constitute harassment. By the opposite token, women (in general, people specifically) are protected by this same court from being required to perform certain other non-consensual acts, so it puzzles me why the courts don't seem to apply a consistent standard for enforcing non-consensual, physical and psychologically effecting acts.

I hope that society starts viewing long hair on men as acceptable a lot sooner than 80 years from now. When this does happen I will let my just below ear length bobbed hair grow to just above my shoulders.