Finance firm PwC accused of sexism over high heels row.

Dis86 said:
What if the position requires certain aesthetics?
Click to expand...

I know where you're going with that and there would be a reasonable justification if the person in question were a fashion model for example, but that wouldn't involve 7hrs in heels.

There is no reasonable justification for a receptionist to wear heels.
 
I think high heels are absolutely mental and I still can't believe women wear them, so it's long overdue that employers are not allowed to enforce them.

As some others here have said, officewear has a complete double standard where women can wear almost anything to work and men are stuck with a shirt and trousers. At my previous company women wore skirts, low-cut tops and other weird clothes that looked like PJs. Whenever I mentioned this to colleagues the guaranteed response was "So you don't like looking at legs and boobs?". I have to conclude that the only reason skirts and cleavage are allowed in the office is due to our male-dominated society (no feminist).

This also raises the other point of why office attire is even required or expected, especially in non-client facing departments. Do people wearing shirts and shorts not perform their jobs as well as people in shirts and trousers? I've worked with some terrible people in "professional dress" and fantastic people in jeans at another company which had a casual dress code.
 
FutileBreadMachine said:
This also raises the other point of why office attire is even required or expected, especially in non-client facing departments. Do people wearing shirts and shorts not perform their jobs as well as people in shirts and trousers?
Click to expand...

well quite, I've never bothered with smart or smart casual dress unless meeting clients or presenting something internally

day to day it is supposed to be 'smart casual' including a 'shirt with collar'... I've generally interpreted that as including polo shirts and rather casual shirts + smart non-ripped jeans and trainers... we've had the odd e-mail reminding people of the dress code by some office manager but she's got nothing to do with anyone's performance review or pay/bonus so easily ignored. Some people do go in for the more formal shirt/trousers/black shoes but I don't see what it achieves if they're just sitting at their usual desk and not really interacting with anyone other than their usual colleagues
 
Last edited:
I would have thought a company policy requiring an employee to wear high heels for long periods for no good reason which is known to cause foot and knee problems would be leaving themselves open to lawsuits
 
HardwareGeek said:
I would have thought a company policy requiring an employee to wear high heels for long periods for no good reason which is known to cause foot and knee problems would be leaving themselves open to lawsuits
Click to expand...

No company has been stupid enough to let such a policy stand so a test case has never got to court. Even the company in this story has amended their policies to remove the requirement to wear heels.
 
d_brennen said:
Unfortunately my lady has dinky little feet so never had the pleasure :p
Click to expand...

I've worn high heeled shoes and boots because I'm a bit weird. I can say from personal experience that they are bloody horrible things to wear and I think it's completely unreasonable to make them a requirement for any job, let alone one for which they are completely irrelevant. A receptionist wearing shoes with low heels is not something most clients would even notice let alone care about.

I think they shouldn't be required even for stripping, which is the only job mentioned so far in which high heels have some relevance. Stripping and sex-dancing in heels is a genuine health risk. Not just from the possibility of falling over and breaking your ankle, but mainly from the cumulative effect on your joints. I read an interesting collection of interviews with strippers and they all mentioned it as a real health issue because it is. A few years of it and your knees in particular will be a bit knacked.

The only job I can think of where high heels are genuinely required is that of a dominatrix whose clients have a fetish for high heels.
 
Angilion said:
I think they shouldn't be required even for stripping, which is the only job mentioned so far in which high heels have some relevance. Stripping and sex-dancing in heels is a genuine health risk. Not just from the possibility of falling over and breaking your ankle, but mainly from the cumulative effect on your joints. I read an interesting collection of interviews with strippers and they all mentioned it as a real health issue because it is. A few years of it and your knees in particular will be a bit knacked.
Click to expand...
Good point. I guess the argument there would be that it's a fundamental part of the sales technique. Personally, I'd still say health and safety ought to trump that. There is, however, a difference between dancing in heels being allowed, because customers like it and tip better, and the employer requiring heels as part of a dress, or in this case, undress code. At least in the latter, it's the dancer's choice.

If either the stripper, or receptionist, actually wants to wear heels then it's their choice. But a good case can be made, in both situations, for preventing the employer from insisting on it. At least for the stripper I can see how a valid business case could be made, but for the receptionist, I can't see any justification for that requirement.

I wonder if the policy reversal came from the outsourcing company's initiative, or if PWC instructed them to change it. My experience with PWC is that they're pretty small-c conservative, and would not be at all impressed with the nature of the publicity over this. On the other hand, it's a bit two-faced if they have, as I've come across more than a few of their professional staff, including some quite senior ones, that 'power-dress', including killer heels. Presumably, that's from choice not corporate dress code, though.
 
Angilion said:
Stripping and sex-dancing in heels is a genuine health risk. Not just from the possibility of falling over and breaking your ankle, but mainly from the cumulative effect on your joints. ...
Click to expand...
That also makes me wonder how pro dancers, and I mean the likes of the Strictly Come Dancing pro girls, most or all of whom are at World Champion sort of level, seem to manage it, for years, and not just for twirling round a pole but for a jive, or Charleston, etc.
 
Aldav said:
That also makes me wonder how pro dancers, and I mean the likes of the Strictly Come Dancing pro girls, most or all of whom are at World Champion sort of level, seem to manage it, for years, and not just for twirling round a pole but for a jive, or Charleston, etc.
Click to expand...

Practice and dance shoes are very specifically designed for dancing.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a receptionist to practice wearing heels for multiple hours every day, just because some office perv says it's in the dress code.
 
I read somewhere ( I cant find the link now ) that before she even took the job it was in her contract to wear high heels. If that's the case and you don't want to wear high heels then maybe don't take the job? Maybe there are other ladies who want that job and don't mind the high heels why not leave the job to them?
 
Drizmod said:
I read somewhere ( I cant find the link now ) that before she even took the job it was in her contract to wear high heels. If that's the case and you don't want to wear high heels then maybe don't take the job? Maybe there are other ladies who want that job and don't mind the high heels why not leave the job to them?
Click to expand...

I tried to find specifically what the contract said. Most contracts are vague in dress code even if it is strictly formal. I have never seen a contract specifically mention separate items of clothing except maybe a tie (?) ago and ofc safety clothing.

I agree if it was specifically stated as a requirement then she shouldn't have taken the job but that if it was the case, then the company should stand by what they asked of her, rather than deny it.
 
I'm sure I seen when this first popped up that she'd be doing exactly the same job for PwC at one of their other London offices and the lack of heels was not an issue there it was only when she moved to the new office.
 
Aldav said:
That also makes me wonder how pro dancers, and I mean the likes of the Strictly Come Dancing pro girls, most or all of whom are at World Champion sort of level, seem to manage it, for years, and not just for twirling round a pole but for a jive, or Charleston, etc.
Click to expand...

Ever seen the state of a ballet dances feet?

They may manage it for many years, doesn't mean it's not causing them some real damage.
 
amigafan2003 said:
I know where you're going with that and there would be a reasonable justification if the person in question were a fashion model for example, but that wouldn't involve 7hrs in heels.

There is no reasonable justification for a receptionist to wear heels.
Click to expand...

Yet people choose to wear them on a day to day basis. Often for extended periods. I don't think expecting someone to wear something that's worn as standards by millions of people in this country every day is particularly vile. However choice and no choice are two very different things.
I'm going with storm in a teacup on this one.
 
I have daily dealings with the firm in question and 100%, it's the outsourced company policy. PwC have no formal uniform requirements for any staff whatsoever.
 
Hxc said:
I have daily dealings with the firm in question and 100%, it's the outsourced company policy. PwC have no formal uniform requirements for any staff whatsoever.
Click to expand...

So when you go out to an audit for PwC there is no requirement for you to be smartly dressed?
 
"Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels"

Another example of unreasonable demands from an employer :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom