Personal Best and the Conflict of Public Interest
Posted by Sheri Harris on Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Under: LAW
Who should be in danger of losing a job when a company seeks "appearance" as a first and foremost requirement? If such person is not employed in a sector whereby a photographic portfolio is of non-requirement, then what in natural circumstance offends an employer to make mandatory to it's employees a bran by cosmetic use?
The issue is, what if anything is the corporation in question attempting to sell? If an employee is not in view of the masses, then the suggestion of cosmetic use clearly becomes a "personal" request on the part of the client, customer or whoever desires this use in demand.
To implement the ridiculous for everyday people to suddenly take upon the appearance as if they were in front of the camera, in order to cater to everyday folk; who may themselves not present by way of grooming standard at the time of service is absurd.
This should by no means should be considered employee insubordination, if one were to refuse cosmetic and or make-up enhancement; as their job may not be that of an entertainer. Excellence or it's standard of can be obtained by clean appearance without altering or changing a person into an "object of desire". If this were to occur the workplace would eventually admit to an unprofessional atmosphere for it's employees regardless of gender. The pressure of working in an enviornment where one may be looked upon and sought after resulting from attraction may then lend itself to those workers being pursued unwillingly, because of "appearance"; this would then be considered sexual harassment.
Therefore it would be of unfortunate circumstance for any company to adhere to a policy without regard for the safety and repercussions that may result on the part of the employee if enforced. The divide between what a company offers in service to a customer or client as opposed to what is out of bounds or off limits in regards to solicitation must be considered.
The issue is, what if anything is the corporation in question attempting to sell? If an employee is not in view of the masses, then the suggestion of cosmetic use clearly becomes a "personal" request on the part of the client, customer or whoever desires this use in demand.
To implement the ridiculous for everyday people to suddenly take upon the appearance as if they were in front of the camera, in order to cater to everyday folk; who may themselves not present by way of grooming standard at the time of service is absurd.
This should by no means should be considered employee insubordination, if one were to refuse cosmetic and or make-up enhancement; as their job may not be that of an entertainer. Excellence or it's standard of can be obtained by clean appearance without altering or changing a person into an "object of desire". If this were to occur the workplace would eventually admit to an unprofessional atmosphere for it's employees regardless of gender. The pressure of working in an enviornment where one may be looked upon and sought after resulting from attraction may then lend itself to those workers being pursued unwillingly, because of "appearance"; this would then be considered sexual harassment.
Therefore it would be of unfortunate circumstance for any company to adhere to a policy without regard for the safety and repercussions that may result on the part of the employee if enforced. The divide between what a company offers in service to a customer or client as opposed to what is out of bounds or off limits in regards to solicitation must be considered.
In : LAW