Author
|
Topic: Isn't This Lawsuit Just Charming?
|
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934
|
posted 07 January 2006 12:31 AM
Charming Shoppes, Inc. Lane Bryant, Inc. has been added as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court against Charming Shoppes, Inc., the company that operates the Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug, and Catherine's stores. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons who worked for these stores in Washington State from February, 2002 through the present, and who were required to purchase clothes from their employer to wear to work. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants had a practice and policy requiring employees at its Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug, and Catherine's stores to purchase, at their own expense, clothing to be worn while at work. The suit alleges that this practice and policy reduced the pay of employees below the minimum wage required by Washington law, and violated Washington's "wearing apparel statute," which prohibits employers from changing the styles or colors of clothing to be worn by employees except once every two years. The lawsuit seeks certification of a class of all employees who worked for Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug, or Catherine's at any time from February, 2002 through the present, and reimbursement to employees for the money paid for the required clothes. http://tinyurl.com/bb4z7I'm so pissed I could spit nails! This galls me in particular because in 1977 I went to work for an Insurance Co. on University Ave, in order to pay for my recently widowed MOM to go to Nursing School, pay the rent, utilities, transportation for both of us, food etc. I was hauled out of U Vic first year to do this. Within my first year at Ins. Co. in POLICIES I was asked by my male boss if perhaps "I could dress appropriate to my job title". I remember telling him, "No I can't, you Don't Pay Me Enough." Never one to mince words, or be polite, being the blunt instrument that I am, I simply let my eyes travel up and down his boring bloody white collar suit. Jesus Gawd, that was 28 years ago and still women who need jobs must be asked/told what to wear! It simply turns my stomach. The Board of Directors of Charming have WOMEN MY AGE AND A BIT YOUNGER on it. Where the hell did they cut their Executive Teeth? The arrogance of B of D's boggles my mind. They are trying to tell women employees on the lower end of the pay scale to wear THEIR BRAND. Does anyone get the feeling that women are being exploited furiously since 2001? And I was just about to join the Man-Hating Vagina Club until I saw Michelle say it was long enough, then I thought, BWAGA, YES, but too lazy to find it. Oh and they cater to Plus Sizes. I could just spit nails right now. Should this be in Labour?
From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Blink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11402
|
posted 07 January 2006 12:48 AM
And didn't The Body Shop get into similar trouble recently? I thought they wanted their female employees to be wearing company line make-up when they were on duty.Forcing employees to buy the company's clothing is absurd just like forcing grocery store employees to buy their store's food would be. On a different point, I've thought for a long time that any worker who has to conform to a dress code (bought anywhere) should get a tax deduction for her expenses. This is already true for uniforms for many unionized positions but I think it's fair for work attire for everyone. For lots of people, work is the only place they will ever wear those clothes. [Edited to try to make some sense.] [ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Blink ]
From: British Columbia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934
|
posted 07 January 2006 02:10 AM
quote: Originally posted by Blink: The Body Shop sucks!
Well yes BUT in the very early 90's when I was still in Toronto as a street counsellor, I would go into the Body Shop at Church/Wellesley (is that right? gawd, I've forgotten) that was my beat. And I would extort them using Guilt and Shame and after the Manager talked with me, I would walk out of there with my pockets (lots of pockets) absolutely full of Bribes. Hey, it worked, and I don't feel bad about it. Do you know how many women and men I taught how to fill out their proper forms for Assistance using Body Shop products? All of this Discrimination must end for both men and women, but most especially Women, we are easy targets when we need a job. [ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Toedancer ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 07 January 2006 05:25 AM
quote: Originally posted by Euhemeros: Don't worry, they tell men what to wear too. It's equal discrimination.
Is it more or less equal? I ask because I truly don't know; I've never priced women's 'business attire.' To dress in male 'suitedness' from neck to toes costs at minimum, estimating in $Canadian: say $200 for a decent suit, $15 for a shirt made in a sweatshop, $10 for a cheap tie, and $45 for shoes you can walk in all day-- total $270. What does it cost women-folk for a similar set up? Edited to preempt RealityBites: No, I've never shopped for women's leisure apparel or lingerie, either. [ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 07 January 2006 02:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by retread: The men in marketing complain that they have to spend about $5000 a year on clothing for work, the woman say they spend twice that, if that helps.
For me, I have three jackets that I wear to work. And, I usually switch between two or three shoes. I really don't care that it looks boring to be wearing the same jackets and shoes all of the time (my main variety is that I have a lot of bow ties...that's the only part of my wardrobe that has any variety). I think that women, for whatever reason, want more clothing varieties and that is what probably drives the higher cost. On a per-item basis, I'm not sure that women's clothing is twice as expensive as men's clothing; although, I think men's clothing may last longer, at least with regard to shoes (my shoes, for example, cost between $250 and $300 per pair but they last forever; my sig other may buy a pair of shoes for $150 or $200 a pair but they last for only a fraction of the time mine do). A man's jacket and a woman's jacket, on the other hand, should, and probably do, last just as long as each other.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 07 January 2006 02:26 PM
quote: Should this be in Labour?
IMO, this is one of those cross-cutting issues. Certainly employer dress codes, and the costs they impose on workers, is a labour issue. However, I definitely can see the feminist side of the equation, because of different social expectations on how women dress vs. how men dress, as well as the types of jobs women are more likely to have vs. men are more likely to have. How many men do you think stores like Charming employ as retail sales clerks, compared to the number of women who do these sort of jobs? I was thinking a bit about how this comes up in retail vs. office settings. It can cost a lot of money to comply with office dress codes, but at least you're not required to buy a particular designer label or to keep your wardrobe "current" besides ordinary wear and tear on your clothes. Plus, office jobs tend to pay better than retail, so it can be easier to afford to comply with the dress code. Although I think from your example there is obviously a lot of unfairness there, too. Anyway, dress codes like this have always bothered me and I am glad to see someone suing about this. Thanks for posting Toedancer. I hope the sales clerks here win big. [ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357
|
posted 07 January 2006 02:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tape_342:
To dress in male 'suitedness' from neck to toes costs at minimum, estimating in $Canadian: say $200 for a decent suit, $15 for a shirt made in a sweatshop, $10 for a cheap tie, and $45 for shoes you can walk in all day-- total $270.
[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]
Um....no. It's very difficult to find a decent men's suit for under $400 (gotta include tax). $500-$750 is not unheard of. The difference is that men need fewer of them. My partner has exactly three work suits right now, and mostly wears only two. As well, men's work clothes are definitely higher quality than women's. Men's shoes also tend to be more expensive. Say, a woman can get a really good, quality pair of shoes for $200; a man will pay $300 or more. Of course you wait for sales but sometimes you don't have the option. One possible benefit for women is that we have a bit more latitude in terms of what constitutes "business wear". We can wear separates, for example. But in general, women probably spend more on clothes because of: shoddier construction; fashion/media taboo on wearing "dated" things; and greater social expectations against wearing the same things over and over. Anyway, it's clearly wrong for a business to force employees to wear only company items, without providing the actual clothes or a hefty clothing allowance. ETA I have less concern with the fact that a company wants its employees to dress in a certain way, or promote the company's specific goods. It's the coercive financial element that bothers me. [ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 07 January 2006 02:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by abnormal: Where can you buy a decent suit for $200? Ditto shirts for $15 or shoes for $45?
Golly, now I do feel stodgy. I've never paid more than $300 for a suit, and quite often much less. Of course, you can spend thousands, but I always shopped at places like Men's Wearhouse. Not that I'd ever shop there, but servers of my acquaintance-- who go through white dress shirts like water-- tell me they are to be had cheaply at WalMart, sometimes under $10. (I did warn about the sweatshop source ) Plain, old ordinary dress loafers I always got on sale at JC Penney; ditto ties. Granted I was hardly 'fashion-forward' at the office, but in my line of work the suit-coats spent most of their lives on the back of my desk chair anyway.
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 07 January 2006 03:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by Blink: And didn't The Body Shop get into similar trouble recently? I thought they wanted their female employees to be wearing company line make-up when they were on duty.
Yes. I worked at The Body Shop for a couple of Christmasses. They expect you to wear five items of Body Shop make-up on your face for every shift. That could mean, 1. mascara, 2. eye liner, 3. lipstick, 4. eye-shadow, and 5. foundation, or any combination, as long as you're wearing five. And I think each eye shadow colour counted as an item each. HOWEVER. Although I'm no fan of the way The Body Shop pays their (mostly) female workers minimum wage and then does advertising campaigns based on "empowering women", I will give them this - at least we weren't expected to buy the make-up. (And if we wanted to buy it, we got 50% off.) We could come in, 15 minutes before the shift, and use the make-up at the store. Not the testers, but the stuff they had in cabinets to use when they were doing customers' makeovers, which was applied using disposable applicators to prevent infections and such. So at least there was that. Although maybe that was just that particular store where they allowed that. I still didn't like it though. I didn't think it was right that they advertise that women are just fine the way they are, and yet they force their female employees to cover their faces in make-up. [ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CF Pilot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11603
|
posted 08 January 2006 11:52 AM
quote: Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg: Thanks Toedancer.It would be interesting to know if men's wear stores enforce a similar code.
Harry Rosen does.
From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|