babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Isn't This Lawsuit Just Charming?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Isn't This Lawsuit Just Charming?
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 07 January 2006 12:31 AM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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/bb4z7

I'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
FabFabian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7496

posted 07 January 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for FabFabian        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe this isn't a foreign concept in the retail world. A friend of mine did a tour of duty in Jacob for a couple of years. She dressed very well, but in another store's clothing. She was asked to dress in Jacob's clothing, at her expense of course. I suppose this is another way to display the clothing. When she was wearing the other store's garments, she was constantly asked where she got them, so in turn directed customers elsewhere.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Blink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11402

posted 07 January 2006 12:48 AM      Profile for Blink     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 07 January 2006 01:11 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
posted by Blink: And didn't The Body Shop get into similar trouble recently? ... they wanted their female employees to be wearing company line make-up when they were on duty.
I hope The Body Shop and other similarly authoritarian retailers get smacked down for using their employees as ambulatory clothes racks or guinea pigs for their products. A friend of mine worked for TBS and she did not wear make-up. At all. The skin on her face is very sensitive. She bought and used their other products and was able to honestly recommend them. But the supervisor put the job on the line - wear our make-up, at your expense or else. So she did and her skin broke out in a rash. She eventually left, for this and other reasons.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11402

posted 07 January 2006 01:14 AM      Profile for Blink     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am actually kind of relieved that you wrote that because I was starting to doubt whether I had the right company. I try not to commit libel but it doesn't look like I did. The Body Shop sucks!
From: British Columbia | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Euhemeros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11067

posted 07 January 2006 01:58 AM      Profile for Euhemeros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My sister worked at the Gap a while back and they make you buy Gap clothes to wear at work. I suppose this would extend to all Gap companies: Old Navy, Gap, and Banana Republic.

quote:
Jesus Gawd, that was 28 years ago and still women who need jobs must be asked/told what to wear!

Don't worry, they tell men what to wear too. It's equal discrimination.


From: Surrey | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 07 January 2006 02:10 AM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 07 January 2006 02:49 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
posted by Toedancer: 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 ... and after the Manager talked with me, I would walk out of there with my pockets (lots of pockets) absolutely full of Bribes.
Back then it was a different shop, still controlled by the founder and owned in Canada by a community and social-issues-oriented woman. Not anymore. The marketing and production is now US-owned and dictated, the quality is not the same and the approach is all about sales and profit.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 07 January 2006 04:15 AM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This isn't a feminist issue, although I have not heard of a similar lawsuit where male employees were forced to buy over-priced company clothes.

Mens' suits aren't cheap either and the pressure is on in the office to "dress appropriately for the position".

As a general topic, that is crap if they keep changing the damn fashions to reduce the effective pay below minimum wage. Bad management.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 07 January 2006 05:25 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 07 January 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.

Mind you, all of them are trying to justify raises when they complain (they get paid the same as engineers, and most of us wear jeans and t-shirts in the office), so I think the numbers are pretty doubtful.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 07 January 2006 11:51 AM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
posted byTape_342:
quote:
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.

Where can you buy a decent suit for $200? Ditto shirts for $15 or shoes for $45?

Ties you can buy on sale although I admit that the only time I've worn a tie to the office in the last 10 years was when I was visiting London - the City hasn't gone casual as of yet.


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11402

posted 07 January 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for Blink     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I make a point of spending as little on office clothes as I can possibly get away with. However, for regular people, I think male/female expenditures are about the same. Men's clothes seem to be a little more expensive but a suit can be worn 2 or 3 times a week. Women, on the other hand, tend to have more variety in their outfits. It raises eyebrows if she shows up wearing the same skirt repeatedly (I know this because I do it all the time).

I really want to kill the whole office attire thing anyway. Professionalism should be about what you do, not what you look like.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 07 January 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When I worked for a department store they gave us a generous discount on anything we could wear to work but we were not required to wear their clothes. I did end up buying and wearing a lot of their stuff. That was around 20 years ago, I wonder what their policy is now.

I can't imagine working for a company that made you buy their clothes. That is awful.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 07 January 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow, this was an eye opener. I never knew this kind of punitive crap went on.

I think this may be a feminist issue because I suspect that it affects females more often than males. Men's clothes cost far more than women's clothes, but at least styles really never change. As well, if you purchase quality clothing and treat it well, it can last a long, long time.


From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 07 January 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 07 January 2006 03:49 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
I hope The Body Shop and other similarly authoritarian retailers get smacked down for using their employees as ambulatory clothes racks or guinea pigs for their products. A friend of mine worked for TBS and she did not wear make-up. At all. The skin on her face is very sensitive. She bought and used their other products and was able to honestly recommend them. But the supervisor put the job on the line - wear our make-up, at your expense or else. So she did and her skin broke out in a rash. She eventually left, for this and other reasons.

Wouldn't it be nearly impossible to prove what the employee was wearing? Would they demand that she produce the compact from her purse?


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 07 January 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Moores has suits that bottom out at about $200 each. I just bought two as a stop-gap. If you look around - especially in shopping malls in Chinese neighbourhoods for some reason - you can find shirts - with a tie and tie clip no less - for $10 - $20.

That is really slumming it, however. Yes about $400 is the minimum for a decent suit but more like $600-$800.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 January 2006 04:34 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is ghastly to make low-paid employees dress like lawyers or managers. I got that crap about "dressing professionally" (and I was certainly not wearing ripped jeans), when teaching ESL and FSL in businesses - dreadfully underpaid, that, and requires a degree at least.

$45 for dress shoes you can walk in? Better feet than mine...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 07 January 2006 08:58 PM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks Toedancer.

I hope these women win a substantial settlement. I think it is outrageous that they were required to subsidize the profits of the company while serving as walking advertisements.

It would be interesting to know if men's wear stores enforce a similar code.


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 08 January 2006 11:14 AM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did they at least get an employee discount?
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 January 2006 11:30 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Probably they do get a discount, but retail clerks (pompously dubbed "associates" by many firms nowadays, cheaper than a wage raise or benefits) make to little that it is a heavy burden even with a discount.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
CF Pilot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11603

posted 08 January 2006 11:52 AM      Profile for CF Pilot        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 January 2006 12:00 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harry Rosen is rather upscale, far more than the other retail chains mentioned here. Do the sales staff there work on commission? If so, it is possible they make a decent salary.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
CF Pilot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11603

posted 08 January 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for CF Pilot        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Harry Rosen is rather upscale,

Tell me about it. I went into one to look at dress pants. The salesman starts right off by asking if I'd ever shopped there before, a very classy way of asking if I could afford the prices. Which I couldn't. $250 for a pair of dress slacks, 4 years ago! Very nice though...


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Blink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11402

posted 08 January 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for Blink     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CF Pilot:
Tell me about it. I went into one to look at dress pants. The salesman starts right off by asking if I'd ever shopped there before, a very classy way of asking if I could afford the prices. Which I couldn't. $250 for a pair of dress slacks, 4 years ago! Very nice though...

Well, I hope you tried everything on and left a big messy pile of clothes in your wake. Snotty salespeople! I hate them.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 January 2006 01:17 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hint for babblers who need a few decent duds for work: upscale shops often have very deep discounts during sales: such as now, after Christmas. I've found lovely things at Holts. I wouldn't be surprised if you might find some beautiful trousers at Harry Rosen, this time of year.

Actually I've been snubbed by snotty salespersons, but also met very gracious ones at such places; I'm sure the clerk who helped me at Holts knew full well I was a "bottom-feeder" who needed a couple of good things for work, and couldn't possibly afford their regular prices.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 08 January 2006 08:50 PM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One lawsuit at a time will do the trick I'm sure.
But you know what? I'm still absolutely sickened by this post 2001 trend. These days the usual shopkepers are lifted by the fact I'm not wearing my usual Marks Workesr Wearhouse 2 day in a row pants.

Gawd, thank you, I thought I was being such a Queen for this no apology shit.


From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 08 January 2006 11:44 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is obscene. If the employee is expected to be a walking/talking billboard for the company they work for they should at least be given a generous clothing allowance every month for the purchases as part of their compensation.

This makes me appreciate my employer even more. They literally throw piles of free shirts at us but we're not even required to wear them (but we do anyway, because they're kinda cool).


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
beaver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10226

posted 10 January 2006 12:44 AM      Profile for beaver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I worked retail a lot in my twenties. I have been "told" to wear company clothing BUT I was given ONE shirt and all clothing was 50% off. Generally that meant I was getting the stuff at cost.

Most retailers have discounts of at least 25%. Not that this excuses any employer dictating what their staff wears.... But I think it does qualify it a bit.


From: here and there | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca