I guess you will hold that view, until such time that the company makes demands on you which you feel are insensitive to your beliefs and an assault on your dignity.

I’m not saying the company can not set standards, but that the company needs to be aware of the WAY they implement those standards. If the company is percieved as abusing their employees and assaulting their dignity, then it is more than likely going where no company wants to go, to court. If the company explains their rationale for changes and listens to employees concerns and makes an attempt to address them, then you probably won’t be headed for court.

What is interesting, is that the court usually is interested in what steps were taken so you did not end up in court. If a company simply takes the “I’M RIGHT and HE’S WRONG” approach without explaining what they did to deal with their employees in a civil manner, then they already have a losing hand with any jury.

What you say is true concerning the case. I think the true point isn’t what is or isn’t lawful. That is what everyone keeps fighting about, who has the right to do what. The true point is that this is going to cost money to defend and be hard on all involved, no matter what the outcome.

Further, in the court of law, when discrimination is alleged, then it isn’t just about one policy or discipline (like being clean shaven); it is about whether a pattern exists over all the policies and disciplines, and hiring, and promotions, etc. And its not about whether discrimination really exists, but does it LOOK like it exists to 12 regular people. That is where if the company didn’t keep good documentation, then they look like they are being deceptive.

Most lawsuits are filed not by people looking to “get rich” but by people who are pissed off and think they are right. Calm them down and listen to what their veiwpoint is goes a long way to staying out of court paying huge lawyer fees.

Finally, someone that is looking at things from the EE’s point of view. Mike, I completely agree with you! I referenced it before and I will say it again…”companies can not afford not to work with their employees – there has to be middle ground in which all partys win”. I am confinced that we all lose when things get to the level when courts must be involved. As a people, we are weaker for it.

I too have been in HR for many years. the longer I go, however, I understand the madness is not only on the part of the employee. The employer and employees use policies and procedures and laws to define their workplace. Funny that when an employee challenges a rule or practice it is madness, but when an employer writes a “vague” policy to allow for “wriggle room” that it is good practice.

Beyond all the laws and rules, we are all people. If there isn’t good faith communication and actions, then it is 12 people who will be tasked to determine what is or is not “madness.”

An employer can change their dress code and they can take other actions to try to improve business. It would be “madness” to change the dress code to frustrate, punish, or demean or embarass an employee. It would be “madness” to change the dress code because they want to encourage an employee to seek work with another employer. So before an employer makes a change to the dress code, they should be aware of unintended consequences and perceptions. The employer who deals “in good faith” with its employees and builds trust, will always do better in a court of law than the company who simply says they have a “right” to do something. Actually, they will more often than not avoid court all together.

Finally, being in the Human Resources business over 30 years, I find that when the law is the “last resort.” An employer needs to resolve problems before they go to court. If an employee is suing because he no longer can grow his hair, I guarantee you there is more there. An experienced HR person would try to find out what is really going on and resolve the real problem, rather than stating that the company has a right to change the rules. Now, that IS madness.

Remember, what is REALLY going on is going to come out in court in front of 12 regular people. That’s when the dirty laundry gets aired about who said what to who, what promises where broken, what things got said in anger. In the end, it is not pretty or pleasant for anyone.

So as my advice, put yourself in the employee’s shoes and try to see the situation from their perspective. Don’t assume that they are trying to get one over or trying to make the courts their “lottery.” If you can do this, you will find mutually agreeable solutions. At least the employee will see that you are trying and that may create enough trust for the employee to give you some room to manage.

I find it hard to believe that the Hawthorne effect (from Elton Mayo Studies 1932) can directly account for the improvement in sales, unless the “clean shave policy” resulted in a sense of esprit de corps among the workers and a corresponding change in behavior that was seen by customers as a better “value.”

I agree, the consultant should be taken to the wood shed and then power washed with high pressure steam, then sued for pretending to be a real consultant.

I, too, have removed Jiffy Lube from my list. I check that list annually to see who is “naughty and nice” and they have yet to make it back on.

Make it perfectly clear in your company guidelines and policy that violations will be dealt with seriously and could lead to corrective action including dismissal.

Also, a statement making it perfectly clear that the document is being signed purely by choice and not under duress.

What was the old addage? ‘Dress to impress.’ Makes sense to me.