
Make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work (UK) - ultimatejman
This petition has just hit 120,000.<p>Seems obvious that work dress code should allow comfortable option. Great this is getting traction in the UK
======
Overtonwindow
This is an interesting idea, but I disagree with it only because I don't think
the government should be in the business of telling a company what is dress
code should be. Is there another way we could achieve the same goal?

~~~
philh
The government is already sort-of in that business, according to the BBC:

> As the law stands, employers can dismiss staff who fail to live up to
> "reasonable" dress code demands, as long as they've been given enough time
> to buy the right shoes and clothes.

> They can set up different codes for men and women, as long as there's an
> "equivalent level of smartness".

Speculating here: One might be able to argue in court that for a receptionist,
high heels are a greater level of smartness than whatever the male dress code
is.

------
DanBC
Here's a link to the petition:
[https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129823](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129823)

> It's still legal in the UK for a company to require female members of staff
> to wear high heels at work against their will. Dress code laws should be
> changed so that women have the option to wear flat formal shoes at work, if
> they wish. Current formal work dress codes are out-dated and sexist.

It follows this case: [http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-
london-36264229](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36264229)

> Temp worker Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney, arrived at finance company PwC
> to be told she had to wear shoes with a "2in to 4in heel".

> When she refused and complained male colleagues were not asked to do the
> same, she was sent home without pay.

> Outsourcing firm Portico said Ms Thorp had "signed the appearance
> guidelines" but it would now review them.

(You can submit either a link, or text, but not both.)

~~~
ManlyBread
>Dress code laws should be changed so that women have the option to wear flat
formal shoes at work, if they wish.

What about models or hostess where wearing high heels is a part of the job?

~~~
DanBC
There are exceptions for things that are intrinsic parts of the job - they
come under "proportionate means to achieve legitimate aim" or somesuch.

Wearing heels is not something receptionists need to do to perform their job -
and wearing heels is likely to make their job harder. It'd be great if she got
some legal funding to challenge this, or if it's not challengeable that she
gets enough signatures to force a change.

~~~
dingaling
> Wearing heels is not something receptionists need to do to perform their job

Wearing a suit and tie wasn't necessary to perform my job as a programmer and
was actively uncomfortable in the Summer when the women could wear sandals and
low-cut tops.

We challenged the dress code on several occasions with HR and their eventual
solution was... Dress-down Fridays.

Eventually one of the officers from the US HQ asked why all the guys were
wearing ties when he didn't. That forced a change but there was no UK legal
obligation for a harmonised unisex dress-code.

~~~
dalke
I don't know if you noticed, but you made a slight change in topic.

DanBC's comment was that there are cases where workplace sex discrimination is
allowed, because they are part of the primary purpose of the company.

For example, the Playboy club can decide to only employ women as hosts, and
require them to wear bunny costumes. This is a requirement for the type of
service the Playboy club provides.

On the other hand, Hooters cannot refrain from hiring men as hosts, because
Hooters is primarily a restaurant. (I apologize for not knowing the UK
equivalent for this example.)

Wearing high heels is not a requirement of secretarial work, so this exception
does not apply. But a company can still regulate clothing even if not part of
the job requirement.

In Sweden, where I live, it is not (I believe) legal to discriminate based on
sex for the dress code. That does not mean there is a "harmonised unisex
dress-code." For example, a few years ago the temperature in Stockholm was so
warm that the male underground operators wanted to wear shorts. This is not
allowed by the dress code. It is allowed to wear skirts, which is what they
did. (See for example
[http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=238&nid...](http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=238&nid=48548)
).

Under that framework, you should have been allowed to wear sandals and low-cut
tops, and the women should be allowed to wear a suit and tie.

------
nopcode
So people are asking the government to protect themselves from their own
stupidity? She should've read the contract before signing.

Everything that differentiates a woman or man is "sexist", it doesn't mean its
bad or only impacts one gender. (There are rules unique for men too).

~~~
Kristine1975
_> She should've read the contract before signing._

The point is, the clause in the contract about high-heeled shoes should be
null and void.

~~~
ultimatejman
Exactly

------
birchdev
What do women do (and companies allow) if they have a disability or are
elderly? I imagine if you are blind, old, on crutches etc... heals of any
height would be challenging if not impossible.

------
jonathonf
It already is - and it is in the rest of the EU.

Take your pick of legislation, whether discrimination or health and safety.

~~~
DanBC
It is potentially not illegal in the UK.

Employers are allowed to set dress codes, and those dress codes are allowed to
be different for men and women.

