# Am I just old fashioned when it comes to dress code?



## JP1234 (5 Jul 2011)

I went to a competency test for a job yesterday. Public facing job so appearance would matter.

There were maybe a dozen of us in the room doing the test, all naturally sizing each other up.( all female)

One candidate turned up in T shirt, shorts and Sandals

Another had a very obvious stain on her top ( ok it could have happened on the way in)

Best of all was the girl next to me, resplendent in White cut of jeans, low cut vest top, numerous gold chains rattling round her neck and to cap it off, trainers on her feet.

Am I missing something here, even though it was just a test and not a full interview isn't it common sense to dress well for a potential employer?

A relative of mine is in HR/Training and said if someone turned up like that, regardless of the test result he wouldn't shortlist them for interview as it showed a lack of common sense and would suggest they didn't take the job seriously.

What other inappropriate dressing  for the occasion have you witnessed.


----------



## Firefly (5 Jul 2011)

JP1234 said:


> I went to a competency test for a job yesterday. Public facing job so appearance would matter.
> 
> There were maybe a dozen of us in the room doing the test, all naturally sizing each other up.( all female)
> 
> ...




Maybe they didn't want the job


----------



## csirl (5 Jul 2011)

JP1234 said:


> A relative of mine is in HR/Training and said if someone turned up like that, regardless of the test result he wouldn't shortlist them for interview as it showed a lack of common sense and would suggest they didn't take the job seriously.
> 
> What other inappropriate dressing for the occasion have you witnessed.


 
I'd agree with you on this - people dont realise how much first impressions count for in these situations. Reminds me of the time I had a conversation with someone over a former work colleague who was brilliant at the job, but untidy in appearance. They had formed the impression that he must be rubbish at the job because he cant dress himself properly.

I once attended a high level meeting overseas - type of meeting where even if you are dressed in a suit, you still feel underdressed. Representative of UK affiliate turned up wearing casual clothes including what looked like a tracksuit top as a jacket - and was late for the meeting. When he walked into the room, everyone assumed it was the conference centre janitor in to fix something - then he sat down at the empty seat at the table and joined in. Several years after the event, this is still talked about.


----------



## Betsy Og (5 Jul 2011)

sure maybe they think they're in Google where you come in to work in sandals and hawaiian print shirts....or maybe thats just the propaganda!!


----------



## JP1234 (5 Jul 2011)

Firefly said:


> Maybe they didn't want the job



I am wondering if they were forced to attend by Fas or something, otherwise why bother turning up at all?



			
				csirl said:
			
		

> I'd agree with you on this - people dont realise how much first impressions count for in these situations



I can't imagine what the HR Manager who was present must have thought!  I am taking the view that this is 2 or 3 less people I am in competition with at least!


----------



## liaconn (5 Jul 2011)

To be honest I wouldn't really have a problem with people dressing casually to just sit an aptitude test and I wouldn't dismiss them for that reason. If they turned up for the interview in jeans or flip flops or whatever, that would be a different matter.


----------



## DB74 (5 Jul 2011)

liaconn said:


> To be honest I wouldn't really have a problem with people dressing casually to just sit an aptitude test and I wouldn't dismiss them for that reason. If they turned up for the interview in jeans or flip flops or whatever, that would be a different matter.



Why? What's the difference?

Why is it unacceptable to wear casual clothes to an interview but acceptable to wear them to a job-related aptitude test?


----------



## The_Banker (5 Jul 2011)

DB74 said:


> Why? What's the difference?
> 
> Why is it unacceptable to wear casual clothes to an interview but acceptable to wear them to a job-related aptitude test?


 

I think we as a people are too hung up on dress code. We put our children into uniform at the age of 4 or 5 to send them off to school. Why? Because that is the convention. 
It was the convention in the 50s to be subservient to the Catholic Church. No one questioned it.

I love the educate together ethos schools. Kids don’t wear uniform. They are individuals. I cant get my head around the idea that kids should wear a uniform at 4 or 5. 

I heard the stories about google and the cloths policy. This is the way to go in my opinion. It you can do your job competently then any clothes you wear should not matter one iota. 

Challenge conventions, challenge norms.


----------



## DB74 (5 Jul 2011)

The school uniform ensures that no child sits in that classroom feeling inferior because of the clothes they wear. School is hard enough for kids without subjecting them to bullying because they can't afford to wear the latest designer clothes (or maybe because they can, in this day and age!).

I agree that we are too hung up on dress code in relation to interviews though but until the general attitude changes, you would be crazy to go to an interview in casual clothes just to show your individuality.


----------



## The_Banker (5 Jul 2011)

DB74 said:


> *The school uniform ensures that no child sits in that classroom feeling inferior because of the clothes they wear. School is hard enough for kids without subjecting them to bullying because they can't afford to wear the latest designer clothes (or maybe because they can, in this day and age!).*
> 
> I agree that we are too hung up on dress code in relation to interviews though but until the general attitude changes, you would be crazy to go to an interview in casual clothes just to show your individuality.


 

I have heard this argument loads of times and I honestly dont buy it. Bullying goes on regardless of whether a child is required to wear a uniform or not.

I have two nephews. One goes to an Educate Together school, the other a normal Catholic National school (which wears uniform).
In the latter school all parents were called in a few months back due to an escalation of bullying in school after a number of parents made complaints.

To my mind there is no justifible argument for putting 4 and 5 year old kids into uniforms.

But I maybe going slightly off topic... I agree with your second point that until society changes it would be crazy to go to an interview dressed in a Hawaiian shirt. But I do commend google for doing there bit to change the norms of society.


----------



## Mpsox (5 Jul 2011)

I've refused people at interview based on how they were dressed. Number of reasons for that
Firstly there can be health and safety grounds in relation to loose clothes and machines for example, or dropping something on your foot
Secondly, I have to respect my customers wishes and expectations. Like it or not, if you put a slovenly dressed person in front of a client, they are going to draw their own conclusions about them and their company. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant, it's how it is
Lastly, if someone cannot be bothered to make themselves neat and presentable for any visit to a potential employer, to me, that potentially says that they may also have a casual approach to a job

One of the best pieces of advice I once got is that you should dress each day as if it is important. That doesn't mean a full suit etc (I'm usually in jeans and a shirt at work), but be clean, tidy and dressed appropriately


----------



## DB74 (5 Jul 2011)

The_Banker said:


> I have heard this argument loads of times and I honestly dont buy it. Bullying goes on regardless of whether a child is required to wear a uniform or not.
> 
> I have two nephews. One goes to an Educate Together school, the other a normal Catholic National school (which wears uniform).
> In the latter school all parents were called in a few months back due to an escalation of bullying in school after a number of parents made complaints.



Just because bullying goes on anyway doesn't mean that we should provide an additional reason for some children to bully others. Especially in this age when we have children from multiple backgrounds and cultures.


----------



## JP1234 (5 Jul 2011)

Mpsox said:


> One of the best pieces of advice I once got is that you should dress each day as if it is important. That doesn't mean a full suit etc (I'm usually in jeans and a shirt at work), but be clean, tidy and dressed appropriately




I live by that. I am not Hyacinth Bucket and I don't get dolled up just to go to the shop but I try to look presentable if I am out and about, even if it's just walking the dog.

As for uniforms..well I love them ( no sniggering at the back) I worked for years at a place that provided us with plain blue suit and a stripey blouse..nice, smart and simple. I was quite upset when they decided to discontinue them. I was in a shoe shop recently and ended up asking a customer if they had a particular shoe in stock as I couldn't tell who worked there and she happened to look business-like. I know it might sound a bit snobby or extreme but I would be unlikely to shop in a place where the staff look like they have just wandered in off the street/come from a nightclub or just fallen out of bed.

Anyhow,  I have to sort out my interview clothes now for tomorrow!


----------



## csirl (5 Jul 2011)

Agree with Mpsox.

If you turn up for an interview/meeting etc. dressed casually, you are essentially telling the people you are meeting that they are not worth the effort and you dont really care. Think of it this way, if your brother or sister was getting married, would you would make the effort to dress up because you respect them - you would just turn up in a dirty pair of jeans and old t-shirt. Its all about respect for your job, family, clients etc.


----------



## Boyd (5 Jul 2011)

DB74 said:


> Why? What's the difference?
> 
> Why is it unacceptable to wear casual clothes to an interview but acceptable to wear them to a job-related aptitude test?



I would like to be as relaxed and comfortable as possible in an aptitude test as its an _aptitude test_, not an interview. Many people dont like wearing suits and get nervous/self conscious in them so being as comfortable as possible allows you to concentrate on the test itself.

From my own experiences and listening to work colleagues (IT industry), many of them dont even bother wearing suits to interviews since it allows you to skip over and do the interview without needing to take a day off from your current job. 
Perhaps this is more lenient in IT industry based on most of it being non-public facing, but IMO any HR person who would dismiss a candidate immediately for not wearing a suit is an idiot. 
Also, personally I wouldnt accept an IT job where I had to wear a suit into work but thats just me.


----------



## z107 (5 Jul 2011)

username123 said:


> Also, personally I wouldnt accept an IT job where I had to wear a suit into work but thats just me.



I'm also in IT and much prefer a job where a suit is the norm. It means I can just throw on my suit in the morning and not have to think about what to wear.
I hated 'casual' Fridays, because it wasn't really.


----------



## hfp (5 Jul 2011)

Depends on who you're interviewing with, but casual dress is very common for aptitude tests.  I've been to 3 now and all have them have clearly stated that there is no dress code, and to dress comfortably. 



DB74 said:


> Why is it unacceptable to wear casual clothes to an interview but acceptable to wear them to a job-related aptitude test?



An aptitude test is normally just to weed out the people that can barely read/write/do basic maths and is normally just a large room of people who are just a number at that stage.  The interview is the place where you get the opportunity to sell yourself.


----------



## dave28 (5 Jul 2011)

Mpsox said:


> Like it or not, if you put a slovenly dressed person in front of a client, they are going to draw their own conclusions about them and their company
> 
> One of the best pieces of advice I once got is that you should dress each day as if it is important...... be clean, tidy and dressed appropriately



My present boss is embarrassing - he drinks too much, smokes too much, is obese, smells of B.O., and arrived at a recent meeting with the remnants of a breakfast roll down his white shirt !! He is supposed to be leading me but i wish i could just say to the clients we meet that " I'M NOT LIKE HIM !!!!!"


----------



## Betsy Og (6 Jul 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I'm also in IT and much prefer a job where a suit is the norm. It means I can just throw on my suit in the morning and not have to think about what to wear.
> I hated 'casual' Fridays, because it wasn't really.


 
+++1

The hassle of getting organised for casual Friday was such a pain - giz a shirt and tie and out the door anyday


----------



## flossie (6 Jul 2011)

It wouldn't cross my mind to turn up for any interview/aptitude test in anything other that business casual - at minimum smart trousers/skirt and a blouse.  Even though my previous job involved wearing white boiler suits on a construction site, i still dressed up for the interview. It shows a lack of respect, and i agree with previous posters gives an attitude of 'I don't care for the interview/test hence i will adopt the same attitude towards the role'.

I work from home when i'm not visiting a client, so have it pretty well balanced - smart to client (unless i know them well and know i am going to be getting physical and dirty and follow their onsite dress codes), and casual at home


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2011)

flossie said:


> I work from home when i'm not visiting a client, so have it pretty well balanced - smart to client (unless i know them well and know i am going to be getting *physical and dirty* and follow their onsite dress codes), and casual at home


 
What do you do?


----------



## JP1234 (6 Jul 2011)

flossie said:


> (unless i know them well and know* i am going to be getting physical and dirty *and follow their onsite dress codes), and casual at home




I am afraid to ask what it is you do for a living!

As for Dress down days..I hated them and would alway just carry on wearing my business clothes.

Cross post with Sunny..great minds think alike...


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2011)

JP1234 said:


> Cross post with Sunny..great minds think alike...


 
Not sure great is the correct word!


----------



## flossie (6 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> What do you do?


 
Argh! I should re-read before posting!  Am an engineer, nothing untoward!


----------



## cork (6 Jul 2011)

The Public Sector has casual Friday every day.

That said - dry cleaning suits is expensive.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2011)

cork said:


> The Public Sector has casual Friday every day.


 


Presume you are trolling


----------



## Purple (6 Jul 2011)

flossie said:


> unless i know them well and know i am going to be getting physical and dirty




What is it you do for a living?


----------



## DB74 (6 Jul 2011)

Purple said:


> What is it you do for a living?



Hotel maid!!!!!!????????


----------



## Complainer (6 Jul 2011)

cork said:


> The Public Sector has casual Friday every day.


Not true, for the public sector as a whole. Parts of the Civil Service are very conservative, particularly as staff move up the grades. In my organisation, it depends what I'm up to on any particular day. If I'm out representing the organisation at meetings, then it is suit and tie (which I generally hate). If I'm in the office, business casual is good.


cork said:


> That said - dry cleaning suits is expensive.


Very true.


----------



## Boyd (6 Jul 2011)

Betsy Og said:


> +++1
> 
> The hassle of getting organised for casual Friday was such a pain - giz a shirt and tie and out the door anyday



Whats to organise? Pair of jeans, t-shirt and runners. Simple? Its not a fashion show, its casual Friday.

I couldnt wear a suit and write code at the same time, just feels wrong for a software developer


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2011)

username123 said:


> Whats to organise? Pair of jeans, t-shirt and runners. Simple? Its not a fashion show, its casual Friday.
> 
> I couldnt wear a suit and write code at the same time, just feels wrong for a software developer


 
Most companies won't allow runners and t-shirts even on casual Friday. People don't know where to draw the line. I have seen people turn up in football tops. And I have seen girls dress like hookers.....


----------



## Complainer (6 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> And I have seen girls dress like hookers.....


I don't believe you. Unless you have pics of course...


----------



## Purple (6 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> I don't believe you. Unless you have pics of course...


Ah, Camel toes and Muffin tops... no thanks!


----------



## The_Banker (6 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Most companies won't allow runners and t-shirts even on casual Friday. People don't know where to draw the line. I have seen *people turn up in football tops*. And I have seen girls dress like hookers.....


 

So long as that isnt customer facing what is the problem?


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2011)

The_Banker said:


> So long as that isnt customer facing what is the problem?


 
It doesn't have to be client facing. Most companies have outside clients/customers/visitors come into the building for various meetings. They shouldn't have to see lads wearing their celtic tops and girls dressing like Britney Spears. Especially when they look nothing like her.

It's the same with groups of people standing outside office buildings smoking. It looks unprofessional.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> I don't believe you. Unless you have pics of course...


 
Tried but apparently the taking of pictures is frowned upon. Who knew!


----------



## DB74 (6 Jul 2011)

Anyone who owns a replica football jersey should be sacked on the spot for being a sheep


----------



## Purple (6 Jul 2011)

DB74 said:


> Anyone who owns a replica football jersey should be sacked on the spot for being a sheep



Now even by my standards that's extreme!


----------



## liaconn (6 Jul 2011)

DB74 said:


> Why? What's the difference?
> 
> Why is it unacceptable to wear casual clothes to an interview but acceptable to wear them to a job-related aptitude test?


 
Because the aptitude test is just a preliminary to sort out the candidates the company is genuinely interested in and would like to meet formally to discuss the job. The candidates will (or should be) judged totally on how they perform in the exam and their clothes have nothing to do with the process.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2011)

liaconn said:


> Because the aptitude test is just a preliminary to sort out the candidates the company is genuinely interested in and would like to meet formally to discuss the job. The candidates will (or should be) judged totally on how they perform in the exam and their clothes have nothing to do with the process.


 
But everything to do with a job application is about judging people. Would you hire someone that followed one particular fashion and turned up in their pajamas because they were comfy


----------



## beffers (6 Jul 2011)

liaconn said:


> Because the aptitude test is just a preliminary to sort out the candidates the company is genuinely interested in and would like to meet formally to discuss the job. The candidates will (or should be) judged totally on how they perform in the exam and their clothes have nothing to do with the process.



That may be how it works in theory, but not in practice. People from the HR/Personnel Dept will be there checking people in and out and administering the aptitude test itself. Trust me, they notice those who show up in suits/business casual dress versus those in shorts, torn jeans and flip flops. The stated dress code may tell you to dress for comfort, but they are looking out for people who have the kop on to be able to read between the lines and know the difference between showing up relatively well dressed, versus showing up looking like a Britney Spears/Wayne Rooney wannabe. In the job seeking process, being judged by your abilities alone is a wonderful utopian idea of idealism, but at the beginning of the process, appearances count for A LOT imo.


----------



## Boyd (6 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Most companies won't allow runners and t-shirts even on casual Friday. People don't know where to draw the line. I have seen people turn up in football tops. And I have seen girls dress like hookers.....



If you cant wear runners/t-shirt, what the heck is casual Friday then? Thats what I wear every day of the week! 



Sunny said:


> It doesn't have to be client facing. Most companies have outside clients/customers/visitors come into the building for various meetings. They shouldn't have to see lads wearing their celtic tops and girls dressing like Britney Spears. Especially when they look nothing like her.



I dont know about most companies, but the two I have worked for (8 years in total) have no problem with runners and t-shirts. I have seen football tops too. Obviously if people are meeting clients they do dress in suits, but clients often get shown around the floor to see us working, in our usual attire. It does vary a little in that some people wear slacks and a shirt but they look overdressed usually. 

Im sure it happens that some HR people would write you off for what you wear, I guess its down to each individual office, perhaps even down to the HR person's mood on the day. I wore suit to last interview I did and interviewer was in runner, jeans and polo shirt so that pretty much set the tone


----------



## Complainer (6 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> But everything to do with a job application is about judging people. Would you hire someone that followed one particular fashion and turned up in their pajamas because they were comfy


I'd hire them based on their ability to do the job, not based on how they look.



beffers said:


> The stated dress code may tell you to dress for comfort, but they are looking out for people who have the kop on to be able to read between the lines and know the difference between showing up relatively well dressed, versus showing up looking like a Britney Spears/Wayne Rooney wannabe.


Who would want to work for an organisation that plays these kind of head-wrecking games of saying one thing when they actually mean another?


----------



## z107 (6 Jul 2011)

> I dont know about most companies, but the two I have worked for (8 years in total) have no problem with runners and t-shirts. I have seen football tops too. Obviously if people are meeting clients they do dress in suits, but clients often get shown around the floor to see us working, in our usual attire. It does vary a little in that some people wear slacks and a shirt but they look overdressed usually.


Some finance houses and banks are (were?) pretty strict on 'causal' Friday. I remember getting an email saying which clothes were not allowed.
In some companies, dressing 'down' is far from it. Dressing 'down' for some trendy IT companies can involve designer gear that's more expensive then a suit. Look at the way Steve Jobs dresses for instance.

Far prefer the suit. I have enough other stuff to be thinking about.



> Who would want to work for an organisation that plays these kind of head-wrecking games of saying one thing when they actually mean another?


I didn't mind. I was paid well, and that's the main thing.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> I'd hire them based on their ability to do the job, not based on how they look.


 
Good for you but unfortunately most people look at the entire package when looking to hire someone. If your child was going for an interview for a office job and she wanted to wear her pajamas, would you say 'No problem. If they don't hire you because of the way you are dressed, you don't want to be working for them anyway?'

Would you hire someone that sent in a CV with a load of spelling mistakes even if was just for a job making burgers and didn't impact on their ability to do the job? 

Interviews (and apptitude tests are part of the process) are all about impressions as much as abilities. The company needs to decide between similar candidates with similar cv's and abilities. One made the effort to look professional but the other one didn't. Who would more than likely get the job?


----------



## Boyd (6 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Interviews (and apptitude tests are part of the process) are all about impressions as much as abilities. The company needs to decide between similar candidates with similar cv's and abilities. One made the effort to look professional but the other one didn't. Who would more than likely get the job?



Probably the one who had the most rapport with the interviewer I would say.


----------



## csirl (6 Jul 2011)

username123 said:


> If you cant wear runners/t-shirt, what the heck is casual Friday then? Thats what I wear every day of the week!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It can depend on the job. There is a big difference in dress code between professionals working in an office block and people working on a factory production line. 

As a general rule, if you are meeting a company for an interview/apptitude test or even for an entirely different reason, you should dress at least as well as if you were working for the company i.e. if you go into an office block where everyone wears a suit, you always wear a suit. 

My job has no such thing as 'dress down fridays' or casual days. It is written in my employment contract that I must dress appropriately i.e. wear a suit. Have to do this even if I am not due to be meet anyone that day. No big deal to be honest - means you dont have to worry about what to wear from day to day - just throw on suit/shirt/tie etc. As one of my colleagues says - they're just 'office overalls'.


----------



## Firefly (6 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> I'd hire them based on their ability to do the job, not based on how they look.



It's quite difficult to determine someone's ability to do the job in most cases. Aptitude tests may help as well as the interview process, but they are not conclusive. Given a choice I would take someone who has gone to the bother and groomed themselves well above a similiar candidate who didn't, all things being equal.


----------



## liaconn (6 Jul 2011)

beffers said:


> That may be how it works in theory, but not in practice. People from the HR/Personnel Dept will be there checking people in and out and administering the aptitude test itself. Trust me, they notice those who show up in suits/business casual dress versus those in shorts, torn jeans and flip flops. The stated dress code may tell you to dress for comfort, but they are looking out for people who have the kop on to be able to read between the lines and know the difference between showing up relatively well dressed, versus showing up looking like a Britney Spears/Wayne Rooney wannabe. In the job seeking process, being judged by your abilities alone is a wonderful utopian idea of idealism, but at the beginning of the process, appearances count for A LOT imo.


 
Are you saying that people are told they're coming in for an aptitude test but, if the supervisors don't like their dress, they will mark them down or call a less able candidate for interview??


----------



## Complainer (6 Jul 2011)

Firefly said:


> It's quite difficult to determine someone's ability to do the job in most cases. Aptitude tests may help as well as the interview process, but they are not conclusive.


True.




Sunny said:


> Interviews (and apptitude tests are part of the process) are all about impressions as much as abilities. The company needs to decide between similar candidates with similar cv's and abilities. One made the effort to look professional but the other one didn't. Who would more than likely get the job?





Firefly said:


> Given a choice I would take someone who has gone to the bother and groomed themselves well above a similiar candidate who didn't, all things being equal.


Under normal circumstances, I might agree with you. However, if there had been an explicit instruction given to 'dress comfortable', I would not give priority to the suits. Indeed, I might penalise them for failing to follow a clear instruction!



Sunny said:


> Good for you but unfortunately most people look at the entire package when looking to hire someone. If your child was going for an interview for a office job and she wanted to wear her pajamas, would you say 'No problem. If they don't hire you because of the way you are dressed, you don't want to be working for them anyway?'


No, I wouldn't. If someone was going for an office job, I'd encourage them to dress appropriately for that environment, and if in doubt, err on the side of 'more formal', not less.



Sunny said:


> Would you hire someone that sent in a CV with a load of spelling mistakes even if was just for a job making burgers and didn't impact on their ability to do the job?


Funnily enough, I might hire the person with the spelling mistakes for burger flipping. There are a couple of issues going on here. First of all, there is a risk of hiring an over-qualified person, who may well get bored or get a better job. You are better off hiring a person who will be well suited to the position. Alternatively, I might think that many people with dyslexia have proven themselves to be very talented in lots of ways, and are as deserving of getting a job as others. 

To be honest, I probably wouldn't have looked for a CV for a burger flipping job, as it is not really intended for such roles.


----------



## Sunny (6 Jul 2011)

liaconn said:


> Are you saying that people are told they're coming in for an aptitude test but, if the supervisors don't like their dress, they will mark them down or call a less able candidate for interview??



We are not talking about someone wearing a dress from last season. We are talking about one candidate turning up in t-shirt and shorts and the other in a belly top.


----------



## truthseeker (6 Jul 2011)

I tend to make a kind of work uniform, I buy similar black/grey trousers, and a variety of long sleeved similar tops - and just wear combinations of the above each day. I hate having to think about what to wear to work. I used to work in a job that had a uniform and I LOVED it.

For an interview or an aptitude test I would dress appropriately, never jeans, never trainers, but for an aptitude test I would be less formal than for an interview.

We had casual fridays in work too and I found myself assigning a casual uniform for it, so each friday I was in one casual outfit, the following friday I was in a different one, and then back to the 1st one again the next week - Im not that interested in clothes, beyond being neat and tidy for work I wouldnt bother with accessories, make up, etc... Im very functional about how I dress in work. Some people have a lot of flair and even in ordinary working clothes can add a scarf or a necklace and suddenly look the way Id like to look when I get dressed up for an evening out, but sadly Ive never had that kind of casual elegance!!


----------



## Firefly (7 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Under normal circumstances, I might agree with you. However, if there had been an explicit instruction given to 'dress comfortable', I would not give priority to the suits. Indeed, I might penalise them for failing to follow a clear instruction!



I agree if the instruction was to 'dress comfortable' , wearing a suit might look a bit off (or desperate), but according to the OP it was "Public facing job so appearance would matter". This would rule out jeans a T shirt for me.


----------



## liaconn (7 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> We are not talking about someone wearing a dress from last season. We are talking about one candidate turning up in t-shirt and shorts and the other in a belly top.


 
But the question still stands.

Surely if they did well in the test you would call them for interview and at that stage make a decision about their judgment, decorum etc.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2011)

liaconn said:


> But the question still stands.
> 
> Surely if they did well in the test you would call them for interview and at that stage make a decision about their judgment, decorum etc.


 
To be honest, I wouldn't. Most people make an effort to look presentable if they are going out to meet close friends for dinner. If you can't be bothered to make an effort to look somewhat professional when coming into a business environment for whatever reason, I don't want to know. It shows a lack of cop on and respect.


----------



## Complainer (7 Jul 2011)

Firefly said:


> I agree if the instruction was to 'dress comfortable' , wearing a suit might look a bit off (or desperate), but according to the OP it was "Public facing job so appearance would matter". This would rule out jeans a T shirt for me.


But not a public facing aptitude test.



Sunny said:


> To be honest, I wouldn't. Most people make an effort to look presentable if they are going out to meet close friends for dinner. If you can't be bothered to make an effort to look somewhat professional when coming into a business environment for whatever reason, I don't want to know. It shows a lack of cop on and respect.




What you call 'lack of cop on' could also be described as 'knowing how we do things round here'. There are lots of reasons why someone might not be familiar with traditions or conventions in particular workplaces. This could happen with people who just haven't worked before, or people with disabilities who find it difficult to find work, or people from other countries who might have different traditions and convention. 

If you have a dress code, communicate the dress code. If people can't comply with it, they don't get the job. But don't exclude potentially excellent employees because they don't know your little ways and traditions.


----------



## callybags (8 Jul 2011)

I see this issue has been raised again regarding the dress code (or lack of) in The Dail.

I fully agree that there should be a policy of at least "neat dress". It shows respect for your coleagues and employers- the public.

It was discussed on Newstalk this morning and Chris Donoghue tried to put forward the argument that it is one's actions that are important, and not the way you dress. This to me is a ridiculous argument, as they are not exclusive. One can dress well AND do or say the right thing.

It was then pointed out ti Chris that he was wearing a suit for a radio programme, and he had no answer, just some bluster about "It's what I'm comfortable with".


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> What you call 'lack of cop on' could also be described as 'knowing how we do things round here'. There are lots of reasons why someone might not be familiar with traditions or conventions in particular workplaces. This could happen with people who just haven't worked before, or people with disabilities who find it difficult to find work, or people from other countries who might have different traditions and convention.
> 
> If you have a dress code, communicate the dress code. If people can't comply with it, they don't get the job. But don't exclude potentially excellent employees because they don't know your little ways and traditions.


 
That has to be be the most condescending post I have read in a very long time. Disabled people and foreigners don't know that they should make an effort to look presentable when entering a potential employers workplace? Seriously?


----------



## elefantfresh (8 Jul 2011)

> giz a shirt and tie and out the door anyday



You people are crazy - a shirt and tie is less effort than tshirt and jeans? It would drive me mad having to wear a suit to work - thats for weddings/churchy functions and interviews only.
Oh, and maybe court - hehe!


----------



## Latrade (8 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> If you have a dress code, communicate the dress code. If people can't comply with it, they don't get the job. But don't exclude potentially excellent employees because they don't know your little ways and traditions.


 
Complete other way round for me, if people can't take the time to research me as a potential employer and make simple queries or investigations as to who I am, what I do and any cultural aspects, then that's a bad mark in my book. 

In the same way that Google has no dress code and to some extent frown upon business attire, if I went for a job there and hadn't done any work to prepare myself for what Google expects, then that's my problem. 

the ICT sector is more casual, largely due to the generation behind starting up and developing that sector, other sectors are far more formal. A quick internet search or even phone call can clear everything up.

As to the aptitude test, same thing I'd at least make a phone call to check. If I can't be bothered to make any effort to enquire and just turn up not only casual, but possibly inapproriately, that has to reflect on my aptitude test along with the formal testing procedure.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2011)

Latrade said:


> In the same way that Google has no dress code and to some extent frown upon business attire, if I went for a job there and hadn't done any work to prepare myself for what Google expects, then that's my problem.


 
I know someone who turned up for an interview with Google in jeans because he read about their 'relaxed' attitude. The feedback from google was not good.


----------



## Complainer (8 Jul 2011)

Latrade said:


> Complete other way round for me, if people can't take the time to research me as a potential employer and make simple queries or investigations as to who I am, what I do and any cultural aspects, then that's a bad mark in my book.


So if I landed in Ireland today from France or Estonia, where would I find information about the dress code of any SME?



Sunny said:


> That has to be be the most condescending post I have read in a very long time. Disabled people and foreigners don't know that they should make an effort to look presentable when entering a potential employers workplace? Seriously?


Seriously - no, that's not what I said. Go back and read the post.


----------



## Latrade (8 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> So if I landed in Ireland today from France or Estonia, where would I find information about the dress code of any SME?


 
If you're taking the leap of emigrating from France or Estonia and you can't find the time or haven't the aptitude to make a few enquiries into your potential employer, even down to emailing the contact there at the very least, then it speaks volumes.

It's not unreasonable to have an assumption that "business attire" is the norm where no information can be found. But it's not also unreasonable to assume that such a laissez-faire to your future employment that could easily be solved with a very quick phone call or email, doesn't represent the potential employee in a good light.

I must say, neither does it represent a poster, who would view equality as a fundamental provision, in a good light to give the impression that foreign nationals and disabled people are incapable of making judgements on business norms, incapable of making enquiries on business norms, or unable to present themselves in a position, professional manner without being mollycoddled by their furture employer.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> What you call 'lack of cop on' could also be described as 'knowing how we do things round here'. There are lots of reasons why someone might not be familiar with traditions or conventions in particular workplaces. This could happen with people who just haven't worked before, or people with disabilities who find it difficult to find work, or people from other countries who might have different traditions and convention.


 


Complainer said:


> Seriously - no, that's not what I said. Go back and read the post.


 
Still sounds condescending to me. A person in wheelchair who turns up in a celtic jersey would not get a job with me. That's equality for you. (Or any football jersey just in case I get accused of anti-celtic bias)


----------



## The_Banker (8 Jul 2011)

callybags said:


> I see this issue has been raised again regarding the dress code (or lack of) in The Dail.
> 
> *I fully agree that there should be a policy of at least "neat dress". It shows respect for your coleagues and employers- the public.*
> 
> ...


 

Im not so sure about this point. The people who voted for Richard Boyd-Barrett, Mick Wallace and Ming knew exactly who and what they were voting for. So to say their attire in the Dail show disrespect for the public is incorrect.


----------



## callybags (8 Jul 2011)

When they are in the Dail, they represent me just as much as those that voted for them. (At least they are supposed to). 

In passing legislation, they are acting on behalf of the nation as a whole.

I don't care what they wear when holding clinics in their constituencies.


----------



## Shawady (8 Jul 2011)

There are proposals to have a dress code for the Dail.
Glad to see the important issues of the day are being dealt with.

http://www.independent.ie/national-...al-wear-in-dail-branded-pathetic-2816704.html


----------



## Complainer (8 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> A person in wheelchair who turns up in a celtic jersey would not get a job with me. That's equality for you. (Or any football jersey just in case I get accused of anti-celtic bias)



Depends what the job is. If the job is working in Lifestyle Sports or working in the Celtic shop or the Celtic fan club office, then they might be the ideal person for the job.



Latrade said:


> If you're taking the leap of emigrating from France or Estonia and you can't find the time or haven't the aptitude to make a few enquiries into your potential employer, even down to emailing the contact there at the very least, then it speaks volumes.


So why wouldn't employers avoid the need for people to email the contact and just publish this information as part of the job spec for the world to see? Why all this messing around and expecting people to 'read between the lines'?


Latrade said:


> It's not unreasonable to have an assumption that "business attire" is the norm where no information can be found.


Depends where the job is. I recall seeing an online discussion with hip people sneering and laughing at the bloke who turned up for an interview in the new Abercrombie store in Dundrum in a suit - the ultimate faux-pas in that sector it seems. 



Latrade said:


> I must say, neither does it represent a poster, who would view equality as a fundamental provision, in a good light to give the impression that foreign nationals and disabled people are incapable of making judgements on business norms, incapable of making enquiries on business norms, or unable to present themselves in a position, professional manner without being mollycoddled by their furture employer.


That's not what I said - go back and read the post.


----------



## zxcvbnm (8 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> So if I landed in Ireland today from France or Estonia, where would I find information about the dress code of any SME?


 
Ah for crying out loud - is this statement for real?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist - no matter what country they are from - that you shoudl look as presentable as possible when facing a potential future eemployer.
You don't need to look up any special literatire to come to that conclusion.

Would you mind researching a country for me where coming in in casual clothes is the expected attire for an interview? No ... I didn't think so.

And if in doubt then it's quite simple - err on the side of caution and dreess up !

Seriously - a small bit of every day common sense is seriously amiss here when people are throwing out arguments like the above.


----------



## beffers (9 Jul 2011)

liaconn said:


> Are you saying that people are told they're coming in for an aptitude test but, if the supervisors don't like their dress, they will mark them down or call a less able candidate for interview??



No, I think that if they are not appropriately dressed, it can be _one_ factor for borderline candidates that might tip them over into the No box of job candidates. In large companies, the front line of people that are assessing prospective new employees are not assessing their abilities to to job. They are faceless people from HR who are assessing the applicants for the their suitability to mesh with the company in general, and fit in with its corporate ethos. If they have to weed through 500 CV's to fill 5 positions, that probably means whittling down the 500 to the 50 that will be called for an initial phone interview, called in for a first real interview with HR, called back to come in and take an aptitude test, and called back again second interview. If you make a mistake during any of those steps, you will not get to go on to the next one. Wearing something overly casual or inappropriate during an aptitude test could very well be considered to be a mistake that scuppers your chances. Fair or not, it happens !


----------



## becky (9 Jul 2011)

I had to interview about 150 people for grade IV's positions in the HSE.  There were 5 interview boards so we had criteria to mark against, there was no heading for dress code. I'd say 147 dressed how you'd expect while 3 didn't.  One girl wore a very short skirt, high heels, and a sparkly sleeveless top and we ranked her very high.  She did look great but it was an outfit for the nightclub.

I interviewed another lot for the post nurse attendant and one lad came in a nice suit (very few wore a suit).  He got the job and when he came to work in his short sleeve tunic uniform, both his arms were covered in tattoos.  The older patients were a bit frightened of him at first I heard and I got a bit of stick from the Sister who wanted to let him go immediately but again there was / is no criteria stating the tattoos are a no no.

So since those two I reserve judgment.  After 20 years working in an office environment wearing office appropriate attire I tend to push it a bit now.  You'll find me wearing yellow nail varnish, big rings/watches, skinny jeans, uggs etc that I use to reserve for the weekend.  This is so I can get to use up my stuff and wear my clothes. 

If I have an important meeting I'll take this on board and wear a dress, cardi pumps for example but if I only get a few minutes notice so be it.


----------



## Sunny (11 Jul 2011)

becky said:


> I
> I interviewed another lot for the post nurse attendant and one lad came in a nice suit (very few wore a suit). He got the job and when he came to work in his short sleeve tunic uniform, both his arms were covered in tattoos. The older patients were a bit frightened of him at first I heard and I got a bit of stick from the Sister who wanted to let him go immediately but again there was / is no criteria stating the tattoos are a no no.
> 
> .


 
You are perfectly entitled to ask that tattoos be covered up.


----------



## Complainer (11 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> You are perfectly entitled to ask that tattoos be covered up.


Entitled in law, or what?


----------



## Sunny (11 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Entitled in law, or what?


 
There is nothing in law that says you can't as long as you don't discriminate. Just as you are allowed to ask an employee to cut their hair, wear less make up, wear different clothes, have a wash etc etc etc.

I know you like links.

http://www.tribune.ie/business/arti...ment-law-oisin-scollard-is-it-prudent-to-tel/


----------



## The_Banker (11 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> There is nothing in law that says you can't as long as you don't discriminate. Just as you are allowed to ask an employee to cut their hair, wear less make up, wear different clothes, have a wash etc etc etc.
> 
> I know you like links.
> 
> http://www.tribune.ie/business/arti...ment-law-oisin-scollard-is-it-prudent-to-tel/


 

I read the article in your link. Seems to be more of an opinion piece that anything based in fact.


----------



## Sunny (11 Jul 2011)

The_Banker said:


> I read the article in your link. Seems to be more of an opinion piece that anything based in fact.


 

[broken link removed]


----------



## The_Banker (11 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> [broken link removed]


 

read it... again, nothing it there that says I cant get my arms tattoo'd and wear a short sleeved shirt to my place of work.


----------



## Sunny (11 Jul 2011)

The_Banker said:


> read it... again, nothing it there that says I cant get my arms tattoo'd and wear a short sleeved shirt to my place of work.


 
Yes because there is a specific piece of legislation that says this is not allowed.  Do you really believe that the law is written in that way? Employers can impose a dress code on employees as long as it doesn't discriminate and that includes asking people to cover up tattoos or not wearing flip flops to work (there isn't an actual law outlawing specifically that either in case you were wondering). You may not agree with it but that is the way it is.


----------



## Latrade (11 Jul 2011)

The_Banker said:


> read it... again, nothing it there that says I cant get my arms tattoo'd and wear a short sleeved shirt to my place of work.


 
More importantly it is stating that there is nothing in current employment law that prevents an employer asking an employee to cover up the tattoos, whereas there are other stated limits on some "uniform" request based upon discrimination.


----------



## The_Banker (11 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Yes because there is a specific piece of legislation that says this is not allowed.  Do you really believe that the law is written in that way? Employers can impose a dress code on employees as long as it doesn't discriminate and that includes asking people to cover up tattoos or not wearing flip flops to work (there isn't an actual law outlawing specifically that either in case you were wondering). You may not agree with it but that is the way it is.


 

The law is open to debate. That is why we have lawyers. If it wasnt we would not need so many lawyers.
If I got my arms tattoo'd and was told to cover them up I am sure I could get a lawyer who could argue my case in front of a judge and I would have a chance of winning. Maybe not in front of every judge but certainly in front of some.

My point is, you as an employer cant bend me to your will. If you try to I can bring a case against you. I may win, I may not. But if I put up a determined enough case/fight it will cost you more money (plus time and headaches) than me.

Still want to force me to cover my arms?


----------



## Sunny (11 Jul 2011)

The_Banker said:


> The law is open to debate. That is why we have lawyers. If it wasnt we would not need so many lawyers.
> If I got my arms tattoo'd and was told to cover them up I am sure I could get a lawyer who could argue my case in front of a judge and I would have a chance of winning. Maybe not in front of every judge but certainly in front of some.
> 
> My point is, you as an employer cant bend me to your will. If you try to I can bring a case against you. I may win, I may not. But if I put up a determined enough case/fight it will cost you more money (plus time and headaches) than me.
> ...


 

What's your point? I could ask you to do anything and you could bring a case if you were so inclined. What does that prove? Doesn't change the fact that employers are allowed to have a dress code. If you want to be a rebel, that is up to you.


----------



## Latrade (11 Jul 2011)

The_Banker said:


> The law is open to debate. That is why we have lawyers. If it wasnt we would not need so many lawyers.
> If I got my arms tattoo'd and was told to cover them up I am sure I could get a lawyer who could argue my case in front of a judge and I would have a chance of winning. Maybe not in front of every judge but certainly in front of some.
> 
> My point is, you as an employer cant bend me to your will. If you try to I can bring a case against you. I may win, I may not. But if I put up a determined enough case/fight it will cost you more money (plus time and headaches) than me.
> ...


 
It's not exactly right to say the law is open to debate. How much "point of law" and a debate on the law versus the amount that is whether or not an offence was committed or a duty satisfied. The latter isn't debating law.

You could bring a case if you could identify a specific protected right within the legislation that is breached by asking you to cover your arms. The links Sunny provide state that there isn't such a specific protection. 

So yeah, if I were an employer and I felt tattoos on display was an issue, I would ask you to cover your arms because I am at liberty to impose uniform or dress codes as long as I do not discriminate on the very specific grounds provided in the legislation.


----------



## liaconn (11 Jul 2011)

beffers said:


> No, I think that if they are not appropriately dressed, it can be _one_ factor for borderline candidates that might tip them over into the No box of job candidates. In large companies, the front line of people that are assessing prospective new employees are not assessing their abilities to to job. They are faceless people from HR who are assessing the applicants for the their suitability to mesh with the company in general, and fit in with its corporate ethos. If they have to weed through 500 CV's to fill 5 positions, that probably means whittling down the 500 to the 50 that will be called for an initial phone interview, called in for a first real interview with HR, called back to come in and take an aptitude test, and called back again second interview. If you make a mistake during any of those steps, you will not get to go on to the next one. Wearing something overly casual or inappropriate during an aptitude test could very well be considered to be a mistake that scuppers your chances. Fair or not, it happens !


 
Well, in my experience, which is Public Sector only, the purpose of the exam is to test your aptitude in various areas in order that candidates with no or low aptitudes in key skills are not interviewed. That is the sole purpose of the exam and how you dress doesn't come into it. Once you are called for an interview you would then be judged on experience and how you present yourself.


----------



## Complainer (11 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Employers can impose a dress code on employees as long as it doesn't discriminate and that includes asking people to cover up tattoos or not wearing flip flops to work (there isn't an actual law outlawing specifically that either in case you were wondering). You may not agree with it but that is the way it is.


Employer's cant change terms and conditions retrospectively without agreement from employees.


----------



## Sunny (11 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Employer's cant change terms and conditions retrospectively without agreement from employees.


 
Never said they could but most contracts of employment or staff handbooks in business organisations contain sections on appearance and dress code requiring you to look business like. Most normal people don't think a guy in a short shirt showing off his latest 'I love Lucy' tattoo looks business like. You are free to get them but the company is free to ask you to cover them. Just as they are free to ask you to remove piercings from your face. Just because something is not explicitly forbidden in a contract doesn't mean it is allowed.


----------



## Latrade (11 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Employer's cant change terms and conditions retrospectively without agreement from employees.


 
That would only apply if "dress down" was explicit in the contract of employment. If it isn't explicitly stated and is a "non-contract" policy, then other factors would come into it but wouldn't necessarily require agreement.


----------



## The_Banker (11 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Never said they could but most contracts of employment or staff handbooks in business organisations contain sections on appearance and dress code requiring you to look business like. Most normal people don't think a guy in a short shirt showing off his latest 'I love Lucy' tattoo looks business like. You are free to get them but the company is free to *ask* you to cover them. Just as they are free to ask you to remove piercings from your face. Just because something is not explicitly forbidden in a contract doesn't mean it is allowed.


 

Exactly... Ask being the operative word.

If a company tried to make you cover them then there could be a problem. 

Say I worked in a cake shop. Did so for 18 months and was doing a great job. My uniform was short sleeved. I wanted and got a tattoo on my arm. My employer decided I should now wear a long sleeved tunic. Then I think we could have a problem.

Also, people do not confine tattoos to just arms anymore. Cheryl Cole has artistic design tattoos on her hand. Lots of females are copying this (rightly or wrongly). Do you now insist that they wear gloves?

Fergal Quinn had a programme on RTE recently where he helped people get their retail outlets in order by giving them advice etc... One girl who was a baker and had her own cakeshop had small tattoos behind her ear. Should she be made wear a balaclava while serving customers? Or should she be fired for getting them if she was an employee? She seemed pretty competant too...


----------



## Sunny (11 Jul 2011)

The_Banker said:


> Exactly... Ask being the operative word.
> 
> If a company tried to make you cover them then there could be a problem.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, where exactly did I say that every company would have a problem with employees showing tattoos? If you are going to argue a point, make sure you are arguing the same point as everyone else.

You are arguing that employers have no rights to dictate anything. I am simply saying they have plenty of rights in this area.


----------



## The_Banker (11 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Sorry, where exactly did I say that every company would have a problem with employees showing tattoos? *If you are going to argue a point, make sure you are arguing the same point as everyone else.*
> 
> You are arguing that employers have no rights to dictate anything. I am simply saying they have plenty of rights in this area.


 
I can argue any point I like.


----------



## Complainer (11 Jul 2011)

Latrade said:


> That would only apply if "dress down" was explicit in the contract of employment.


Not true - you seem to be assuming that 'formal dress - no tattoos' is an assumed default in every contract of employment. This is not true. If an employer has a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to communicate this with employees during recruitment. If an employer wants to bring in a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to do this in consultation with their employees.


----------



## Latrade (11 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Not true - you seem to be assuming that 'formal dress - no tattoos' is an assumed default in every contract of employment. This is not true. If an employer has a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to communicate this with employees during recruitment. If an employer wants to bring in a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to do this in consultation with their employees.


 
Not what I was assuming or saying. I'm saying that if there is no formal statement of dress code within the contract of employment then it isn't as simple as needing individual agreement as a change of terms and conditions. If there is, then you're right, but I was pointing out that not all cases would require agreement.

If it is a policy and procedure issue rather than contract, then it is easier to introduce without agreement. Even if it is a contractual issue (again just how many state there is no dress code or that there is a dress down code?), where there are reasonable and justifiable circumstances, again there may be no need for agreement.

And also no one has said "no tattoos" what was being discussed was whether an employer could ask for tattoos to be covered up irrespective of dress code. And as it isn't a prescribed right to have tattoos on display, if it is entirely reasonable and justifiable, they can.


----------



## csirl (11 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Not true - you seem to be assuming that 'formal dress - no tattoos' is an assumed default in every contract of employment. This is not true. If an employer has a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to communicate this with employees during recruitment. If an employer wants to bring in a 'no tattoos' rule, they need to do this in consultation with their employees.


 
You could look at it another way. If a particular employment specifies a particular uniform or way of dressing, then the employee would need the employers permission to display tattoos. There is no 'right' to wear a tattoo anywhere. People arent born with tattoos - they are free to display or not to display them, just like any article of clothing, jewellery, make-up etc. If you chose to get a permanent tattoo on your arm, you must accept that if you are in an employment that requires a short sleeved uniform, you may be in difficulties. No employee has the right to display logos, pictures, slogans, personal designs etc. at the workplace and in some instances they can be offensive to other employees or customers e.g. in the US, many employers ban the display of gangland tattoos.


----------



## Firefly (11 Jul 2011)

Maybe I'm too conservative/conformist, but I think wearing tatoos on visible body parts is just another thing you can do to make life just that little bit more difficult for yourself.


----------



## becky (11 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> You are perfectly entitled to ask that tattoos be covered up.



I agree but as other people stated there is nothing in the dress code stating no tattoos allowed and rightly so, what next no yellow nail varnish.

In the case of the guy I referred to, he was asked if he would mind wearing a long sleeve tunic and it turned out he didn't.  He was given a short sleeved tunic to wear and he assumed he couldn't wear a long sleeved one.  He told me afterwards he was afraid to tell us he had a load of tattoos in case we withdrew the offer - he was new to the public service.  

Also there are some female staff who don't like showing their arms so they wear long sleeves so it wasn't a case of him being the only staff member with long sleeves.

So since then all new staff were asked if they want a long sleeve or short sleeve tunic.


----------



## Godfather (12 Jul 2011)

JP1234 said:


> Best of all was the girl next to me, resplendent in White cut of jeans, low cut vest top, numerous gold chains rattling round her neck and to cap it off, trainers on her feet.



In Italy you would have spotted the winner in that way, that girl would have got the job straight from Berlusconi. 

Hence why I'm very happy to live in Ireland. Great post btw!


----------



## Shawady (12 Jul 2011)

Firefly said:


> Maybe I'm too conservative/conformist, but I think wearing tatoos on visible body parts is just another thing you can do to make life just that little bit more difficult for yourself.


 
Especially if you fall asleep druing the procedure and get more than you bargained for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8104519.stm


----------



## Firefly (12 Jul 2011)

Shawady said:


> Especially if you fall asleep druing the procedure and get more than you bargained for.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8104519.stm




Nasty....still you'd have to wonder why she fell asleep when getting tatoos


----------



## shammy feen (13 Jul 2011)

the_banker said:


> i think we as a people are too hung up on dress code. We put our children into uniform at the age of 4 or 5 to send them off to school. Why? Because that is the convention.
> it was the convention in the 50s to be subservient to the catholic church. No one questioned it.
> 
> i love the educate together ethos schools. Kids don’t wear uniform. They are individuals. I cant get my head around the idea that kids should wear a uniform at 4 or 5.
> ...


 
+1


----------

